Verdict Watch

[evelyn24]

Good, so now the State finally knows JYs defense. They can get him on the re-do. I'm glad he has to stay in jail while awaiting re-trial.

Yep. The conviction rate is very high on a redo.

 

[DogWood]

If there is a retrial, do you guys think the salesman (JY) will testify again?

 

[Just the Fax]

Wral tweeted there will be a bond hearing in addition to the status hearing on july 20.
Pat will need to post 10% of bail or attach real estate.

 

[Dkny]

No, they just need to different approach.
Paid $20, got $15 and no change?
Hmmm....they made no points about that very odd behavior.
He was in a big hurry to get back and the pumps were probably pumping slow.
They need to make it well known he made another cash gas buy later , because he had to. They just let the gas go and said in closing JLY just is showing you what he wants you to know. They need to show the $15 and strongly suggest he made another cash purchase in the amount he needed to cover the mileage. Let the jury use common sense at that point.

I did not watch all just JY and closings, did they ever bring up the ins policy/double idem which was a big motive in my opinion, did we ever find out the aff of the neighbor that was stipped too ?i would have suggested the cigs, tooth and hair was a plant as well I could see him bagging a tooth, cigs and hair to plant. jmo

 

[Skittles]

ABC Feed page was down by 5:04pm. :-(

I still have the feed. Somebody walked by the camera a minute or so ago.

 

[Skittles]

WRAL is taking questions for the 7 pm special via twitter:

"Questions about the Jason Young mistrial? WRAL-TV will have a former assistant DA on tonight at 7. Submit q's here using hashtag #youngtrial"

 

[Madeleine74]

Skittles, what is the URL? The one posted earlier came back as invalid.

---> this one is invalid: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/livenow?id=8175997

 

[Skittles]

Skittles, what is the URL? The one posted earlier came back as invalid.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/livenow?id=8175997

I never shut it down. Maybe you can't do a new connection?

 

[Madeleine74]

That must be it. I shut down that window and upon trying to reconnect, it won't allow a new connection. DARN!

 

[DogWood]

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/livenow?id=8175997

I never shut it down. Maybe you can't do a new connection?

I never shut it down either and it's still running for me.

 

[evelyn24]

It amazes me how juries are dumb when they deadlock or do not give the right verdict. But, the same jury would have been brilliant and perceptive had they delivered a guilty verdict. Bashing jury members seems like a desperate attempt to explain what happened. MOO

On retrial, I agree with ncsu. She hurt the prosecution at the end of the day. IMO

Eh..to me it makes no sense to have blanket praise for them either, as if they're brilliant/smart or honorable for no other reason than they served on a jury.

Jurors are just people and like every other group of people you're bound to find one or two "dopes" in that group. I sat on three jury trials and I indeed had the misfortune of having a few less than intelligent jurors to deal with during deliberations. No common sense what so ever, or they had some weird agenda against the LE or state.
Anyway we have no idea what went on during the deliberations to say what's what in this case. Maybe some of them had good reasons for a NG vote, or maybe their reasons would make us say scratch our heads and say; "WHAT THE HECK"!
Who knows.

 

[BrownRice]

So the only ones who know on the 8/4 vote are the jurors.

Hmmmm.............

Interesting,
fran

Are you saying the attys don't even know? Where'd you hear that? That's amazing.

 

[marspiter]

Eh..to me it makes no sense to have blanket praise for them either, as if they're brilliant/smart or honorable for no other reason than they served on a jury.

Jurors are just people and like every other group of people you're bound to find one or two "dopes" in that group. I sat on three jury trials and I indeed had the misfortune of having a few less than intelligent jurors to deal with during deliberations. No common sense what so ever, or they had some weird agenda against the LE or state.
Anyway we have no idea what went on during the deliberations to say what's what in this case. Maybe some of them had good reasons for a NG vote, or maybe their reasons would make us say scratch our heads and say; "WHAT THE HECK"!
Who knows.

I think the main thing about calling the jury any names is that it is against TOS. Also as has been said the jury only has the info that was presented to them and was not presented with all the evidence that people on WS have been privy too.

As I said earlier in this thread. I myself haven't followed this case too much but from the little I did see the prosecution had some major holes in it's case that cast reasonable doubt. Mr. Young imho is more then likely guilty but the problem is the SA had some hurdles trying to prove that with the evidence. Such as the various unidentified (didn't match the Young's) DNA/hair/fingerprints/shoe prints ect. Those little things can be huge for a jury in making it's decision.

 

[DogWood]

AL is in front of the camera again.

 

[Madeleine74]

AL is in front of the camera again.

Tease!!


BTW, on the other news-related site that I'm not naming, someone posted they heard it was 8 NG to 4 G. However, until we hear some kind of confirmation...just consider that a rumor.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think the main thing about calling the jury any names is that it is against TOS. Also as has been said the jury only has the info that was presented to them and was not presented with all the evidence that people on WS have been privy too.

As I said earlier in this thread. I myself haven't followed this case too much but from the little I did see the prosecution had some major holes in it's case that cast reasonable doubt. Mr. Young imho is more then likely guilty but the problem is the SA had some hurdles trying to prove that with the evidence. Such as the various unidentified (didn't match the Young's) DNA/hair/fingerprints/shoe prints ect. Those little things can be huge for a jury in making it's decision.

Those "little things" should not have mattered.
The judge said there could be evidence of an accomplice, but said not to discount JLY if they believed he was also there. Seems they missed that little point.

 

[JiminWilton]

No, they just need to different approach.
Paid $20, got $15 and no change?
Hmmm....they made no points about that very odd behavior.
He was in a big hurry to get back and the pumps were probably pumping slow.
They need to make it well known he made another cash gas buy later , because he had to. They just let the gas go and said in closing JLY just is showing you what he wants you to know. They need to show the $15 and strongly suggest he made another cash purchase in the amount he needed to cover the mileage. Let the jury use common sense at that point.

If you leave your confirmation bias aside a moment, and without making any strong suggestions that are not evidence, please place your prosecutor's cap on your head and talk me beyond this reasonable doubt.

ASSUME for the moment that Jason made that late night round trip to Raleigh. With stipulated mileage numbers, and assuming the Explorer was indeed averaging 19.5 mpg, the defense numbers suggested that it would have been out of fuel 18 miles shy of King.

Point 1. Had you murdered someone and were desperately seeking your alibi, and your fuel light was blinking like mad and had been for the last twenty miles, would you push on to King? With all the refueling opportunities along the way, wouldn't you have stopped not twenty miles shy, but 30 or 40 miles shy of King? You would be in a heap of bad stuff were you to run out of gasoline and need help to do the borrow a gas can thing.

Point 2. Further assume that, despite the ID problems in King, he actually made a $15 purchase. Review the defense closing and listen carefully when counsel states that the Explorer would have had to average 38 mpg to make it to the next known refueling stop. Ask yourself... if this was so carefully planned, why didn't Jason stop 30 miles shy of King and purchase adequate fuel to make the next fuel stop?

Point 3. Rather than making that strong suggestion, which is not evidence, that Jason stopped yet again the morning after while en route to his appointment (this would be two very poorly planned fuel stops, one more than was needed and practical), offer evidence of additional fuel purchased. You want to convict someone on innuendo. Shame.

If you leave out the alleged Four Brothers purchased, you have to deal with the fuel mileage... and the Explorer cannot go from Raleigh to Hillsville and back to Hillsville and beyond without additional fuel. So the State must clear this mileage hurdle, and the King stop seems more like grasping at straws than providing clear evidence of guilt.

I am merely asking you to look at this from my perspective... We would have been locked in that jury room until Christmas had I been charged with deciding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And until the State can use REAL EVIDENCE to clear the mileage issue, they may as well save the money. I honestly think they never saw that alibi coming.

 

[DogWood]

Tease!!


BTW, on the other news-related site that I'm not naming, someone posted they heard it was 8 NG to 4 G. However, until we hear some kind of confirmation...just consider that a rumor.

It's really interesting. She just said she'll be retired before this will be retried - along with biting her nails.

She said they want her to go after the jurors tomorrow too...

Just for starters...

 

[borndem]

Two misc comments -- My :bud: and a question.

First, let me drag my poor beaten and dead horse :deadhorse: back into this thing: Some here feel that the 2 different shoe sizes were a problem for the jurors to overlook -- I can easily understand that because I don't think the ADAs did a good job of showing an alternative to a 2nd person in the house. This 2-perp possibility is largely due to the size 10's -- there were indeed 2 sets of footprints in blood. Hmmm, that's a problem for the prosecution..... What happened to the info that the pros received about the wearing of shoes (2 sizes) too small? The evidence showed JY's blistered and bruised foot: Think about it, jurors -- if you wore a shoe that was 2 sizes too small for 30--60 minutes, what do you think your foot would look like? (To me, that casts doubt on a 2nd person, folks...).

Second -- So, we have a mistrial on this one. Does that have any bearing on the status of the defendant's being held in jail, or is it like this first trial never happened (and I use "never happened" ONLY in the case of his jail status)? Why should or could his being held be affected. Having never seen this before, I just don't know.
What say ye, those who do know? And thanks.

 

[gracielee]

It's really interesting. She just said she'll be retired before this will be retried - along with biting her nails.

She said they want her to go after the jurors tomorrow too...

Just for starters...

Are you talking about AL? I didn't know she was retiring. Although I did wonder, after her third crime book and all. I hope she is going to write a lot more crime books, maybe some on the N.C. murdered children, especially Teghan Skiba.