WRAL is reporting that the 8-4 vote was for acquittal in the Jason Young case. This makes re-trial less likely, as the state may walk away from the case or offer a plea too good for Mr. Young to pass up.
So, this begs the question: What was different between this case and the Brad Cooper case. Both had pretty weak state evidence (in my humble opinion, the evidence against Mr. Young was stronger than against Mr. Cooper). What made the difference? Did Mr. Young benefit from the reactions to the Brad Cooper case? Or was it the simple fact that Mr. Young took the stand and declared, "I didn't do it?"
Hard to say, but juries, no matter how many times they are told not to, sometime hold silence against defendant. I've heard lots of people say that, "If I was wrongfully accused, you couldn't keep me off the stand."
Where this one ends up will be interesting.