Jason Young to get new trial #3

[MyBelle]

Can you imagine what the legal expenses would have been to respond to both civil suits? Few could ever manage that. The State knew it.

Of course the prosecutor knew it and so did Jason's attorney and so did the Judge and so did the attorney who filed it. The Judge not only knew he was a suspect, a police detective testified he was the killer in the civil case. It would be impossible to defend something like that. The intent of the lawsuit was malicious.

He had not been indicted, not named a suspect or person of interest AND Michelle had a WILL. I think THAT is the reason his attorney, Mr. Smith, advised him to not respond.

JMO

 

[minor4th]

The only problem I have with the Judge is how involved he was in this case from the very beginning, signing off on many of the search warrants and presiding over all the trials.

Minor, I keep forgetting to ask you what you thought of the prosecution as well as the defense team.... At this time, JY has no attorneys, one of his last attorneys is now a Judge(Bryon Collins), and I am not sure the position of Mr. Klinkosum. That means his new defense will need a lot of time to catch up with the case.

I thought the defense attorneys were very good, and I thought the make prosecutor was very good as well. I wasn't really crazy about the female prosecutor - but it's more a matter of what style you prefer; she seemed knowledgeable and qualified enough, but she rubbed me the wrong way.

I read that one if Jason's attorneys had been elected (or appointed) as a judge. That's great for the attorney - I thought he was very good. I hope Klinkosum continues to represent Jason. He was a very zealous and passionate advocate.

It's pretty typical for the judge who issued the search and arrest warrants to be the same judge who presides over the criminal trial. In courts of general jurisdiction like NC, it's also pretty common for the same judge to preside over a civil and criminal case involving the same issues and same defendant/accused. If there were any indication of bias, Jason could have requested recusal. IMO judge Stephens was very fair and did not seem biased in his rulings or in his conduct in front of the jury.

 

[otto]

No one besides Jason and his lawyer knew what Jason's explanations would be until he testified at his trial.

He did not talk to the Fishers or anyone else (other than lawyers) about the case or the investigation until he took the stand 3 years after Michelle's murder. Jason stated that himself when he testified.

So you don't think it makes him look guilty to completely stonewall his friends, investigators and his and Michelle's relatives for years - even to the point of taking a multi million dollar default judgment and relinquishing primary custody of his daughter? Especially since he ultimately did testify, and didn't rely on a 5th Amendment privilege <--- doesn't that raise for you some questions about his innocence and the veracity if his testimony? Do you accept his testimony as true?

I don't understand how his behavior looks totally innocuous and indicative of an innocent man. Not criticizing yours or anyone's opinions, just finding some things hard to understand.

I think that everyone eventually discovers that people want the juicy details about events because they like to gossip (not because they care). As a lawyer, would you advise clients to discuss the juicy details about the murder of a spouse with anyone that is curious? Jason's lawyer apparently thought it was a bad idea ... and common sense suggests that his lawyer gave good advice.

The custody application by the Fishers was a character assassination where a psychological evaluation was requested. The objective was to push him into a corner where he would be forced to answer questions related to the murder. This was not going to be anything less than an extremely acrimonious custody dispute. Jason had every right to walk away from it under the circumstances.

If we believe that innocent people talk about everything related to a murder, and guilty people say nothing, then sure ... we can question Jason's decision to remain silent until the trial. However, it is not true that guilty people say nothing and innocent people talk. Therefore, there is nothing to conclude about a suspect that says nothing about a murder. It is a sound decision to present the facts in a courtroom rather than the media and social community.

 

[minor4th]

Who is now preventing the child from having access to her father?

Well he's incarcerated so that kind of changes things. But weren't they all working together to make sure Jason got his time with Cassidy before he was incarcerated?

If he is acquitted, I really cannot see a judge terminating his parental rights. I think he might have a hard time regaining primary custody but there would be no reason to exclude him completely from Cassidy's life unless more negative info is revealed or discovered. You never know for sure what a judge will do.

 

[tarheellvr]

Of course the prosecutor knew it and so did Jason's attorney and so did the Judge and so did the attorney who filed it. The Judge not only knew he was a suspect, a police detective testified he was the killer in the civil case. It would be impossible to defend something like that. The intent of the lawsuit was malicious.

He had not been indicted, not named a suspect or person of interest AND Michelle had a WILL. I think THAT is the reason his attorney, Mr. Smith, advised him to not respond.

JMO

Again, more untruths........the reason for the lawsuit was the Fisher's desires to see Cassidy. They were forced by JY and his family to take action when they kept this child away from them for YEARS!

 

[tarheellvr]

I think that everyone eventually discovers that people want the juicy details about events because they like to gossip (not because they care). As a lawyer, would you advise clients to discuss the juicy details about the murder of a spouse with anyone that is curious? Jason's lawyer apparently thought it was a bad idea ... and common sense suggests that his lawyer gave good advice.

The custody application by the Fishers was a character assassination where a psychological evaluation was requested. The objective was to push him into a corner where he would be forced to answer questions related to the murder. This was not going to be anything less than an extremely acrimonious custody dispute. Jason had every right to walk away from it under the circumstances.

If we believe that innocent people talk about everything related to a murder, and guilty people say nothing, then sure ... we can question Jason's decision to remain silent until the trial. However, it is not true that guilty people say nothing and innocent people talk. Therefore, there is nothing to conclude about a suspect that says nothing about a murder. It is a sound decision to present the facts in a courtroom rather than the media and social community.

Not true Otto.......the civil suit was about their dire desire to see a child they loved, a child who had been kept from them. This was the ONLY purpose of the suit.

 

[otto]

Yes, he said he didn't have the money to litigate the custody case or the wrongful death suit (notable that he did not ever even hint that he was exercising his 5th Amendment privilege).

The evidence of Jason's income and available resources, however, proved this to be false.

Do you really believe that his mother suddenly required him to pay her $6000 in back rent if he needed funds to defend the lawsuits? Not a chance. IMO

He paid that money to his mother (and another $6000 to his sister) to keep those funds from being used in satisfaction if the judgment against him (IMO). That $12,000 would have made a good retainer payment to lawyers if he had any desire to participate in the civil cases. He also had significant assets he could have sold or leveraged to raise capital to pay lawyers. He also could have represented himself pro se or applied for legal aid if he really had no money.

Jason's mother is entitled to keep her money and Jason is responsible for paying for his own lifestyle. I don't think that anyone has the right to dictate how someone else settles their debt. If Jason had debt, and the custody application came out of the blue, that does not imply that his debt is no longer important. That is, if the debt was with a bank rather than family members, would anyone suggest that he should ignore that debt because there is a custody applicaton? I think not.

 

[minor4th]

I think that everyone eventually discovers that people want the juicy details about events because they like to gossip (not because they care). As a lawyer, would you advise clients to discuss the juicy details about the murder of a spouse with anyone that is curious? Jason's lawyer apparently thought it was a bad idea ... and common sense suggests that his lawyer gave good advice.



The custody application by the Fishers was a character assassination where a psychological evaluation was requested. The objective was to push him into a corner where he would be forced to answer questions related to the murder. This was not going to be anything less than an extremely acrimonious custody dispute. Jason had every right to walk away from it under the circumstances.



If we believe that innocent people talk about everything related to a murder, and guilty people say nothing, then sure ... we can question Jason's decision to remain silent until the trial. However, it is not true that guilty people say nothing and innocent people talk. Therefore, there is nothing to conclude about a suspect that says nothing about a murder. It is a sound decision to present the facts in a courtroom rather than the media and social community.

Yes, it might have been good advice for Jason to give no information or explanations to the Fishers, despite the consequences of him having his parental rights restricted and a multi million dollar judgment entered against him. That might be a good strategy if he's guilty and can't afford or risk revealing his "story" before he makes the big reveal at his murder trial.

But it makes no strategic or logical sense to advise him to keep his mouth shut, take the knocks from losing primary custody and a huge monetary judgment if his explanation is true and he's going to ultimately state it all under oath at a later criminal trial.

I might think differently if he had ultimately exercised his 5th amendment privilege in the criminal trial, instead of explicitly detailing his every move and thought for the jury.

Does that make sense at all? I don't know if I'm really communicating what I'm trying to explain. : /

 

[tarheellvr]

Jason's mother is entitled to keep her money and Jason is responsible for paying for his own lifestyle. I don't think that anyone has the right to dictate how someone else settles their debt. If Jason had debt, and the custody application came out of the blue, that does not imply that his debt is no longer important. That is, if the debt was with a bank rather than family members, would anyone suggest that he should ignore that debt because there is a custody applicaton? I think not.

Otto give me a break......Pat Young bailed him out. Pat Young would do anything for her boy. He had access to money to fight this suit.....of course he did!

Just another excuse........one right after another......

 

[otto]

Not true Otto.......he kept this little girl from her Mother's family, the family who was extremely close to her. They were forced to see her at daycare and when he finally let them see her, they were watched, monitored as if they were criminals. They couldn't even take her to the bathroom for God's sake!

I am so sick of the argument he had the right to decide what was best for his child, he was her parent and made decisions, etc. What was right for Cassidy? What was best for a little girl who had her Mommy taken from her?
Isolation from those closest to her Mommy???? In essence, she lost THREE of her family and JLY is to blame!! Well, I forgot to include Pat, who returned all gifts and aided in Cassidy's isolation from her grandmother and aunt.

Abolutley no excuse.......he hurt this innocent child and did so willingly.

Is there a law in NC stating that aunts, uncles, and grandparents have custody and visitation rights? If not, then would it not be the decision and right of the parents to decide with whom the child visits?

There was visitation after the murder, so if that was taken away, perhaps there was a reason. Where was the lack of cooperation?

 

[otto]

Otto give me a break......Pat Young bailed him out. Pat Young would do anything for her boy. He had access to money to fight this suit.....of course he did!

Just another excuse........one right after another......

Jason's mother was able to raise the money for bail, but she got that money back. That is very different than handing one's life savings over to a lawyer - especially in a situation where that money will most likely never be seen again.

 

[minor4th]

Jason's mother is entitled to keep her money and Jason is responsible for paying for his own lifestyle. I don't think that anyone has the right to dictate how someone else settles their debt. If Jason had debt, and the custody application came out of the blue, that does not imply that his debt is no longer important. That is, if the debt was with a bank rather than family members, would anyone suggest that he should ignore that debt because there is a custody applicaton? I think not.

But the debt wasn't to a bank or collateralized by property he might lose. His family would not likely file a suit for past rent against him if he didn't pay that money to them so there were no looming consequences.

Jason considered it a higher priority to pay his relatives than to fight for custody or defend against a wrongful death lawsuit and exponentially higher debt/judgment that can be executed by seizing his property. It's his choice to spend his money as he finds suitable. In this instance his choices make him look guilty. And it's not true that he did not have funds to pay lawyers

 

[otto]

access to a convicted murderer.......not just a murderer, but her MOTHER's murderer???? really, just really!!

At this time, Jason is presumed innocent. Given this status, has his child had access to her father ... a man that is presumed innocent? If not, why not?

 

[otto]

Well he's incarcerated so that kind of changes things. But weren't they all working together to make sure Jason got his time with Cassidy before he was incarcerated?

If he is acquitted, I really cannot see a judge terminating his parental rights. I think he might have a hard time regaining primary custody but there would be no reason to exclude him completely from Cassidy's life unless more negative info is revealed or discovered. You never know for sure what a judge will do.

Jason's lawyer negotiated custody arrangements for the child and there was a court order ... so yes, everyone complied with the court order until the time of the arrest.

 

[MyBelle]

Jason's mother is entitled to keep her money and Jason is responsible for paying for his own lifestyle. I don't think that anyone has the right to dictate how someone else settles their debt. If Jason had debt, and the custody application came out of the blue, that does not imply that his debt is no longer important. That is, if the debt was with a bank rather than family members, would anyone suggest that he should ignore that debt because there is a custody applicaton? I think not.

Of course you are right. I think some are forgetting that 1) Jason was being advised by excellent attorneys during the time of the civil lawsuits and 2) the entire issue of the civil suits will be inadmissible at the next trial and 3) the jury pool is now aware he didn't receive a fair trial.

For all we know, JY may STILL be obtaining legal advice from those same attorneys re: child custody.

Without the extremely prejudicial elements of the civil lawsuits, I think the prosecutor is going to have a very difficult time obtaining a guilty verdict at the next trial. The evidence just isn't there.


JMO

 

[otto]

Not true Otto.......the civil suit was about their dire desire to see a child they loved, a child who had been kept from them. This was the ONLY purpose of the suit.

The custody application affidavits documented rumors about Jason from his college years. That information was used to demonstrate that he was an unfit parent that required a psychological assessment. Visitation applications don't normally read like that, so this was not a straight forward visitation application.

 

[minor4th]

Of course the prosecutor knew it and so did Jason's attorney and so did the Judge and so did the attorney who filed it. The Judge not only knew he was a suspect, a police detective testified he was the killer in the civil case. It would be impossible to defend something like that. The intent of the lawsuit was malicious.



He had not been indicted, not named a suspect or person of interest AND Michelle had a WILL. I think THAT is the reason his attorney, Mr. Smith, advised him to not respond.



JMO

I don't know why you say it would be impossible to defend against a custody case or civil suit if there's evidence that supports Jason's position.

If the story he told at his criminal trial is true, then why not at least tell it to the judge in the civil cases and hope the judge sees the truth of his testimony. At least there's a CHANCE he will not lose the wrongful death case and have a devastating judgment against him. At least there would be a chance to retain primary custody of Cassidy if he thought that was in her best interest.

I think Mr Smith advised him to be a ghost because Jason's story is not believable and his only glimmer of hope was to spring it on the prosecutors by surprise during the criminal trial and hope to catch the prosecutors on their heels. It worked pretty well in his first trial - 8 jurors were ready to acquit him.

There honestly is no other logical reason to keep quiet and accept such devastating consequences in civil court if he had a truthful explanation that he is going to tell the jurors in a criminal trial down the road.

 

[otto]

Yes, it might have been good advice for Jason to give no information or explanations to the Fishers, despite the consequences of him having his parental rights restricted and a multi million dollar judgment entered against him. That might be a good strategy if he's guilty and can't afford or risk revealing his "story" before he makes the big reveal at his murder trial.

But it makes no strategic or logical sense to advise him to keep his mouth shut, take the knocks from losing primary custody and a huge monetary judgment if his explanation is true and he's going to ultimately state it all under oath at a later criminal trial.

I might think differently if he had ultimately exercised his 5th amendment privilege in the criminal trial, instead of explicitly detailing his every move and thought for the jury.

Does that make sense at all? I don't know if I'm really communicating what I'm trying to explain. : /

We can't forget that any information Jason provided in a custody dispute was going to be used by investigators per the murder. As with Brad Cooper, investigators were going to provide questions for which they wanted answers. Investigators wanted the information for the sole purpose of finding grounds to impugn him. For example, when Jason admitted that he used the medicine dropper to give diluted adult medication to the child, everyone from social media to investigators attempted to use that against him ... that is, now he allegedly drugged the child.

I don't understand this view of law and investigative techniques that it is all above board and kind. That is not how it works, especially when investigators have tunnel vision. Police were desperate for some sort of evidence to use against Jason and everyone knew it. Why should Jason walk onto trap doors when everyone could see them from miles away?

Seriously, if this was nothing more than an innocent visitation application, why was everyone so disappointed that Jason walked away from being pushed into a corner. Why should anyone care, or criticize, that he decided that Meredith was a suitable parent for his daughter? That answer seems to be that police didn't get what they wanted ... which means that this was about pinning Jason to a story rather than visitation.

 

[MyBelle]

Jason's lawyer negotiated custody arrangements for the child and there was a court order ... so yes, everyone complied with the court order until the time of the arrest.

Yes and, iirc, he retained joint legal custody and only agreed Meredith would have full physical custody. He certainly is not going to have any trouble reuniting and obtaining full physical custody of his child should he be acquitted.

JMO

 

[citygirl]

Many formed an opinion as to JY's guilt before there was any evidence heard. And some of those have stated that there is nothing that would change their mind that he is guilty.

Very true. The defendants family and friends put so much out there. Not MY's family but JY's family and friends. Tons of information. MOO.