So it seems out of place to me for the prosecutor to be initiating discovery for the exact same reason that the prosecutor challenged Mean's subpoenas because they were effectively demanding discovery before there was a preliminary hearing to establish probably cause. Their own document describes itself as a discovery request.
RSBM
My understanding is that the prosecutor challenged Mean's subpoenas for many reasons, but not the reason you have stated.
To the extent he had not already complied, he challenged Means' requests for reasons including -
not being in possession of said electronic devices,
not having requested items in his custody or control
being outside the scope of the ICRs
not being addressed to the correct investigative agency,
having no duty or legal requirement to fulfill,
not being subject to disclosure,
collecting evidence for the defense
being irrelevant to the case, and any possible defense
matters already litigated.
The bar is MUCH higher at a preliminary hearing. I'm sure she will be bound over for trial but it's far from a slam dunk if all the prosecutor has is absence of evidence. I think that his demand for discovery right now is because he wants to be able to cut off any possible defenses now. But that is beyond his right. If Means complies with that order I think it will constitute reversible error. Lori does not have to reveal her defense stratgy until the trial, except possibly under Idaho rules if she plans to claim mental illness.
All MOO - The case is about more than the absence of children. It is about a deriliction of parental duty to provide care, education and support. If those actions are not evident (are absent) in her daily life as observed over an extended period, as their only surviving legal parent, then that is evidence in and of itself, it's not an absence of evidence in the sense I think you are using the phrase. She has the opportunity to prove the state is wrong if they are wrong. Inferences can be drawn from her behavior and documents she had in her possession, as well as items she systematically confiscated from the children. If she believed Tylee could be tracked through her phone (the latest BS) then she also thought that she herself could be tracked by carrying and using the same phone, and JJ's apple devices. So why flee with them?
In addition to that there is other strong evidence, imo. If she and Chad told his parents and Tammy's relatives (as the state avers) that Lori has no minor children, and I believe to at least one person that Tylee had died years before, as a married couple it can be inferred that they intended to have a future relationship with Chad's parents, and the import from this is that she was not going to produce children or a child that she formerly said was deceased, at some point into the future.
Then there are other pieces of evidence from the people closest to Lori; statements that show Melani never thought the children were safe. What sort of strategy is that for your niece to hide her knowledge that the children are safely hidden and instead tell people they might be dead at their uncle's hand?; and Lori's attempts to get MG, who she thought could be entrusted not to cooperate with police, to lie to police - without MG apparently knowing of any good reason to lie and assist her.
MOO
