Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #56

[pizzaman12]

DBM @Tortoise posted the exact same thing.

 

[pizzaman12]

DBM @Tortoise posted the exact same thing.

 

[pizzaman12]

I asked this a couple weeks ago and did not receive a reply. Anyone out there know? I'm still unclear as to what RW is required to turn over.

Question on the motion that was granted in part and denied in part. 3- Section B (Bolded below) Does this mean RW has to provide the content of any of the conversations he had or ONLY written and/or recorded statements? That seemed to be the argument at the hearing from RW is that a conversation doesn't constitute a "statement".

2) The Special Prosecutor shall state whether he personally has met with the following witnesses or prospective witnesses:

Lori Daybell
Chad Daybell
Alex Cox
Zulema Pastenes
All Daybell Children
Tami Daybell
Adam Cox (and children of Adam Cox)
Colby Ryan
Kelsee Ryan
Parents of Chad Daybell
Parents of Tami Daybell
Parents of Lori Daybell
Melanie Gibb
Summer Shiflet (any family members)
David Warrick
Larry Woodcock
Ethel K. Woodcock (Kay Woodcock)
April Raymond
Annie Cushing
Melani Pawlowski
Ian Pawlowski
Brandon Boudreaux
Heather Daybell
Matthew Daybell

3) For those individuals the Special Promoter identifies as having met or conversed with, the Special Prosecutor shall:

A. Identify to the best of his recollection, the date and time of such meeting/conversation with the specific witness and list the names of any other person present for, or party to, such conversation/meeting.

B. Furnish to the Defendant the statements made by the prosecution witnesses or prospective prosecution witnesses to the prosecuting attorney.

C. Furnish to the Defendant copy of any written or recorded statements of the witnesses or prospective witnesses.

 

[Onsdag]

All righty, then. I am not a lawyer. I consider myself reasonably educated, and a decent reader. Let's see if I can break down MM objections. He lists 6, but there are really only 4.

1) Having a hearing is barred by a previous court order. I don't know anything about this, but it sounds like a good point if it is true. Potentially his best argument.

2) Bringing in this resource is irrelevant to the current charges. This is also a reasonable point, although it might buy him no more than a delay of the hearing.

3) Bringing in this resource is a wasteful use of public money in MM's opinion. I have no argument. He is entitled to his opinion. But...shouldn't his opinion be expressed in a letter to the editor of the local paper, rather than in this motion? If he wrote this to the local paper it wouldn't be as transparently an appeal to stop spending public money on things that could help convict my client. This is unrelated to the proposed hearing.

4) Bringing in this resource is irrelevant to the current charges. This point's reasonableness does not double because it was repeated.

5) Bringing in this resource is a wasteful use of public money in MM's opinion. This point's absurdity is not diminished because it is repeated. I wonder if there is a motion filed for one of Lori's jail-mates along the lines of, "I don't think public money should be spent on an expert to attempt to extract data from a damaged hard drive with bank's surveillance video from the date my client is accused of robbing said bank."

6) Bringing in this resource will force me to draw attention to my belief that the prosecutor will be forced to provide evidence helpful to my client, the defendant. Bringing in this resource will cause the prosecution to be forced to share with the defense information to which the defense would not otherwise be able to obtain. This is...confusing. Which side was he on again?

I am not a lawyer and don't speak legalese.

However, from a cursory reading of that, my basic understanding and interpretation of Mark Means' words is that he's terrified and/or feels intimidated by Rob Wood bringing on Rachel Smith as part of his team and what that implies for his client.

1. I can't make heads or tails of this. It seems like Scott Reisch was also confused by this point. You know there's a problem when another attorney can't even make out what MM is trying to say. My best guess is MM is trying to say that the Pro Hac Vice motion should be denied because of a previous court order? I'm left scratching my head on this one as I've never heard anything about a previous court order that would affect a Pro Hac Vice motion in this case.

2. This Court lacks jurisdiction? What's he going on about? As for the rest of his text in this point, it sounds like he feels threatened because it was publicized that Rachel Smith is an experienced criminal prosecutor that has dealt with numerous death penalty cases, and he therefore wants her removed from the case because the current charges against his client don't warrant the death penalty. Excuse me? Just because she's 'overqualified' doesn't mean she should be removed from the case. Nor should she be removed from the case because she scares you and you feel intimidated. Furthermore, just because she practices law in a certain specialized field, shouldn't preclude her from practicing law in a seemingly unrelated field - or have you Mr. Means forgotten yourself that you are primarily a practitioner of "Family Law, Personal Injury/Worker's Compensation, Mediation, Bankruptcy, and Business Litigation?" And yet here you are practicing criminal law where "the current charges are not presented as [the] expertise" of even yourself. Cart before the horse indeed!

3. Mr. Wood hasn't waived any rights. As the special prosecutor on this case he retains the right to prosecute this case however he sees fit. That includes hiring or retaining the help of whoever he wants so long as it is done so legally and according to the laws of the State and County. Furthermore, he can finance the case however he sees fit. I don't see him going around telling you how much you can or can't spend, and in what ways, in the defense of your client. How preposterous!

4. See #2.

5. Sounds like Mr. Means is upset that the State has deeper pockets to prosecute this case than his client has to pay him to defend it. Guess what Mr. Means, if your client becomes indigent to the point she can't pay you anymore guess who can and will take over the costs of paying for her attorney fees? The State.

6. What in the world is he going on about? I'm as bewildered as you on this one.

 

[MsJosie]

I asked this a couple weeks ago and did not receive a reply. Anyone out there know? I'm still unclear as to what RW is required to turn over.

Question on the motion that was granted in part and denied in part. 3- Section B (Bolded below) Does this mean RW has to provide the content of any of the conversations he had or ONLY written and/or recorded statements? That seemed to be the argument at the hearing from RW is that a conversation doesn't constitute a "statement".

2) The Special Prosecutor shall state whether he personally has met with the following witnesses or prospective witnesses:

Lori Daybell
Chad Daybell
Alex Cox
Zulema Pastenes
All Daybell Children
Tami Daybell
Adam Cox (and children of Adam Cox)
Colby Ryan
Kelsee Ryan
Parents of Chad Daybell
Parents of Tami Daybell
Parents of Lori Daybell
Melanie Gibb
Summer Shiflet (any family members)
David Warrick
Larry Woodcock
Ethel K. Woodcock (Kay Woodcock)
April Raymond
Annie Cushing
Melani Pawlowski
Ian Pawlowski
Brandon Boudreaux
Heather Daybell
Matthew Daybell

3) For those individuals the Special Promoter identifies as having met or conversed with, the Special Prosecutor shall:

A. Identify to the best of his recollection, the date and time of such meeting/conversation with the specific witness and list the names of any other person present for, or party to, such conversation/meeting.

B. Furnish to the Defendant the statements made by the prosecution witnesses or prospective prosecution witnesses to the prosecuting attorney.

C. Furnish to the Defendant copy of any written or recorded statements of the witnesses or prospective witnesses.

I remember you asking this well thought out question. Sorry, I cannot answer your question but, if you watch Scott Risch, Crime Talk, from today, post above from Tortoise, some of your questions could be answered.

I tried getting the you tube to view here but am having a problem. Just go up a few posts, about 4, and it will be there. Click and listen as Scott Reisch talks about thee hearing first on the video.

 

[pizzaman12]

I remember you asking this well thought out question. Sorry, I cannot answer your question but, if you watch Scott Risch, Crime Talk, from today, post above from Tortoise, some of your questions could be answered.

I tried getting the you tube to view here but am having a problem. Just go up a few posts, about 4, and it will be there. Click and listen as Scott Reisch talks about thee hearing first on the video.

I did watch that as well as his live Tuesday. I know he touched on the objections RW filed but I'm still trying to get clarity on what the court is considering a statement. Is it only written/recorded or simply any conversation.

 

[Forever Young]

But how could Chad walk free from a conspiracy to commit murder.
He was in his property at the time both kids were buried, it's really out there to allege he knew nothing.

He wouldn't walk on conspiracy to alter, destroy, or conceal evidence. He would plead guilty to that.

 

[janewall]

Respectfully snipped for focus. Bolded and enlarged text pertains to my subsequent question.

2) The Special Prosecutor shall state whether he personally has met with the following witnesses or prospective witnesses:

Lori Daybell
Chad Daybell
Alex Cox
Zulema Pastenes
All Daybell Children
Tami Daybell
Adam Cox (and children of Adam Cox)
Colby Ryan
Kelsee Ryan
Parents of Chad Daybell
Parents of Tami Daybell
Parents of Lori Daybell
Melanie Gibb
Summer Shiflet (any family members)
David Warrick
Larry Woodcock
Ethel K. Woodcock (Kay Woodcock)
April Raymond
Annie Cushing
Melani Pawlowski
Ian Pawlowski
Brandon Boudreaux
Heather Daybell
Matthew Daybell

WHAT?

Every time I see this list of "witnesses or prospective witnesses" I am completely confused. Is there another Daybell, whose name is Tami spelled with an 'i'?

Or are they expecting poor Tammy Daybell to testify from the grave?

Or is the inclusion of her (misspelled) name on the witness list merely a convoluted way of asking if Mr. Wood ever had contact with Tammy in the past, regardless of the fact that she's in no way capable of standing witness in any forthcoming trial?

I apologize if this topic has been addressed earlier and I missed it. Thanks in advance for any insight into the defense's thinking on this perplexing inclusion!

 

[Nosurprise]

The fact that Fremont County just took the case back from the AGs office when they initially asked the AG for help with investigation and prosecution suggests that they no longer need help prosecuting the case. Question please is this about Tammy? And what is going on please?

 

[indicolite22]

The fact that Fremont County just took the case back from the AGs office when they initially asked the AG for help with investigation and prosecution suggests that they no longer need help prosecuting the case. Question please is this about Tammy? And what is going on please?

AG's office helped with Tammy's case, which didn't involve Wood. Another Fremont County prosecutor is in charge now. The latest addition to Wood's team concerns the children's case, as mentioned in his motion.

 

[indicolite22]

He wouldn't walk on conspiracy to alter, destroy, or conceal evidence. He would plead guilty to that.

IMO nobody pleaded guilty to anything so far. I'm curious why a part of Lori's case was sealed.

 

[Tortoise]

It sounds to me as if the judge made a sealed order staying any hearings in Lori's case, pending the outcome of something. I suspect that might be something like a complaint by MM about Wood to the Bar Association, concerning his meeting with Lori's sister. Just a hunch and I think @montegrl has suggested same.

 

[Tortoise]

Concerning the ex-parte protective orders filed on 11th March, I suspect this might have nothing to do with the sealed order suspending hearings in the LV case, and could be state's discovery of a witness statement which needs to be kept under wraps before trial to prevent tainting a jury. Could be autopsies or witness disclosure from a witness who has use-immunity, or something quite prejudicial.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

So on 8th March MM filed a specific request for discovery - asking the state for a list of all authorities and jailers that made comments to Keith Morrison about Lori dancing in her cell and reading Chad's books etc, and any relevant recordings, texts etc.

On 22nd March Wood responded - telling MM he has no duty to collect this evidence and to collect it himself.

• 03/08/2021 Specific Request of Discovery Pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 16

• 03/22/2021 Response to Specific Request of Discovery Pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 16

 

[Countem]

RSBM

Or is the inclusion of her (misspelled) name on the witness list merely a convoluted way of asking if Mr. Wood ever had contact with Tammy in the past, regardless of the fact that she's in no way capable of standing witness in any forthcoming trial?

This seems to be the most plausible answer. You will notice that Alex Cox, who is also now deceased, is also included on the list. While neither person can be called to the stand, I suspect that evidence may eventually be presented concerning things that they said while alive, hence their inclusion in the list. IANAL, though, so it’s just MOO.

 

[Tortoise]

< RSBM >
6) Bringing in this resource will force me to draw attention to my belief that the prosecutor will be forced to provide evidence helpful to my client, the defendant. Bringing in this resource will cause the prosecution to be forced to share with the defense information to which the defense would not otherwise be able to obtain. This is...confusing. Which side was he on again?

I've read it and read it and read it again - As you infer, it's not an objection because as the heading implies he sees himself gaining from it. It's saying wtte 'if you Mr Wood take Ms Smith on board your conversations with her will be discoverable, because we are going to be calling you as an - exculpatory - witness for LV. And since MM has now put Wood on notice of it - Wood is by implication waiving his right to object to discovery, at a later stage.'

Since it's in MM's objection to pro hac vice admission, I think MM is saying it's a ground for the court to deny the admission of Smith, otherwise court will be endorsing the discovery rights to the conversations which would otherwise be work product and non-discoverable. I see it as like a big threat to the court, or to Wood to withdraw his application, by someone whose imagination is running away with itself.

He's so audacious!

MOO

 

[montegrl]

I've read it and read it and read it again - As you infer, it's not an objection because as the heading implies he sees himself gaining from it. It's saying wtte 'if you Mr Wood take Ms Smith on board your conversations with her will be discoverable, because we are going to be calling you as an - exculpatory - witness for LV. And since MM has now put Wood on notice of it - Wood is by implication waiving his right to object to discovery, at a later stage.'

Since it's in MM's objection to pro hac vice admission, I think MM is saying it's a ground for the court to deny the admission of Smith, otherwise court will be endorsing the discovery rights to the conversations which would otherwise be work product and non-discoverable. I see it as like a big threat to the court, or to Wood to withdraw his application, by someone whose imagination is running away with itself.

He's so audacious!

MOO

Yes and he doesn't cite any case law to support any of his wild theories either!

 

[Dorothy Jane]

I think if it was this easy to get a prosecutor tossed or to impede his strategy decisions- we would see prosecutors getting replaced all the time. I don’t think it will work. This is my opinion.

 

[Tortoise]

At least the hearings are somewhat more bearable to watch, and a lot quicker, while he is only observing proceedings. IMO.

 

[montegrl]

I asked this a couple weeks ago and did not receive a reply. Anyone out there know? I'm still unclear as to what RW is required to turn over.

Question on the motion that was granted in part and denied in part. 3- Section B (Bolded below) Does this mean RW has to provide the content of any of the conversations he had or ONLY written and/or recorded statements? That seemed to be the argument at the hearing from RW is that a conversation doesn't constitute a "statement".

2) The Special Prosecutor shall state whether he personally has met with the following witnesses or prospective witnesses:

Lori Daybell
Chad Daybell
Alex Cox
Zulema Pastenes
All Daybell Children
Tami Daybell
Adam Cox (and children of Adam Cox)
Colby Ryan
Kelsee Ryan
Parents of Chad Daybell
Parents of Tami Daybell
Parents of Lori Daybell
Melanie Gibb
Summer Shiflet (any family members)
David Warrick
Larry Woodcock
Ethel K. Woodcock (Kay Woodcock)
April Raymond
Annie Cushing
Melani Pawlowski
Ian Pawlowski
Brandon Boudreaux
Heather Daybell
Matthew Daybell

3) For those individuals the Special Promoter identifies as having met or conversed with, the Special Prosecutor shall:

A. Identify to the best of his recollection, the date and time of such meeting/conversation with the specific witness and list the names of any other person present for, or party to, such conversation/meeting.

B. Furnish to the Defendant the statements made by the prosecution witnesses or prospective prosecution witnesses to the prosecuting attorney.

C. Furnish to the Defendant copy of any written or recorded statements of the witnesses or prospective witnesses.

Here is the link to the judge's exact words: (7) Motion to Compel Hearing for Chad and Lori Daybell - YouTube. His ruling starts at about 44 minutes in and around 47 minutes in he is discussing section B. He basically says to furnish written statements (C.) and any information (that may be verbal as I understand it) in terms of statements relevant to the case in the form of a summary. RW does not need to provide his notes or work product, just a basic summary if anything important was discussed.

Lori Hellis did a great analysis of this hearing and here is her interpretation: "The judge said he would not order the production of material outside the scope of Rule 16. The judge granted Mean's motion to the extent that he ordered Rob Wood to produce a response to the question as to whether the prosecution has discussed the case with the people on the defense's list. He did not require Wood to disclose his notes, only statements. He also said that there was no basis for sanctions (usually ordering one side to pay some of the other side's attorney fees). It means Wood should give the defense a list of the people, if and when communicated with them, and perhaps a summary of the conversation. Wood could satisfy that requirement by reporting that he met with a witness on a certain day and that the witness didn't make any statements that were not in their previous reports prepared by law enforcement. " What Happened in the Discovery Hearing? — The Lori Vallow Story

It really wasn't a concise order so I hope this helps!