SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[otto]

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2012/03/06/10821695/20120306170659598.pdf

 

[otto]

They were NEVER deadlocked and it was never 3NG!

It was 5 guilty at the outset according to the foreperson and 5 guilty according to the post on the facebook page ... another coincidence? That may have changed to 9 guilty after another vote - that we don't know yet. If that did happen, I think there's a problem. Discussions during deliberations probably means that there were a lot more discussions throughout the trial.

 

[Luna24]

It was 5 guilty at the outset according to the foreperson and 5 guilty according to the post on the facebook page ... another coincidence? That may have changed to 9 guilty after another vote - that we don't know yet. If that did happen, I think there's a problem. Discussions during deliberations probably means that there were a lot more discussions throughout the trial.

I saw the juror interviewed by Vinnie that voted NG in the first poll when they started deliberating...she said she changed to undecided that day and I believe she said that there was never more than 1 NG in any of the polls. She also said that even when she was at NG, she still thought he did it, just didn't think at first that the PT had proven their case.

I just watched another juror that was interviewed by Beth and she was an undecided and repeated the same intial poll - 5 G, 1 NG, the rest undecided...

 

[HarleyP]

I'm *SO* not worried. It's going to take a lot more than an alleged juror misconduct scandal or perhaps just a bored, attention starved troll to get JY another chance at a retrial. Come on. 12 of JY's peers all told the Judge they agree with the murder1 verdict individually and unanimously. The Judge said the court accepts the verdict and agrees with it based on the evidence submitted. I hope JY's attorneys and his "fans" don't pump him up with a sense of false hope that anything will ever come of it to benefit himself. IMO, I see a whole lot of nothing. Although, this at least for a while, will give the JY "was falsely convicted" fan base something to base their case on. Hey, we all gotta fight for something.

MOO. Moo. moo.

First of all, this post is NOT directed specifically towards Elisa444, the poster I am quoting.

I for one, if on the jury, couldn’t have convicted Jason Young of first degree, premeditated murder despite the voluminous circumstantial evidence or so-called "unacceptable level of coincidences," (Jeff Ashton) presented at trial. I do however, accept and support the jury verdict. (NOTE: I do NOT need a video of the crime or require physical evidence to convict nor do I suffer from the CSI effect.)

I am very new to Websleuths. I read more than I contribute as I anticipate my posts may be unwelcome [perhaps they are]. I expected a place of open discussion concerning new thoughts and ideas based on the ‘facts’ of cases and even some objective speculation. Instead, I found the majority of posters here are quick to dismiss those who depart from the prevailing point of view. The post I quoted is a good example (I am not being critical of the specific poster)

It’s not limited to the Jason Young case but I have found those who disagree w/the states case, or feel it didn’t prove guilt, are labeled as ‘FANS.’ Just because I don’t think the state proved Jason Young committed premeditated murder beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, certainly does not make me a ‘fan’ of a cheating, jerk of a husband. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am not a fan of the defense, anti-prosecution and I certainly don’t have disdain for Michelle Young, or her family or delight in their sorrow and pain! IMO there is a difference between thinking he did it and the state proving it’s case. I am a very compassionate person but I do not get emotionally invested in the outcome of cases involving total strangers.

I am not a member of a “JY ‘was falsely convicted’ fan base,” I frankly don’t believe one exists. Notwithstanding any information that may come from a pending investigation speaking to the contrary (which I don't expect), there is nothing wrong with the legitimacy of this juries verdict finding Jason Young guilty. Only the foolish would get their hopes up for a mistrial or overturned verdict based on jury misconduct amounting to texting wher the jury is at regarding G, NG & UD. (BUT, it COULD happen should they find something happened way above and beyond what the FB poster said) I agree with Elsie444 and “see a whole lot of nothing” in that regard, however, I deplore the actions of the idiot who posted the comment on Face Book and would delight in seeing some sort of punishment for making a mockery of the justice system I believe in.

I am deeply saddened by the fact Michelle young and her unborn child were savagely killed and her 2 year old daughter was left without a mother. I can’t even imagine the pain Michelle’s family has endured. The evidence at trial leads me to believe Jason Young might have killed his wife and unborn child and I respectfully accept the jury saying he did so.

Make no mistake, I believe in our justice system: Innocent UNTIL until proven guilty through the ‘evidence at trial.’ If that differs from the ‘popular’ view, it doesn’t mean I’m a ‘fan of the accused.’ Unless were all 12, can we agree not to label each other just because we have different opinions?

As side questions, could someone explain to me, what exactly is a ‘troll’? And what is meant by Moo Moo? Both of which I see frequently.

 

[otto]

I saw the juror interviewed by Vinnie that voted NG in the first poll when they started deliberating...she said she changed to undecided that day and I believe she said that there was never more than 1 NG in any of the polls. She also said that even when she was at NG, she still thought he did it, just didn't think at first that the PT had proven their case.

I just watched another juror that was interviewed by Beth and she was an undecided and repeated the same intial poll - 5 G, 1 NG, the rest undecided...

Thanks ... I suppose I'm including the possibility that the hairdresser or friend or whoever it was thought in terms of how many were voting guilty and not so much whether someone was undecided or not guilty.

 

[Talina]

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/mar...-jason-young-juror-possible-misco-ar-2010958/

Stephens, in a separate letter, said, "All of the jurors in this case will be contacted by an agent of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation and will be asked a few questions.You are not suspected of any misconduct. We are simply trying to run down the source of these unsubstantiated accusations."

BBM

This says to me that the judge is after the person out spouting all this on social media boards and getting the public all riled up about jury misconduct. I don't think at this point he thinks it is true, but is after the person stirring the pot (so to speak).

 

[Stella5]

Just like telling us about your friend (no disrespect!) it is human nature. I do it too. More than likely, that is the case here, but at what price? People know you can jokingly say to your BFF "I'll kill you if..." but you don't say that about the POTUS or find yourself in big dog do do!

People need to realize that seemingly innocent comments about knowing a juror, or knowing someone that knows a juror or that juror said ya da ya da while the trial is in progess isn't something to joke about/talk about post about...because just like comments about killing the POTUS, there are consequences. This case is high profile enough where IMO, a tough lesson would go a long way.

Harley I agree with most of your post, and do really believe if something was done that was jury misconduct it needs to be dealt with swiftly and severely.

However, I am a bit confused about how it's human nature for people who are not players or not involved in high-profile cases to insert themselves into it. I don't know about you, but myself and most everyone I know most certainly would not ever even think about inserting ourselves into a situation that we were not involved with; especially of this magnitude that could have legal & dire consequences.

My post about my facebook friend was relevant to what I feel is the case here, certainly not gossiping ~ just using as an example. Facebook is a beast all in of itself, I cannot believe the information or misinformation that people tend to post there about every & anything without a second thought as to the consequences of the things they do post. In the social networking world and of course the comment section of every news site out there, you have all kinds of people just spouting things off without any basis of fact or knowledge. It's amazing what people are willing to put out there behind the anonymity of their keyboard.

Anyway, I notice you're new to posting... so welcome!!!

 

[Wolfpack]

As side questions, could someone explain to me, what exactly is a ‘troll’? And what is meant by Moo Moo? Both of which I see frequently.

A troll is someone who posts something just to rile up argument, or make people mad. MOO is "My opinion only".

 

[Stella5]

As side questions, could someone explain to me, what exactly is a ‘troll’? And what is meant by Moo Moo? Both of which I see frequently.

Me again

Troll is someone who intentionally comes into a forum, message board, online discussion community, etc... and purposely stirs the pot so to speak by posting off-topic, inflammatory, hateful things to try to get a rise out of the other posters. You are not a troll Trolls are mainly the ones on unregulated boards that you can register with unconfirmed emails, etc... There is a ton of them out there, and IMO better left ignored. They give nothing thoughtful to a conversation, topic or debate.

Moo is My Own Opinion, My Opinion Only, Matter of Opinion

 

[Talina]

No idea. I get my haircut in an awkward silence, each of us waiting for the other to break the ice.

My daughter is my hairdresser and I've always told her when she was growing up that she should be an event coordinator for a cruise line or a local gossip columnist. :floorlaugh:

So her becoming a hairdresser got her both things she loves to do. She does hair (and very well I might add), helps her clients get primped up for functions, and gets to gossip all day long with her clients and other hair stylists in the salon.
On top of that, the salon owner always has her plan their employee social functions and their training classes. Hilarious. She is just right in her element. Salons are the beehive of gossip and rumor spreading.

I love her dearly and she's gotten better over the years about keep confidences but it's always been a running joke in the family not to tell her something unless you wanted it to make the rounds pretty quick. She just can't help herself, she loves to yack it up.

:floorlaugh:

 

[Stella5]

It's not just about during the deliberations. Jurors were told no communicating about the case at all, to anyone, at any time, the entire time they were seated. They were not to discuss the case, listen to other people discuss the case, post or read social media or articles about the case, etc. Not just during court hours but 24x7. If they can't or won't follow those rules and they have no self-discipline, they'll possibly earn a contempt charge. The system can only work if people follow the rules.

If I were one of the other 11 jurors I'd be livid if someone didn't follow the judge's orders and caused my time sitting there and listening to the case and then deliberating to be a waste. Who wants their 4+ weeks to be for nothing?

This deserves a bump and a round of applause! I totally agree!!!

 

[Madeleine74]

Every time I read the title of this thread I'm thinking about some other kind of probe. Well 2, actually. One of them being alien.

just me?

 

[passionflower]

If, and it's a HUGE if, the allegations are true, the defense can move for a mistrial. The Judge's only options are granting the mistrial if the conduct is deemed severe enough, or denying the mistrial. Either scenario is tricky for him, because it is possible it will leave room for an appeal on either side.

But, those are the only options, mistrial, or not. There won't be an in between.

DOES A MISTRIAL MEAN ANOTHER TRIAL? BETTER APPEAL? OR FREE MAN?:what:

 

[Stella5]

Dare I say the Casey Anthony jury was accused of shirking their duties based on...well...nothing but disappointment in the verdict.

Snipped by me... I don't know about anyone else, but IMO it was way more than disappointment in the verdict. I'm still flabbergasted that a jury could sit in a trial for a month and not request one item of evidence at all. NOT ONE! There was so much evidence presented to them, and a lot of it very scientific that deserved at least a review. So what did they do for the 8 hours they deliberated?! Other than eat Chick-Fil-A, and have numerous smoke breaks?! I'm usually not one to jump on a jury and I highly respect their sacrifice while serving their civic duty; but IMO they were a joke and will always be a joke. MOO.

 

[HarleyP]

It was 5 guilty at the outset according to the foreperson and 5 guilty according to the post on the facebook page ... another coincidence? That may have changed to 9 guilty after another vote - that we don't know yet. If that did happen, I think there's a problem. Discussions during deliberations probably means that there were a lot more discussions throughout the trial.

They aren't supposed to discuss the case or even 'consider' guilt or innocence until they have all the facts and officially go to deliberations. It's human nature to think about it during but there weren't votes until they went to deliberate.

 

[otto]

They aren't supposed to discuss the case or even 'consider' guilt or innocence until they have all the facts and officially go to deliberations. It's human nature to think about it during but there weren't votes until they went to deliberate.

Perhaps I worded that poorly. What I meant was that if a juror was communicating with someone outside the jury about the deliberations before a verdict was reached, then I think there's a good chance that the same juror was communicating with someone outside the jury about the case throughout the trial. I would be surprised if the communication only occurred during deliberations.

Still, we haven't seen any proof and I don't think the CBI is going to look all that hard for proof ... why would they ... it means another trial, definitely a request for a new judge, a lot of extra costs, so on.

 

[Talina]

It was 5 guilty at the outset according to the foreperson and 5 guilty according to the post on the facebook page ... another coincidence? That may have changed to 9 guilty after another vote - that we don't know yet. If that did happen, I think there's a problem. Discussions during deliberations probably means that there were a lot more discussions throughout the trial.

BBM

I bolded that one sentence because it so confused me that I wanted to ask why you would think that. Deliberations are precisely for discussions. Why would that indicate any discussions throughout the trial? I can't figure out the connection at all. That makes no sense to me.

Then I reread the post and I'm befuddled again as to why a subsequent vote with a different outcome suggests there are problems within the jury. That, again, is precisely what happens during deliberations. Votes change along the way as they deliberate and try to work towards a unanimous verdict.

I'm completely confused by this post altogether. Perhaps I don't understand what it is that is trying to be conveyed.

 

[HarleyP]

Snipped by me... I don't know about anyone else, but IMO it was way more than disappointment in the verdict. I'm still flabbergasted that a jury could sit in a trial for a month and not request one item of evidence at all. NOT ONE! There was so much evidence presented to them, and a lot of it very scientific that deserved at least a review. So what did they do for the 8 hours they deliberated?! Other than eat Chick-Fil-A, and have numerous smoke breaks?! I'm usually not one to jump on a jury and I highly respect their sacrifice while serving their civic duty; but IMO they were a joke and will always be a joke. MOO.

I am not about to get into a lengthy discussion, but what would you say if you knew they had virtually all of the evidence in the jury room with them? And you do understand that 'testimony' is evidence, yes?

But, since you brought it up, I am curious: What specific evidence, in your opinion, might have helped them had they taken time to review it? :what:

I have heard some of the wildest unsubtantiated fabrications & accusations about that jury, yet not one person making them has offered anything with merit to substantiate them. I'm not saying that applies to you btw.

 

[Talina]

Perhaps I worded that poorly. What I meant was that if a juror was communicating with someone outside the jury about the deliberations before a verdict was reached, then I think there's a good chance that the same juror was communicating with someone outside the jury about the case throughout the trial. I would be surprised if the communication only occurred during deliberations.

Still, we haven't seen any proof and I don't think the CBI is going to look all that hard for proof ... why would they ... it means another trial, definitely a request for a new judge, a lot of extra costs, so on.

I certainly hope that is wrong. I want SBI to diligently investigate these allegations and clear it up completely. If it happened, to what extent and to what degree did it have any impact on the verdict. If none, then say so and why. If it did, then deal with it accordingly. If it is all false, then call that person to the carpet, publicly so that this sort of carp does not continue to happen with future juries and criminal cases.

I do not want this verdict tainted or questioned in any way. The jurors deserve that, the Fisher's deserve that, all LE, PT and DT involved deserve that, MY and Rylan and CY deserve that, the Youngs deserve that and even JY deserves a clean verdict. Anyone else I could have left out - certainly does also.

IMO

 

[Grammy Jean]

I can not imagine that the jurors would be required to turn over their cell phones to the SBI. I would think SBI could require facebook to turn over info. about the person who posted on the WRAL page. Any of you have opinions about this?