Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #47

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would be very interested to know why the 2nd team of attorneys LVD vanished back to Boise so quickly.

And LVD's first attorney from Rexburg sure made himself scarce quickly.
I am going to guess that she refused to even provide anything for a defense nor any info on the whereabouts of the children. It would be really hard to provide a defense if she gave nothing to work on.

This might make it very hard for previous Attorneys to get billable hours when they are stuck playing Plants vs. Zombies game instead of crafting some sort of defense that might keep her out of jail/prison for eternity.
 
I'd consider LVD high maintenance as a defendant. I wouldn't want that unless myself or the tentative law firm needed money. I'm sure Prior's problems kept him from making any money due to his own court case. Means, I'm not sure if he has much to brag about, yet. jmo
 
BBM. Isn't that exactly what the US Supreme Court said was unconstitutional in Riley v. California in 2014? Police cannot search digital devices incident to an arrest.

I’m not a lawyer, just a big SCOTUS fan. I think the circumstances in Riley were different from what we’re following, in one fundamental respect. Police found evidence on Riley’s cell phone incident to an arrest that implicated him in a totally unrelated crime. The contents of the seized Daybell phones would be pertinent to their arrests in this case, no? That’s assuming the remaining original charges will merge into murder at some point. Does that make sense?
 
There is no license or training needed to defend death penalty cases. As a practical matter, attorneys who have experience will handle such important cases. However, there is nothing in the law that would prevent any lawyer licensed to practice before the bar to defend a client.

Thank you for correcting me. What does it mean in other cases when they say that an attorney needs to be death penalty qualified?

TIA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<modsnip: unnecessary>

In this interview Nate also states that MP is a POI in this case. Mods, can we sleuth her now?

Also for the mods, can we please change the thread header to show Chad's arrest in this case please?

Also, as far as Lori's lawyer goes, once the charges are upped, I believe he is going to have to be dismissed because I do not believe that he has the appropriate training or licenses to defend a potential death penalty case.

Moo and all that.

Reporting my own post for mods to determine if MP can be sleuthed and for header correction.

The referenced link to the interview with Nate doesn't go to the interview. If someone could find the actual interview and link directly to it, we'll review it.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for correcting me. What does it mean in other cases when they say that an attorney needs to be death penalty qualified?

TIA
I'm pretty sure this has been posted before, but here are Idaho's qualifications for counsel in death penalty cases.
I.C.R. 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases. | Supreme Court
c) Attorney Qualifications.



(1) Trial.



(A) Lead trial counsel assignments must be made to attorneys who:



(i) are members in good standing of the Idaho State Bar, admitted to practice in Idaho or admitted to practice pro hac vice;


(ii) are experienced and active trial practitioners with at least five years’ litigation experience in criminal defense or prosecution;


(iii) have served as lead counsel in no fewer than four felony jury trials of cases that were tried to completion and have served either as lead or co-counsel in one case in which the death penalty might have been imposed and which was tried through to completion, or served as lead counsel in the sentencing phase of a death penalty case;


(iv) are familiar with the rules, practice and procedure of the district courts of the state of Idaho;


(v) are familiar with and experienced in the utilization of expert witnesses and evidence, including, but not limited to, psychiatric and forensic evidence;


(vi) have attended and successfully completed at least 12 hours of Idaho State Bar approved training or educational programs focusing on capital cases, within the last two years; and


(vii) have demonstrated the proficiency and commitment necessary for the quality of representation appropriate to capital cases.



(B) Co-counsel assignments must be assigned to attorneys who:



(i) are members in good standing of the Idaho State Bar, admitted to practice in Idaho or admitted to practice pro hac vice; and


(ii) qualify as lead counsel under subsection (c)(1) or meet the following requirements:



(1) are experienced and active trial practitioners with at least three years’ litigation experience in criminal defense or prosecution;


(2) have prior experience as lead counsel in at least three felony jury trials of cases which were tried to completion;


(3) are familiar with the rules, practice and procedure of the district courts of the state of Idaho;


(4) have attended and successfully completed at least six hours of Idaho State Bar approved training or educational programs focusing on capital cases, within the last two years; and


(5) have demonstrated the proficiency and commitment necessary for the quality of representation appropriate to capital cases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m not a lawyer, just a big SCOTUS fan. I think the circumstances in Riley were different from what we’re following, in one fundamental respect. Police found evidence on Riley’s cell phone incident to an arrest that implicated him in a totally unrelated crime. The contents of the seized Daybell phones would be pertinent to their arrests in this case, no? That’s assuming the remaining original charges will merge into murder at some point. Does that make sense?

No. I'm a techie who followed this closely (along with the rest of the tech world) and I don't think that the Supreme Court in Riley v. California makes the distinction that you're making. It's pretty straightforward: arresting officers can examine the physical phone to ensure it cannot be used as a weapon. They cannot search and seize its data without a warrant. Period.

ETA: Here's the money quote from the decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts: "Our holding, of course, is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search; it is instead that a warrant is generally required before such a search, even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest."

ETA2: This other nugget from the final paragraph is also a money quote: "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple--get a warrant."

Anyway. Not trying to be a downer. This decision was a victory for privacy advocates, and I doubt it hurts us here, but we'll see.
 
Last edited:
The referenced link to the interview with Nate doesn't go to the interview. If someone could find the actual interview and link directly to it, we'll review it.

Thanks.
Here is the document stating Rob Wood told BB that MBP was a person of interest in JJ and Tylee's case.
Justin Lum Fox 10 Phoenix
 
Nate refers to MP as a POI "in general" and she "might have some information" but other than AC, he doesn't think anyone else would have been involved in the actual deaths of the children.

Sorry, MP is not sleuthable based on that.

I'm sorry, you lost me @sillbilly. How does what Nate thinks bear on whether MP is a POI? I think maybe what you're trying to say is that she's not a POI unless the police are reported to identify her as such in this case? Do I have that right?
 
I'm sorry, you lost me @sillbilly. How does what Nate thinks bear on whether MP is a POI? I think maybe what you're trying to say is that she's not a POI unless the police are reported to identify her as such in this case? Do I have that right?

Not sure what isn't clear. The OP referred me to the interview to ask if MP could be sleuthed based on what Nate said. I've listened to it and decided that Nate was not definitive enough to warrant sleuthing MP as a POI. Just because she may have some information of interest to LE does not make her a POI in the deaths of these children. So no, the only thing I'm saying is that she is not sleuthable based on what Nate said in that interview.

There is no legal definition of POI, but just because someone is on the periphery of a crime or has knowledge that may be helpful to solving it does not make them a POI in a context that would lead to classification as a suspect.

As always, members can sleuth away behind the scenes and discuss in private messages, but no sleuthing of MP and posting it on the public thread.

If more information comes to light as to MP's knowledge of the crime or involvement in it, the decision could be revisited at that time.
 
Not sure what isn't clear. The OP referred me to the interview to ask if MP could be sleuthed based on what Nate said. I've listened to it and decided that Nate was not definitive enough to warrant sleuthing MP as a POI. Just because she may have some information of interest to LE does not make her a POI in the deaths of these children. So no, the only thing I'm saying is that she is not sleuthable based on what Nate said in that interview.

There is no legal definition of POI, but just because someone is on the periphery of a crime or has knowledge that may be helpful to solving it does not make them a POI in a context that would lead to classification as a suspect.

As always, members can sleuth away behind the scenes and discuss in private messages, but no sleuthing of MP and posting it on the public thread.

If more information comes to light as to MP's knowledge of the crime or involvement in it, the decision could be revisited at that time.

Very helpful. I get it now. Thank y0u for clarifying!
 
There is no license or training needed to defend death penalty cases. As a practical matter, attorneys who have experience will handle such important cases. However, there is nothing in the law that would prevent any lawyer licensed to practice before the bar to defend a client.
That is unless she becomes indigent or stops retaining her own attorney. Then the court must appoint two qualified trial attorneys, and the lead attorney must have at least 5 years criminal litigation experience, have been lead counsel in at least 4 felony jury trials, and been lead or co-counsel in a death penalty case or lead counsel in the sentencing phase of a death penalty case. Plus be experienced in the utilization of psychiatric evidence, have minimum 12 hours of training in capital cases in the last 2 years, and demonstrated the proficiency necessary for the quality of representation appropriate to capital cases.

I.C.R. 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases. | Supreme Court

eta Apologies @GoneGoldfishin' I see you posted the same link, should have read further, but I'll leave it because I think it's relevant to note that it applies to indigency and where a defendant stops retaining private counsel.
 
Last edited:
That is unless she becomes indigent or stops retaining her own attorney. Then the court must appoint two qualified trial attorneys, and the lead attorney must have at least 5 years criminal litigation experience, have been lead counsel in at least 4 felony jury trials, and been lead or co-counsel in a death penalty case or lead counsel in the sentencing phase of a death penalty case. Plus be experienced in the utilization of psychiatric evidence, have minimum 12 hours of training in capital cases in the last 2 years, and demonstrated the proficiency necessary for the quality of representation appropriate to capital cases.

I.C.R. 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases. | Supreme Court

eta Apologies @GoneGoldfishin' I see you posted the same link, should have read further, but I'll leave it because I think it's relevant to note that it applies to indigency and where a defendant stops retaining private counsel.
That's okay Tortoise, my response was to @kshultz06082 asking what it meant to be a death penalty qualified attorney (since we hear that phrase regularly) and yours clarified that at least so far in this case, those requirements would not necessarily need to be met because so far only private counsel has been retained. Both pieces of information are valuable to this case! Moo.
 
@Nosurprise, she's a POI in BB's case, not in the children's case.

Also, we're not allowed to post watermarked documents:
Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #46
Just to be clear, this is what BB's custody papers (posted June 29th) state:

"Rob H Wood, Madison County Prosecutor who has been appointed as the Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the charges against Lori Vallow-Daybell and Chad Daybell, has indicated to Father that Mother is a person of interest in the other multiple felonious acts, including the missing children (both now confirmed deceased)."

This does not mean that she can be sleuthed, it is just to clarify the context is more than BB's case, according to BB.

Link to documents in this post Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #45
 
Just to be clear, this is what BB's custody papers (posted June 29th) state:

"Rob H Wood, Madison County Prosecutor who has been appointed as the Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the charges against Lori Vallow-Daybell and Chad Daybell, has indicated to Father that Mother is a person of interest in the other multiple felonious acts, including the missing children (both now confirmed deceased)."

This does not mean that she can be sleuthed, it is just to clarify the context is more than BB's case, according to BB.

Link to documents in this post Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #45

Its also hearsay...”THE FATHER SAYS THAT ROB WOOD SAYS” About as classic as you can get
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
2,324
Total visitors
2,482

Forum statistics

Threads
599,842
Messages
18,100,187
Members
230,936
Latest member
earworm
Back
Top