State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-15-2012

[Cammy]

And all that tells us is... whoever took the drawers out of the jewelry box had on gloves. Yes or no?

Not really..........

 

[Boodles]

Yes, I believe it is by order of the AG.

Please link source. Saying blood spatter analysis is no longer allowed in NC is a very strong statement.

 

[dgfred]

Unfortunately, we have had far too many people convicted of crimes they did not commit. If I were truly innocent, I sure would take my lawyer's advice no matter how much I wanted to talk.

JMO

Well that is your right, myself I would do absolutely anything to help find the killer(s). Just because it is the lawyer's 'advice' doesn't necessarily make it right in all instances IMO.

 

[gritguy]

Not true. The jury is given instructions and they are required to abide by those instructions.

There are no "rights to mankind" in our constitution. Jason invoked his constitutional right to silence. I respect his decision and so must the jury.

JMO

This is wrong too.

Could you cite the jury instruction that will be used in this case?

NC Gen Stat 8-54 says in part, "In the trial of all indictments, complaints, or other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes, offenses or misdemeanors, the person so charged is, at his own request, but not otherwise, a competent witness, and his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him. But every such person examined as a witness shall be subject to cross‑ examination as other witnesses."

The way it works is the state should not present evidence of his invoking right to counsel, not that they can and the jury will be instructed to disregard it. The general instruction, founded on the statute above, concerns testimony at trial, not an invocation of rights outside trial that should not be introduced.

The fact, if the defendant chooses so , that the defendant does not testify at the trial is obvious to the jury hence the instruction. The outside of court invocation should not be introduced to the jury.

 

[MyBelle]

So you are saying if a juror believes that his refusal to help LE in any form is a sign of guilt, they rule against him, that they have to tell anyone that they thought this and was one of the reasons they voted to convict him. They have to do no such thing. A juror can make up their own mind, regardless of instructions to abide by this or that rule of law. When do they have to say this was ONE of their own personal reasons? Who will know if they do not?

The jurors all have to follow the judge's instructions. If he gives an instruction about how they must treat his silence (as he did last time), they--as a group--must abide by it. This Judge has several alternates to replace any juror not willing to follow instructions.

Perhaps one of the board's certified legal experts can expand so that you can better understand it.

JMO

 

[3doglady]

It was 31 degrees outside.

What's 31 degrees if you are going to murder your child's mother and leave her in the house alone with the body?

 

[Cammy]

Day over!

 

[dgfred]

Once again... who or why would they have to tell this was a reason they found guilt???

They don't have to at any point. They can just keep that little fact in their mind.

 

[MyBelle]

Adias sneaker taken from Jason's closet?

what? Do tell...

 

[Bottle Cap]

Unfortunately, we have had far too many people convicted of crimes they did not commit. If I were truly innocent, I sure would take my lawyer's advice no matter how much I wanted to talk.

JMO

JY's situation might well be termed "upholding the Constitution", but it doesn't make him a hero. It wouldn't be the first time a coward has hidden behind the law.

 

[dgfred]

The jurors all have to follow the judge's instructions. If he gives an instruction about how they must treat his silence (as he did last time), they--as a group--must abide by it. This Judge has several alternates to replace any juror not willing to follow instructions.

Perhaps one of the board's certified legal experts can expand so that you can better understand it.

JMO

So you think a juror will stand up and say 'I don't care what you say judge, I am gonna use that fact as a sign of guilt'???

I understand it just fine... but thanks anyway.

 

[gritguy]

Expanding on it as an attorney, I think it is good to show what will likely be the jury instructions rather than we suppose what they were or are, by reference to the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions.

That's my opinion, that we should, to the degree possible, not misstate the law or criminal procedure because it confuses people.

 

[Cammy]

What's 31 degrees if you are going to murder your child's mother and leave her in the house alone with the body?

I don't agree, sorry !

 

[3doglady]

I didn't hear that CY's dna was on the faucet either but the DNA expert put me to sleep.

 

[octobermoon]

Hi I am new to WS been reading alot of catchup, You all sound like you know what you are talking about, so hopefully you don't roll eyes at me haha..My question is when does LE think JY got back to the Hampton Inn that morning, I also read a worker at the HI found the rock holding open the door, what time was that..Thanks for any info..

:welcome:

 

[Cammy]

what? Do tell...

I didn't get it all, but something about how she sent the dna to check for offenders in NC, after it didn't match JY.

Sorry, Belle.

 

[fran]

This is wrong too.

Could you cite the jury instruction that will be used in this case?

NC Gen Stat 8-54 says in part, "In the trial of all indictments, complaints, or other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes, offenses or misdemeanors, the person so charged is, at his own request, but not otherwise, a competent witness, and his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him. But every such person examined as a witness shall be subject to cross‑ examination as other witnesses."

The way it works is the state should not present evidence of his invoking right to counsel, not that they can and the jury will be instructed to disregard it. The general instruction, founded on the statute above, concerns testimony at trial, not an invocation of rights outside trial that should not be introduced.

The fact, if the defendant chooses so , that the defendant does not testify at the trial is obvious to the jury hence the instruction. The outside of court invocation should not be introduced to the jury.

It seemed to me they did bring up JY's lack of talking to LE after MY was murdered, up and to the time of his testimony at trial. During closing they even gave the specific # of days from when MY was murdered, and the pros FINALLY heard his whereabouts, story, alibi..............

So, did he open himself up to this being brought into the first trial by testifying? IF so, does that mean they can bring it up here, during the retrial?

TIA
fran

 

[Cammy]

I didn't hear that CY's dna was on the faucet either but the DNA expert put me to sleep.

Me either , maybe there is a link?

and, all expert testimony can do that, lol.

 

[gritguy]

The jury is required to provide the presumption of innocence.

"Acquittal" isn't an option on the ballot.

JMO

Wow. No time to correct all these things; headed out for the evening.

 

[Cammy]

It seemed to me they did bring up JY's lack of talking to LE after MY was murdered, up and to the time of his testimony at trial. During closing they even gave the specific # of days from when MY was murdered, and the pros FINALLY heard his whereabouts, story, alibi..............

So, did he open himself up to this being brought into the first trail by testifying? IF so, does that mean they can bring it up here, during the retrial?

TIA
fran

Yep, pretty sure they can and will.