Jason Young to get new trial #3

[SStarr33]

Makes no difference to the case but I find this odd.
MF was his babysitter, marriage counselor, and most important SIL (closest relative in terms of geography also, yes?).
Why would he not have her number programmed into his phone?


This seems familiar, if I have asked this before please excuse my forgetfulness :blushing:

Did he have any numbers programmed in his phone? I remember him saying that he actually dialed his mother's number.

 

[SStarr33]

It amazes me that people believe the lady who says her brain had to be replaced after it fell out onto the sidewalk, and not a lady who is said to be a busy body. Especially since the supposed busy body did not come forward until the timeline expanded to fit what she had seen on her drive in to work.

 

[minor4th]

Pat Young revealed that the family found a cigar humidor when they cleaned out the Young home after the murder.

The testimony bolstered part of her son's alibi in which he testified that, after being seen on hotel security video shortly before midnight on Nov. 2, that he went outside to smoke a cigar.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10788694/#LUBqRTxhJhkoFg8p.99

I agree no one in the article said he smoked cigars but he did have some, I'm pretty sure in his testimony, MY bought them for him.

BTW, No one would call me a smoker but I have smoked on very rare occasions over the years and a few cigars too.

He had a humidor, which was apparently some trinket that was given out in connection with his previous employment at QuickLock (or whatever). No cigars in it - no indication that he actually used it to store cigars. No one who has ever seen Jason smoke a cigar. No believable reason for him to suddenly crave a cigar at midnight on a freezing and blustery winter night. Is it possible? Well, its not impossible - but its so improbable that its not believable.

It might have been different if the humidor was found in his vehicle when it was seized, indicating that he may have actually brought a cigar with him -- but it was found much later when his house was being cleaned out (or in storage -- cant remember which)

If he actually had cigars, I missed that part.

IMO the cigar story is just an excuse he came up with to explain his leaving the hotel at midnight in case someone saw him or there ended up being some surveillance footage. He was covering his bases just in case some evidence of his departure came out.

 

[minor4th]

It really is sickening. The prosecution should be required to call witnesses whether they fit their theory or not. After all, they are supposed to be after the truth.

Thats not our system though. If it were there would be no need for defense attorneys to challenge and rebut the states case.

The state does have to turn over all evidence that is in any way exculpatory or could lead to exculpatory evidence in JYs favor - it is the defense attorneys job to present that evidence.

In our adversary system, both sides are supposed to zealously represent their clients and in the process, the truth will fall out - in theory

 

[sunshine05]

It really is sickening. The prosecution should be required to call witnesses whether they fit their theory or not. After all, they are supposed to be after the truth.

Actually, what they should have done before ever charging JY was said "Wait a minute. We have 2 of 3 witnesses that saw a vehicle in the driveway at a time that excludes JY.....maybe we need to keep investigating." Instead they took the lazy way out and attempted to discredit BOTH of the two witnesses who didn't fit their flimsily stitched together timeline. Pathetic.

 

[sunshine05]

He had a humidor, which was apparently some trinket that was given out in connection with his previous employment at QuickLock (or whatever). No cigars in it - no indication that he actually used it to store cigars. No one who has ever seen Jason smoke a cigar. No believable reason for him to suddenly crave a cigar at midnight on a freezing and blustery winter night. Is it possible? Well, its not impossible - but its so improbable that its not believable.

It might have been different if the humidor was found in his vehicle when it was seized, indicating that he may have actually brought a cigar with him -- but it was found much later when his house was being cleaned out (or in storage -- cant remember which)

If he actually had cigars, I missed that part.

IMO the cigar story is just an excuse he came up with to explain his leaving the hotel at midnight in case someone saw him or there ended up being some surveillance footage. He was covering his bases just in case some evidence of his departure came out.

There IS evidence of him exiting the building. Who cares why he stepped outside? It's not right to nit-pick every little action the man takes and speculate about whether we believe that he would have smoked a cigar or not. The fact remains (and will always remain) that the State can't prove that he left the hotel that night.

Common sense indicates that he was not hiding or trying to avoid cameras when he stepped outside as he had no reason to go to the front desk according to the State. He wasn't really going to look at the paper. He went there to prove he was still at the hotel but minutes later he's heading toward the exit door on camera. I guess he didn't think that one through very carefully. He could have simply placed a call on his cell phone to show he was still in VA.

 

[sunshine05]

Thats not our system though. If it were there would be no need for defense attorneys to challenge and rebut the states case.

The state does have to turn over all evidence that is in any way exculpatory or could lead to exculpatory evidence in JYs favor - it is the defense attorneys job to present that evidence.

In our adversary system, both sides are supposed to zealously represent their clients and in the process, the truth will fall out - in theory

Right, but in an honest prosecution, there wouldn't be two reliable witnesses cast aside because they don't fit the State's case. I don't think you are accepting what is plainly obvious to me. This wasn't a fair trial and it goes beyond the appeal issues with the civil cases. We witnessed stories of bullying, witness tampering from the State investigators.

 

[Madeleine74]

Witness reliability is subject to interpretation. A judge in a separate hearing in 2011 determined GC could testify at trial and it would be up to a jury to determine how much weight, if any, she would be given.

N.C.P.I. Crim. 101.15. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS
​

You are the sole judges of the believability of (a) witness(es).

You must decide for yourselves whether to believe the testimony of any witness. You may believe all, any part, or none of a witness's testimony.

In deciding whether to believe a witness you should use the same tests of truthfulness that you use in your everyday lives. Among other things, these tests may include: the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know, or remember the facts or occurrences about which the witness testified; the manner and appearance of the witness; any interest, bias, prejudice or partiality the witness may have; the apparent understanding and fairness of the witness; whether the testimony is reasonable; and whether the testimony is consistent with other believable evidence in the case.
​

Once a case goes to trial the state is not obligated to put on every possible witness whose name appears on a list. They are advocating for a side in an adversarial system and have the burden to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense can put on witnesses to rebut (within the legal rulings). The jury ultimately decides who to believe or not believe. It is up to the judge to keep a trial fair within the laws (it is not up to the prosecutors). Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for judges in courtrooms.

 

[SStarr33]

Thats not our system though. If it were there would be no need for defense attorneys to challenge and rebut the states case.

The state does have to turn over all evidence that is in any way exculpatory or could lead to exculpatory evidence in JYs favor - it is the defense attorneys job to present that evidence.

In our adversary system, both sides are supposed to zealously represent their clients and in the process, the truth will fall out - in theory

Prosecution function:

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ion_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blk.html

(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

The corruption/shoddy work in the prosecutors office is well know and has gone on for years.

 

[SStarr33]

He had a humidor, which was apparently some trinket that was given out in connection with his previous employment at QuickLock (or whatever). No cigars in it - no indication that he actually used it to store cigars. No one who has ever seen Jason smoke a cigar. No believable reason for him to suddenly crave a cigar at midnight on a freezing and blustery winter night. Is it possible? Well, its not impossible - but its so improbable that its not believable.

It might have been different if the humidor was found in his vehicle when it was seized, indicating that he may have actually brought a cigar with him -- but it was found much later when his house was being cleaned out (or in storage -- cant remember which)

If he actually had cigars, I missed that part.

IMO the cigar story is just an excuse he came up with to explain his leaving the hotel at midnight in case someone saw him or there ended up being some surveillance footage. He was covering his bases just in case some evidence of his departure came out.

It is not typical to keep a humidor in your car.

 

[SStarr33]

Pat Young revealed that the family found a cigar humidor when they cleaned out the Young home after the murder.

The testimony bolstered part of her son's alibi in which he testified that, after being seen on hotel security video shortly before midnight on Nov. 2, that he went outside to smoke a cigar.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10788694/#LUBqRTxhJhkoFg8p.99

I agree no one in the article said he smoked cigars but he did have some, I'm pretty sure in his testimony, MY bought them for him.

BTW, No one would call me a smoker but I have smoked on very rare occasions over the years and a few cigars too.

Same here. And I cannot stand cigarette smoke, and let people know it.

 

[minor4th]

There IS evidence of him exiting the building. Who cares why he stepped outside? It's not right to nit-pick every little action the man takes and speculate about whether we believe that he would have smoked a cigar or not. The fact remains (and will always remain) that the State can't prove that he left the hotel that night.

Common sense indicates that he was not hiding or trying to avoid cameras when he stepped outside as he had no reason to go to the front desk according to the State. He wasn't really going to look at the paper. He went there to prove he was still at the hotel but minutes later he's heading toward the exit door on camera. I guess he didn't think that one through very carefully. He could have simply placed a call on his cell phone to show he was still in VA.

There is evidence of him leaving the hotel that night? You mean Jasons testimony? Other than that, I dont believe there is any evidence of when Jason was in his room or when he went outside or left the hotel. He was caught on camera walking down the hall - same direction of the stairs he had just descended (according to him)

As far as why he stepped outside - it is very important and not nitpicking. If his explanations for leaving the hotel (twice - at least one of which coincides with the camera being unplugged) are so improbable and unbelievable that they make absolutely no sense, then it indicates that his alibi is fabricated and specifically tailored to account for the circumstantial evidence against him.

 

[minor4th]

It is not typical to keep a humidor in your car.

Its also not typical to take up smoking cigars in the freezing cold at midnight, alone, and at a hotel while ones wife is being murdered.

I could give you a big long list of Jasons behaviors that are not typical.

The humidor is a red herring, and theres no evidence Jason Young had ever smoked a cigar before.

 

[minor4th]

Prosecution function:

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ion_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blk.html

(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

The corruption/shoddy work in the prosecutors office is well know and has gone on for years.

I really dont disagree with you, and I have a pretty abiding distrust of prosecutors and police in general

 

[minor4th]

Right, but in an honest prosecution, there wouldn't be two reliable witnesses cast aside because they don't fit the State's case. I don't think you are accepting what is plainly obvious to me. This wasn't a fair trial and it goes beyond the appeal issues with the civil cases. We witnessed stories of bullying, witness tampering from the State investigators.

They are reliable witnesses in your opinion - but their observations led to nothing and really shed no light on whether Jason committed the crime or not.

 

[oenophile]

As a cigar smoker, a few observations:

1. I do not like cigarettes, and cannot stand it when someone is smoking around me.
2. I don't smoke cigars often, sometimes it is maximum once every three months. The most frequently I would smoke would be once every two weeks.
3. Cigar smoking is something that I normally do alone. It is one of those indulgences that is often best savored alone. In addition, there are very few people that I know that smoke them, so I'm rather forced to do it when no one else is around.
4. Ergo, very few people have ever seen me smoking a cigar. In fact I don't believe any of my close friends have ever seen it.

However:

5. I do own a humidor, and it is stocked with cigars.

Thus, I do not think it is unusual for JY to go out and smoke a cigar as described. And before people make the judgement that it is unusual, they should really talk with a cigar smoker.

 

[tarheellvr]

It really is sickening. The prosecution should be required to call witnesses whether they fit their theory or not. After all, they are supposed to be after the truth.

And they were after the truth......the DA's office did everything they could with the evidence they had to prove JY slaughtered his wife and unborn son.

 

[tarheellvr]

Did he have any numbers programmed in his phone? I remember him saying that he actually dialed his mother's number.

If he dialed Mommy's number, I'll bet his fingers ached as he called so many, many times.

 

[tarheellvr]

There is evidence of him leaving the hotel that night? You mean Jasons testimony? Other than that, I dont believe there is any evidence of when Jason was in his room or when he went outside or left the hotel. He was caught on camera walking down the hall - same direction of the stairs he had just descended (according to him)

As far as why he stepped outside - it is very important and not nitpicking. If his explanations for leaving the hotel (twice - at least one of which coincides with the camera being unplugged) are so improbable and unbelievable that they make absolutely no sense, then it indicates that his alibi is fabricated and specifically tailored to account for the circumstantial evidence against him.

This is a fact I've always thought pointed to his guilt. He discussed this case with no one for years, then has benefit of discovery/state's case to use as his "blueprint" for his testimony......and he DID.

As far as his testimony, I think we all can criticize Becky Holt and yes, I think she should have been more prepared. IMO, DA's office was caught off guard and never thought JY would get on the stand. I thought his testimony was "staged" somewhat and all those "dry tears". Those close enough in the courtroom never once saw wetness in his murdering eyes!

However, JY and his testimony was crucial to his 2nd trial as he was locked in this testimony and will be in his 3rd trial as well. This will hurt his case IMO.

 

[tarheellvr]

Pat Young revealed that the family found a cigar humidor when they cleaned out the Young home after the murder.


The testimony bolstered part of her son's alibi in which he testified that, after being seen on hotel security video shortly before midnight on Nov. 2, that he went outside to smoke a cigar.
Read more at http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10788694/#LUBqRTxhJhkoFg8p.99

I agree no one in the article said he smoked cigars but he did have some, I'm pretty sure in his testimony, MY bought them for him.

BTW, No one would call me a smoker but I have smoked on very rare occasions over the years and a few cigars too. [/QUOT


I don't know if PY found this or not, but I do believe she would say or do anything for her son. Even on the stand she came off that way, defending every single thing he did to the point of telling her story of JY "mooning" his grandmother.

I just don't put a lot of credence in anything PY may or may not say.