SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[Stella5]

It helps me to see the wral fb post in question, and what the two jurors said this morning. I have not listened to the other jurors as of yet. But based on the suspect post; and what the jury said the post IMO is totally fabricated. There was NEVER 7 people voting for NG! One on Friday according to #3; 1 or 2 according to the foreperson. And they most certainly were never deadlocked! Add to it the foreperson clearly indicated by the end of the day on Friday no one was a NG, the uncommitted G's were undecided. Night all!

WRAL FB Post: My hairdresser is friends with a jury member on the JY trial. They are now deadlocked at 9 Guilty 3 Not Guilty. It was 7 Not Guilty 5 Guilty!

Foreperson: 6/6 or 7/5 friday - 7 in favor of guilt end of day friday vs. 5 undecided - no one was in NG column friday afternoon. No one was firmly in the NG for very long, maybe 1 or 2 initially but they moved to undecided pretty quickly
9/3 10/2 11/1 finally got to unanimous 12/12 then after lunch asked JS for 20 minutes to pray over it and mull over it individually to make sure were all fine with our verdict - took a couple more votes after the break and everyone was sure in their verdict.
(note the or between 6/6 & 7/5 should have been an &... they only took two votes friday per the foreperson)

Votes - 6/6 initial on Fri; all 4 men guilty 1 woman g, 1 ng - the rest undecided then we started putting the pieces together. Took a vote before & after the break, used the 20 minute break to come to terms with their decision.
Juror #3

 

[otto]

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.

If someone on the jury was communicating with someone not on the jury during deliberations, two things are possible:

1. it was the first time that the jury person communicated with the friend (which should have sent the friend into shock), or
2. the jury person was updating the friend on the latest developments.

If it was the latter, that would mean that the person on the jury was regularly communicating with the friend about the trial. That's problematic.

 

[Talina]

If someone on the jury was communicating with someone not on the jury during deliberations, two things are possible:

1. it was the first time that the jury person communicated with the friend (which should have sent the friend into shock), or
2. the jury person was updating the friend on the latest developments.

If it was the latter, that would mean that the person on the jury was regularly communicating with the friend about the trial. That's problematic.

Oh, okay. I totally misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying discussions amongst jurors. Instead you were saying this supposed juror's alleged discussions outside the jury.

 

[otto]

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

Absolutely ... a fully transparent investigation is required.

 

[HarleyP]

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.

Ok, I understand now. Ooops, sorry. Yes, sadly that is my fear too. If they're willing to do A, maybe they'd do B too.

On it's face, the FB post seems relatively innocent and not influencing outcome. Even though there probably isn't anything to it, the mere fact the judge really downplayed it was a bit disturbing to me.

A lot of people, particularly the legal community, were surprised by the verdict and IMO NC would be best served by a more thorough than perhaps necessary investigation so to put all questions to rest. I don't want to see this, or any verdict even remotely appearing to be tainted. Eliminate all doubt.

Maybe they should tell juries they are subject to random investigation (kinda like random drug testing by employers)

 

[Kellbell]

Jury misconduct does not always mean a mistrial will be ordered, more likely not. The judge must find that this action made by a juror had a direct bias towards the verdict reached. At the end of the day he must form an opinion of the facts of the investigation. I don't think he will find that it changed the decisions made by this jury. I personally think that the judge formed his opinion about Jason Young a long time ago, however,I do feel that he will do what is right by law.

 

[otto]

Didn't the judge say somthing to the jurors about media and integrity at the time he thanked them? He already knew that there was a question of misconduct on Tuesday morning and the verdict was Tuesday afternoon. Is that clip posted somewhere? I'd like to listen to that again. I do recall that at the time I thought he belabored the point.

 

[otto]

Ok, I understand now. Ooops, sorry. Yes, sadly that is my fear too. If they're willing to do A, maybe they'd do B too.

On it's face, the FB post seems relatively innocent and not influencing outcome. Even though there probably isn't anything to it, the mere fact the judge really downplayed it was a bit disturbing to me.

A lot of people, particularly the legal community, were surprised by the verdict and IMO NC would be best served by a more thorough than perhaps necessary investigation so to put all questions to rest. I don't want to see this, or any verdict even remotely appearing to be tainted. Eliminate all doubt.

Maybe they should tell juries they are subject to random investigation (kinda like random drug testing by employers)

I'm not convinced that a juror, possibly communicating with an outside party regarding the case while sitting on a jury, would not influence the outcome. That person's one vote could change the outcome. If that one vote was influenced by an outside party that may have partcipated in discussions regarding the case, there's a problem.

Points that were surprising, coming from the jury, were that they could tell the child had been cleaned up and no one but her father would do that, that since he could not produce his clothes (prove he is innocent), he must have used them to murder his wife.

One of the more interesting remarks from jurors was that because the size 10 print was so clear (heel included), it must have been staged. That was straight off a program discussed here last weeked. Dateline or 48 Hours had a program about a son that murdered his parents. The son, a size 10 shoe, wore a size 12 shoe and because the prints were so obvious, investigators assumed it was staged. It was. I was surprised to hear that from a juror. As I watched the program, starting with the staged prints, I wondered if any jurors were watching it.

Could social media gossip become the downfall of the integrity of the legal system?

 

[Kellbell]

It amazes me that cell phones are allowed in the hands of jurors. When I was a jury member we were not even able to bring a phone into the courthouse period. I don't understand with all the media over the past six years that this case received. How was a jury from the area was even chosen? Should have had a change of venue or at least bring people in that had no clue about the case. (not that it worked in the CA case). Even the judge I really believe should have recused himself, not saying he didn't abide by the law, but he precided over the first trial, the civil case and retrial. I am sure that he was biased just a tad, he is human after all and everyone wanted to see justice work. With that said, I don't believe that he would have let some of the testimony in if he had no prejudice. If you cross all your t's and dot your it's then you don't have to worry about this kind of thing happening.

 

[LaMer]

OMG! Was away most of the day and what a shock to read this!!! :banghead:

I don't believe it, thus I will sleep better tonight!

FB is a "beast in itself!" Or can be!

Unbelievable what some post there!

 

[otto]

Jury misconduct does not always mean a mistrial will be ordered, more likely not. The judge must find that this action made by a juror had a direct bias towards the verdict reached. At the end of the day he must form an opinion of the facts of the investigation. I don't think he will find that it changed the decisions made by this jury. I personally think that the judge formed his opinion about Jason Young a long time ago, however,I do feel that he will do what is right by law.

He had formed his opinion at the time of the lawsuit and "slayer" designation. The judge would have to assume that the juror would have concluded guilty or not guilty independant of what appears to be a keen interest in the case, perhaps from a time prior to trial. If it's true that if the juror had no prior interest or knowledge of the case, that juror's opinion would be objective. If it's not true and the juror did have prior interest and knowledge of the case, that juror should have been dismissed during jury selection.

I thought the first trial deliberations were prematurely ended when they moved from 6-6 to 8-4 not guilty. I always wondered why he didn't tell them to go back and try harder.

 

[Kellbell]

I'm not convinced that a juror, possibly communicating with an outside party regarding the case while sitting on a jury, would not influence the outcome. That person's one vote could change the outcome. If that one vote was influenced by an outside party that may have partcipated in discussions regarding the case, there's a problem.

Points that were surprising, coming from the jury, were that they could tell the child had been cleaned up and no one but her father would do that, that since he could not produce his clothes (prove he is innocent), he must have used them to murder his wife.

One of the more interesting remarks from jurors was that because the size 10 print was so clear (heel included), it must have been staged. That was straight off a program discussed here last weeked. Dateline or 48 Hours had a program about a son that murdered his parents. The son, a size 10 shoe, wore a size 12 shoe and because the prints were so obvious, investigators assumed it was staged. It was. I was surprised to hear that from a juror. As I watched the program, starting with the staged prints, I wondered if any jurors were watching it.

Could social media gossip become the downfall of the integrity of the legal system?

Yes, I saw that 48 hours episode in fact I know one of the girls interviewed, Katy Flash, poor girl had no clue meeting someone on Craigslist could have gotten her killed. He took her to a hotel and baricaded the door and she honestly didn't think there was anything strange about that, good lord, is all I can say about that...

 

[Kellbell]

Didn't the judge say somthing to the jurors about media and integrity at the time he thanked them? He already knew that there was a question of misconduct on Tuesday morning and the verdict was Tuesday afternoon. Is that clip posted somewhere? I'd like to listen to that again. I do recall that at the time I thought he belabored the point.

He may have known because I saw people commenting on the GoLo about these comments before lunch yesterday.

 

[otto]

It amazes me that cell phones are allowed in the hands of jurors. When I was a jury member we were not even able to bring a phone into the courthouse period. I don't understand with all the media over the past six years that this case received. How was a jury from the area was even chosen? Should have had a change of venue or at least bring people in that had no clue about the case. (not that it worked in the CA case). Even the judge I really believe should have recused himself, not saying he didn't abide by the law, but he precided over the first trial, the civil case and retrial. I am sure that he was biased just a tad, he is human after all and everyone wanted to see justice work. With that said, I don't believe that he would have let some of the testimony in if he had no prejudice. If you cross all your t's and dot your it's then you don't have to worry about this kind of thing happening.

It's a bit like letting students have a cell phone during a final exam and telling them not to use it. Jurors could be issued a box when they enter the jury room and all electronic devices could be put in their box. They should have access to their boxes for emergencies and family contact, but not otherwise. Are we sure this happened in the jury room ... or at lunch? Was she just texting a friend to let her know when she'd be free, or that she'd be free soon?

Quite right. Six year of media coverage and curious onlookers from Raliegh to various parts of the world. A Judge that presided over all trials related to Jason and then the decision to allow the daycare testimony with a stipulation that helped the prosecution. The best way for the defense to refute the testimony about spanking was to include the testimony about fruit rollups and cows, but that was excluded.

 

[Kellbell]

He had formed his opinion at the time of the lawsuit and "slayer" designation. The judge would have to assume that the juror would have concluded guilty or not guilty independant of what appears to be a keen interest in the case, perhaps from a time prior to trial. If it's true that if the juror had no prior interest or knowledge of the case, that juror's opinion would be objective. If it's not true and the juror did have prior interest and knowledge of the case, that juror should have been dismissed during jury selection.

I thought the first trial deliberations were prematurely ended when they moved from 6-6 to 8-4 not guilty. I always wondered why he didn't tell them to go back and try harder.

I personally think that most of these jurors had knowledge of this case prior to being chosen. Not to mention after they were picked prolly went home and looked it up. Most of them most likely watched the entire first trial online. There was nothing stopping them from doing so, only their own conscience.

 

[otto]

Yes, I saw that 48 hours episode in fact I know one of the girls interviewed, Katy Flash, poor girl had no clue meeting someone on Craigslist could have gotten her killed. He took her to a hotel and baricaded the door and she honestly didn't think there was anything strange about that, good lord, is all I can say about that...

I don't think that was the same case. The one I'm thinking about involved a Mormon family that did well in real estate (I think it was on Friday night). The son grew up to be a professional gambler ... in debt. He murdered his parents with a souvenir sword that was kept in the hall closet. He staged the crime by wear shoes two sizes too big. Because the bloody prints were clear and plentiful, police concluded they were staged. The jury apparently concluded that because the size 10 shoe bloody print was the more prominent of the two, that meant it was staged ... as that was the point about the single set of prints in the other case, especially a clearly visible heel.

 

[Kellbell]

It's a bit like letting students have a cell phone during a final exam and telling them not to use it. Jurors could be issued a box when they enter the jury room and all electronic devices could be put in their box. They should have access to their boxes for emergencies and family contact, but not otherwise. Are we sure this happened in the jury room ... or at lunch? Was she just texting a friend to let her know when she'd be free, or that she'd be free soon?

Quite right. Six year of media coverage and curious onlookers from Raliegh to various parts of the world. A Judge that presided over all trials related to Jason and then the decision to allow the daycare testimony with a stipulation that helped the prosecution. The best way for the defense to refute the testimony about spanking was to include the testimony about fruit rollups and cows, but that was excluded.

The juror Wral interviewed said phones had to be turned off while deliberating but they could use them at breaks and lunch. Either way they had access to them which is so rediculous.

 

[otto]

He may have known because I saw people commenting on the GoLo about these comments before lunch yesterday.

I read that on Monday morning the facebook person was contacted by the news site and Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning, the Judge knew. The letter from the Judge is dated Mar 6 ... today.

 

[otto]

I personally think that most of these jurors had knowledge of this case prior to being chosen. Not to mention after they were picked prolly went home and looked it up. Most of them most likely watched the entire first trial online. There was nothing stopping them from doing so, only their own conscience.

They probably did. It could be as innocent as the juror contacting a friend to indicate that a decision was close. It could also be a juror with a friend that has closely followed the case and has inadvertently influenced that juror's opinion.

 

[otto]

The juror Wral interviewed said phones had to be turned off while deliberating but they could use them at breaks and lunch. Either way they had access to them which is so rediculous.

Pre-portable phones, I'm guessing that jurors took their duties very seriously and didn't ask if they could to go to work, didn't watch TV, didn't read the newspaper, there was no portable computer, didn't have contact with people that were unaware of their duty ... a different mentality completely.