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.
Ruminations said:
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
Click to expand...
Her reactions around her family in the aftermath mess me up. When Colby arrives thinking Charles has had a heart attack, and she just throws herself into his arms bodily, crying. And when they're getting ready to move to Idaho, her bursting into tears in front of Janis, and then composing herself and saying, 'I'm okay Mimi, I've got everything I need. I just needed to cry." A couple of weeks later, she was dead.

She was carrying such a weight, trying to keep her family together, trying to be strong. It should never have been hers to carry.

MOO
 
MTW2011 said:
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
Click to expand...
IMO - the hearing overrules anything contained in the motion this first part shows the judges confusion over what JP is saying in this hearing vis a vis what was contained in the motion. The hearing is all part of the record. I think the problem may be that JP is not a good communicator.
 
Nikynoo said:
IMO - the hearing overrules anything contained in the motion this first part shows the judges confusion over what JP is saying in this hearing vis a vis what was contained in the motion. The hearing is all part of the record. I think the problem may be that JP is not a good communicator.
Click to expand...
Appreciate your perspective.
I wonder if an appellate court would also rely on what was said in a hearing versus written filings in the record since there’s conflicting information.

It certainly muddies the water I think. Defense can’t later argue that they never said he wanted the qualified counsel, but the state could counter that by showing that he said that AND also said he wanted Prior at the hearing.
 
aafromaa said:
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….
Click to expand...
Well said. I also believe JP did a far better job defending Chad then the 2 DP qualified attorneys did for Lori. To be fair though they were thrown on the case last minute and didn't have much time to go through everything and prepare a defense. JP was probably the best attorney Chad could have gotten, and he mounted a passionate defense, but in the end the facts and evidence in the case were incontrovertible and Chad received a just verdict.
 
MTW2011 said:
Appreciate your perspective.
I wonder if an appellate court would also rely on what was said in a hearing versus written filings in the record since there’s conflicting information.

It certainly muddies the water I think. Defense can’t later argue that they never said he wanted the qualified counsel, but the state could counter that by showing that he said that AND also said he wanted Prior at the hearing.
Click to expand...
IANAL, but I don't think this is a winning argument.

Chad was aware of his options and made his decision, with its pros and cons.

I think Prior was aware he had a losing hand (defense usually does) and a client unwilling to cut losses with a plea deal. The only "win" was delay- and the aging and retirement of more witnesses.

I think Prior knew this, and that's why he tried to get off the case. But, Prior was not willing to be "fired for cause" so to speak. So the request had to be for a reason not related to his lawyering. Prior himself would not be released just because he was no longer getting paid. So they had Chad make the convoluted request to release Prior because Chad was sad he wasn't getting paid, but Chad was 100% confident in the quality of services.

I don't think Prior was trying to abandon his client. I think he sincerely thought his best hope was constant delays.

MOO
 
Onsdag said:
Well said. I also believe JP did a far better job defending Chad than the 2 DP qualified attorneys did for Lori. To be fair though they were thrown on the case last minute and didn't have much time to go through everything and prepare a defense. JP was probably the best attorney Chad could have gotten, and he mounted a passionate defense, but in the end the facts and evidence in the case were incontrovertible and Chad received a just verdict.
Click to expand...
Lori's attorneys saved her life.

That might be a better outcome then Prior gets.

All the attorneys were required to follow the wishes of their client, though. Lori refused to blame Chad, and both Lori and Chad refused to plead out.

MOO
 
People often say that child killers/molesters are very hated in jail and prison, and that's true, but people also forget there are many many people in prison right now who are there because that's what they did. So if Chad ever makes it to gen pop (or whatever) it won't be impossible for him to make "friends" of sorts.

The same applies for women in prison. There are A LOT of women in prison for child abuse, neglect, and murder. Many are even there because of sex abuse that they themselves facilitated.

There are also people in prison that didn't do that but who simply do not care because they are broken, objectively evil, irredeemable people who need to be kept away from society. Prison culture is very strange and fascinating.

MOO.
 
In looking for some other info this morning, I stumbled across this article from Nov 2023, when Prior asked to have the death penalty taken off the table because "he says Daybell is less culpable than his wife, Lori Vallow Daybell, who did not face the death penalty."

Another quote from the motion to strike: "When two co-defendants have the same level of alleged culpability, it is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual to sentence one to death, while the other does not receive such sentence"

I don't know if I'd missed this somehow or just forgotten about it, but I'm curious to see if Prior will try the same argument for mitigating circumstances.
 
wnk said:
In looking for some other info this morning, I stumbled across this article from Nov 2023, when Prior asked to have the death penalty taken off the table because "he says Daybell is less culpable than his wife, Lori Vallow Daybell, who did not face the death penalty."

Another quote from the motion to strike: "When two co-defendants have the same level of alleged culpability, it is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual to sentence one to death, while the other does not receive such sentence"

I don't know if I'd missed this somehow or just forgotten about it, but I'm curious to see if Prior will try the same argument for mitigating circumstances.
Click to expand...
this was argued in one of the motions I posted up thread. Lori had the DP taken off the table as a sanction against the prosecution for a late discovery violation as Lori had no waived her right to a speedy trial.

Chad did waive his right to a speedy trial and also successfully argued to have the cases separated. Therefore, IMO, JP would be estopped from arguing the same factors again.
 
Nikynoo said:
this was argued in one of the motions I posted up thread. Lori had the DP taken off the table as a sanction against the prosecution for a late discovery violation as Lori had no waived her right to a speedy trial.

Chad did waive his right to a speedy trial and also successfully argued to have the cases separated. Therefore, IMO, JP would be estopped from arguing the same factors again.
Click to expand...
Knowing the rest of the circumstances, we know the reasons why DP was taken off the table, but the jury wouldn't.

I guess my musing was more along the lines of: Would Prior be legally allowed to bring up the fact that LVD was not sentenced to death as a reason not to impose that punishment on CD? Or would references to the sentencing of co-conspirators be disallowed?
 
MTW2011 said:
Appreciate your perspective.
I wonder if an appellate court would also rely on what was said in a hearing versus written filings in the record since there’s conflicting information.

It certainly muddies the water I think. Defense can’t later argue that they never said he wanted the qualified counsel, but the state could counter that by showing that he said that AND also said he wanted Prior at the hearing.
Click to expand...

I watched the entire hearing in real time, and Nikynoo is right on track.

There was a sequence of events, and taking one of them out of context doesn't tell the story.
1 CD/JP filed a motion to be removed from the case, and have a state-appointed DP counsel appointed.
2 Boyce had a hearing to let them explain what they wanted, and then make a decision.
3 In the hearing, JP somewhat was double-talking about being removed, but also needing help. In real time, there was some confusion. (As I reflect, I think JP wanted to keep his real reason for asking hidden.)
4 In the hearing, it was determined that what CD/JP was seeking was state payment and perhaps some help. "I'm/He's working for free, and that's not fair." I'm doing the work of 2.
5 Boyce noted they could have had help, and it has already been ok'ed long before, but needed to find someone DP-qualified for the state to pay for them.
6 At the end, Boyce said to CD and to JP, "You can have a different state-appointed DP attorney or 2" and "You don't have to work for free, but the state can't pay YOU" and let them decide what they wanted.
7 CD said "I choose JP." A defendant has the right to HIS choice of counsel, assuming the lawyer is willing.
8 Boyce then asked JP if he wanted to continue, because he wouldn't force him to continue for free, and JP said he wanted to continue.
9 Boiling it down, I think JP was looking for money from the state, and CD felt it was only fair, but when it was going to lead to JP being taken off the case, they chose otherwise.
10 Both JP and CD stated bluntly, on the record, in relation to the motion, that they did NOT want a change after all. So THAT was their motion, ultimately, and Boyce said yes.

So that ended it. They were the ones who had the choice, and chose otherwise. I don't see any legit grounds for appeal.

ETA - I think the request had 2 motives. 1 Argue that JP was doing the work of 2 or more, so maybe the state would allow the money they ok'ed for help to be paid to JP. 2 Use the workload as a pretense to delay the trial for several months, which may have bought a lengthy delay. But Boyce shut that down by noting JP knew the case and workload and it had already been delayed a long time.
 
Last edited:
mickey2942 said:
His life has been enmeshed with this case for years. Who ķnew that Eastern Idaho was a place, where such heinous crimes would be committed? I wonder how he felt yesterday?
Click to expand...
I remember his first appearance in most of our lives, trying to get Lori and Chad to say where the children were, then reporting from the plane flying over Chad’s property — more a graveyard than a home, really, as we were about to learn — getting microscopic with the case over all these years. I feel like he’s family.
 
MTW2011 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair point…BUT…I think the “requisite inquiry” was made at the time CD was found to be indigent. According to the Rexburg Standard Journal, during the hearing on the motion for JP to withdraw, Blake addresses this very thing. She said that at the time CD was declared indigent (a year earlier) he waived his right to be appointed a death penalty qualified attorney. So while the specific question may not have been asked at the motion to withdraw hearing, it was apparently because it already was asked at the indigent hearing or filing or whatever it was. I do not recall if there was a televised hearing or just a motion and response filed on CD’s indigence but I found the RSJ article below.

www.rexburgstandardjournal.com

Boyce denies Prior's request to withdraw from Daybell case

Seventh District Judge Steven Boyce has denied attorney John Prior’s request to be released from Chad Daybell’s triple murder case.
www.rexburgstandardjournal.com www.rexburgstandardjournal.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 224 more.
Total: 2,134 (members: 225, guests: 1,909)

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
1,909
Total visitors
2,134
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,361
Messages
18,107,179
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top