ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #67

[Tortoise]

How would the court deal with evidence coming out in the Lori trial not tainting a jury pool in the Chad trial? It's going to get a lot of media coverage.

 

[indicolite22]

Since they are no longer co-defendants could they now be supoenaed to testify against each other in court?

Lori Hellis said in her yesterday's yt live that after Lori's trial she can be compelled to testify at Chad's trial, since she won't be able to plead the 5th any more. I'm guessing that Chad could plead the 5th at her trial, so he'd only testify if he reached a deal with the prosecution beforehand.

 

[SteveS]

Lori Hellis said in her yesterday's yt live that after Lori's trial she can be compelled to testify at Chad's trial, since she won't be able to plead the 5th any more. I'm guessing that Chad could plead the 5th at her trial, so he'd only testify if he reached a deal with the prosecution beforehand.

Hellis is completely wrong, that LVD can ever be compelled to testify in CD's trial (or vice versa). There are actually TWO laws that get in the way.
-- 1st is that you can't be forced to testify against yourself -- and with the ongoing potential for both other charges and/or appeals, there will never be a time when Lori has to say what they did together. (Can she volunteer such info? Yes. But never compelled.)
-- 2nd is that you can't be forced to testify against your spouse. The fact that Lori and Chad are married, and in many ways considered to be "one," means that LE can't compel them to turn against each other.

 

[iamshadow21]

Hellis is completely wrong, that LVD can ever be compelled to testify in CD's trial (or vice versa). There are actually TWO laws that get in the way.
-- 1st is that you can't be forced to testify against yourself -- and with the ongoing potential for both other charges and/or appeals, there will never be a time when Lori has to say what they did together. (Can she volunteer such info? Yes. But never compelled.)
-- 2nd is that you can't be forced to testify against your spouse. The fact that Lori and Chad are married, and in many ways considered to be "one," means that LE can't compel them to turn against each other.

But doesn't the death of two minor children factor here? Spousal privilege doesn't apply, as far as I know, when a child is a victim.

MOO

 

[SteveS]

How would the court deal with evidence coming out in the Lori trial not tainting a jury pool in the Chad trial? It's going to get a lot of media coverage.

They cannot. The end result of severing the trials is that the 2nd one will inevitably be impacted in multiple ways by the 1st. Not only in the way you note, as to jury bias in some way, but in the fact that Chad will now be getting a free preview of how the prosecution will be presenting the evidence (which is very similar for both defendants) and have a much better shot at figuring out how to refute it. In theory, at least.

One other note, about the late DNA evidence -- it has been speculated on here that it is evidence that apparently "inculpates" (ie, works against the defendants). That is not accurate.

Every party to the case, speaking in the hearing, was painting it as either neutral (ie, not of much value in the trial at all) or possibly/likely exculpatory (ie, helps the defendants by pointing at a different culprit).

It is my belief (although it wasn't explicitly said) that they found a hair that was NOT tied to anyone in the case (defendant, accomplice, or victim). They still need extra testing to see if they can find out whose it was. But whether it is exculpatory or not will become contested in the trial -- LE will argue (and already argued in the hearing) it doesn't matter whose it is, because there are lots of ways for irrelevant hairs to get into the mix somehow; while defense will argue that it is proof someone else did this, and here's their hair.

 

[SteveS]

But doesn't the death of two minor children factor here? Spousal privilege doesn't apply, as far as I know, when a child is a victim.

MOO

Both are charged, not just one, and there is way more being tried than injury to a child. IMO there's no chance they'd even try to thread that needle. Not to mention the other issue, the inability to force a person to testify against self interest (aka the 5th amendment).

 

[Tortoise]

Both are charged, not just one, and there is way more being tried than injury to a child. IMO there's no chance they'd even try to thread that needle. Not to mention the other issue, the inability to force a person to testify against self interest (aka the 5th amendment).

I think Hellis is speaking to the event that Lori is convicted before Chad.

 

[CSIDreamer]

My working theory on LVD's approach ....

...LVD is personally 100% confident she will be exonerated, and walk free, just as soon as her trial is over. But/and ....

1 Her attorneys do not share her optimism and have not told her this is likely. They see it as irrational.
2 She 100% believes it anyway.
3 This is a significant part of why her attorneys think she is incompetent -- the fact she thinks she cannot lose in court.
4 But because she believes she will surely walk, she wants no delay.
5 Her attorneys are - as they must - bowing to her wishes, while doing all they can to make it work the best way possible.
6 They are also noting their objection (to cover their azz), but since they represent her interests, are unlikely to share why she/they are doing any of what they are doing, as that would be a violation of privilege. And a bad legal approach too imo (better to leave the opposition puzzled over why you make the choices you make).

I don't think a delay is looming -- nor even being remotely considered -- because of the above.

And because of her insistence on speed and rights, they have gained the ability to force the state to work within the confines of the trial date straitjacket, so they will (rightly) try to strip the state of any ability to use evidence stashed by the state and not turned over already. (But this has no bearing on the quality of the evidence, only on their ability to get it tossed by the state's failure to disclose in a timely manner. Keeping on the existing schedule is a gun to the prosecutor's head, in a way.)

If she waived her right to a speedy trial, the trials could probably be conjoined again, but given what I see as her pov, I don't think this will happen. No chance imo.

PS - Mark Means, as her former attorney, should not be commenting and second-guessing. Not even a little. Zip it. As a result, I don't think he is a good attorney. I think he could/should be censured for his comments, inasmuch as she legally is still considered his client and his public comments might help the prosecution.

Someone needs to duct tape his fingers together. JMO

 

[Chelly]

I doubt LV will testify and believe at trial her attorneys will spin evidence and witnesses to place all blame squarely on Chad and Alex. She deserves a guilty verdict but I think her chances of acquittal are better being tried separately.
moo

 

[SteveS]

I think Hellis is speaking to the event that Lori is convicted before Chad.

Yes, I agree that is what she was talking about. And she's wrong, as that wouldn't change anything. The finalization of LVD's guilt or innocence will not exist until her death, with ongoing potential for appeals and issues of competence and whatever doubts (about her, or the verdict) that may exist in public perception following her for the remainder of her life.

 

[Ruminations]

Lori Hellis said in her yesterday's yt live that after Lori's trial she can be compelled to testify at Chad's trial, since she won't be able to plead the 5th any more. I'm guessing that Chad could plead the 5th at her trial, so he'd only testify if he reached a deal with the prosecution beforehand.

Assuming Lori doesn't appeal. If she has an appeal pending, her case isn't fully adjudicated.

MOO

Edited to add: if Lori is acquitted she can be compelled to testify as long as it does not testify against herself in pending charges- i.e. Arizona murder if Charles.

If she is convicted because she took a plea deal, she can testify because an appeal is not an option.

But if she is convicted without her making a deal, I think the she is likely to appeal and her case won't be adjudicated.

 

[Ruminations]

Hellis is completely wrong, that LVD can ever be compelled to testify in CD's trial (or vice versa). There are actually TWO laws that get in the way.
-- 1st is that you can't be forced to testify against yourself -- and with the ongoing potential for both other charges and/or appeals, there will never be a time when Lori has to say what they did together. (Can she volunteer such info? Yes. But never compelled.)
-- 2nd is that you can't be forced to testify against your spouse. The fact that Lori and Chad are married, and in many ways considered to be "one," means that LE can't compel them to turn against each other.

Spousal privilege is mostly irrelevant here. Most of their crimes occurred before marriage, and it wouldn't apply anyway when the victims are children.

 

[Ruminations]

I doubt LV will testify and believe at trial her attorneys will spin evidence and witnesses to place all blame squarely on Chad and Alex. She deserves a guilty verdict but I think her chances of acquittal are better being tried separately.
moo

I am inclined to think Chad is the "winner" here with the cases separated.

-He gets to go second
-It appears Lori is not following legal advice
-It appears Chad is following legal advice
-Wood told Summer that the evidence was stronger against Lori than Chad

But we will see. I think they both are equally culpable and I hope neither escapes justice.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Since Lori seems to be ignoring her attorney’s advice I wonder if she’ll insist on taking the stand at trial, like Murdough did. Should that happen it will be a similar train wreck for the defense. Well worth watching. If only they would televise it…

The Lori I know- from years ago being interviewed reporting her stolen purse and being interviewed after Charles' murder- woukd be really good at testifying.

Dudette managed to get herself a victim's advocate after murdering her husband then driving away to pick up chicken and flip flops while he bled out.

I'm not sure if she's still the same all these years later. For instance, she characterized her peeps as "crazy people" from her church when reporting her purse stolen; she knew not to mention her marriage to Maroni, being before Jesus, etc. I think she might have lost her ability to keep certain 144k secrets away from the rest of us by now.

But she has had superior lying and manipulating skills- and if she still has them- she may very well convince a juror or two that she's the real victim.

MOO

 

[fred&edna]

'Seems like a dumb question atm but, I'm gonna ask... can Chad be compelled to testify in Lori's trial?

 

[Love Never Fails]

I can see one of these two, or both, going free if there are separate trials. Once the jury and public hear or read everything said in the first trial, there is no way it won’t impact the second trial, for better or worse.

I’ve said from the beginning that I believe this is what the prosecution and judge are aiming for.

 

[Ruminations]

'Seems like a dumb question atm but, I'm gonna ask... can Chad be compelled to testify in Lori's trial?

He can only be compelled to testify if it does not cause him to testify against himself. So if he got a call from Lori "Hi, Bubby, I finished killing Tylee. You were right! Pressing that spot on her neck worked. Alex will bring you the body so you boys can do your ritual dark corpse abuse!" he would not have to testify because it would also be incriminating himself. But if he saw Lori buy lots of duct tape one day in September, 2019, and he did not know why, he might have to do testify.

However, when his case is resolved 100%, no trials or appeals pending, he can't self incriminate because he has already been convicted or acquitted.

The only realistic way for that to happen in time for Lori's trial, if it is in April 3, would be for Chad to rush to the prosecutors and make a plea deal (if they would agree to one).

MOO

 

[SteveS]

Spousal privilege is mostly irrelevant here. Most of their crimes occurred before marriage, and it wouldn't apply anyway when the victims are children.

Respectfully, that's not right.

The "violence against children" point is accurate, to be clear, and I don't disagree that in some circumstances it might matter. But as I said before, the charges here are for multiple crimes, with ALL BEING TRIED TOGETHER, and not all are crimes of violence against children. There's no way they could thread that needle, to claim that this compelling (with its necessary cross-examination) is only going to impact one charge but not others, and there's no way the judge would let it happen.

Spousal privilege can be invoked for testimony regarding acts before or during the marriage. There are many places this can be double-checked if you wish. Cornell Law School site:

"In criminal cases, the spouse of a criminal defendant who is called as a witness by the prosecution may choose to testify but cannot be compelled to testify against his or her spouse about events that occurred before and during the marriage. [In most jurisdictions, but not in all] the privilege can be waived by the witness spouse, even if the defendant spouse objects."

"In both civil and criminal cases, communications made between spouses during the marriage are privileged if the communication is intended to be private and made in reliance on the sanctity of marriage. Even if the marriage is terminated because of divorce or the death of one spouse, this privilege could be asserted."

marital privilege

www.law.cornell.edu

'Seems like a dumb question atm but, I'm gonna ask... can Chad be compelled to testify in Lori's trial?

No. He can testify voluntarily, but he can't be forced to.

The issues are spousal exception (see above) and self-incrimination. There is an exception from the "spousal exception" for crimes of violence against a child, but because of the fact she is being tried in the same trial for other crimes that do not pertain to violence against a child, and because the issues pertain to (and his testimony would jeopardize) himself as well as Lori, there's no way to separate one of those from the other and thereby force him to testify.

The fact that Lori goes on trial BEFORE Chad further shuts the door on the idea of him being forced to testify in her trial in any way.

 

[Ruminations]

I can see one of these two, or both, going free if there are separate trials. Once the jury and public hear or read everything said in the first trial, there is no way it won’t impact the second trial, for better or worse.

I’ve said from the beginning that I believe this is what the prosecution and judge are aiming for.

I'm trying to stay positive.

I get anxious, too, especially about the quality of the witnesses. I think there are a number of witnesses that are so ashamed of ever believing that their coven could pray away evil, or so ashamed that they fell for love-bombing, that they could stumble on cross examination.

(And-of course- manipulative people use love-bombing because it works on people sincerely building friendships! The one who should be ashamed is the one cynically doing the love-bombing. I'll take a sincere person as a friend over a manipulator any day!)

I have trouble believing the LDS organization really wants these defendants to walk.

I agree, however that they seem to be stupidly secretive about their excommunications and stupidly unwilling to differentiate between preparedness and being taken by grifters who take your savings- which is indeed preparedness- to sell you excessive food and camping gear. There does not seem to be any reason why the church has not explicitly and publicly disavowed beliefs such as multiple probations.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Respectfully, that's not right.

The "violence against children" point is accurate, to be clear, and I don't disagree that in some circumstances it might matter. But as I said before, the charges here are for multiple crimes, with ALL BEING TRIED TOGETHER, and not all are crimes of violence against children. There's no way they could thread that needle, to claim that this compelling (with its necessary cross-examination) is only going to impact one charge but not others, and there's no way the judge would let it happen.

Spousal privilege can be invoked for testimony regarding acts before or during the marriage. There are many places this can be double-checked if you wish. Cornell Law School site:

"In criminal cases, the spouse of a criminal defendant who is called as a witness by the prosecution may choose to testify but cannot be compelled to testify against his or her spouse about events that occurred before and during the marriage. [In most jurisdictions, but not in all] the privilege can be waived by the witness spouse, even if the defendant spouse objects."

"In both civil and criminal cases, communications made between spouses during the marriage are privileged if the communication is intended to be private and made in reliance on the sanctity of marriage. Even if the marriage is terminated because of divorce or the death of one spouse, this privilege could be asserted."

marital privilege

www.law.cornell.edu

No. He can testify voluntarily, but he can't be forced to.

The issues are spousal exception (see above) and self-incrimination. There is an exception from the "spousal exception" for crimes of violence against a child, but because of the fact she is being tried in the same trial for other crimes that do not pertain to violence against a child, and because the issues pertain to (and his testimony would jeopardize) himself as well as Lori, there's no way to separate one of those from the other and thereby force him to testify.

Idaho is one of the more protective states regarding marital privilege- but I am not wrong.

Note: the images are not in order. Read top, then bottom, then middle.