GUILTY TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #7

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diddian said:
He ruled to stick with the old instructions (the ones read to the jury at the beginning).

I'd love to hear attorneys opine on this given that the Idaho Supreme Ct order says that the new instructions apply "effective immediately" without qualification.
Click to expand...
I believe he made the right decision at the end of the trial. If it was day one, it would be different.
 
Love Never Fails said:
I believe he made the right decision at the end of the trial. If it was day one, it would be different.
Click to expand...
I wish that were so, but I don't know if it is the law and I am concerned that it could create the possibility that a jury finding for the death penalty would be overturned.

Given that the Idaho Supreme Ct says "effective immediately" and that the Order relates to instructions where the death penalty is involved, it seems to me reasonable that this Judge would have used the new jury instruction with an explanation to the jury that this is a very recently released Order from the Idaho Supreme Ct and that is why this instruction differs from that they previously were given.
 
Diddian said:
I wish that were so, but I don't know if it is the law and I am concerned that it could create the possibility that a jury finding for the death penalty would be overturned.

Given that the Idaho Supreme Ct says "effective immediately" and that the Order relates to instructions where the death penalty is involved, it seems to me reasonable that this Judge would have used the new jury instruction with an explanation to the jury that this is a very recently released Order from the Idaho Supreme Ct and that is why this instruction differs from that they previously were given.
Click to expand...
Judge Boyce said the new rule may or may not affect the case but said the trial started back in March. I think he has a good handle on this.
 
indicolite22 said:
I think Brandon already forgave her (JMO).
Click to expand...
Maybe. But he has to live with the fact that she knew and wanted him dead. That’s a tough load to carry while that person has paid no penalty for what she did. He would be dead, were it not for the grace of God. And while he has a heart to forgive, and I honor him for that, she needs to be penalized in some way. Maybe a public heartfelt apology during trial for the whole world to see.
How does one ever trust her again?
 
Diddian said:
He ruled to stick with the old instructions (the ones read to the jury at the beginning).

I'd love to hear attorneys opine on this given that the Idaho Supreme Ct order says that the new instructions apply "effective immediately" without qualification.

The May 22, 2024 order also indicates that the Order will be published for three consecutive weeks on the Idaho State Bar's website and in its weekly e-Bulletin and that, as soon as practicable, a summary of the amendments impacted by the Order shall be published in one issue of The Advocate.

IANAL, but I would expect that the fact that Prior brought this up would be adequate notice to this judge to seek out and read the Order and follow it.

What typically happens regarding implementation of new Orders to be implemented effective immediately when those Orders are relevant to proceedings in progress?
Click to expand...
One would think that justices sitting on a state Supreme Court would anticipate issues with trials in progress and specifically address that issue in the order rather than leave a District Court to have to make a determination about a trial in progress. Wording it to be effective immediately could be taken either to apply to trials that start after the order date or to those in progress. And the exception that unless a Judge finds that a different instruction would more adequately, accurately, or clearly state the law…what is that about? If the law is more adequately, accurately, or clearly stated with another instruction, why did the Idaho Supreme Court bother issuing this one? UGH

I do not think that there are significant differences between the old and new instruction to cause any real issue but it seems the ISC muddied the waters for absolutely no reason. And I’m fairly certain they all knew about the death penalty Daybell trial going on in their state at the time they were issuing this order. In my mind, the justices showed poor judgement in either the timing or the wording of this order.
 
Diddian said:
I wish that were so, but I don't know if it is the law and I am concerned that it could create the possibility that a jury finding for the death penalty would be overturned.

Given that the Idaho Supreme Ct says "effective immediately" and that the Order relates to instructions where the death penalty is involved, it seems to me reasonable that this Judge would have used the new jury instruction with an explanation to the jury that this is a very recently released Order from the Idaho Supreme Ct and that is why this instruction differs from that they previously were given.
Click to expand...
I think Judge Stephens made the right decision and as usual he gave sound reasoning for his decision - that the jury had already been given the “old” reasonable doubt instructions. He read those instructions to the jury at the beginning of the trial - before they were sworn in - before opening statements on April 10th - specifically he read the reasonable doubt instruction that was in place at the time and Judge Stephens felt that he should not change those instructions after they had already been given to this jury.

I do not think there would be any grounds for the jury’s decision to be overturned on this issue since the new order also included an “unless” clause - though that clause itself seemed a bit odd to me (see my last post) but I believe that it is enough to allow Judge Stephens to determine that the “old” instructions more adequately state the law since they had already been given to this jury and he did not want to muddy the waters for the jury the way the ISC muddied them for the courts.

But…I’m not an attorney :)
 
Snoopster said:
It doesn't matter if Brandon already 'forgave' her. If she was part of the conspiracy to attempt to murder Brandon then she should be charged. It's a criminal matter for justice system.
Click to expand...
To add to that, as I understand it, in certain cases charges can and will be pressed by LE regardless of whether the victim wants to press charges or not. This because the State and/or its people are also considered victims to the crime. I'm pretty sure attempted murder would be considered such a crime.
 
aafromaa said:
I think Judge Stephens made the right decision and as usual he gave sound reasoning for his decision - that the jury had already been given the “old” reasonable doubt instructions. He read those instructions to the jury at the beginning of the trial - before they were sworn in - before opening statements on April 10th - specifically he read the reasonable doubt instruction that was in place at the time and Judge Stephens felt that he should not change those instructions after they had already been given to this jury.

I do not think there would be any grounds for the jury’s decision to be overturned on this issue since the new order also included an “unless” clause - though that clause itself seemed a bit odd to me (see my last post) but I believe that it is enough to allow Judge Stephens to determine that the “old” instructions more adequately state the law since they had already been given to this jury and he did not want to muddy the waters for the jury the way the ISC muddied them for the courts.

But…I’m not an attorney :)
Click to expand...
Note that the judge's name is Boyce (Judge Steven Boyce).

To me (IANAL), it would seem that when the Idaho Supreme Court issues an Order about jury instructions - and particularly those in death penalty cases, it is an attempt to cure something that court has determined was either wrong or not clear in instructions before their Order. So, the prior instructions were absent that cure. And when the Idaho Supreme Court indicates "effective immediately" without additional qualification in their Order, they mean upon issuance of the Order (assuming the relevant parties receive notice of the Order - and I suspect that if a defense attorney brings up the Supreme Court's order, that by itself serves as notice.)

P.S. I do not necessarily agree that the new instructions are better instructions than the latter and would love to know what motivated the change.

My concern: If the new instructions are "more lenient" toward a death penalty defendant than the prior, then why would CD not have the right to be subject to the same jury instructions regarding reasonable doubt than a defendant against whom charges are filed today? Could an appeals court determine that CD was subject to harsher instructions than the Idaho Supreme Court had ordered?

I would think that if a court were ruling on appeal, they'd try to analyze if a jury's decision would be different had they had the new instructions. What I don't understand is why ask an appeals court to attempt to discern that when you could just give the new instructions now, explain to jurors why those revised instructions are being given, and KNOW for certain how a jury would decide based upon the new "cured" instructions?
 
indicolite22 said:
The court is live again with a conference on jury instructions.

ETA: The Idaho supreme court's instruction about reasonable doubt has changed 6 days ago. They are discussing whether to use the old or the new definition. JP is arguing in favor of the new one while the prosecution prefers the old version.
Click to expand...
What are the differences between the old and new?
 
wnk said:
Boyce just ruled that they're going to use the old one, and that was exactly one of his reasons. (The other main one being that it could confuse the jurors.)

Instructions will be read to the jury at 10am tomorrow.

Boyce has been such a paragon of reason, evenhandedness, and sheer patience throughout this trial. I sure hope they're letting him take a nice, long vacation after all of this. He's earned it.
Click to expand...
I agree he's been great. I also like the judge who handled the prelim. He was like a most excellent umpire.
 
Snoopster said:
It doesn't matter if Brandon already 'forgave' her. If she was part of the conspiracy to attempt to murder Brandon then she should be charged. It's a criminal matter for justice system.
Click to expand...
Sorry for quoting myself, but it's too late to edit my post...

Was I the only person that was concerned when Melanie showed up at her in-laws house, with Alex in tow??
Yes, she got detained by police, but I really wonder what might have happened if LE hadn't shown up.
Brandon and his parents must have been petrified. If they weren't, they should have been! Of course they wouldn't have known about all of the people that Alex had killed.

Can anyone recall when this incident happened?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 170 more.
Total: 1,953 (members: 171, guests: 1,782)

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
1,782
Total visitors
1,953
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,037
Messages
18,133,681
Members
231,216
Latest member
mctigue30
Back
Top