State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-24-2012

[gritguy]

Hm. OK, fair enough. It's America's business, not mine.

I'm not American, just a "dumb foreigner".

IMO

Hey, I've been outside the US to other countries and it seems like there's almost nothing in them but foreigners! :waitasec: :crazy:

No matter where you go, the law has to be written down, because if it always made sense no one would say, "That's crazy. Wait, sure enough it says it right here."

But the idea here is the jury is not required to abandon their judgment, or put themselves into a contorted legal mindset to judge the worth of evidence. Outside the relatively few instructions they get, they will decide it using the same sense, same logic, and same feelings they brought with them.

 

[Turnadot]

One has to use common sense everyday in life, why should that stop when one enters a courtroom in "America"?

BBM

It shouldn't. America can do whatever they want in their courtroom; it's none of my business.

 

[Just the Fax]

"In Wake County, prosecutors will have to figure out what to do about Deaver's bloodstain pattern analysis in the 2006 death of Michelle Young, a pregnant woman whose husband, Jason Young, is expected to be tried for her killing in May."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/21/1003842/doubt-spatters-old-cases.html#storylink=cpy

Did you see any blood stain analysis by Mr Deaver in this trial:waitasec:

 

[otto]

Yes otto, you have linked those articles about the SBI many times.
The blood spatter does not seem to be huge in this case, as it was pointed out there was no testimony (SBI or CCBI) describing a print blocking spatter.

I did find it funny that Collins is hinting SBI agent Greg Tart removed the pullover from the luggage when CCBI opened the luggage.:floorlaugh:

Tart did first claim that the gas attendant "couldn't be sure" about something ... meaning to me that she gave information but claimed she could not be sure about it. As it turned out, she didn't remember anything and that was underlined several times. There's a big difference between being unsure about specific information and not remembering anything. If Tart was willing to attempt to re-interpret the facts regarding witness testimony, why not with other evidence?

 

[Wolfpack]

I think the defense should call the attorney who represented Jason on the settlement agreement.

As a general rule, I think calling someone who represented the defendant in any matter would be a terrible idea. In NC, there's wide open cross examination, and if the attorney waives privilege for one portion of the testimony, they can be crossed on any aspect of their representation of the defendant.

 

[otto]

BBM

Very true, just as CY's DNA on the medicine dropper does not mean she was medicated that night.

I'm curious about the chair as well. Was it a random choice or did it look most like the weapon she saw?

IMO

If anyone here has a 2 year old, maybe show the child the image of the figure holding the chair and ask the child to describe what they see.

 

[Talina]

The defense made a request last week for Godwin to be heard and the Judge denied the request ... pending further evidence ... so the Judge may reverse that decision.

Wasn't the request by the DT that the hair supposedly found by Godwin that was later turned over to LE what the DT was asking that PT witness be allowed to be questioned about?

The judge ruled against that being introduced as evidence since the chain of custody and collection protocol had not been established.

He said he'd reserve later ruling on that if the DT wanted to present evidence to change his mind.

Unless there was other testimony that you are referring to?

 

[Turnadot]

Hey, I've been outside the US to other countries and it seems like there's almost nothing in them but foreigners! :waitasec: :crazy:

No matter where you go, the law has to be written down, because if it always made sense no one would say, "That's crazy. Wait, sure enough it says it right here."

But the idea here is the jury is not required to abandon their judgment, or put themselves into a contorted legal mindset to judge the worth of evidence. Outside the relatively few instructions they get, they will decide it using the same sense, same logic, and same feelings they brought with them.

I'm just going to say 'OK', and drop it. It's more prudent for me to agree to disagree.

 

[otto]

I think the defense should call the attorney who represented Jason on the settlement agreement.

That would be interesting, as it would reveal what she advised Jason regarding giving information related to the criminal investigation and how she advised him to proceed.

 

[Talina]

I think she could have her days confused. Do you really believe she invited this witness over that night for pizza and to watch a movie with her and CY, the same night she had invited SS to come over and watch Grey's Anatomy? I don't think so. MOO
BBL

So you think this witness lied when she said MY told her that SS would also be there that evening?

I do not believe she had her dates messed up. The date in question would definitely not be just another ordinary day.

ETA: Clarification that her testimony was that she remembered MY saying someone else (another friend) was going be there as we but didn't remember the name of the friend. (we know from other testimony that was SS)
Her testimony is that she remembers pizza being discussed, SS testified she brought Italian food.

 

[cityslick]

Did I hear correctly on HLN that court is out for the day and the defense will start on Monday? If true, seems a waste to blow off an entire afternoon.

One of the DT attorneys (think it was Collins) family members was in the hospital all night (he was also at the hospital) so he requested if the DT can present their case on monday, mainly due to lack of sleep. The judge granted his request.

 

[otto]

Did you see any blood stain analysis by Mr Deaver in this trial:waitasec:

The point, as I understood it, is that blood evidence as not admitted because it was originally analyzed by Deaver, and that it is only because it was analyzed by a dishonest analyst that sometimes endorsed prosecution theories that blood spatter evidence was not introduced during trial.

Therefore, Deaver's involvement in the case resulted in the absence of evidence related to blood spatter anlaysis. To suggest that Deaver had nothing to do with this case is incorrect.

 

[MyBelle]

As a general rule, I think calling someone who represented the defendant in any matter would be a terrible idea. In NC, there's wide open cross examination, and if the attorney waives privilege for one portion of the testimony, they can be crossed on any aspect of their representation of the defendant.

The prosecution just called the plaintiff's attorney. No reason not to call the opposing attorney. I think she can handle herself quite well and has nothing to hide.

JMO

 

[Just the Fax]

I think the defense should call the attorney who represented Jason on the settlement agreement.

I do too.
Alice Stubbs will not be a good witness for the defense.
She will answer questions truthfully.

 

[MyBelle]

That would be interesting, as it would reveal what she advised Jason regarding giving information related to the criminal investigation and how she advised him to proceed.

She can also confirm or deny the other attorney's claim that all the Fishers were seeking was visitation.

JMO

 

[Wolfpack]

The prosecution just called the plaintiff's attorney. No reason not to call the opposing attorney. I think she can handle herself quite well and has nothing to hide.

JMO

I understand that. But the Plaintiff's attorney has nothing to lose, and nothing to hold back. The defendant's attorney may. Regardless of guilt or innocence, I am sure that the defendant's attorney was party to some conversations that the defendant would not want repeated in his trial.

The defendant can testify to the contents of the separation agreement if he chooses to. Or even someone vicariously involved, like PY, etc.

 

[Just the Fax]

The point, as I understood it, is that blood evidence as not admitted because it was originally analyzed by Deaver, and that it is only because it was analyzed by a dishonest analyst that sometimes endorsed prosecution theories that blood spatter evidence was not introduced during trial.

Therefore, Deaver's involvement in the case resulted in the absence of evidence related to blood spatter anlaysis. To suggest that Deaver had nothing to do with this case is incorrect.

Well, not what I understood at all. Not sure why you are speculating?
You may recall Collins dropping his name in the first trial.
Deaver was never involved in any blood spatter analysis in this case.

 

[Wolfpack]

I do too.
Alice Stubbs will not be a good witness for the defense.
She will answer questions truthfully.

Exactly. I have a hard time imagining that any points she may win for the defense will outweigh the huge potential danger she puts her client in by getting on the stand. Because ultimately, it's HIS privilege to waive, and he's still her client in a sense.

 

[MyBelle]

I understand that. But the Plaintiff's attorney has nothing to lose, and nothing to hold back. The defendant's attorney may. Regardless of guilt or innocence, I am sure that the defendant's attorney was party to some conversations that the defendant would not want repeated in his trial.

The defendant can testify to the contents of the separation agreement if he chooses to. Or even someone vicariously involved, like PY, etc.

Huh? There was no separation agreement. She is a family law attorney who represented Jason on the child custody matter. She wasn't Jason's criminal attorney nor was she Pat Young's attorney afaik.

JMO

 

[otto]

She can also confirm or deny the other attorney's claim that all the Fishers were seeking was visitation.

JMO

She can also testify as to the cost of a protracted custody battle, give an opinion as to whether custody is all wrapped up and final after agreeing to the initial proposed interim agreement, whether she advised Jason that he would be subjected to interrogations related to the criminal investigation, whether questions asked during the custody deposition could be provided by investigators ... she can clarify whether it was in Jason's best interests to settle custody and revisit the situation once the criminal investigation was complete or fight it out to the bitter end in the middle of the criminal investigation. I don't think she can give an opinion about Jason's guilt in the criminal investigation as she was not retained in that capacity.