Michelle Young

Wake prosecutors say they will re-try Jason Young

Posted July 20, 2011

— Wake County prosecutors announced Wednesday that they plan to re-try a Raleigh man whose murder trial ended last month with a deadlocked jury.

Jason Young murder trial Full trial coverage

Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens declared a mistrial on June 27 after jurors were unable to decide whether Jason Young is guilty of first-degree murder in the beating death of his pregnant wife, Michelle Young.

Michelle Young, 29, was found facedown on the floor in the bedroom of the couple's Wake County home on Nov. 3, 2006.

A new trial date has been tentatively set for Oct. 10, and Stephens set a $900,000 secured bond in the case.

In asking for bond, Jason Young's defense attorney, Bryan Collins, said his client had only one infraction – for hoarding food – since his arrest in December 2009 and that he had no reason to flee.

"He has every reason to come back," Collins said.

Wake County Assistant District Attorney Howard Cummings, in response, reminded Stephens that the case involved “a very brutal murder of a fine person."

"The state's contention in this case is that some of the evidence involved has been disposed of, either by the defendant or by persons on his behalf," Cummings said.

Jason Young, 37, was in court Wednesday morning, as well as Michelle Young's mother, Linda Fisher, and sister, Meredith Fisher. Detective Richard Spivey, the lead investigator in the case, was also present.

Jason Young Jason Young will face re-trial

In a rare move, Jason Young testified during his trial that he was out of town at the time his wife was killed and that he had no involvement in her death.

Legal experts say his decision to testify could have been a factor in the hung jury.

Jurors deliberated for more than 12 hours before sending a note to Stephens that they were stuck at an 8-4 vote. It appeared by markings on the note that the jury had been leaning toward a not-guilty verdict.

Jurors have declined interviews about the case, but the jury foreman told WRAL News that there was no doubt to him that there was reasonable doubt in the case.

The state contended during the nearly three-week trial that Jason Young and his wife argued frequently and that he didn't want to be married but didn't want a divorce.

Prosecutors claim that he checked into a Virginia hotel on the night of Nov. 2, 2006, and drove 169 miles back to his home, killed his wife and drove back to the hotel.

Michelle Young's sister discovered her body and the Youngs' 2-year-old daughter, who was unharmed, inside the home after getting a voicemail from Jason Young asking her to go to the home to retrieve some documents from a printer.

Defense attorneys argued that someone else, possibly two people, killed Michelle Young, noting DNA evidence found inside the house didn't match Jason Young.

There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, his attorneys said. He didn't have time to commit the crime, and even circumstantial evidence showed that he didn't do it, they said.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • canucmypointofview Jul 28, 2011

    Congrats Jason out on bond!! There just may be justice in Wake County after all...

  • eccgc Jul 22, 2011

    Jason, we're looking forward to seeing you in court again soon!

  • abylelab -BT- Jul 22, 2011

    oh, there's plenty of room, i just wanted to get satisfaction over the eternal punishment

  • dollibug Jul 22, 2011

    I do not think it matters....there is room for them all...you think?

  • abylelab -BT- Jul 22, 2011

    which circle of hell did dante reserve for such sinners?

  • dollibug Jul 22, 2011

    And the sad thing about all of this....there are killers still on the loose...lurking around the cities....knowing that they were able to kill people and get by with it...they fooled everyone....BUT it is them who are having to carry a heavy burden around with them each and every day....those people who "participated into the railroading innocent people" will also have to live with what they have done....there will be a judgement day for everyone....so they might fool some of the people some of the time....but they will never fool GOD....and they will pay dearly for what they have done....as they not only killed someone...but they also allowed someone else to take the blame for what they are truly responsible for...so very sad...but this is the world that we live in...and people wonder why...

  • abylelab -BT- Jul 22, 2011

    yes dollibug, it appears we are now in a society where we just have to hold someone accountable, regardless of whether they actually are or not.

  • dollibug Jul 22, 2011

    So by Wake County DA approving another trial for JY...he is acknowledging that the thinks this jury made the wrong decision...that they should have found JY guilty...perhaps he should have told the prosecutors...find more evidence and when you do...then there can be another trial...ladies and gents, you have 3 years to "get it all together"...and you all failed to do your job here...there was NOT enough EVIDENCE, without reasonable doubt, to convince 12 people of JY's being guilty of murder...perhaps the DA should encourage his ADA's to do a BETTER JOB next time...perhaps tnis is karma...you win some and you lose some...BRAD COOPER got convicted on just a "google search of 42 seconds"...and it was NOT even PROVED in court that he did it...but evidence is evidence...get a conviction however you can...OR MAKE ACCEPT A PLEA..that's the choice...
    forget that they just might be innocent...

  • abylelab -BT- Jul 22, 2011

    On the flip side, if subsequent trials go 0(guilty) to 12(innocent), it will only take 32 more trials to say he is 99% innocent.

    i'm not sure logical math will fly with many of the golo posters ;-)

  • quaten Jul 21, 2011

    What's the public opinion benchmark for "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

    If the score of the next trial is 12(guilty) to 0(innocent), that makes the running score 16 to 8. That still leaves one in three jurors with "reasonable doubt" - hardly an upper-percentile consensus. At that rate, we will still need another 5 trials to bring that consensus to 90 percent, and a further 61 trials to get to 99%

    On the flip side, if subsequent trials go 0(guilty) to 12(innocent), it will only take 32 more trials to say he is 99% innocent.