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

[Nikynoo]

I hate when I make mistakes & can not edit my post - the Trial day 32 - should have read 5/30/24 - not 5/20....

Repost it and request that mods remove the old post?

 

[Niner]

Repost it and request that mods remove the old post?

That's okay - I shall leave it as is - made the correct in the other post. Typo... But thanks for the suggestion!

 

[MTW2011]

I think the rules have been mis-stated… It is my understanding that there is no law or rule that requires an indigent person to accept an attorney appointed by the court even in a DP case and that there is no law or rule that requires a privately hired attorney to be death penalty qualified.

Even though JP tried to get off the case shortly before trial, both he and CD took that argument off the table during the hearing on the matter when JP said he didn’t want to be off the case & CD said he wanted to keep JP as his attorney. They both knew it was a DP case when CD hired JP and if JP had a concern about taking a DP case that’s when it should have been addressed by JP. If CD had changed his mind leading up to the trial and wanted a DP qualified attorney appointed then he should have said that in the hearing - instead JP said CD didn’t want him off the case and he didn’t want to be off the case and CD said he wanted JP to remain as his attorney.

There are no grounds for appeal here. I’m sure CD will have a new attorney for his appeal because JP won’t keep working for free now that he has gotten everything CD had left and gotten the name recognition of being involved with this case, but I’m sure a new attorney will tell CD that dog won’t hunt regarding an appeal based on not having a DP qualified attorney. Now they might be able to argue ineffectiveness of counsel because JP was in over his head with his first DP case but as many have pointed out here, JP did everything he could in this case to defend his client. He wasn’t out-lawyered - there was simply too much evidence to overcome.

Though I thought his closing was poor and am not sure if that was battle fatigue or he was intentionally trying to set up a possible ineffective counsel argument for an appeal for CD. But even with a poor closing and possibly a weak defense to be presented in the penalty phase coming up, it is unlikely an ineffective counsel appeal would be successful since he showed himself to be a competent attorney throughout years of pre-trial motions and hearings and during this trial. There were no signs that JP was overwhelmed by the challenge of a DP case or even overwhelmed by the workload of being the only attorney on the defense. He was overwhelmed by the the evidence and testimony and lost his case. That doesn’t make him ineffective - that makes him a lawyer with a guilty client.

I do wonder whether he might have grounds for appeal based on his co-conspirator not having been eligible for the DP but if that appeal were to be successful I think the cure for it would be to convert the sentence to LWOP on multiple counts and considering how long it takes to carry out a DP anyway I would be just fine with that too. I am convinced that CD will spend the rest of his life in behind bars and then either be executed or die in prison.

Unless of course that earthquake he’s been waiting on hits the prison and opens the prison doors and allows him to escape….

Emphasis added by me.

If you look back at this language from an Order in Lori’s case, the Judge mentions that “…is unable to conduct the requisite inquiry to determine whether the Defendant may elect to
"knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently" waive her right to death penalty qualified counsel at public expense”.

If he said there would need to be a “requisite inquiry” to see if she understands that they are waiving qualified attorneys, I’m not seeing how that would that not apply in Chad’s case? Chad was not asked specifically if he waived qualified counsel, that “inquiry” was simply not done. Lori couldn’t be asked if she waived it because she was deemed incompetent at that time, Chad was not deemed incompetent but he also was not asked about waiving qualified counsel as far as I know. JMOO

You can read the Order I’m referencing at this link.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR22-21-1624/Order+for+Appointment+of+Counsel.pdf

 

[Kemug]

Unless of course that earthquake he’s been waiting on hits the prison and opens the prison doors and allows him to escape….

RSBM
Where are you, Zulema?

 

[indicolite22]

RSBM
Where are you, Zulema?

I think Zulema no longer believes. Lori is probably the only person at this point thinking she'll be helped by a godsent natural disaster. IMO Chad knows he's a fraud. Loyalty of his children is important to him, so he won't admit it.

 

[Nikynoo]

Emphasis added by me.

If you look back at this language from an Order in Lori’s case, the Judge mentions that “…is unable to conduct the requisite inquiry to determine whether the Defendant may elect to
"knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently" waive her right to death penalty qualified counsel at public expense”.

If he said there would need to be a “requisite inquiry” to see if she understands that they are waiving qualified attorneys, I’m not seeing how that would that not apply in Chad’s case? Chad was not asked specifically if he waived qualified counsel, that “inquiry” was simply not done. Lori couldn’t be asked if she waived it because she was deemed incompetent at that time, Chad was not deemed incompetent but he also was not asked about waiving qualified counsel as far as I know. JMOO

You can read the Order I’m referencing at this link.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR22-21-1624/Order+for+Appointment+of+Counsel.pdf

IIRC, the difference is that Lori was subsequently appointed public defenders (both of whom were DP qualified), Chad chose not to have a public defender. Chad wanted Mr Prior instead, so the DP rules do not apply. At the time the order was written, Mark Means was Lori's attorney. MM was not DP qualified, so I think that this order is in relation to MM and not the subsequent attorneys appointed by the court.

ETA - I have found the order which sets out Chads constitutional right to retain his own counsel. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...523-Order-on-Motion-to-Appoint-Co-Counsel.pdf

‘However, despite this advisement of rights under I.C.R. 44.3, from both Court and through
counsel, Daybell has continually and unequivocally asserted his decision to have Mr. Prior
represent him at trial, with or without additional counsel’.

 

[MTW2011]

IIRC, the difference is that Lori was subsequently appointed public defenders (both of whom were DP qualified), Chad chose not to have a public defender. Chad wanted Mr Prior instead, so the DP rules do not apply. At the time the order was written, Mark Means was Lori's attorney. MM was not DP qualified, so I think that this order is in relation to MM and not the subsequent attorneys appointed by the court.

ETA - I have found the order which sets out Chads constitutional right to retain his own counsel. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...523-Order-on-Motion-to-Appoint-Co-Counsel.pdf

‘However, despite this advisement of rights under I.C.R. 44.3, from both Court and through
counsel, Daybell has continually and unequivocally asserted his decision to have Mr. Prior
represent him at trial, with or without additional counsel’.

And after that Order you linked to, Chad told the Court through his attorney that he wanted the two death penalty qualified attorneys for his trial. That Order was from August 2023, and in January 2024 Chad told the Court he wanted the two qualified counsel.

IMOO the “I still want Prior” was more of “if I’m not being appointed anyone else, then I choose Prior to represent me”. Based on the court filings by the defense, I strongly believe there was a change in the “decision” he was asserting to the court at the start of 2024. But JMOO.

 

[Nikynoo]

for those who wondered about the argument about the removal of the death penalty for Chad - this has already been argued - see https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...1923-Memorandum-Decision-Order-on-Motions.pdf

 

[Nikynoo]

And after that Order you linked to, Chad told the Court through his attorney that he wanted the two death penalty qualified attorneys for his trial. That Order was from August 2023, and in January 2024 Chad told the Court he wanted the two qualified counsel.

IMOO the “I still want Prior” was more of “if I’m not being appointed anyone else, then I choose Prior to represent me”. Based on the court filings by the defense, I strongly believe there was a change in the “decision” he was asserting to the court at the start of 2024. But JMOO.

thanks! I'm making my way through the orders, so will get there eventually!

 

[iamshadow21]

thanks! I'm making my way through the orders, so will get there eventually!

You're a champion, @Nikynoo . Wading into the trenches of motions so that those of us who don't understand legalese don't have to.

 

[Nikynoo]

And after that Order you linked to, Chad told the Court through his attorney that he wanted the two death penalty qualified attorneys for his trial. That Order was from August 2023, and in January 2024 Chad told the Court he wanted the two qualified counsel.

IMOO the “I still want Prior” was more of “if I’m not being appointed anyone else, then I choose Prior to represent me”. Based on the court filings by the defense, I strongly believe there was a change in the “decision” he was asserting to the court at the start of 2024. But JMOO.

It does not state it in the January order, but part of the hearing was streamed. At that hearing, Chad reiterated that he wanted Prior to remain, and that he did not want the court to appoint PD's. I think everyone's view at the time, was that Prior's motion was misplaced. This is why the order to withdraw and appoint PDs was denied. I'll see if I can find the live stream and post it here.

 

[Nikynoo]

And after that Order you linked to, Chad told the Court through his attorney that he wanted the two death penalty qualified attorneys for his trial. That Order was from August 2023, and in January 2024 Chad told the Court he wanted the two qualified counsel.

IMOO the “I still want Prior” was more of “if I’m not being appointed anyone else, then I choose Prior to represent me”. Based on the court filings by the defense, I strongly believe there was a change in the “decision” he was asserting to the court at the start of 2024. But JMOO.

This is the live stream - you will see from 9 minutes onwards, it was all about Prior not being paid. As per Judge Boyce at around the 10.30 mark, Chad thought it unfair that Prior not be paid.

 

[MTW2011]

It does not state it in the January order, but part of the hearing was streamed. At that hearing, Chad reiterated that he wanted Prior to remain, and that he did not want the court to appoint PD's. I think everyone's view at the time, was that Prior's motion was misplaced. This is why the order to withdraw and appoint PDs was denied. I'll see if I can find the live stream and post it here.

Here is what I was referring to:
January 11, 2024 Motion “…Mr. Daybell has requested from me that he be given two capital qualified attorneys for his trial.”

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR22-21-1623/2024/011124-Motion-to-Withdraw-as-Counsel.pdf

 

[Ruminations]

Just my own opinion, but I think it was a very deliberate move that Lori sent Tylee back inside the home AFTER shots were fired to get Lori's purse.

She made sure Tylee was a witness as completely as possible.

I cannot think why else anyone would do it. Shots were fired, you're fleeing with your kids, either because you're afraid or because you don't want them to see the body. But no, Tylee honey, run back in and grab my purse? Inside, where the body of your stepfather is laid out, where the air still reeks of gunsmoke? Where Alex is not rendering aid, not giving CPR, just mooching about until he's sure there's no hope of revival?

Sending Tylee back in just gave Lori more reasons to follow through on killing her.

Lori didn't mention it, as far as I know, in her police interview, but Tylee does. Her describing 'blocking everything out' while she runs inside for the purse is just devastating. And it's a clear sign of how much she did love and respect her mother. She didn't say 'hell no!' She was a dutiful daughter and ran back into a murder scene, even though there's no reason Lori couldn't have got her own purse.

MOO

That's very plausible. Certainly, it would be on brand for Lori to expose Tylee to trauma to meet some petty need of her own.

That wasn't the theory I formulated. I interpreted Tylee's claim to run for the purse as a fabrication- and she realized mid- sentence that the story will mean she would be exposed to Charles laid out. And she and Lori had already rehearsed that she hadn't seen him. So she added the blinders detail.

Whatever happened- Charles was dead, and Tylee and JJ's last days were now living nightmares.

Tylee in the interview room singing (beautifully) to herself will forever break my heart.

MOO

 

[minusfour]

I made a donation to the Tammy Daybell Foundation today. Apparently it received a large number of donations after the verdict. Whilst Chad and Lori rot away in their cells, Tammy's positive influence will help improve lives.
A small comfort.

 

[Nikynoo]

Here is what I was referring to:
January 11, 2024 Motion “…Mr. Daybell has requested from me that he be given two capital qualified attorneys for his trial.”

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR22-21-1623/2024/011124-Motion-to-Withdraw-as-Counsel.pdf

Yes, but that is not what was said in the hearing.

 

[Ruminations]

Just wondering, with the trial for Charles Vallow's murder coming up, is there a chance that Lori may yet be given the DP?

Not with the current charges.

In AZ the particular murder she is charged with is not a DP charge.

It is possible that she is charged with another kind of murder, as there is no statute of limitations. But I don't see a reason to think that will happen.

MOO

 

[Nikynoo]

see 23.27 about the rule around the appointment of DP qualified attorneys. Apply to PD's but not privtaely retained attorneys.

 

[MTW2011]

Yes, but that is not what was said in the hearing.

Yeah, that’s part of why I was trying to highlight.
With conflicting info, which does a Court choose to go with?

Are the representations made in the Motion more “true” than the answers to questions on the record during a hearing? Does a higher Court tend to go with what the attorney is saying/filing as they understand the law, or is the defendant expected to understand the law just as much?

I’m not asking “you” per se, I was only trying to point out that his defense put this in writing. And I wonder if that would aid in any potential appeal issue

 

[Twick]

Any idea what mitigating factors Prior could possibly present to counter the statutory aggravating factors supporting the death penalty?

Self-delusion?
Folie-a-deux (shared delusion) - among him and his followers, reinforced in part by so many of the local fringe groups?

I remember two of the guys who went on a mission with him claiming in an interview that he was very charismatic with the people they approached. Then, at some point he obviously became associated with folks who taught that doomsday was approaching and he lent his “charisma” to those teachings. Did he “believe,” or did he just see the profit potential in participating? I’d be very interested in knowing more about what preceded his decision to move the family to Rexburg.

Very hard to find justification or extenuating for murdering children.