TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #5

[alexwood]

This is why it's a bad idea to check your own work. Seriously. We have a tendency not to see our own mistakes where others would catch them. Whoever was responsible for this error is the one who needs three martinis tonight.

I'll never forget that brief that was to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. It was sent to a professional printer. When we got it back, the caption read: "In the Supreme Court of the Untied States of America."

 

[alexwood]

Yep. Wine time here too!!

But not for JP -- It's "whine and cheese time" for him!

 

[nodamselindistress]

Prior really did not claim he saw it and failed to bring it up, he merely stated it was not his duty to point it out (as if he had seen the error). Typical lawyer speak, he implied something but did not state it as fact.

 

[justtrish]

while this is all true, a State Prosecutor's office has to do better than this. There was also a last minute amendment to the LVD documents, so there seem to be issues with the clerical staff or something in that office that need to be addressed.

I just wonder if those other indictments were not even read again because they were not requesting any changes to them. So whoever updated the other charges somehow updated that one also, but it was not even part of the changes they were asking about. I don't even know if it was something that was overlooked because the prosecutors wouldn't read it again would they if no changes were being made to those other charges?

Ultimately I do understand that it's their job to read it, but my point is just that there were not changes happening to count 4 so maybe they were only reading the ones they asked to change? I can see how that got overlooked during the last weeks of prepping for trial. I don't know that I would re-read something that wasn't going to be changed. Should they have yes, but I can understand how THIS error was clerical and not intentional or even negligence on their part. I would feel different if it was a charge that they asked to be changed and then they didn't read it or missed an error when it was resubmitted.

 

[Artis]

I'll never forget that brief that was to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. It was sent to a professional printer. When we got it back, the caption read: "In the Supreme Court of the Untied States of America."

What was the error and how should it have read?

BTW, is the bird in your AV a woodpecker? It's very beautiful

 

[indicolite22]

You have it without me, it's 8:20am here. I was up all night for this terrifying nonsense. Over a typo. I need sleep if I'm going to be able to face the trial again come Monday.

How could a count have been changed that wasn't even amended? That's not just a typo. Someone decided to change the paragraph that should have been left alone.

 

[Artis]

I find Prior to be rather amusing. There was one point when he was cross examining David W and David's hearing was issue but I think David denied it. Prior asked him a question and David asked it be repeated and Prior said some snark like, "Oh sorry, you couldn't HEAR me". I just shook my head and laughed.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Legal work requires lots of attention to detail. And organization. You cannot be scatter-brained to hold down a legal job, you just won't survive.

what I can totally see happen is someone was revising the paragraph above count 4 and they accidentally deleted the first part of count 4 so instead of retyping it they copied count 3 language about Tylee and just forgot to change the dates.

 

[nodamselindistress]

LMAO @ the "UNTIED" (United) States of America. Good one!

 

[alexwood]

What was the error and how should it have read?

BTW, is the bird in your AV a woodpecker? It's very beautiful

The Norther Flicker -- a woodpecker, and the State Bird of Alabama. The error was in the caption: It should have read, "In the Supreme Court of the U-N-I-T-E-D States of America," rather than in the "Untied States of America."

 

[Artis]

LMAO @ the "UNTIED" (United) States of America. Good one!

OMG, haha! I didn't even "see" that. This is why I'm not an editor.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I find Prior to be rather amusing. There was one point when he was cross examining David W and David's hearing was issue but I think David denied it. Prior asked him a question and David asked it be repeated and Prior said some snark like, "Oh sorry, you couldn't HEAR me". I just shook my head and laughed.

He can be amusing at times, mostly when he attempts his self deprecating humor claiming to be "so old'" not to know how equipment works and how he will botch names and descriptions and technical data. But personally I think he is like a shark just swimming in the water waiting for the prey to have a down moment and then he attacks. Maybe a barracuda instead of a shark.

 

[Pruddennce]

Prior really did not claim he saw it and failed to bring it up, he merely stated it was not his duty to point it out (as if he had seen the error). Typical lawyer speak, he implied something but did not state it as fact.

ok...thank you. grandstanding. he was dressing down the 4 lawyers as being remiss...but he was #5. claiming there 'were elements, he wasnt going to key the prosecutor off they had a problem'. ' and if the court didnt catch it, someone else would and correct it in the future..but the state cant correct it now....' here are his words: 2:03:43

end result: JudgeB has a couple remedies to choose from in regard to the jurors, legally.

 

[Artis]

The Norther Flicker -- a woodpecker, and the State Bird of Alabama. The error was in the caption: It should have read, "In the Supreme Court of the U-N-I-T-E-D States of America," rather than in the "Untied States of America."

I love wooodpeckers and the sound of them hammering away. I checked and see that the range for this type includes MI, where I live, but I don't think I've seen one.

You see what I said about checking your own work? Well, I obviously couldn't even check someone else's because I couldn't see "UNTIED". Sheesh! BTW, it's kind of interesting because I read an article, long ago, about how letters can be mixed up in a word and as long as the first and last letters are in the right place, most people can read it just fine.

 

[ReadySet]

Well it just seems that was logical and explained well. It was clear from when and how the charges were changed that this was a clerical error. It was correct, then the charges that were amended did not even include #4 and then when the others were changed, that one had the exact same dates/wording as another count. I think he laid it out well how the error happened and that it truly was clerical. Also by saying the defense had the original indictment for YEARS with the correct dates means they had plenty of time to plan and prepare their case.

You called it. You were right.

 

[887sMtreme]

We shall see very shortly, but my guess is the same as yours.

Prior can legitimately claim they have been defending testimony against the wording of the indictment, and now the state - having already rested its case - wants to change that charge to something else. That's not fair to the defendant and his rights, and I see no way the state gets to say "Never mind, let's have a do over."

This would lead to a dismissal with prejudice of count 4 (JJ murder) but does not impact the other charges.

It's a big deal that the state has already rested its case.

Who thinks Prior held this card back all through the trial until today?
Edited to add: I now understand he already said he knew about the error. Why didn’t he speak up sooner? So odd.

 

[vislaw]

Vislaw, you were correct in your prediction! Thank you.

I'm so pleased! We've known this judge is sharp and fair. His reasoning was very cogent and what I expected from a fair jurist.

 

[887sMtreme]

It was a clerical error and I agree with the judge’s ruling but I think the state should be cited or something for the error. Wasn’t there some kind of error in LVD’s too?

Yes there was! Darned if I can remember what it was, though. Clearly, it didn’t accrue to her benefit.

 

[887sMtreme]

It's the only thing JP had to rest his case on. This acquittal was going to be his ace in the rabbit hole -- so to speak. Well, he didn't have much.

If he’d gotten his way on this, the DP would have remained in force. Not much of a win. I am not a DP advocate, but that’s an oddly comforting thought.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

If he’d gotten his way on this, the DP would have remained in force. Not much of a win. I am not a DP advocate, but that’s an oddly comforting thought.

So, I am curious, how WILL this screw up influence the death penalty ??