Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #55

[MTW2011]

Troy Evans from the State seems even more flippant than some of Prior’s worst court moments.
Part of their closing arguments is that “well professional rules of conduct are rules not laws”, and he said “these are just guidelines, we can follow them if we want”. Well, that’s nice to know.

 

[MTW2011]

[deleted] double post, sorry

 

[pizzaman12]

Troy Evans from the State seems even more flippant than some of Prior’s worst court moments.
Part of their closing arguments is that “well professional rules of conduct are rules not laws”, and he said “these are just guidelines, we can follow them if we want”. Well, that’s nice to know.

I have zero problem with his comment

 

[MTW2011]

It’s very interesting to me that a large portion of the STATE’s closing argument is “Mr Wood didn’t commit any misconduct, witness tampering, or coercion but if he did then the court can find another remedy other than disqualifying him”

so...
“He didn’t do it, but if he did do it then just decide something different than removing him from this case, your Honor”

 

[pizzaman12]

It’s very interesting to me that a large portion of the STATE’s closing argument is “Mr Wood didn’t commit any misconduct, witness tampering, or coercion but if he did then the court can find another remedy other than disqualifying him”

so...
“He didn’t do it, but if he did do it then just decide something different than removing him from this case, your Honor”

Correct. It was even the suggestion from the expert for the defense.

 

[pseudo_hum]

Does JP charge per word?

 

[MTW2011]

If what Means is saying is true and accurate, that Wood did not even tell them he met with Summer and what she said, even after multiple written requests thru the Discovery process, that’s not good....and that’s totally detached from the manipulation/coercion piece of this.
Defense found out from attorney Smith and only him, and after that Means said finally Wood then filed things about it in December, but not during his numerous requests for information about it before. This, plus prosecution trying to get a witness in thru an affidavit right before closing arguments, among other things, my opinion of the State is going down as time goes on. Yikes.

 

[Colorado303]

The State does really seem like they’re grasping here.

When given their chance, they didn’t bring in any witnesses. Now today right before closing arguments they want to bring in an affidavit from Summer and an affidavit from someone else which contains statements Summer apparently said. The State didn’t call Summer to testify for them. They also said multiple times “what if Summer doesn’t testify?” as a way to minimize the Defense witnesses’ arguments and now today they are trying to argue that her testimony is absolutely vital and crucial for the Court to hear. They’re grasping hard, IMH

.....and the Judge denied the Motion from the State, so we will not hear from Summer. He mentioned today was reserved for closings, not these last minute filings from either side.

It’s unsettling that Wells missed the opportunity to present key evidence in his own defense. In fact his attorney introduced no evidence or witnesses at all, merely conducted brief cross-examinations of opposing counsel’s witnesses. They obviously missed at least one opportunity— calling Summer as a witness— and probably others. What evidence opportunities might be overlooked and key deadlines missed when he prosecutes the Daybells?

Then there’s the part where opposing counsel objected to their recent affidavits on the basis of hearsay. When the Judge asked Wells/Evans if they had an exception to the hearsay rule Evans gave no response. Not even “please give me a minute” “or excuse me Judge”. Instead the two men spent several silent minutes peering at a laptop screen while Wells tapped away at the keyboard, apparently searching for a list of hearsay exceptions.

Maybe I’m wrong but I assumed trial lawyers would already be familiar w/hearsay exceptions. And if not, they would at least recognize when their affidavit might be met w/a hearsay objection and look up exceptions before appearing in court.

When they didn’t respond to the Judge and instead googled(?) while everyone waited and watched, I was stunned. To me they seemed completely unprepared and I imagine a jury would be equally unimpressed.

It concerns me.

 

[MTW2011]

It’s unsettling that Wells missed the opportunity to present key evidence in his own defense. In fact his attorney introduced no evidence or witnesses at all, merely conducted brief cross-examinations of opposing counsel’s witnesses. They obviously missed at least one opportunity— calling Summer as a witness— and probably others. What evidence opportunities might be overlooked and key deadlines missed when he prosecutes the Daybells?

Then there’s the part where opposing counsel objected to their recent affidavits on the basis of hearsay. When the Judge asked Wells/Evans if they had an exception to the hearsay rule Evans gave no response. Not even “please give me a minute” “or excuse me Judge”. Instead the two men spent several silent minutes peering at a laptop screen while Wells tapped away at the keyboard, apparently searching for a list of hearsay exceptions.

Maybe I’m wrong but I assumed trial lawyers would already be familiar w/hearsay exceptions. And if not, they would at least recognize when their affidavit might be met w/a hearsay objection and look up exceptions before appearing in court.

When they didn’t respond to the Judge and instead googled(?) while everyone waited and watched, I was stunned. To me they seemed completely unprepared and I imagine a jury would be equally unimpressed.

It concerns me.

Yes! What do they say....smart minds think alike? Ha, kidding aside, I agree with you.
and they took a good amount of time on mute, while they searched on their computer to lookup any exemptions before answering the Court. It looked unprepared to me as well.

I just find it ironic, because I know myself, and I’m sure some others, thought when we first heard some rumblings about this that it was a lowball move being pulled by some other attorney out of state working with them....but I’ve gotten further and further from that notion the more this went on. And I found myself agreeing with Prior, for once, there is no way to know if other “meet and greet” type of meetings were conducted that really morphed into a lot more than this. If the State truly has such a strong case already then they wouldn’t need to talk to Summer, and if the case is strong then the case is strong....and removing Wood would not change that one bit. I don’t think their case is as strong as he made it sound, it’s not where they want it to be yet, I think that’s one of the reasons he agreed to set up this “meet and greet” before they spoke to police. I cannot even guess which way the Court will rule on this, but I am eager to see.

 

[sassyblue]

My desire is that Woods is taken off the case because if he stays there's going to always be "witness tampering" hanging over his head. Then a high powered, personable, prepared, intelligent state attorney is assigned the case because 3 murder charges with death penalty attached are dropped on Daybell/Vallow heads. Then my final wish is that those fools Means and Prior have to go bye bye themselves. One can hope, right?

 

[MTW2011]

If this case becomes a death penalty case, Defense counsel would be replaced with attorneys qualified for that. As of now, neither Means or Prior meet the qualifications for or is already on the "Capital Counsel Roster", you can see a list of attorneys on it for their state here https://pdc.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2020/07/PDC-Capital-Counsel-Roster.pdf

Since this trial is months away, at the very least, I guess anything is possible in that Prior might be able to fufill some of the requirements he is missing right now, or get qualified through with some of the "alternate procedures" written into the law. You can see the qualifications for attorneys listed here: I.C.R. 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases. | Supreme Court

And a bonus tidbit of info, while Rob Wood said that Means has never handled a felony case, after wasting too much time looking thru court records, Means has represented defendants in multiple felony cases in Idaho....it's not many & he certainly doesn't routinely do criminal defense, but he at least got his toes wet before he jumped right into the ocean with this case.

 

[April_Dawn99]

It’s unsettling that Wells missed the opportunity to present key evidence in his own defense. In fact his attorney introduced no evidence or witnesses at all, merely conducted brief cross-examinations of opposing counsel’s witnesses. They obviously missed at least one opportunity— calling Summer as a witness— and probably others. What evidence opportunities might be overlooked and key deadlines missed when he prosecutes the Daybells?

Then there’s the part where opposing counsel objected to their recent affidavits on the basis of hearsay. When the Judge asked Wells/Evans if they had an exception to the hearsay rule Evans gave no response. Not even “please give me a minute” “or excuse me Judge”. Instead the two men spent several silent minutes peering at a laptop screen while Wells tapped away at the keyboard, apparently searching for a list of hearsay exceptions.

Maybe I’m wrong but I assumed trial lawyers would already be familiar w/hearsay exceptions. And if not, they would at least recognize when their affidavit might be met w/a hearsay objection and look up exceptions before appearing in court.

When they didn’t respond to the Judge and instead googled(?) while everyone waited and watched, I was stunned. To me they seemed completely unprepared and I imagine a jury would be equally unimpressed.

It concerns me.

It looks like State WANTS to change the prosecutor, doesn't it? (Not watching, just from reading the comments)

 

[Nosurprise]

Would Troy Evans be the lead prosecutor then..? Hopefully, not ..there must be someone better out there.

 

[sassyblue]

I don't know if the State wants Woods out or not. Not sure Troy Evans would be lead prosecutor if Woods gets cut. Isn't he a defense attorney only representing Woods for this hearing?

Mark Means has done his share of demeaning witnesses and victims of this crime on his own Twitter. How come defense attorney's get to say "mean" things and post pictures of herds of rats running implying nasty things about witnesses and victims with no sanctions?

 

[MTW2011]

Court denies Motion to disqualify Wood off the case.
Court "encourages civility" among all the attorneys but will not force Wood to apologize for this conduct.
The Idaho State Bar may take this under their review in the future and if so the Court will be notified of that.

Most of the denial of the motion was supported due to the fact that the Court does not know if the State will be calling Summer to testify, and because of that he is unable to render a decision on whether or not this pretrial activity will affect the trial. The precedent he cited most was People v. Paperno, 54 N.Y.2d 294

 

[MTW2011]

Also - just my opinion - but I think this won't be the last we will hear about this. I think Wood staying on the case will continue to cause them unnecessary hurdles to get over on the path to justice.

I could forsee Means & Prior trying now, with many of the witnesses, trying to attack their credibility, question the meetings the prosecutor had with them, trying to really push any reasonable doubt over any pieces of the case to the jury. If the case was so strong, Wood could leave and the case would still be just as strong. I really, really would hate to see him stay and this continue to get in the way of getting justice, because his presence staying on the case, I think, continues to give the Defense more to use to attack the credibility of witnesses, how the investigation was conducted, etc. If Wood left, and they had another prosecutor, at the very least most of those arguments would drop away instantly.

 

[pizzaman12]

Also - just my opinion - but I think this won't be the last we will hear about this. I think Wood staying on the case will continue to cause them unnecessary hurdles to get over on the path to justice.

I could forsee Means & Prior trying now, with many of the witnesses, trying to attack their credibility, question the meetings the prosecutor had with them, trying to really push any reasonable doubt over any pieces of the case to the jury. If the case was so strong, Wood could leave and the case would still be just as strong. I really, really would hate to see him stay and this continue to get in the way of getting justice, because his presence staying on the case, I think, continues to give the Defense more to use to attack the credibility of witnesses, how the investigation was conducted, etc. If Wood left, and they had another prosecutor, at the very least most of those arguments would drop away instantly.

JP & MM will not be on this case for the long haul. If anyone stays its JP but no way MM makes it

It's one thing to do stuff pro bono. It's another to incur a ton of additional expenses which is what will happen if the defense does what they say they're going to do. The state has the money. I think the state is playing their cards and I think MM's ability will be something that will be looked at closely. The state has done a good job keeping the record clean in regards to him to date but it's only a matter of time

I don't think the defense would like what they'd be facing had the motion been granted so I'm not sure why they blew through...what...$30k+ for this motion alone

 

[Nosurprise]

I don't know if the State wants Woods out or not. Not sure Troy Evans would be lead prosecutor if Woods gets cut. Isn't he a defense attorney only representing Woods for this hearing?

Mark Means has done his share of demeaning witnesses and victims of this crime on his own Twitter. How come defense attorney's get to say "mean" things and post pictures of herds of rats running implying nasty things about witnesses and victims with no sanctions?

Oh..thanks for that.

 

[pizzaman12]

I don't know if the State wants Woods out or not. Not sure Troy Evans would be lead prosecutor if Woods gets cut. Isn't he a defense attorney only representing Woods for this hearing?

Mark Means has done his share of demeaning witnesses and victims of this crime on his own Twitter. How come defense attorney's get to say "mean" things and post pictures of herds of rats running implying nasty things about witnesses and victims with no sanctions?

Evans is the Deputy Prosecutor. My guess is no way he'd get it. The defense would get someone really chomping at the bit for this with plenty of experience which is another reason I don't understand their logic. Scott Reisch has spoken about this a fair amount as well

 

[MTW2011]

From shortly after the hearing ended, some proof that this won’t be the last time we hear of this.