Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #46

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
vislaw said:
I believe MM was focused on the criminal charges and probably didn't feel his actions on behalf of CD constituted representation in the context of the proceedings. Of course, that was wrong and representation is representation and he showed himself to be less than fully prepared in that moment. With regard to the prosecutor raising the issue, it is common for one side or the other to bring an apparent conflict to the attention of the court even though the only persons who have standing on the matter are the client(s) and attorneys directly involved. Putting the matter on the record forces the court to deal with it as you saw today. Otherwise, it would be possible for a defendant to try and raise the matter of conflict as part of an appeal and/or claim of inadequate representation. So, the court will want to get this handled soon and get both LVD and CD on the record as being in agreement that MM can continue to represent LVD without regard to his prior represetnation.

With regard to this question of conflict of interest on the part of defense counsel, the prosecutor does not have standing to insist on anything other than raising the issue for the court. MM has an ethical obligation to avoid conflicts of interest but in a case like this he can easily claim that whether or not he represented CD in the past does not matter as long as he is solely working for LVD now. Interestingly, either Chad or Lori could raise the issue if they wished and claim that the prior conflict prejudices them by virtue of his having received confidential information that might be prejudicial to them at some point. In that instance, either of them could ask the court to remove MM from the proceeding and the court very well might agree. That likely won't happen because Chad and Lori seem to have a common interest for now.

At the point where capital murder charges are finally filed, there should be a number of experienced attorneys willing to take on the case for the publicity and prestige of handling such a high profile case. Most likely MM will try to hang on as local counsel (read errand boy) but will likely get squeezed out IMHO.
Click to expand...
Thank you! And if it isn’t evident by now, it will be. I say it like I see it and feel it. And I just need to say to you, your posts are invaluable to me. I’ve read this one 5 times and I will read it 5 more and learn. The information you provided coupled with informed opinions, well, it forces me to think critically if that makes sense. So thank you. You rock. Just my opinion of course.
 
Last edited:
vislaw said:
In this case MM represented Chad only tangentially and not with respect to the criminal charges he now faces. In a situation like this the usual outcome is to have both clients made aware of the potential of a conflict and have them agree on the record to have no objection for MM continuing to represent LVD. If neither CD or LVD object then MM will be free to continue representing Lori. Understand that there have been instances where an attorney has attempted to represent two co-defendants in the same case. Every authority agrees that to be a bad idea, but it technically can be done if both defendants acknowledge the potential conflict and specifically waive any objection. In this case, however, MM is not claiming to represent both defendants currently and the only issue is whether his brief representation of Chad's interests before charges were filed may create a potential conflict. I don't believe it does and expect him to continue representing Lori until she is charged with capital murder. At that time I believe it will be inevitable that someone experienced in capital cases will take over her representation.
Click to expand...

You’re probably right and MM will ultimately bow out but a couple things could still impact his potential disqualification now.

1. It was posted up thread that MM and CD’s lawyer share the same office address AND suite number. Do they share resources, para’s, assistants, investigators? That would be a huge no-no in my state and one of them would have to withdraw if that is in fact true.

2. Did CD pay MM even a nominal retainer? That would eliminate tangentially representing by establishing fiduciary. It also doesn’t help he claimed he was representing CD to the court. He stepped in that one pretty bad.

Number 1 would be the worse and would have to cause the prosecutor to request the judge rule on it. They can’t be independent IF working from the same office with the judges restriction on communications.
 
SuziQ said:
Has anyone posted Chad's amended charges? I think I saw it on Justin's facebook page. I think Chad's hearing is tomorrow at 1pm. What time is the MBP hearing? Looks to be a busy day tomorrow.
Click to expand...
It’s in the last thread... not being lazy but the pup is demanding peanut butter in her Kong lol. And I don’t want to get the info wrong.
What is the MBP hearing? Geesh lol! Just when I think I’m going to bed lol!
 
Last edited:
Michael0808 said:
It’s in the last thread... not being lazy but the pup is demanding peanut butter in her Kong lol. And I don’t want to get the info wrong.
What is the MBP hearing? Geesh lol! Just when I think I’m going to bed lol![/QUOTE
Custody for BB and MBP.
Click to expand...
 
Also, I read the first first page of every thread and it says that if you start a post with off topic it will be deleted. I haven’t gotten in trouble yet and I hope I don’t by posting this. But you guys have been my family so to speak when I got sick and found this site and actually, well comfort here. I don’t really have family.
So this is off topic. But I got accepted into the Bioethics Masters program today. I just needed to share that. Thank you for letting me.
Back to Sleuthing. I’m pretty much a Sleuther for life now.
 
Michael0808 said:
Also, I read the first first page of every thread and it says that if you start a post with off topic it will be deleted. I haven’t gotten in trouble yet and I hope I don’t by posting this. But you guys have been my family so to speak when I got sick and found this site and actually, well comfort here. I don’t really have family.
So this is off topic. But I got accepted into the Bioethics Masters program today. I just needed to share that. Thank you for letting me.
Back to Sleuthing. I’m pretty much a Sleuther for life now.
Click to expand...
Congrats!
 
BeachSky said:
RE: Mrs. Daybell

She’s probably all princess upset because they they called her ”Vallow” in the charging docs. So sad, too bad. The Judge, no doubt was more concerned with saying how Tylee & JJ were found so ” Ms Daybell “ could clearly hear what she(allegedly) DID.
READ: Probable cause documents related to Lori Vallow Daybell's new charges | East Idaho News
In the charging documents SHE is always ”Vallow” ...and they did not use first names sometimes.
Firstly, she was a Vallow when her kids were murdered.
Secondly, to keep her separate from Chad by saying Daybell & Vallow...otherwise they would have to say Daybell & Daybell
Thirdly, who cares..you murdered your children!

MOO
Click to expand...

The asking of the Judge on more then on occasion and asking then Lori what wanted to be called...Vallow or Daybell...makes me wonder if the legal people even know if she was legally married to Chad! I know, everyone said they were, but this is so strange!
 
Michael0808 said:
Also, I read the first first page of every thread and it says that if you start a post with off topic it will be deleted. I haven’t gotten in trouble yet and I hope I don’t by posting this. But you guys have been my family so to speak when I got sick and found this site and actually, well comfort here. I don’t really have family.
So this is off topic. But I got accepted into the Bioethics Masters program today. I just needed to share that. Thank you for letting me.
Back to Sleuthing. I’m pretty much a Sleuther for life now.
Click to expand...

Congratulations Michael!!! We are proud of you!

PS. We expect reports of your progress every so often!
 
Drc40 said:
You’re probably right and MM will ultimately bow out but a couple things could still impact his potential disqualification now.

1. It was posted up thread that MM and CD’s lawyer share the same office address AND suite number. Do they share resources, para’s, assistants, investigators? That would be a huge no-no in my state and one of them would have to withdraw if that is in fact true.

2. Did CD pay MM even a nominal retainer? That would eliminate tangentially representing by establishing fiduciary. It also doesn’t help he claimed he was representing CD to the court. He stepped in that one pretty bad.

Number 1 would be the worse and would have to cause the prosecutor to request the judge rule on it. They can’t be independent IF working from the same office with the judges restriction on communications.
Click to expand...

Looks like John Prior may have previously practiced at the same address as Mark Means in Meridian but now practices in Caldwell Idaho. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Means was the one who recommended Prior to CD in the first place. Certainly Mr. Means did confirm he represented Chad Daybell "since March 4th." However, if Mr. Prior is, indeed, practicing in a separate office in another town I don't believe there will be any issue as to a conflict. Joint defense agreements are pretty common whereby counsel for two or more defendants may agree to share costs of investigation and other defense services and, if drawn properly, will avoid conflict problems. Presumably Mr. Means and Mr. Prior will have some sort of joint defense agreement if they are sharing resources.

The areas typically covered by joint defense agreements include exchanging information about the merits of the case, dividing responsibility for pre-trial motions and discovery, sharing costs of expert witnesses, discussing strategies of defense, and exchanging legal memoranda. Although joint defense agreements may appear to be part of a conspiracy to thwart the integrity of litigation, in general, joint defense agreements are well accepted as beneficial to both litigants and the system in general. By permitting parties to cooperate in their defenses, litigation becomes more efficient and information is gathered more cheaply. Inconsistent defenses that put defendants in an unfair position and that may confuse the jury can be avoided. https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1581&context=all_fac

​
 
vislaw said:
Looks like John Prior may have previously practiced at the same address as Mark Means in Meridian but now practices in Caldwell Idaho. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Means was the one who recommended Prior to CD in the first place. Certainly Mr. Means did confirm he represented Chad Daybell "since March 4th." However, if Mr. Prior is, indeed, practicing in a separate office in another town I don't believe there will be any issue as to a conflict. Joint defense agreements are pretty common whereby counsel for two or more defendants may agree to share costs of investigation and other defense services and, if drawn properly, will avoid conflict problems. Presumably Mr. Means and Mr. Prior will have some sort of joint defense agreement if they are sharing resources.

The areas typically covered by joint defense agreements include exchanging information about the merits of the case, dividing responsibility for pre-trial motions and discovery, sharing costs of expert witnesses, discussing strategies of defense, and exchanging legal memoranda. Although joint defense agreements may appear to be part of a conspiracy to thwart the integrity of litigation, in general, joint defense agreements are well accepted as beneficial to both litigants and the system in general. By permitting parties to cooperate in their defenses, litigation becomes more efficient and information is gathered more cheaply. Inconsistent defenses that put defendants in an unfair position and that may confuse the jury can be avoided. https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1581&context=all_fac

​
Click to expand...
So... pardon. My language... damn it! Lol

This is so much information that I’m bookmarking and taking pics so I don’t lose the links.
And I’m grateful for it. Thank you.
Academia goals.
 
Nite Sleuthers. My mama passed away on the 4th of July. So this is a tough weekend. I can’t help but think of this song when I was a teenager full of angst. And she would sing it to me behind my locked bedroom door. I’m thinking of Tylee right now. Who never got to experience teenage angst. Her door was locked for a reason.
I am grieving for Tylee. Of course. JJ too. But my heart tonight is grieving that teenage baby.
Please delete if not ok. Full of emotion. This is a challenging first case. If no one told you today...just saying it. I love you.
 
just swinging by not caught up on last thread yet......

seeing CR on zoom at lori's hearing.:(
he is so gutted by his dispicable mother its still hitting him.
he shook his head in disgust when the lawyer stated lori would like to be addressed as mrs daybell.

lori cox ........? ..........? ryan vallow daybell. i'd love to see the judge run her through name changes included.:D EVERYTIME.:D

( i do know husband #2 but haven't seen it noted here so keeping with anonymity.)

moo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 2,208 (members: 127, guests: 2,081)

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
2,081
Total visitors
2,208
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,106
Messages
18,134,728
Members
231,233
Latest member
Shablee
Back
Top