Michelle Young

Young jury foreman: No doubt there was reasonable doubt

Posted June 29, 2011

— The foreman of the jury who heard testimony in the murder trial of Jason Young says he doesn't plan to speak about the case.

"There was no doubt in my mind that there was reasonable doubt in this case," George DeMartz said Wednesday, declining further comment about the nearly three-week trial.

A Superior Court judge on Monday declared the case a mistrial after the jury became deadlocked in an 8-4 vote in favor of acquitting Young, who is accused of beating his pregnant wife, Michelle Young, to death.

She was found dead, facedown, in the couple's Wake County home on Nov. 3, 2006. Jason Young has said he was out of town at the time and has denied the charge against him.

It's unclear whether Jason Young will face another trial. Prosecutors are expected to re-evaluate the case before making a decision, Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby said Tuesday.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • spookems Jul 5, 2011

    Reasonable doubt will always exist in this case. The prosecutions best strategy is to do what they did in the Cooper case. Tell potential jurors that this time it will be long and drawn out like the Cooper trial. That will eliminate a majority of men whose home and family depend on a full time income. That leaves the majority as women like the Cooper trial.

    Too many individuals belief that if the police charge someone and the grand jury indicts them that they are guilty. That is far from true. LE is clearing an open case as in the Alan Gell, Greg Taylor, and Daryl Hunt cases. LE hides and obscures evidence or in some cases simply destroys it to make their case.

    The grand jury only hears the side of LE in which evidence of guilt is placed before them. There is no defense argument.

    It is troubling that so many simply trust LE because they were taught to do that as children. LE has shown that blind trust in them is dangerous.

  • tarheel86 Jul 4, 2011

    Way way way way too many circumstances line up pointing to Jason. BottomLine

    I so agree with this statement! There are posters on here who say there is no evidence against JY.

    Then where is the shirt he was wearing in the HI video around midnight? It was never found - not in his luggage, not in his vehicle, not left in the hotel room, and he wasn't wearing it when he arrived at his mother's house.

    JY would not have gotten rid of that shirt unless he had a nefarious reason for doing so. BH should have nailed him about this when she had the chance when JY was on the witness stand.

  • Bartmeister Jul 1, 2011

    Another trial = more money spent for the same apparent majority verdict... NOT GUILTY

  • dollibug Jul 1, 2011

    +++Conviction coming in retrial - just my guess.

    I find it quite interesting that there are people here who think that if another trial is conducted...that another pool of jurors will find some magical evidence which will make a BIG DIFFERENCE....so I would like to know...exactly what EVIDENCE do you think just might change someone else's mind...it was 8 to 4...so these people knew that there was REASONABLE DOUBT...and would NOT AGREE to convict JY...and personally....I do not think that different eyes on the same EVIDENCE will make a difference...I would also bet that the 4 people who thought he was guilty...had made up his/her mind...before the trial even started...some people can not see what is in front of their own face...and with some people, regardless of the FACTS...they never change...

  • BigTenFan Jul 1, 2011

    @BottomLine - I did not SPIN your comments. You are the one who said "Hope they try it a 2nd time with competent jurors (remember one couldn't find a way to the courthouse also)", If i read the trial doc's correctly, the Pros and Def took about 6 days to pick the jurors that served. Are you saying that after all of that and the size of the jury pool that they couldn't find "Competent" jurors?

    Let me ask both you and ECCGC a question - IF the jury had found JY guilty, would they be "BRILLIANT" jurors?

    It is amazing to me how everyone can sit on the sidelines, read a bit of stuff off the web and BASH people who were randomly selected to serve in a CIVIC duty?

    These folks that were on the jury were selected because the knew relatively little about the case and were Instructed to take the Evidence that was presented to them and make a decision that a reasonable person would make. There were too many holes in what was presented during trial for a 12-0 decision of either G or NG.

  • DonnaB Jun 30, 2011

    I believe a jury foreman would carry a lot of weight and would more than likely influence others. Hope the DA's don't give up on this one. - eccgc

    I have to repeat an earlier observation: ECCGC, the jury has spoken, and they could not agree. Why can't you accept that? The only juries that are correct are the ones that agree with you?

    As for jury foremen: BottomLine, since the foreman isn't selected until deliberations begin, how did you know during the trial that the foreman was inattentive? Any teacher will tell you that students who "appear" to be daydreaming are often the ones who catch every word spoken.

    When a jury deliberates, it's the foreman's job to make certain that EVERYONE gets to speak. Every juror has an opportunity to state their opinion and ask questions. EVERY juror has a chance to influence the rest of the panel. The foreman may be one of the 2 people who switched from G to NG and was himself swayed by someone else.

    Conviction coming in retrial - just my guess.

  • canucmypointofview Jun 30, 2011

    fromageball & dollibug - AMEN!

  • fromageball Jun 30, 2011

    Willoughby ran unopposed last time(and I think he's been unopposed for awhile) - we need to find someone to run against him.

  • dollibug Jun 30, 2011

    +++++Vote out district attorney Willoughby. Vote for a mayor and city council that will investigate and take corrective action regarding Chief Bazemore and the CPD.


  • BottomLine Jun 30, 2011

    @ BigTenFan

    Please don't spin my comments. I'm not an expert, nor did I declare to be, only sharing my visual observation of the jury you wouldn't see had you been there or if you were. I'm very clear on the legal systems. I won't share my resume, but have successfully worked in these areas before. If you've served as a juror, experience could suggest there can be influence exercised within the juror room and by the foreman. Thats it ... we'll see what happens during the 2nd round. If you want some entertainment, and want to see first hand posturing show up when the next round of jurors are interviewed ... you'll get a good clue of the next trial based on those questions presented by the prosecution. Good luck to you,