ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #67

[Ruminations]

Respectfully, that's not right.

The "violence against children" point is accurate, to be clear, and I don't disagree that in some circumstances it might matter. But as I said before, the charges here are for multiple crimes, with ALL BEING TRIED TOGETHER, and not all are crimes of violence against children. There's no way they could thread that needle, to claim that this compelling (with its necessary cross-examination) is only going to impact one charge but not others, and there's no way the judge would let it happen.

Spousal privilege can be invoked for testimony regarding acts before or during the marriage. There are many places this can be double-checked if you wish. Cornell Law School site:

"In criminal cases, the spouse of a criminal defendant who is called as a witness by the prosecution may choose to testify but cannot be compelled to testify against his or her spouse about events that occurred before and during the marriage. [In most jurisdictions, but not in all] the privilege can be waived by the witness spouse, even if the defendant spouse objects."

"In both civil and criminal cases, communications made between spouses during the marriage are privileged if the communication is intended to be private and made in reliance on the sanctity of marriage. Even if the marriage is terminated because of divorce or the death of one spouse, this privilege could be asserted."

marital privilege

www.law.cornell.edu

No. He can testify voluntarily, but he can't be forced to.

The issues are spousal exception (see above) and self-incrimination. There is an exception from the "spousal exception" for crimes of violence against a child, but because of the fact she is being tried in the same trial for other crimes that do not pertain to violence against a child, and because the issues pertain to (and his testimony would jeopardize) himself as well as Lori, there's no way to separate one of those from the other and thereby force him to testify.

The fact that Lori goes on trial BEFORE Chad further shuts the door on the idea of him being forced to testify in her trial in any way.

Nothing is more bratty than beginning a post with, "Actually..."

But, actually, it appears in Idaho both the witness spouse and the spouse about whom the testimony refers can claim this privilege.

So in Idaho, Mrs. D robs the neighbor and Mr. D saw her break in while walking the dog.

Mr. D is the only witness who can testify about the coat Mrs D was wearing and that she got rid of it.

Mrs. D is lucky she lives in Idaho.

Because they live in Idaho, it is not enough that Mr. D wants to testify. Mrs. D can suppress it, claiming marital privilege. Both the witness and the defendant have to waive it in Idaho, it seems.

This same situation has been challenged long ago in Federal court, and the ruling was the institution of marriage isn't more important than the truth in this situation. So most states only have marital privilege that the witness can waive even if their spouse wants them to claim it. But as far as I can see, it's still on the books in Idaho such that the one accused of a crime can suppress their spouse's testimony.

MOO

 

[SteveS]

Rum, as you note, the Idaho statute is very broad.

As I was about to click "post" I see you mention the same thing I was about to point out. It's a state where the general rule is that a spouse can't testify, EVEN IF HE WANTS TO, unless the other spouse agrees. Some exceptions follow (One of those exceptions is the violence against children, which you previously mentioned. But very limited), but the general law states

TITLE 9, CHAPTER 2, 9-203

"A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife, without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband, without his consent; nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, be, without the consent of the other, examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage; but this exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by violence of one against the person of the other, nor does this exception apply to any case of physical injury to a child where the injury has been caused as a result of physical abuse or neglect by one or both of the parents, nor does this exception apply to any case of lewd and lascivious conduct or attempted lewd and lascivious conduct where either party would otherwise be protected by this privilege."

OTOH I believe those ISC notes are clarifications to the "allowed to testify" actions of a spouse, ie when one wants to testify against the other. In general, the other spouse can "prevent" such testimony, except for the reasons listed. If you examine the reasons, they are essentially ones where the spouses are in an adversarial mode in a court.

FYI I don't want to keep arguing with you about this - I've offered my thoughts so I'll shut up and you can have the last word if you want. If you want to agree to disagree, that's fine.

But in wrestling over "compelling to testify" in either of these cases, I think we're haggling over something that isn't all that relevant anyhow. Given the interwoven nature of the cases, and the layers of charges, and the different timing, and the eventual years of scrutiny that accompanies DP cases, there's no remotely-likely scenario in which involuntary testimony forced from one, against the other, can happen here.

 

[Ruminations]

Rum, as you note, the Idaho statute is very broad.

As I was about to click "post" I see you mention the same thing I was about to point out. It's a state where the general rule is that a spouse can't testify, EVEN IF HE WANTS TO, unless the other spouse agrees. Some exceptions follow, but the general law states "A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife, without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband, without his consent; nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, be, without the consent of the other, examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage...." One of those exceptions is the violence against children, which you previously mentioned. But very limited.

OTOH I believe those ISC notes are clarifications to the "allowed to testify" actions of a spouse, ie when one wants to testify against the other. In general, the other spouse can "prevent" such testimony, except for the reasons listed. If you examine the reasons, they are essentially ones where the spouses are in an adversarial mode in a court.

Yeah.

Idaho has the oldest kind of marital privilege laws.

But I still think you are incorrect citing marital privilege for the 3 murders. Check out the Idaho statutes.

I agree that it will be a looong time before any of these murders is adjudicated (save for a plea deal). So rights against self incrimination will apply anyway.

BTW- I had to sit on my hands to prevent responding to your calling my speculation (that the DNA inculpates) "wrong." In contrast to your opinion that you "think" it's neutral or exculpatory?

I don't think right and wrong are the standards we measure opinions by, lol! We shall see right and wrong when/if the facts come out. Until then, we agree or disagree.

MOO

 

[CSIDreamer]

I can see one of these two, or both, going free if there are separate trials. Once the jury and public hear or read everything said in the first trial, there is no way it won’t impact the second trial, for better or worse.

I’ve said from the beginning that I believe this is what the prosecution and judge are aiming for.

If thats the case, there is some massive corruption going on and it needs to be addressed. JMO

 

[SteveS]

BTW- I had to sit on my hands to prevent responding to your calling my speculation (that the DNA inculpates) "wrong." In contrast to your opinion that you "think" it's neutral or exculpatory?

I am open to hearing more. Didn't intend to be adversarial (which is why I didn't address you, or anyone else, in those comments). I am aware I/we don't know the DNA evidence for ourselves - none of us do, and the judge even admonished not to publicize it until more testing is complete.

But having listened to the whole thing, I had to note what I did, because I didn't hear one word by anyone on either side that hinted it was evidence that does (or might) favor the state. Instead, just the opposite (or "not that useful"), over and over. That had been my sense based on the contemporary articles and notes, and then I went back listening for anything the other direction and didn't hear a single thing.

What was said (or implied) that I may have missed?

 

[Love Never Fails]

If thats the case, there is some massive corruption going on and it needs to be addressed. JMO

Everywhere. Every day.

 

[Ruminations]

I am open to hearing more. Didn't intend to be adversarial (which is why I didn't address you, or anyone else, in those comments). I am aware I/we don't know the DNA evidence for ourselves - none of us do, and the judge even admonished not to publicize it until more testing is complete.

But having listened to the whole thing, I had to note what I did, because I didn't hear one word by anyone on either side that hinted it was evidence that does (or might) favor the state. Instead, just the opposite (or "not that useful"), over and over. That had been my sense based on the contemporary articles and notes, and then I went back listening for anything the other direction and didn't hear a single thing.

What was said (or implied) that I may have missed?

Ha, ha! It was me. I don't know, of course.

I made my hypothesis based on 1) Prior wanted the cases severed- so he had another possible reason to make a big deal of the evidence, 2) Lori's attorneys wanted it suppressed (why not accept it with out double checking if it is exculpatory?)

But- who knows. A lot of commentators are asserting it is unknown DNA. That, to me doesn't exculpate known defendants. It might suggest another co-conspirator. Or not if it just was an innocent transfer. But I don't see how it reduces the guilt that I see in the current defendants.

MOO

 

[SteveS]

Ha, ha! It was me. I don't know, of course.

I made my hypothesis based on 1) Prior wanted the cases severed- so he had another possible reason to make a big deal of the evidence, 2) Lori's attorneys wanted it suppressed (why not accept it with out double checking if it is exculpatory?)

But- who knows. A lot of commentators are asserting it is unknown DNA. That, to me doesn't exculpate known defendants. It might suggest another co-conspirator. Or not if it just was an innocent transfer. But I don't see how it reduces the guilt that I see in the current defendants.

MOO

Thanks for the explanation! Now I get it.

Here's where I think the discrepancy comes from -- this idea that "Lori's attorneys wanted it suppressed." From what I heard in the hearing, I think that's simply an erroneous statement, to say they said that.

JA did say he will be offering a motion re this late-to-the-party DNA evidence. (One of his criticisms was over the extra work this will take in the short time he has left.) But he did NOT say "to get it suppressed" (unless I just missed it completely, and I was listening for something of the sort).

Here's what I was hearing
1 Judge - we have DNA info, and while we haggle about these issues, keep your mouth shut on the details
2 Prior - what we have is a game-changer, and we need more testing; we can't get it done, and decide how to put this in our case, in such a short time
3 Archibald - I agree with Prior over its importance, but my client insists on no more delays, which makes it impossible for me to fully chase this, and now I will need to file a motion on the issue [ie, due to the misdeeds of the state, there is possibly advantageous evidence that she might have to do without, so what do I want to suggest]
4 State - it wasn't our fault it was so late, and it's not important info evidence anyhow, and more testing isn't that important

That's what I heard them say.

My opinion on the implications
1 I would wager that the hairs found, per the DNA test, match NO ONE in the case as it is known. That fits perfectly with the idea that the defense loves it, yet there is more testing needed.
2 Already that would certainly be a win for the defense, to some degree, especially since it would have been a disaster for them if they had been LVD, CD, or AC.
3 The additional testing is to try to determine "ok, so whose are they" and it's almost a no-lose pursuit for the defense. Their best outcome is a specific alternate suspect to point to, or maybe a mystery perp to create doubt.
4 Chad and Lori are in the same boat as to the potential value of more testing, but in different boats as to whether they are being given the opportunity to do so.
5 The state is already prepared to argue "These hairs aren't important, and random hairs and lint and fibers can come from anywhere, and they are meaningless" -- which the defense will argue the opposite, but they really want testing, hoping to be able to add to the import of the hairs.

 

[ReadySet]

I can see one of these two, or both, going free if there are separate trials. Once the jury and public hear or read everything said in the first trial, there is no way it won’t impact the second trial, for better or worse.

I’ve said from the beginning that I believe this is what the prosecution and judge are aiming for.

I understand you are very concerned about this.
As a life-long Idahoan (not LDS) I have a very good sense of the social, religious, political and other issues in the state.
There is no way that what you are worried about would happen.
I hope that reassures you. If I'm wrong, I'll give up potatos.

 

[SteveS]

I understand you are very concerned about this.
As a life-long Idahoan (not LDS) I have a very good sense of.
There is no way that what you are worried about would happen.
I hope that reassures you. If I'm wrong, I'll give up potatos.

I hope you are right!! It sure does look like these are two murderers who wantonly killed family, and cared only for feeding their own narcissism, from the general outline of what has occurred over the years.

But I am wondering - what is it about the social, religious, political and other issues in Idaho that you think makes this a slam dunk conviction? Do you think the populace has already gotten a good view of the case, decided these people are guilty, and they will simply make sure they pay, no matter how the defense might try to counter the charges? Or is there something else you are sensing and basing this on?

 

[Ruminations]

I understand you are very concerned about this.
As a life-long Idahoan (not LDS) I have a very good sense of the social, religious, political and other issues in the state.
There is no way that what you are worried about would happen.
I hope that reassures you. If I'm wrong, I'll give up potatos.

I am trying to stay positive, as I believe I recently said.

But I do think the LDS church bears a responsibility to address how Love Never Fails feels, and to address the terrible damage done to victims dead and surviving. Taking some responsibility to help with healing is not taking blame IMO; I think the church is shirking its responsibility to address the damage done even though the damage done is not its fault.

The dead victims were dedicated LDS church members. Where is the church's expression if sorrow for their lives cut short?

Rexberg was apparently torn to pieces with "I believe Chad" people up against, "Hmmmm, the facts don't look good," people. Then, the children's bodies were found locally- a tremendous trauma to the whole town. The trauma was acute for all- whether they stayed Chad believers, had to switch sides, or were vindicated when being wrong would have been less tragic. In a town that is virtually all LDS, where was the church in helping its members through this?

Finally, people pulled into cult-like groups and/or into grifts were devout LDS. Where was the church to publicly condemn apostasy, publicly excommunicate those who abuse the faith, and help those dealing with real family losses (divorces) real financial losses, and real trauma being sucked into groups that supported these terrible crimes?

I don't think the LDS church supports the cults and the murders. But I do think it is trying to deal with it so quietly and subtly as to not effectively deal with it at all. And thus it is shirking its responsibility IMO, even though it is not at fault for the crimes IMO.

I don't think the LDS church can claim lack of resources- in money or human talent. There is no excuse IMO.

MOO YMMV

-Rum

(I am embracing the nickname SteveS used,)

 

[Love Never Fails]

I am trying to stay positive, as I believe I recently said.

But I do think the LDS church bears a responsibility to address how Love Never Fails feels, and to address the terrible damage done to victims dead and surviving. Taking some responsibility to help with healing is not taking blame IMO; I think the church is shirking its responsibility to address the damage done even though the damage done is not its fault.

The dead victims were dedicated LDS church members. Where is the church's expression if sorrow for their lives cut short?

Rexberg was apparently torn to pieces with "I believe Chad" people up against, "Hmmmm, the facts don't look good," people. Then, the children's bodies were found locally- a tremendous trauma to the whole town. The trauma was acute for all- whether they stayed Chad believers, had to switch sides, or were vindicated when being wrong would have been less tragic. In a town that is virtually all LDS, where was the church in helping its members through this?

Finally, people pulled into cult-like groups and/or into grifts were devout LDS. Where was the church to publicly condemn apostasy, publicly excommunicate those who abuse the faith, and help those dealing with real family losses (divorces) real financial losses, and real trauma being sucked into groups that supported these terrible crimes?

I don't think the LDS church supports the cults and the murders. But I do think it is trying to deal with it so quietly and subtly as to not effectively deal with it at all. And thus it is shirking its responsibility IMO, even though it is not at fault for the crimes IMO.

I don't think the LDS church can claim lack of resources- in money or human talent. There is no excuse IMO.

MOO YMMV

-Rum

(I am embracing the nickname SteveS used,)

You just addressed a huge concern of mine. While none of us can blame a church for the actions of a few, I question how some of those beliefs got started. My fear is that Chad will get leniency because the LDS church doesn’t want its reputation sullied. He is one of theirs, even though he strayed greatly. His family are all members in good standing. And Rob Wood is a member.

Then there is Lori. She is an LDS member, although not really from Rexburg. Might the church ask the State to sweep her under the rug, so to speak, so she can’t hurt the church?

Look, this church is very powerful. They take care of their own.

If it weren’t for the hard work and tenacity of Nate Eaton, would anybody from Idaho have even cared? Weren’t they just looking the other way? LE in Arizona sure looked the other way when Lori and her brother and Chad conspired to kill Charles Vallow.

But JJ and Tylee wow. Just children. Thank God for JJ’s grandparents. Because Lori’s family knew a lot and they didn’t care. It makes my blood boil.

So, in my mind, regardless of whether its the Catholic Church covering up for the priests who molested little children, or the LDS church covering for their members errant ways and people dying, I just wish they would all take responsbility for looking the other way. And if they did, then finally everything would come out in the open and JJ, Tylee, Tammi, Charles and Joe would get justice. And Melani needs to face charges for conspiring to attempt the murder of her husband, Brandon, by her uncle Alex.

 

[fred&edna]

I still have concerns about some LDS members regarding Charles' "murder" (as that's how I see it) in AZ. Not that these people were involved in his death but they didn't intervene with a straying LV.

jmo

 

[ReadySet]

I hope you are right!! It sure does look like these are two murderers who wantonly killed family, and cared only for feeding their own narcissism, from the general outline of what has occurred over the years.

But I am wondering - what is it about the social, religious, political and other issues in Idaho that you think makes this a slam dunk conviction? Do you think the populace has already gotten a good view of the case, decided these people are guilty, and they will simply make sure they pay, no matter how the defense might try to counter the charges? Or is there something else you are sensing and basing this on?

OP said they believe one or both of the defendents will go free; and that's what the Judge and the State want. That is what I was responding to. Do you agree with OP?

 

[SteveS]

OP said they believe one or both of the defendents will go free; and that's what the Judge and the State want. That is what I was responding to. Do you agree with OP?

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your point.

It's obvious to me the state wants a conviction - that's why they filed charges. I don't buy the idea that they are trying to get acquittals for either defendant. I do think it's a complex messy case with plenty of ways to do your best and still err.

I think the judge is supposed to be impartial. I don't see any reason to think he's not doing so. In fact, I think he's taking great care to make sure that if there's a conviction, it won't get overturned.

 

[ReadySet]

It's obvious the state wants a conviction - that's why they filed charges - but the judge is supposed to be impartial. Do you think he is rigging the trial for the state?

You said you thought there's "no way" the state can lose, based on your "very good sense of the social, religious, political and other issues in the state" and I was just wondering what about Idaho makes you feel so certain.

My view? It looks obvious to me that these are 2 self-absorbed killers with no real regard for human life, so I want them to get what they deserve. But with a case this complex, it seems to me there's plenty of ways a sloppy or inept prosecutor could mess it up. There are potentially lots of ways to point the finger elsewhere, I would think.

Because I don't know the exact evidence (ie, what is being used to tie these to the murders), and I don't know the ability of the prosecutors, that's the best answer I can come up with.

Steve, are you an Idahoan? My apologies if so, I did not pick up on that.

I believe Lori and Chad will be in prison the rest of their lives, one way or the other. Possible plea deals. As I stated, and has been mischaracterized by some, I do not think the Judge and the State want them to go free. That was what OP said. Saying I don't believe the Judge wants them to go free, is not the same as saying the judge is not impartial and is rigging the trial for the state.

It seems some are bothered by my saying I know my state, if it contradicts their ideas. It's hard to find someone as critical of their own state as I am. Idaho is full of wackadoodles with wackadoodle ideas. Having said that, I know what it is and what it isn't. Is the LDS church influential? Yes. Does the LDS chuch control the justice system in Idaho? No. Can anyone point to any other real or faux Mormon murderers who were widely thought to be guilty, who have been acquitted in Idaho, Utah, Arizona? Probably shouldn't have said that, I know how we WSers are when someone says, "have their ever been.."

I was trying to reassure some here that their fears about Chad and Lori going free because of the Mormon church are unfounded. I thought it might help to have an Idahoan's opinion. But what do I know?

 

[ReadySet]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your point.

It's obvious to me the state wants a conviction - that's why they filed charges. I don't buy the idea that they are trying to get acquittals for either defendant. I do think it's a complex messy case with plenty of ways to do your best and still err.

I think the judge is supposed to be impartial. I don't see any reason to think he's not doing so. In fact, I think he's taking great care to make sure that if there's a conviction, it won't get overturned.

Thank you Steve.

 

[KonaHonu]

I think the judge is supposed to be impartial. I don't see any reason to think he's not doing so. In fact, I think he's taking great care to make sure that if there's a conviction, it won't get overturned.

While I 100% agree with you, this case is so messy that I am sure there will be years of appeals. There have been plenty of anomalies many of which will be raised on appeal. Everything from violation of Lori's right to a speedy trial to the severance being prejudicial against Lori as well as the numerous problems with discovery. If there are contradictory verdicts on the conspiracy charges that could be an issue. I know that is not automatically a problem but even the judge raised is as a potentially serious issue. Remember, these are capital cases so they will be heavily scrutinized for decades!

And I would not be at all surprised if one or both of the defendants are acquitted. We have not seen all of the evidence but I've seen nothing that directly implicates Lori. I think she was involved with conspiring to kill her kids and CV, I just have not heard any evidence of her direct involvement in any murder or the planning.

If I had to guess at strategy I would guess that AC will get blamed by Lori and she will claim ignorance, perhaps even saying that she thought Tylee was with AC. I'd have to review the timeline again to investigate the plausibility of this.

I think Chad's strategy will also blame AC and assert that he just panicked and had to go along with disposing of the body in Tylee's case and will argue that AC went to his house and got rid of JJ on his own.

Either of these strategies will require defense evidence. But the mountain of evidence they have has only been publicly characterized by the prosecution to support their theory. There could very well be cell phone location data for Chad and/or Lori that put them far from crime scenes on important dates.

I really believe they are both guilty and hope they are convicted. But I am not at all confident that will happen.

 

[alexwood]

I believe CD will be convicted, but not so sure about LV. She'll surely be convicted of some charge(s) related to the murders, but feel pessimistic about actual murder conviction for her. (IMO -- and hope I'm wrong about her not being convicted of murder charges.)

 

[Love Never Fails]

I believe CD will be convicted, but not so sure about LV. She'll surely be convicted of some charge(s) related to the murders, but feel pessimistic about actual murder conviction for her. (IMO -- and hope I'm wrong about her not being convicted of murder charges.)

I just don’t see how Chad could get out of this but he might. Two dead bodies buried on his property and a dead wife. I’m guessing he will say Lori and Alex killed all three? And buried the kids? And he had no idea. I’m guessing Alex slipped in while Chad and his son were asleep. How many jurors might buy the story?

As for Lori, even IF she claims Alex (and or Chad) killed her kids, she had no remorse. She had their ID’s, drew checks in their names, partied and never missed them, lied to everyone. Give her the death penalty, crazy or not!