State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-23-2012

[Tipstaff]

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.

Prior to allowing this testimony the judge did say it was valuable for the jury to have this information. He said this before the jury was brought in to court.

 

[Cammy]

I was starting to think they were going to go after Mrs. Young's land to satisfy the judgement.

They can't do that, can they?

I am also getting the Pros was pissed he made bail.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yeah indigent.

AFTER he had a $15.5M judgement over his head. DUH!

Assets minus Liabilities.

Civil judgement came down long before he was indicted for murder.

 

[Cammy]

The lawsuit was commenced before Jason was ever charged with any crime.

 

[Wolfpack]

The lawsuit was commenced before Jason was ever charged with any crime.

There's a 2 year statute of limitations on a wrongful death suit, so that's not surprising.

 

[nursebeeme]

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

Who knows Cammy. No one knows but Jason. Jason hired the attorney and takes advice from him... Clients can do what they want at the same time.. so who knows if he went against legal advice or with it. Either way, his lack of responding sure is coming back to bite him in the be-hind. So whether it was a legally guided choice or one he made on his own.. now the jury gets to see this choice that he made..

 

[Cammy]

There's a 2 year statute of limitations on a wrongful death suit, so that's not surprising.

I know, in some cases the statutes of limitations is one year.

 

[Cammy]

Who knows Cammy. No one knows but Jason. Jason hired the attorney and takes advice from him... Clients can do what they want at the same time.. so who knows if he went against legal advice or with it. Either way, his lack of responding sure is coming back to bite him in the be-hind. So whether it was a legally guided choice or one he made on his own.. now the jury gets to see this choice that he made..

I agree completely.

Jason should have answered the WDS and the custody hearings as well.

But, we also have to keep in mind, it is much easier to win a civil judgement than a criminal conviction,
the burden of proof is much lower.

 

[octobermoon]

Is he trying to say JY didn't have legal counsel?

 

[otto]

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

It might be muddying the water ... making it abundantly clear that Jason was targetted?

 

[Just the Fax]

That life insurance increase 2 months before her death is huge.
$4,000,000 is truly excessive for their situation.
Tells me the wheels started turning to hatch a murder plot in September.

Yes Cammy, we know Jay increased his too.
He is a pretty smart guy

 

[Boodles]

I think him playing the "Jason could not afford to respond" card is going to backfire. This clerk is awesome.

 

[gritguy]

Is he trying to say JY didn't have legal counsel?

Sounds like the c-x is going to say he may have defaulted b/c he didn't have money to pay lawyer to defend.

Still this is all: :what:

 

[gracielee]

Mr. Young may not *be* an attorney, but he sure made the most of 'not talking to anybody till he spoke to his attorney.'

 

[Turnadot]

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

Agreed.

As long as it's legally in bounds, they should use any evidence that shores up their case, IMO. Despite my initial discomfort, the bottom line is they are bringing justice to Michelle and her unborn baby.

 

[cityslick]

So, what is the PT trying to show here, outside of the fact that 'he would of responded if he wasn't guilty' angle, which I thought the jury can't consider anyway?

 

[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

Defense seems pretty well ready to cross, which supports your idea, IMO.

 

[octobermoon]

Sounds like the c-x is going to say he may have defaulted b/c he didn't have money to pay lawyer to defend.

Still this is all: :what:

It is shocking.

 

[nursebeeme]

Is he trying to say JY didn't have legal counsel?

now thaaat is funny

 

[fran]

Is his def attorney now going to IMPLY that he didn't answer the lawsuit because the court had access to the criminal investigation files?


fran