ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #68

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.

We are in the courtroom. Lori Vallow Daybell is present. She is smiling and talking quietly with her attorneys.

Judge Boyce says this hearing will be about the attendance of victims in the case "as it relates to the exclusionary rule". That is about excluding certain witnesses from being present during other testimony.

Boyce: The legal issue today the court wants to discuss is "who is a legally defined victim who would not be subject to the exclusionary order the court just ordered."

Boyce now asking the prosecution who will be in attendance that could fit the legal definition of a victim. Rob Wood saying the court's interpretation of a victim should include anyone who suffers emotional harm as the result of an offense.

He believes Kay and Larry Woodcock should be considered victims in the case. That's JJ's grandparents who we expect to be present at the trial. Also adding Summer Shiftlet (Lori's sister) and Colby Ryan (Lori's son, JJ and Tylee's brother) to be considered.

Lori's attorneys responding -- "we believe the only victim under Idaho code [...] Colby Ryan would be the only one who qualifies as a victim". The defense team does not believe JJ's grandparents or Lori's sister should fit the legal definition.

Archibald: The children of Tammy Daybell would be considered victims but as far as the defense knows, they do not plan to attend the trial.

Archibald is asking the judge to exclude Summer Shiftlet and Kay and Larry Woodcock from the victim list.

Rob Wood is arguing JJ's grandparents, the Woodcocks, should absolutely fit the definition of victim and be allowed to watch the trial. They're discussing the definition of an "immediate family member".

Archibald citing Idaho adoption laws - says since Kay's son terminated legal parental rights, she's no longer legally JJ's grandma. "No one is kicking a grandma out of the courtroom. The only grandma would be Lori's parents or Tammy's parents."

Boyce will not make a decision today and will issue a written ruling on who will be considered a victim in the case, therefore who would be permitted to be present during portions of testimony. Prosecution and defense must submit supplemental briefings by 5pm Friday.

They will meet privately now on "administrative" topics related to courtroom seating etc. Court is adjourned.
 
In family court the children would identify who is "kin" to them whether it be "fictive kin" or blood. For example, a Mom's boyfriend who served as a father figure for the child but is not related to the child by blood or marriage. It could be a neighbor or family friend who helped raise the child or was a meaningful person in the child's life. Someone they trusted, loved, had a close relationship with is often considered when placing a child in foster or even adoptive care with "fictive kin". The Woodcocks are not only blood related but related by marriage and JJ always referred to them as Grandparents. This is just another attempt for Lori to try and control the narrative and to whom. She wants as many digs into Kay and Larry as possible (IMO).
 
Sounds like Lori is behind this, one last jab at Kay. SMH. Hope the Judge does not allow this.
But the judge called for the hearing, supposedly. This is horrible. If it wasn't for Kay and Larry sounding the alarm . . .

No wonder Lori doesn't want them in the courtroom.

And I'm thinking if they're trying to exclude her sister, Summer, from being deemed a victim she must be on the witness list?

JMO
 
Isn't this a waste of his precious time before trial? Trying to exclude victims??????

It's a legit legal issue. Those who are ON THE WITNESS LIST are usually not allowed to hear testimony of others, in an attempt to keep their testimony independent. Family is generally no exception. It's an issue of biased testimony, and the opportunity to tailor it to fit other testimony. Justice is best served with witnesses who are having to speak to their OWN knowledge only, and unable to hear what other testimony has said.

My sister was in a trial a few years ago. I was her main emotional and familial and custodial support at the time, at a time when she was very fragile in every way. But I was potentially a witness, on the list, and I was not allowed to be in the courtroom for the testimony in her case, because of the rule. (And ultimately, I wasn't even called to testify. I was just on the list of those who might testify.)

Our choice was to take me off the witness list, or wait outside. I sat alone outside.
 
So Boyce wants briefs on this by 5:00 Friday from prosecution & defense. Then he will rule on this? Isn’t that cutting it awfully close for the Woodcocks who are planning on traveling there for the trial? Sorry but this so angers me. If it weren’t for the love & concern of the Woodcocks, things wouldn’t have gotten moving on this deadly duo.

Lori Vallow Daybell appears in Ada County Court for hearing related to witness testimony - East Idaho News

Prosecution and defense must submit supplemental briefings to the judge by 5 p.m. Friday.
 
Maybe he feels the Woodcocks are going to be visibly emotional throughout the trial and may have an impact on the jurors.
I don’t think that is the reasoning behind this request. Family members attend trials during the criminal trials of loved ones all the time. And they cry a lot. And they aren’t excluded from being in the courtroom. JMO
 
Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 615. Excluding witnesses.

(a)
At a party's request, the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses' testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize excluding:

(1) a party who is a natural person;

(2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party's representative by its attorney;

(3) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party's claim or defense; or

(4) a crime victim whose exclusion is prohibited under Article 1, Section 22 of the Idaho Constitution.


More at link

I.R.E. 615. Exclusion of Witnesses. | Supreme Court
 
This is a snippet of Article 1, Section 22:

And, first glance (4) would apply or maybe there's more I need to understand (I'm continuing to read as I type ;))


SECTION 22. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS. A crime victim, as defined by statute, has the following rights:

(1) To be treated with fairness, respect, dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process.
(2) To timely disposition of the case.
(3) To prior notification of trial court, appellate and parole proceedings and, upon request, to information about the sentence, incarceration and release of the defendant.
(4) To be present at all criminal justice proceedings.
(5) To communicate with the prosecution.
(6) To be heard, upon request, at all criminal justice proceedings considering a plea of guilty, sentencing, incarceration or release of the defendant, unless manifest injustice would result.
(7) To restitution, as provided by law, from the person committing the offense that caused the victim's loss.
(8) To refuse an interview, ex parte contact, or other request by the defendant, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, unless such request is authorized by law.
(9) To read presentence reports relating to the crime.
(10) To the same rights in juvenile proceedings, where the offense is a felony if committed by an adult, as guaranteed in this section, provided that access to the social history report shall be determined by statute.

More at link

Idaho State Constitution Article I.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,340
Total visitors
2,516

Forum statistics

Threads
599,756
Messages
18,099,227
Members
230,920
Latest member
LuLuWooWoo
Back
Top