State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-23-2012

[Talina]

I've gotten the feeling or impression throughout this trial that there must be hearings heard outside the jury presence and outside of camera view so it is very possible that there was a hearing with the DT objecting to this testimony and the judge's ruling, etc that we are not privy to at this point. The DT objection was very short and sweet prior to this testimony and the judge's response was more of a formality. Sure seemed to me like this had already been argued and ruled on and the performance today was just for the record. etc. but both sides already knew what the ruling was going to be.

IMO

 

[cityslick]

I'm really surprised they are allowing this. How is this not prejudicial, no matter the special instruction?

 

[Just the Fax]

Jason Young declared the SLAYER


Jason Young brutally murdered MY at their residence.

 

[Tipstaff]

Maybe more of an appellate issue later on, should there be a conviction?

I see the day care center testimony and the gas station attendant testimony as appellate issues also.......

Many convictions have been overturned because of faulty eye witness testimony.

I am confident the defense will rebound.....but, still this looks bad the way it is coming in.

imo

Not for me Day Care and gas station attendant was just part of the trial. The term slayer seems so prejudicial just surprised it got in.

 

[dmaxphil]

It seems like Jason had a right to remain silent, but when he did that there were consequences ... and now that is being used against him again. He remained silent, a judgement was made against him, now that judgement, even though it wasn't based on fault, is being used to kind of preclude the criminal process and label him as already guilty?

I'm not making sense, but this doesn't make sense to me.

This is very interesting. Definitely, IMO, something that could impact jurors. Kind of a low blow I guess, but by far the most ballsy thing the prosecution team has done to date.

 

[gritguy]

I've gotten the feeling or impression throughout this trial that there must be hearings heard outside the jury presence and outside of camera view so it is very possible that there was a hearing with the DT objecting to this testimony and the judge's ruling, etc that we are not privy to at this point. The DT objection was very short and sweet prior to this testimony and the judge's response was more of a formality. Sure seemed to me like this had already been argued and ruled on and the performance today was just for the record. etc. but both sides already knew what the ruling was going to be.

IMO

That is often done.

This is, IMO, the most controversial evidence, limiting instruction aside, put forth so far. Maybe judge will repeat the limiting instruction at the end so I can catch the reasoning.

 

[dgfred]

I'm really surprised they are allowing this. How is this not prejudicial, no matter the special instruction?

Yeah, but like Cammy, Wendy and otto... there is another way of looking at it.

 

[Talina]

It seems like Jason had a right to remain silent, but when he did that there were consequences ... and now that is being used against him again. He remained silent, a judgement was made against him, now that judgement, even though it wasn't based on fault, is being used to kind of preclude the criminal process and label him as already guilty?

I'm not making sense, but this doesn't make sense to me.

IMO, there is a right to remain silent but that does not include totally ignoring a civil lawsuit. You still have to answer the lawsuit, if to do nothing more than to claim your right to remain silent (see Casey Anthony's civil lawsuits for reference)

He apparently chose to totally ignore the civil lawsuits altogether. Not filing any answer whatsoever.

 

[dmaxphil]

BTW, how many references to Slayer are we up to now? Oh there's another one.

 

[nursebeeme]

It seems like Jason had a right to remain silent, but when he did that there were consequences ... and now that is being used against him again. He remained silent, a judgement was made against him, now that judgement, even though it wasn't based on fault, is being used to kind of preclude the criminal process and label him as already guilty?

I'm not making sense, but this doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think it is being used against him...

it may "work" against him but you know it was his personal choice..

and now the jury can see this choice that he made...

(and iirc the instruction was that it did not mean that he was guilty of a crime pertaining to the current trial)


:twocents:

 

[Cammy]

I'm really surprised they are allowing this. How is this not prejudicial, no matter the special instruction?

Agree.

Could be a conflict of interest at some point?

Jason was only named slayer by default.

 

[otto]

This is very interesting. Definitely, IMO, something that could impact jurors. Kind of a low blow I guess, but by far the most ballsy thing the prosecution team has done to date.

It does seem like a low blow ... could someone on the jury not interpret this as the State and family hounding Young endlessly?

On the one hand, they're arguing he murdered for money, but at the same time he didn't fight to prevent being fined 15 miilion.

 

[gritguy]

I'm really surprised they are allowing this. How is this not prejudicial, no matter the special instruction?

NC Rule 403 talks about how to judge evidence as to unfair prejudice. EDIT: copy of it in the legal thread.

All evidence by design, naturally, is meant to be prejudicial so no surprise there, but there is such a thing as the prejudicial effect outweighing the probative value.

 

[Cammy]

IMO, there is a right to remain silent but that does not include totally ignoring a civil lawsuit. You still have to answer the lawsuit, if to do nothing more than to claim your right to remain silent (see Casey Anthony's civil lawsuits for reference)

He apparently chose to totally ignore the civil lawsuits altogether. Not filing any answer whatsoever.

Jason had an attorney at the time, don't you think he was advising him?

 

[Madeleine74]

That $15.5M monetary award is now up to well over $18M with interest, btw.

 

[Talina]

NC Rule 403 talks about how to judge evidence as to unfair prejudice. EDIT: copy of it in the legal thread.

All evidence by design, naturally, is meant to be prejudicial so no surprise there, but there is such a thing as the prejudicial effect outweighing the probative value.

Yes, and the Judge said that he felt this was more probative than prejudicial under that same rule. That is the rule DT stood up and said when they objected.

 

[dgfred]

It does seem like a low blow ... could someone on the jury not interpret this as the State and family hounding Young endlessly?

On the one hand, they're arguing he murdered for money, but at the same time he didn't fight to prevent being fined 15 miilion.

Once again the other side- Wouldn't it be foolish for the State NOT to bring it up/in if they can?

 

[borndem]

Just for the halibut, here is a bit o' info on the familiar phrase, "Rule 403"

please see http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403 for the complete discussion and an amendment to this "rule."

About LII / Get the law / Find a lawyer / Legal Encyclopedia / Help Out

Federal Rules of Evidence

• about
• search

Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

 

[Turnadot]

On one hand I'm glad the PT is using this against Jason, on the other, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

 

[Cammy]

Dang, Cummings is so slow.