GUILTY TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #8

[indicolite22]

I actually noticed this "live" because I somehow already knew the statements couldn't mention Chad or the crime or the deserved punishment, all decisions of the jury. The statements were just supposed to talk about impact.

After her stayement, which did mention Chad, Prior asked for a side bar with his clenched teeth smile.

But after the side bar, there was never any objection, motion to discuss, etc. so I doubt it matters. If Prior did object I would think the judge would have given some instruction to the jury to disregard the "wrong" parts.

Tylee's aunt probably just mixed up the instructions or something. Victims can mention the defendant or even address him in other states.

I came to the same conclusion- that the side bar was for that non-conforming victim impact statement. But I don't really know if Lauren and I are right about the purpose of the side bar. It could have been requested for an unrelated reason.

MOO

I was under the impression that the statements had to be approved in advance and Annie's was changed. Perhaps I misunderstood that part.

 

[nodamselindistress]

That really irks me that they couldn't mention Chad or sentencing, etc. Why does our society protect the perpetrators and not the victims? UGH

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Thom Harrison didn't write Visions of Glory, but his visions are portrayed in it. He is still alive. It's the book's author John Pontius who died.

Okay? I didn't say otherwise. I was quoting from the complaint only that the book was mentioned.

 

[BUF]

That really irks me that they couldn't mention Chad or sentencing, etc. Why does our society protect the perpetrators and not the victims? UGH

I feel the same….but not in all states like we just heard in Michelle Troconis’ sentencing in CT.

 

[MTW2011]

All these juror interviews are very interesting!

But I can’t help but worry that some of their remarks may be heavily scrutinized by his new appellate attorneys.

One of them told EastIdahoNews that most of their minds were made up, for the guilt phase, on Wednesday evening. I don’t know what they meant by that but seems like it provides just enough vagueness for defense to want to interview jurors to see what that meant. I’ve seen such a request get denied countless times before, so who knows. JMOO

 

[Ruminations]

I was under the impression that the statements had to be approved in advance and Annie's was changed. Perhaps I misunderstood that part.

True- I think they were reviewed; I think the lawyers had copies. Who knows. But again, no objection- no jury instruction. So I think it just got a pass.

MOO

 

[lightofmine99]

One of them told EastIdahoNews that most of their minds were made up, for the guilt phase, on Wednesday evening. I don’t know what they meant by that but seems like it provides just enough vagueness for defense to want to interview jurors to see what that meant. I’ve seen such a request get denied countless times before, so who knows. JMOO

I took it to mean they had a brief discussion and they all seemed like they believed in guilt, but wanted to make sure to discuss everything thoroughly the next day. I believe you might be referring to Juror 9. IIRC he said he just thought the others were leaning towards guilt on Wednesday. MOO.

 

[Teche]

He said that he should have kept the visions to himself and that the book author added to them.

Thank you.

 

[Teche]

I actually noticed this "live" because I somehow already knew the statements couldn't mention Chad or the crime or the deserved punishment, all decisions of the jury. The statements were just supposed to talk about impact.

After her stayement, which did mention Chad, Prior asked for a side bar with his clenched teeth smile.

But after the side bar, there was never any objection, motion to discuss, etc. so I doubt it matters. If Prior did object I would think the judge would have given some instruction to the jury to disregard the "wrong" parts.

Tylee's aunt probably just mixed up the instructions or something. Victims can mention the defendant or even address him in other states.

I came to the same conclusion- that the side bar was for that non-conforming victim impact statement. But I don't really know if Lauren and I are right about the purpose of the side bar. It could have been requested for an unrelated reason.

MOO

How strange that the family is denied the opportunity to address the murderer and his horrid crimes.

 

[aafromaa]

That really irks me that they couldn't mention Chad or sentencing, etc. Why does our society protect the perpetrators and not the victims? UGH

I agree it may seem unfair to rein in what family members can say at a sentencing hearing in a death penalty case. I think most of us want the family to be able to tell him what a low life piece of scum they think he is and how they hope that he is miserable on death row while he awaits his execution, etc.

But the Idaho rule preventing victim impact statements from addressing the murder etc is not designed to protect the murderer but to protect the jury who is about to go in to make the most serious decision any jury can make - whether or not to sentence the criminal to death.

They do not need to know what the families think of the murderer as they have already determined by the facts that he has committed the crime(s). They don’t need to know what the families think should happen which is determined by their feelings and not by facts of law that they are to consider in their deliberations. It is important for them to know who the victims were and how their deaths have impacted the lives of others and therefore victim impact statements are allowed before the jury deliberates whether or not to sentence the murderer to death.

 

[Ruminations]

I agree it may seem unfair to rein in what family members can say at a sentencing hearing in a death penalty case. I think most of us want the family to be able to tell him what a low life piece of scum they think he is and how they hope that he is miserable on death row while he awaits his execution, etc.

But the Idaho rule preventing victim impact statements from addressing the murder etc is not designed to protect the murderer but to protect the jury who is about to go in to make the most serious decision any jury can make - whether or not to sentence the criminal to death.

They do not need to know what the families think of the murderer as they have already determined by the facts that he has committed the crime(s). They don’t need to know what the families think should happen which is determined by their feelings and not by facts of law that they are to consider in their deliberations. It is important for them to know who the victims were and how their deaths have impacted the lives of others and therefore victim impact statements are allowed before the jury deliberates whether or not to sentence the murderer to death.

Exactly!

The jury is charged with making sure the prosecution proved the elements of each crime. Then the jury is charged with determining if the crimes met death penalty criteria per statute.

The opinions of the victims are not legal arguments. We are proud to be a nation of laws.

I like three things about Idaho law. I like that the alternate jurors are drawn last minute. I like that the victim impact statements are exactly what they say they are, and are used to consider what punishment is appropriate, not meant to be part of the punishment. And I like how the death penalty decision is left to the jury with very specific criteria that also have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. If there has to be a death penalty, that's the way to do it.

It is part of having a solid law and order infrastructure that keeps justice fair. When individuals start taking law into their own hands, the results are terrible. Gangs quickly fill the power void of the legal system.

MOO

 

[MTW2011]

I took it to mean they had a brief discussion and they all seemed like they believed in guilt, but wanted to make sure to discuss everything thoroughly the next day. I believe you might be referring to Juror 9. IIRC he said he just thought the others were leaning towards guilt on Wednesday. MOO.

Yeah, I think it’s open to just enough interpretation that appellate counsel could argue for wanting some sort of limited inquiry.

I think the others who made comments about how negatively the defense attorney made them feel, and one who said how a specific juror personally felt about Prior, opens that door even a bit more than a tiny crack. I didn’t take that to indicate they used those feelings as a basis for deciding Chad’s guilt, but that doesn’t mean a defense attorney won’t want to try and hash that out some more if they had the opportunity. The comments about Prior being hard to listen to day after day also fall into that same vein for me….but just MOO though.

 

[Artis]

Oh wow I just continue to be amazed. I think I will call them and ask why they would promote the books of a convicted serial killer. I think it’s like a stab to the heart of any family victim. I could not continue having faith in any leader of that denomination if they are promoting the works of Satan. If they allow that then I have to ask what kind of church are they really?
It makes me angry.
All of the love I’ve felt for Charles and Tammy and Tylee and JJ and yet they and their families were/are a part of this evil.

Artis, thank you for your research throughout this trial. You’ve stayed with it all the way through. I admire you for that.

I don't think the author(s) (the guy's who "visions" were written about is dead and the ghost writer who is, I think, alive) of this book ever committed any crime. At least I haven't heard that. I don't know much about them or the book other than what Megan was talking about with Lauren from HTC.

I'm hard core pro freedom of speech but that doesn't mean the LDS church should be selling this book. Leave it for Amazon or Barnes & Noble. They obviously choose what to sell and wouldn't sell the Baghavad Gita, for instance, because it's from another religion. So by selling this book, it seems they endorse it, even though they've claimed that Chad's nonsense didn't comport with their own teachings but his nonsense came from that book. Bad PR call, at the very least!

 

[Love Never Fails]

I don't think the author(s) (the guy's who "visions" were written about is dead and the ghost writer who is, I think, alive) of this book ever committed any crime. At least I haven't heard that. I don't know much about them or the book other than what Megan was talking about with Lauren from HTC.

I'm hard core pro freedom of speech but that doesn't mean the LDS church should be selling this book. Leave it for Amazon or Barnes & Noble. They obviously choose what to sell and wouldn't sell the Baghavad Gita, for instance, because it's from another religion. So by selling this book, it seems they endorse it, even though they've claimed that Chad's nonsense didn't comport with their own teachings but his nonsense came from that book. Bad PR call, at the very least!

Thank you.

 

[Artis]

Thank you! He's my special little guy even though this morning he decided to wake me up at 6am!

And I saw your furry friend - I get the impression he/she fancied a ride in the car!

Oh, that funny dog in my AV was a pic that went kind of viral years ago. I don't know the dog but laughed because I've had dogs that acted insane when another car pulled up and as though they were ferocious watch dogs when they were big babies out of the car. After a lifetime of having dogs, I now have four cats - all strays who just decided they were moving in

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1798096193349616032

 

[Artis]

I’m hoping Chad is put on trial in AZ also. And MBP should certainly be a defendant, not a witness. She has skated this whole time. She was willing to see Boudreaux murdered and sacrifice her children.

SBM

No kidding. It drives me nuts that she has not been indicted for conspiracy. She's also a total mental case and it's horrifying she has all those kids!!!

 

[Artis]

Will Chad's books now be removed from Amazon?

I hope not because they're good research material for anyone who could stand slogging through his tripe.

 

[Artis]

I think Chad should be charged in Arizona before MBP. He declared BB and their children dark. According to Chad, BB was part of Hitler's entourage in a past life.

I never heard that! Holy cow, he couldn't come up something more original for a bad guy than the Nazis? Lazy!

 

[Artis]

John Wayne Gacy was on death row for I think 14/15 years before he was executed, and during that time he gave several interviews to the media, communicated with journalists, and produced a lot of paintings. He appeared at least once in a televised interview. Of course he also could've done this if he wasn't on death row.

Question is, how does Chad get access to hobby materials if he's alone for 23 hours a day? Does family purchase this for him, like a TV, or what? I don't think Gacy had many "supporters" to buy him things aside from any journalists he spoke with (who weren't like his real friends or anything). MOO.

If he does so someday I would like to read it. MOO.

I don't thin he'll be in solitary confinement and Nate said nobody is officially on "death row" until all appeals have been exhausted and there's what called a death warrant issued.

I'm in favor of prisoners communicating. We learn more about them and what goes on in their heads that way. Valuable in terms of research.