Jason Young to get new trial #3

[otto]

BBM. With all due respect, Jason was NOT under indictment at the time of the child custody suit. He had been living with his child for nearly three years since the death of her mother. His attorney correctly recognized that the purpose of the lawsuit was to force Jason into giving a deposition and refused to do so.

I don't believe it is ever in any child's best interest to have family members publicly trash her biological parent. Especially when no criminal charges have been filed. The "piling on" by a WCSO deputy was totally inappropriate, imo.

JMO

Michelle Young's mother, Linda Fisher, of Sayville, N.Y., filed for custody in December, saying her son-in-law has not provided a stable living environment for his now-4-year-old daughter since his wife's death and that he relies primarily on family members to care for her.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4487661/#U0X0Ekm53tLPrOp8.99

Wasn't one alleged reason for Jason not providing a suitable environment was that he lived with his mother and she cared for the child, that he lived with his sister and she didn't want him there because she was pregnant and needed the room, he was back at his mother's place, bouncing around in a way that was unsuitable for a child. Furthermore, he wasn't working. He got a job with the pharma company. People interested in the case commented on the forum, damaging his character, so colleagues complained and he was let go. That is, when he tried to get a job, there was serious interference. Again, when he tried to change professions, there was serious interference from those aligned with the belief that Jason is guilty. Is a single father relying on family members any different than a single mother relying on family members for child care support? Is a daycare better? There's no question that it was character assassination, and that there was judicial support of taking small steps towards persecuting and prosecuting Jason. First his child was taken away, then he was hit with a multimillion dollar wrongful death suit, then he was arrested, then two trials were done wrong and now the big question continues to be whether he is actually guilty.

Here's a question: why didn't Jason give 3 months notice to his tenants and move back into his condo (after temporarily staying with family and relying on them for childcare), keep his job, and sort things out with the child remaining in her environment (daycare, friends, aunt)?

 

[MyBelle]

They won't be hearing such evidence if he is tried again. I am surprised the prosecutors went with that strategy - as it seems a no brainer that it would be overturned.

So, you understand my point that he really had no choice about participating in the civil suits when he knew the police were looking at him and believed he may have been the perpetrator? Your post seems a little argumentative when I'm essentially agreeing with you. Maybe I misread your tone?

My post wasn't argumentative. I have understood the reason he didn't participate in the civil suits from the beginning and a no brainer it would be overturned. They did it because they didn't have compelling evidence. It gets frustrating when facts are misrepresented.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

It was a pretty typical custody petition. Custody fights are all about revealing the worst about the opposing party.

It's just a petition with allegations. I don't find anything at all unusual about it. Of course it's not going to be "nice" when their position Is that Jason is any fit parent

Is it typical for an unmarried aunt to sue for custody of a child living with her biological parent who hasn't been accused or convicted of any crime? This was a new one for me.

 

[MyBelle]

Wasn't one alleged reason for Jason not providing a suitable environment was that he lived with his mother and she cared for the child, that he lived with his sister and she didn't want him there because she was pregnant and needed the room, he was back at his mother's place, bouncing around in a way that was unsuitable for a child. Furthermore, he wasn't working. He got a job with the pharma company. People interested in the case commented on the forum, damaging his character, so colleagues complained and he was let go. That is, when he tried to get a job, there was serious interference. Again, when he tried to change professions, there was serious interference from those aligned with the belief that Jason is guilty. Is a single father relying on family members any different than a single mother relying on family members for child care support? Is a daycare better? There's no question that it was character assassination, and that there was judicial support of taking small steps towards persecuting and prosecuting Jason. First his child was taken away, then he was hit with a multimillion dollar wrongful death suit, then he was arrested, then two trials were done wrong and now the big question continues to be whether he is actually guilty.

Here's a question: why didn't Jason give 3 months notice to his tenants and move back into his condo (after temporarily staying with family and relying on them for childcare), keep his job, and sort things out with the child remaining in her environment (daycare, friends, aunt)?

I guess Jason wanted the income from the rent and the on-going support of his family who apparently lived elsewhere.

 

[minor4th]

Oh, ok!! What happened is and I am just guessing, things got very bad between the Youngs and the Fishers, as to be expected and CY was caught in the middle. I know JY took CY to see Michelle's Dad in NY or NJ, so he did not try and keep her away from him, but things with JY and LF were never that great to begin with.
There were some visits, but if you listen to testimony, they were supervised. Then I guess all visits stopped, so thats when LF and MF filed for visitation rights with some stipulations that JY would undergo a psych exam, etc. I would have to look it up if they wanted anything more. JY and his lawyer then countered with shared custody and everyone agreed. CY would reside in Raleigh with MF and JY would pick her up on weekends, etc, and they shared holidays and summer vacations. The whole thing reads more like a divorce agreement.

I've been searching and searching for where I read or heard that the Fishers were talking badly about Jason to Cassidy. It might have just been part of Jason's or Pat's testimony when trying to explain why he cut off Cassidy's contact with the Fishers. That was a really dumb move on Jason's part, and IMO it adds to the appearance of his guilt. (Again I'm reminded of Josh Powell and the way he completely cut off his sons' contact with the Powells after he killed Susan)

Having read the court documents from the custody case - the Fishers were not just seeking visitation; they were seeking sole custody of Cassie, although the refusal to allow visitation was certainly one of their grounds for filing the suit, among others. Their ultimate goal may not have been to get Jason out of Cassidy's life though since they did ultimately agree on joint custody.

Jason never filed any responsive pleadings in the custody suit and IMO he must have had a pretty good family lawyer to get him the deal he got without even filing an answer. I also have to conclude that the Fishers also recognized the value of Cassidy's continuous relationship with her father - because they probably could have won full and sole custody of Cassidy if they had pursued the suit.

That's a good outcome for Cassidy IMO

 

[minor4th]

Is it typical for an unmarried aunt to sue for custody of a child living with her biological parent who hasn't been accused or convicted of any crime? This was a new one for me.

It's not unusual at all if the relative has good reason to believe the bio parents are a potential danger to the child's health or safety. Happens all the time.

But this IS a case where the father is suspected of murdering the mother and the father is acting squirrelly in a number of different ways (including total alienation from the child's dead mother's relatives <-- that alone gives grandparents and aunts/uncles standing to seek visitation or custody)

 

[minor4th]

My post wasn't argumentative. I have understood the reason he didn't participate in the civil suits from the beginning and a no brainer it would be overturned. They did it because they didn't have compelling evidence. It gets frustrating when facts are misrepresented.



JMO

Sorry I misread the tone of your post.

 

[minor4th]

BBM. With all due respect, Jason was NOT under indictment at the time of the child custody suit. He had been living with his child for nearly three years since the death of her mother. His attorney correctly recognized that the purpose of the lawsuit was to force Jason into giving a deposition and refused to do so.



I don't believe it is ever in any child's best interest to have family members publicly trash her biological parent. Especially when no criminal charges have been filed. The "piling on" by a WCSO deputy was totally inappropriate, imo.



JMO



Michelle Young's mother, Linda Fisher, of Sayville, N.Y., filed for custody in December, saying her son-in-law has not provided a stable living environment for his now-4-year-old daughter since his wife's death and that he relies primarily on family members to care for her.





Read more at http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4487661/#U0X0Ekm53tLPrOp8.99

I missed part of this post when I responded before.

I agree that it is not in Cassidy's interest for her mother's relatives to speak badly of Jason to her - EVEN if he is ultimately convicted of murdering Michelle and sent to jail for life! There is NO justifiable reason to try to turn a child against a parent, although in time they may have to find an appropriate way to inform Cassidy of the circumstances that have led to her father being imprisoned.

Similarly, it is not in Cassidy's interest for Jason to sever the close and loving relationships Cassidy had with her aunt and grandmother. That is totally inexcusable, totally selfish, and very harmful to this very young child -ESPECIALLY when she has just lost her mother, her primary attachment figure and caretaker. It should go without saying that if Jason murdered Cassidy's mother, he is clearly not concerned about Cassidy's welfare.

 

[MyBelle]

It's not unusual at all if the relative has good reason to believe the bio parents are a potential danger to the child's health or safety. Happens all the time.

But this IS a case where the father is suspected of murdering the mother and the father is acting squirrelly in a number of different ways (including total alienation from the child's dead mother's relatives <-- that alone gives grandparents and aunts/uncles standing to seek visitation or custody)

The father took his attorney's advice and that equates with squirrelly? I have yet to hear the reason Jason was a potential danger to his child's health or safety. Michelle's parent brought her action years later but Nancy Cooper's parent did it immediately.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I missed part of this post when I responded before.

I agree that it is not in Cassidy's interest for her mother's relatives to speak badly of Jason to her - EVEN if he is ultimately convicted of murdering Michelle and sent to jail for life! There is NO justifiable reason to try to turn a child against a parent, although in time they may have to find an appropriate way to inform Cassidy of the circumstances that have led to her father being imprisoned.

Similarly, it is not in Cassidy's interest for Jason to take sever the close and loving relationships Cassidy had with her aunt and grandmother. That is totally inexcusable, totally selfish, and very harmful to this very lying child -ESPECIALLY when she has just lost her mother, her primary attachment figure and caretaker. It should go without saying that if Jason murdered Cassidy's mother, he is clearly not concerned about Cassidy's welfare.

I don't know that CY's relationship with her aunt and grandmother were loving or particularly close. The lawsuit never got that far. But I totally respect a parent's right to decide what is in their child's best interest.

 

[otto]

My post wasn't argumentative. I have understood the reason he didn't participate in the civil suits from the beginning and a no brainer it would be overturned. They did it because they didn't have compelling evidence. It gets frustrating when facts are misrepresented.

JMO

If someone is deemed a slayer and guilty of wrongful death, and then found not guilty of the murder, are they excused from wrongful death responsibilities/consequences/debt, or can someone be found responsible for wrongful death, found not guilty for murder, and still be responsible ... or does the wrongful death case have to be heard again (drunk driving wrongful death versus and not guilty wrongful death verdict)? I know with the OJ Simpson trial, first he was found not guilty, and then there was the wrongful death suit, so that is different ... and it was in another State. If Jason was found not guilty, wouldn't the wrongful death conviction prior to the trial have to be overturned, or at least reviewed?

Where are the vocal commenters that were so eager to convict Jason eight years ago?

 

[minor4th]

I don't know that CY's relationship with her aunt and grandmother were loving or particularly close. The lawsuit never got that far. But I totally respect a parent's right to decide what is in their child's best interest.

Well, here we disagree, and a parent's right to make decisions for their child is not absolute as you must know. Most states also have laws that if one parent is deceased, and the surviving parent denies the grandparents contact and visitation, then that grandparent has standing and a right to seek a court order for visitation.

Beyond that, when there is evidence sufficient to satisfy a family court that a parent murdered the other parent, the presumption is rebutted that a parent will act in their child's best interest.

When a parent has actually engaged in behavior that is contrary to the child's interest - such as having no stable residence or employment, terminating the child's relationship with close relatives after the mothers death, drinking to excess, engaging in family violence, etc - then it's appropriate and lawful to restrict that parent's custodial rights.

What matters is what's in the best interest of the child - not what's fair or unfair to the parent.

 

[minor4th]

If someone is deemed a slayer and guilty of wrongful death, and then found not guilty of the murder, are they excused from wrongful death responsibilities/consequences/debt, or can someone be found responsible for wrongful death, found not guilty for murder, and still be responsible ... or does the wrongful death case have to be heard again (drunk driving wrongful death versus and not guilty wrongful death verdict)? I know with the OJ Simpson trial, first he was found not guilty, and then there was the wrongful death suit, so that is different ... and it was in another State. If Jason was found not guilty, wouldn't the wrongful death conviction prior to the trial have to be overturned, or at least reviewed?



Where are the vocal commenters that were so eager to convict Jason eight years ago?

No, if Jason is acquitted of the murder charges, the civil judgment remains in place. No review, no reversal. It's a final order and judgment and there is no way to undo it.

And as far as custody matters go, it does not matter much of Jason is acquitted or convicted - he cannot undo the custody order unless there is a significant change in circumstances that affects Cassidy. E.g., MF becomes a drug addict and neglects Cassidy or something along those lines where MF is doing something harmful to Cassidy.

 

[minor4th]

I just read the court of appeals opinion and I was under the wrong impression as to the grounds for overturning the verdict.

The only grounds were the admission of the civil judgments. The appeals court ruled that mentioning Jason's long silence to friends And relatives was not error. And not even error to mention that he did not talk or cooperate with police because he later waived his 5th Amendment right to remain silent when he chose to testify at trial.

The appeals court also ruled that the hearsay evidence from re daycare workers is admissible as a hearsay exception (excited utterance)

Now that I know that, I think the State will get its conviction if the only thing they have to do differently is to stay away from the custody order and default judgment. -- unless the defense finds the "real" killer or comes up with some compelling exculpatory evidence.

 

[minor4th]

The father took his attorney's advice and that equates with squirrelly? I have yet to hear the reason Jason was a potential danger to his child's health or safety. Michelle's parent brought her action years later but Nancy Cooper's parent did it immediately.



JMO

Yes that's squirrelly, but that's only one issue among many.

 

[oenophile]

No, if Jason is acquitted of the murder charges, the civil judgment remains in place. No review, no reversal. It's a final order and judgment and there is no way to undo it.

As a matter of public policy, I find this incredibly disturbing. Basically, a DA can force a criminal suspect to either give up their fifth amendment rights or be found responsible for a killing by default through a civil action, with no recourse. This seems to be a Constitutional issue that needs to be addressed by the SCOTUS.

 

[oenophile]

Now that I know that, I think the State will get its conviction if the only thing they have to do differently is to stay away from the custody order and default judgment. -- unless the defense finds the "real" killer or comes up with some compelling exculpatory evidence.

I don't. The first jury was hung. Every jury is different, and every trial is different. I think the defense will have a much stronger set of arguments going into trial #3, assuming there is no plea bargain in the meantime.

 

[minor4th]

I don't. The first jury was hung. Every jury is different, and every trial is different. I think the defense will have a much stronger set of arguments going into trial #3, assuming there is no plea bargain in the meantime.

Could be. I guess I should have said the 2nd jury would have still found him guilty IMO.

I think the states case gets stronger each time. I kind if think the opposite of the defense because Jason is now locked into testimony that the State can now prepare for.

Just curious why you don't think the state would get a conviction on the same evidence they already got a conviction on.

 

[minor4th]

As a matter of public policy, I find this incredibly disturbing. Basically, a DA can force a criminal suspect to either give up their fifth amendment rights or be found responsible for a killing by default through a civil action, with no recourse. This seems to be a Constitutional issue that needs to be addressed by the SCOTUS.

He gave up his 5th amendment rights when he testified.

But when served with a civil lawsuit, Jason is not forced to default and he is not forced to testify either. He could have given the same testimony in the civil case as he have in his first criminal trial if it was the truth. He made a decision not to and you have to wonder why.

 

[citygirl]

Well, here we disagree, and a parent's right to make decisions for their child is not absolute as you must know. Most states also have laws that if one parent is deceased, and the surviving parent denies the grandparents contact and visitation, then that grandparent has standing and a right to seek a court order for visitation.

Beyond that, when there is evidence sufficient to satisfy a family court that a parent murdered the other parent, the presumption is rebutted that a parent will act in their child's best interest.

When a parent has actually engaged in behavior that is contrary to the child's interest - such as having no stable residence or employment, terminating the child's relationship with close relatives after the mothers death, drinking to excess, engaging in family violence, etc - then it's appropriate and lawful to restrict that parent's custodial rights.

What matters is what's in the best interest of the child - not what's fair or unfair to the parent.

I recall in the very beginning many people were outraged that she was taken to Brevard after the murder. I felt differently. Because she lost her mother I thought it best for her to be with her father. She needed that stability and comfort. But then things gradually went South. Friend's and family of the defendant began posting all kinds of things on message boards. It was a window into what they were thinking and doing. I don't ever recall the Fisher's speaking out publicly.