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

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796633142742204436

'No peace to be found for anyone': family of victims speak in Chad Daybell sentencing

BOISE — Multiple people, parents grandparents, brothers, sisters, and other relatives gave victim impact statements during the sentencing portion of the

ksltv.com

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796632905017680323

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796649383137808436

 

[ReadySet]

​

Adultery is illegal in Idaho under Section 18-6605 of the Idaho Code. Adultery is classified as a misdemeanor offense, and the punishment for committing adultery in Idaho is a fine of up to $1,000 or up to six months in jail or both.

Is Adultery Illegal? A State-by-State Guide | legalhearsay.com

In the United States, several states still have laws criminalizing adultery. In recent years, there has been a growing push to repeal these laws, as they…

legalhearsay.com

Nope.

Idaho Legislature Amends “Sex Crimes” Section of Law​

In 2022, a bill was introduced in the state senate that would, among other things, would repeal Idaho’s adultery law. In the bill’s “Statement of Purpose,” lawmakers explained that the adultery law was unenforceable. It passed with a vote of 65-5, was signed by Governor Little in March 2022 and adultery was no longer considered illegal in Idaho as of July 1, 2022.



Read More: Is it Actually Illegal to Cheat On Your Spouse in Idaho? | Fact or Fiction: It's Really Illegal to Cheat on Your Spouse in Idaho

Fact or Fiction: It's Really Illegal to Cheat on Your Spouse in Idaho

With so many online dating apps and social media outlets, there’s more temptation than ever to step out on your spouse.

liteonline.com

 

[J-Kat]

Jury is taking much too long.

 

[MTW2011]

Adding some additional notes, curious if anyone has any thoughts. A little over 1 week ago Idaho Supreme Court issued an Order for all lower Courts within the state new standard jury instructions for death penalty cases. They revised several portions of the previous instructions and included language in their Order that cases with applicable charges (facing the death penalty) should follow this “effective immediately”. I noticed Attorney Prior also said those words in his objection today.

I went to look & part of what Supreme Court revised was the definition and details on what “reasonable doubt” is. Prior wanted to note his objection and wished the jury would be instructed on the language per the recent Supreme Court order. The Judge denied doing that, saying he didn’t want to cause confusion or change definitions mid trial.

What could this possibly mean in an appellate sense?
If the lower Court instructed the jury on a definition, one that is arguably fundamental for the jury’s deliberations, using a different definition of “reasonable doubt”, could that be claimed as part of an error made by the lower Court?

Reading the plain text of the revised instructions in their Order, it is not just a few word changes, it is entire lines revised that explain reasonable doubt. Here’s to hoping there is something the State can argue on appeal for why, even if the Court did not follow the Order of the Supreme Court, that it didn’t affect the verdicts in any way.

Link for reading Idaho Death Penalty Criminal Jury Instructions | Supreme Court

 

[nodamselindistress]

Jury is taking much too long.

Hoping they come back soon, in the next hour or so. I know the judge said the jurors get to make their own schedule, does anyone know if they can go on into the evening hours or how late?

 

[mickey2942]

Prior actually said, if CD "suffocated Tammy, that is NOT atrocious"?! Seriously?! That is the best he can come up with?!

Personally, when a spouse kills the other spouse, for insurance money, that is absolutely atrocious!!! No matter what the method is!

 

[Ruminations]

Adding some additional notes, curious if anyone has any thoughts. A little over 1 week ago Idaho Supreme Court issued an Order for all lower Courts within the state new standard jury instructions for death penalty cases. They revised several portions of the previous instructions and included language in their Order that cases with applicable charges (facing the death penalty) should follow this “effective immediately”. I noticed Attorney Prior also said those words in his objection today.

I went to look & part of what Supreme Court revised was the definition and details on what “reasonable doubt” is. Prior wanted to note his objection and wished the jury would be instructed on the language per the recent Supreme Court order. The Judge denied doing that, saying he didn’t want to cause confusion or change definitions mid trial.

What could this possibly mean in an appellate sense?
If the lower Court instructed the jury on a definition, one that is arguably fundamental for the jury’s deliberations, using a different definition of “reasonable doubt”, could that be claimed as part of an error made by the lower Court?

Reading the plain text of the revised instructions in their Order, it is not just a few word changes, it is entire lines revised that explain reasonable doubt. Here’s to hoping there is something the State can argue on appeal for why, even if the Court did not follow the Order of the Supreme Court, that it didn’t affect the verdicts in any way.

Link for reading Idaho Death Penalty Criminal Jury Instructions | Supreme Court

Boyce has to anticipate an appeal either way.

If he changed the language mid-trial, including telling jurors that instructions they received a month ago was now replace with new language, the appeal issue is confusion.

If he kept the language the same, the appeal issue is old language.

The language is not different in meaning IMO. It is hard to explain the difference between reasonable doubt and convoluted speculative possibilities that defy common sense. The old and new language try to make the distinction with equal success, IMO.

There is ambiguity in the "effective immediately" order. It could mean starting now with all juries that haven't already gotten the old instructions before today.

He chose not to change the language mid-trial.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Adding some additional notes, curious if anyone has any thoughts. A little over 1 week ago Idaho Supreme Court issued an Order for all lower Courts within the state new standard jury instructions for death penalty cases. They revised several portions of the previous instructions and included language in their Order that cases with applicable charges (facing the death penalty) should follow this “effective immediately”. I noticed Attorney Prior also said those words in his objection today.

I went to look & part of what Supreme Court revised was the definition and details on what “reasonable doubt” is. Prior wanted to note his objection and wished the jury would be instructed on the language per the recent Supreme Court order. The Judge denied doing that, saying he didn’t want to cause confusion or change definitions mid trial.

What could this possibly mean in an appellate sense?
If the lower Court instructed the jury on a definition, one that is arguably fundamental for the jury’s deliberations, using a different definition of “reasonable doubt”, could that be claimed as part of an error made by the lower Court?

Reading the plain text of the revised instructions in their Order, it is not just a few word changes, it is entire lines revised that explain reasonable doubt. Here’s to hoping there is something the State can argue on appeal for why, even if the Court did not follow the Order of the Supreme Court, that it didn’t affect the verdicts in any way.

Link for reading Idaho Death Penalty Criminal Jury Instructions | Supreme Court

But... do you think the revisions change the way the jury will use the instructions? Would they change your decision as a juror if Emma's testimony that she did the crucial google search gives you reasonable doubt?

I don't see a difference in meaning myself. I know it's a lot of words, but there are a lot of ways to say the same thing.

MOO

 

[MTW2011]

Boyce has to anticipate an appeal either way.

If he changed the language mid-trial, including telling jurors that instructions they received a month ago was now replace with new language, the appeal issue is confusion.

If he kept the language the same, the appeal issue is old language.

The language is not different in meaning IMO. It is hard to explain the difference between reasonable doubt and convoluted speculative possibilities that defy common sense. The old and new language try to make the distinction with equal success, IMO.

There is ambiguity in the "effective immediately" order. It could mean starting now with all juries that haven't already gotten the old instructions before today.

He chose not to change the language mid-trial.

MOO

Thank you

Just curious, which part of the 32 page Order has some ambiguity? That’s certainly helpful if it’s not actually clear when or how that should “start”. I was thinking it was fairly clear as it outlined a specific date, when and how this order was being published and shared with attorneys and all lower Courts, etc but maybe there is some ambiguity baked in there. Good to hear then

 

[fred&edna]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796649383137808436

When Prior was speaking about bomb dropping, the silly humor that occupies a good deal of my mind just kept thinking about this... (I wondered if the jury was believing that sheltered Chaddy was just bombed by Lori)

 

[Ruminations]

Prior actually said, if CD "suffocated Tammy, that is NOT atrocious"?! Seriously?! That is the best he can come up with?!

Personally, when a spouse kills the other spouse, for insurance money, that is absolutely atrocious!!! No matter what the method is!

The instructions explicitly said that the fact you found the defendant guilty of a charge is not enough to meet the standard for DP.

In other words, if you voted for DP for the reason you just gave, you would be not complying with the instructions.

I agree that it is a difficult instruction to wrap one's head around. It's asking to compare horrors that are beyond the point of measuring by degrees. It's just not possible.

MOO

 

[Kakidoll]

I'm ok with LWOP. I think it will be a lot harder for him, less appeals, worse conditions. I don't think he physically murdered any of the 3, i think he's too soft and chicken to do it, that Alex did. I want to see his kids (I don't think ALL are supporting him at this point, Def. E and G) call him out and write him off. I want him to live a lonely scared life in prison. i think he WANTS solitary, solo cell, so he can write and do whatever all day. LWOP he'll have to work, fight, and NOT be in charge. JMO

 

[lisette]

Is the jury still deliberating or have they retired for the evening?

 

[BUF]

No matter what sentence Chad gets (life or death), he will be transported to prison…quite different from the jail he has been in all this time.

 

[sassyblue]

Is the jury still deliberating or have they retired for the evening?

Still deliberating.

ETA...I'm sure they want this to be over with and go home to their families tonight. MOO

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796681318291603925

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796682880493801473

 

[TigerLou]

I'm ok with LWOP. I think it will be a lot harder for him, less appeals, worse conditions. I don't think he physically murdered any of the 3, i think he's too soft and chicken to do it, that Alex did. I want to see his kids (I don't think ALL are supporting him at this point, Def. E and G) call him out and write him off. I want him to live a lonely scared life in prison. i think he WANTS solitary, solo cell, so he can write and do whatever all day. LWOP he'll have to work, fight, and NOT be in charge. JMO

I agree. I think he will be utterly miserable and not do will in gen pop.

 

[Pipersand]

I listened carefully to the jury instructions as we do not have the death penalty in Canada. Such a tough and devastating demand being placed on these jurors.

The rules in Idaho regarding victim impact statements (if I understand these correctly) prevent families from speaking directly to the perpetrator? We have similar rules in Canada, but they are not always consistently complied with. The defendant is now convicted - so many of the protections given to an "accused" are gone. I think there is something helpful to permit a victim to face the perpetrator (if they choose) and say "You have caused this. You have wrought this pain. You took someone I love for selfish reasons. You have been held responsible by a jury of your peers - now, be accountable." Just my thoughts.