Jason Young to get new trial #3

[JusticeFever]

You're right that it was prejudicial to read the custody petition and it's unproven accusations to the jury. And yes that is why Jason was granted a new trial.

Shame on the judge and prosecutors for failing to take better care of the record.

However, the Fishers were well within their rights to pursue the civil case and the custody case. I do not believe the custody case was merely a strategic maneuver - it was justified, and Jason is the one who backed his own self into that comer.

The wrongful death suit - probably strategic, but not for purposes of the criminal case. Getting a favorable judgment in the wrongful death case would fortify and legitimize the Fishers' pursuit of custody of Cassidy.

They knew Jason wouldn't talk or participate. But it wasn't the Fishers who backed Jason into that corner. It was Jason and his mother. At all times Jason had complete control over whether to participate and tell what happened - he elected to avoid the whole process because he did not want the prosecutors to be able to prepare their case with the benefit of his "version." That us a strategic decision that only Jason could make.

How could anyone possibly know this? And, as a lawyer, you know he was following the advice of his lawyers.

 

[oenophile]

Go ahead - I will not be offended or defensive if I have made mistakes. This is my understanding from listening to all the testimony from the Fishers and Youngs and reading all the court documents in the last two days.

I know this is a personal comment, but I am very impressed with your consistent objectivity, even when we are in disagreement. Thank you.

 

[JusticeFever]

I know this is a personal comment, but I am very impressed with your consistent objectivity, even when we are in disagreement. Thank you.

Oh, I have to agree.

 

[citygirl]

And you know this how?

This post is exactly what I mean when I say people are deciding this case purely on emotion and not on facts. You've described how she was killed. That's it. Nothing else.

This is also why JY lost his job, couldn't speak to friends, etc, because of the vitriol from people in the public realm intent on defaming him.

Where has this come from? How did the people intent on defaming him have any leverage? People on a message board had that power? There must be more to this. Had he lied about his record? Did he have a record when he applied for those jobs?

 

[minor4th]

It can be your opinion, but it is not fact. LF was accusing JY from the very beginning of murdering her daughter, something she is/was entitled to, btw, but how in the world could these accusations benefit CY in any way? How were both families supposed to "get along" under these conditions? It was a no-win situation and the only person getting hurt would be CY. She loved her Daddy and I am sure she loved her grandmom and aunt, but not like she loved her Daddy, the parent she was living with, the person everyone who testified to was a good father.......
And, it's not about offending you, its about what is going on right now. You mentioned finding the real killer or exculpatory evidence that would clear Jason. No one ever said that was the reason for his winning his appeal.

I really don't know if LF was out making public statements about Jason's guilt or bad mouthing him. Filing court documents with allegations about Jason is a necessary evil in custody cases, and pleadings have to be filed as public records and not under seal. IMO that should not be the basis for judgment or blame towards the Fishers - the purpose of the custody suit was to protect Cassidy's well being.

Now, if LY was out bad mouthing Jason in the media or bad mouthing Jason to Cassidy or in her presence, then I agree that is very wrong and destructive to the families' abilities to work together and to Cassidy's well being.

Whether or not that's what was happening, the Youngs responded in the worst possible way - both for Jason's legal interests and Cassidy's well being.

People who don't like each other and even hate each other have to find a way to deal with each other every day in millions of families with divorced parents. Very often, either or both parent cannot put aside their own feelings about the other parent in order to do what's best for the children. They either find a way to tolerate each other or they go to court and allow a judge to dictate the structure and parameters of their interactions with each other. But it's never ok for one parent to unilaterally take the kids away and refuse to allow a relationship with the other parent. I can tell you - 100% of the time, such actions will be regarded by judges as a serious deficit in a a parent's fitness, as it indicates a parent's inability to put the child's interests above their own.

While the Fishers had no legal custodial rights, under the circumstances Jason's behavior is going to be perceived selfish and dismissive of Cassidy's best interest. There are many ways to work out a tolerable working relationship between the Fishers and the Youngs. And from what I understand, the Fishers did try to do that but Jason would not engage.

Given the dynamics, what ultimately happened is about the best possible result for Cassidy. She maintains close relationships with all of the caring adults in her life, and the Youngs and Fishers are now ordered by the court to behave in a way that benefits Cassidy. It is a shame that could not be accomplished without having to file a custody suit.

I hope you understand that I do not think the Fishers are all right and the Youngs are all wrong. I can accept that there was likely bad behavior ok both sides and it's obviously a VERY difficult situation given the high emotions of the adults involved. But adults need to find a way to rise above those emotions and do what's best for Cassidy.

 

[JusticeFever]

^^ I don't think there was much love lost between the Youngs and the Fishers before this happened, I think they were cordial and polite during holidays and visits, etc.
But, I don't know the family dynamics for sure, so I am not going to pretend like I do.

You and I have talked about the Brad Cooper case off the board, but I don't know if you are aware that he gave a deposition in order to keep/regain custody of his daughters, which the state used against him in his criminal trial.
The lawyer for Nancy Cooper's family in custody matters was Alice Stubbs.
The lawyer advising Jason Young in custody matters was Alice Stubbs.

 

[JusticeFever]

You never know.

And y'all might have all known why the case was overturned, but I had been under the wrong impression that the appeals court ruled that the daycare worker testimony should not have been admitted and also that the state should not have been allowed to discuss Jason's three year silence.

I was surprised that the appeals court gave the go-ahead on those two issues.

So - news to me, but probably not to anyone else here

I forget that you are new, sorry! I just expected you to wonder how we got from Point A to Point B, kind of a "how did we get there kind of a thing," and that the appeal would be one of the first things you read.
Again, Sorry!

 

[minor4th]

How could anyone possibly know this? And, as a lawyer, you know he was following the advice of his lawyers.

Well I don't know for sure because I obviously can't get in any of their minds. But this is what I believe just based on my experience and from what I have observed from the participants in these proceedings.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt when I can - or at least not jump to the most malignant assumption.

Yes I'm sure Jason was following the advice of his lawyers. Strategic decisions are made in legal proceedings, and this was one of them IMO. In any event Jason ultimately made the decision not to participate - he was not forced to employ that strategy. He did so knowing the consequences.

I know it seems or feels coercive because Jason had to choose his course of action while a criminal trial was hanging over his head. But legally and constitutionally, it is not coercive or unfair -- it's just a decision based on cost/benefit probabilities.

Personally I don't see the rationale for avoiding giving testimony in the civil cases and then taking the stand in the criminal trial. It makes no sense, other than as a strategic move to catch prosecutors unprepared.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

Where has this come from? How did the people intent on defaming him have any leverage? People on a message board had that power? There must be more to this. Had he lied about his record? Did he have a record when he applied for those jobs?

The message board is part of the public record regarding JY. It has been recorded here that he lost his job because people accused him of being a murderer. I don't believe that it is just this board that drove that conclusion, but it certainly contributed to it.

 

[citygirl]

Michelle Young and Kathy Taft had very similar injuries and their cause of death was identical:


Blunt Force Head Trauma

Kathy Taft suffered:

Skull fractures,

Cerebral contusions

Subarachnoid and subdoral hemorrhage

S/p left craniotomy

By a stranger.



http://abc11.com/archive/7413663/

I will also post a link to the autopsy report.

Wow.
Eerily similar. She just didn't get her teeth knocked out. But the sister thing was there. Creepy. She didn't realize her sister had been beaten either. Was this sister slice and diced and dehisced like MY's sister or was she taken at her word?

 

[oenophile]

Personally I don't see the rationale for avoiding giving testimony in the civil cases and then taking the stand in the criminal trial. It makes no sense, other than as a strategic move to catch prosecutors unprepared.

I would argue that these are two independent decisions, and that the civil trial should not force a criminal defendant to take the stand against themself. (ok spellcheck says 'themself' is not a word, but I'll go with it nonetheless)

The decision to take the stand at a criminal trial should not hinge on a civil trial. As I said before, this is an end-run-around the fifth amendment by the police. What if he had decided not to take the stand at the criminal trial? Would the argument still be the same?

There are some very fundamental rights encoded in the U.S. judicial system. One is that no one should be forced to testify against oneself. Filing a civil action prior to a criminal one does exactly this.

 

[citygirl]

I agree there was a close relationship between Michelle's family and her child prior to her murder. My reference was to the years of time between Michelle's murder and the custody agreement. Nearly three years for a motherless child to be with her biological dad and some pretty nasty things were said about him in public documents that she can find and read. I think it would be terribly traumatic to the child to lose daily contact with her only remaining parent after all that time.

My thoughts are with the child's best interest only. In my opinion it is cruel to do that to any child and may have long term emotional impact on her.

JMO

But her only living parent is incarcerated. I agree it could have a long term emotional impact on her. I hope it doesn't.

 

[minor4th]

I know this is a personal comment, but I am very impressed with your consistent objectivity, even when we are in disagreement. Thank you.

Thank you very much

 

[minor4th]

I would argue that these are two independent decisions, and that the civil trial should not force a criminal defendant to take the stand against themself. (ok spellcheck says 'themself' is not a word, but I'll go with it nonetheless)



The decision to take the stand at a criminal trial should not hinge on a civil trial. As I said before, this is an end-run-around the fifth amendment by the police. What if he had decided not to take the stand at the criminal trial? Would the argument still be the same?



There are some very fundamental rights encoded in the U.S. judicial system. One is that no one should be forced to testify against oneself. Filing a civil action prior to a criminal one does exactly this.

No, filing a civil action prior to criminal trial does not infringe on constitutional rights. It has been addressed by the Supreme Court.

A little OT, but here's an (lengthy) explanation that might help understand the dynamics here:

Often in child welfare cases, children are removed from their parents because of some alleged criminal conduct by the parents - such as drug use, child abuse, child endangerment, etc. so criminal charges are brought and a dependency case is instituted to determine custody issues. The custody case has time limits so it usually draws to a conclusion before the criminal trial.

The parent has to decide whether to plead the 5th in the custody case and decline to testify in order to avoid incriminating themselves before their criminal trial. In a civil case, when a party pleads the 5th and declined to testify, the court may draw the reasonable negative inferences against the parent based on their refusal to testify.

The parent is not forced to waive his 5th amendment right - but relying on that right in a civil case will result in negative consequences -- the judge will infer that the parent did engage in the harmful conduct alleged. But the 5th amendment right is still in tact for their criminal trial.

I have had clients in this dilemma many times (I take court appointments in child welfare cases, so you don't get to choose your clients). If a client is not guilty or if they can possibly help themselves by telling their story and defending the charges - it's worthwhile for them to testify in their custody case and hopefully avoid having their parental rights terminated. Obviously if they testify in civil court, they might as well testify in he criminal trial too.

If they're guilty and opening their pie hole is going to get them convicted or help the prosecution, them they'll plead the 5th in the civil case, get a bad outcome but at least maintain a chance of acquittal on the criminal charges.

What I'm saying is the dilemma is really not such a dilemma because it's pretty clear whether they'll testify or not and it largely depends on their guilt - remember I'm just talking about situations where there are both civil and criminal cases proceeding out of the same allegations.

Jason's situation is very very strange - I have never ever had a situation where a parent would exercise a 5th amendment right against self incrimination in the custody case and subsequently testify in the criminal trial for the same behavior. Think about it - it really doesn't make sense. There's no reason to exercise that right in the civil case unless you intend to continually exercise the right throughout the criminal case.

But Jason did not affirmatively exercise the 5th A right in the civil cases. He defaulted one and settled another. We don't know why he defaulted - he said he didn't have the money to litigate. He wisely settled the custody case without ever having to assert the privilege.

He avoided participation in the civil suit without ever having to assert his constitutional right against self incrimination, and he testified at his criminal trial. There's not even a 5th amendment issue.

 

[minor4th]

I forget that you are new, sorry! I just expected you to wonder how we got from Point A to Point B, kind of a "how did we get there kind of a thing," and that the appeal would be one of the first things you read.
Again, Sorry!

Yeah, I made the mistake of reading media reports about the appeals decision and took those accounts as true -- there was a great deal of misreporting about the decision and/or misinterpretation of the ruling.

Like I said, it surprised me that the actual ruling was quite different for the media analysis I read.

(I really kind of despise the media)

 

[minor4th]

^^ I don't think there was much love lost between the Youngs and the Fishers before this happened, I think they were cordial and polite during holidays and visits, etc.
But, I don't know the family dynamics for sure, so I am not going to pretend like I do.

You and I have talked about the Brad Cooper case off the board, but I don't know if you are aware that he gave a deposition in order to keep/regain custody of his daughters, which the state used against him in his criminal trial.
The lawyer for Nancy Cooper's family in custody matters was Alice Stubbs.
The lawyer advising Jason Young in custody matters was Alice Stubbs.

I think Jason's family attorney is brilliant and got him a great result without him ever even answering the suit or having to assert a 5th amendment privilege.

 

[MyBelle]

LE and the Fishers were probably beyond exasperated that JY would not talk and were determined to force his hand. First, the custody suit and then the civil suit. They backed him into a corner waiting to see and hear his response. So, he defaulted on one suit and was able to reach a satisfactory agreement with MF concerning CY, but he still didn't talk.
And, those 2 actions and the results of those 2 suits and allowing that information into a criminal trial is why we are heading into a possible new trial, and why Jason Young's conviction has been overturned.

Oh, I realize the reasons...and they were selfish. None of them prioritized CY's best interest, which would have been to remain with her biological parent. He had not been charged with a crime. Not a whit of evidence CY was neglected or abused. There's a concept called "rights" that was totally ignored. That kind of vengeful hate which places the child in the middle is toxic to the child.

Just My Opinion

 

[minor4th]

Hey - this is a great discussion. I really appreciate the knowledge here and the thoughtful discussion.

I also appreciate all those who have patiently answered my newbie questions - especially Justice Fever.

Off to feed the family :seeya:

 

[minor4th]

Oh, I realize the reasons...and they were selfish. None of them prioritized CY's best interest, which would have been to remain with her biological parent. He had not been charged with a crime. Not a whit of evidence CY was neglected or abused. There's a concept called "rights" that was totally ignored. That kind of vengeful hate which places the child in the middle is toxic to the child.



Just My Opinion

Do you realize that Jason Young agreed that it is in Cassidy's best interest for Meredith Fisher to have primary custody of Cassidy?

 

[MyBelle]

This is so wrong I don't know where to start.

When minds are closed, I just scroll and roll.

JMO