ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Charles Vallow, 62, Oct 2019 *Arrests* #66

[Tortoise]

In this hearing, Jim Archibald argued that Lori had not waived her right to a speedy trial, that she was entitled to a trial no later than Feb 21,2023 and if her trial didn’t start by then he’ll file a motion to dismiss.

Why would Judge Boyce take that risk and wait another two months? Can someone remind me what the speedy trial exceptions are in Idaho law?

On the other hand, Chad’s attorney argued that they need much more time to process the discovery they’ve received in order to provide a proper defense, no sooner than october 2023 and possibly as late as 2014. Seems to me the April date also gives Chad solid grounds for appeal should he be found guilty, which could result in a new trial.

I’m concerned Boyce’s primary goal seems to be maximizing efficiency of time and money by trying Lori and Chad together, rather than ensuring justice is served. And instead of a single combined trial for Lori and Chad he’s setting the stage for trying Chad twice and letting Lori off completely.

Someone please reassure me that I’m unduly concerned.

From the East Idaho News article posted by @Gardinista titled “Daybells Appear in Court Together for the First Time.”:

One of Lori’s lawyers, Jim Archibald, argued that since she hadn’t waived her right to a speedy trial, the court needed to set a date as soon as February 2023.

“For purposes of trial, my client has not waived her speedy trial. By our calculation, we cannot agree to anything past Feb. 21, 2023,” said Archibald. “The court needs to set our client’s jury trial for that time. If it’s after, then we believe her speedy trial rights have been violated, and we will file a motion to dismiss the case.”

It strikes me that John Prior should be urgently asking for court-appointed attorney assistance to be ready in time. Why isn't he? I think he is giving Chad a reason to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Should the judge be pre-empting this and pointing this out to him?

MOO

 

[MTW2011]

In this hearing, Jim Archibald argued that Lori had not waived her right to a speedy trial, that she was entitled to a trial no later than Feb 21,2023 and if her trial didn’t start by then he’ll file a motion to dismiss.

Why would Judge Boyce take that risk and wait another two months? Can someone remind me what the speedy trial exceptions are in Idaho law?

On the other hand, Chad’s attorney argued that they need much more time to process the discovery they’ve received in order to provide a proper defense, no sooner than october 2023 and possibly as late as 2014. Seems to me the April date also gives Chad solid grounds for appeal should he be found guilty, which could result in a new trial.

I’m concerned Boyce’s primary goal seems to be maximizing efficiency of time and money by trying Lori and Chad together, rather than ensuring justice is served. And instead of a single combined trial for Lori and Chad he’s setting the stage for trying Chad twice and letting Lori off completely.

Someone please reassure me that I’m unduly concerned.

From the East Idaho News article posted by @Gardinista titled “Daybells Appear in Court Together for the First Time.”:

One of Lori’s lawyers, Jim Archibald, argued that since she hadn’t waived her right to a speedy trial, the court needed to set a date as soon as February 2023.

“For purposes of trial, my client has not waived her speedy trial. By our calculation, we cannot agree to anything past Feb. 21, 2023,” said Archibald. “The court needs to set our client’s jury trial for that time. If it’s after, then we believe her speedy trial rights have been violated, and we will file a motion to dismiss the case.”

It strikes me that John Prior should be urgently asking for court-appointed attorney assistance to be ready in time. Why isn't he? I think he is giving Chad a reason to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Should the judge be pre-empting this and pointing this out to him?

MOO

Judge Boyce is IMHO (and after doing extensive research into cases he worked in PP before this) is too inexperienced for this role. He is not looking as far ahead as your questions and concerns relate to, otherwise I think he may be making some different decisions and rulings but JMOO.

He was a lawyer for large corporations filing for bankruptcy and worked on behalf of big banks in private practice. Prior, JMOO is much more experienced and knows what he is doing with how much he said on the record that it can’t be before this date, he’s not ready, etc. With it being revealed that the State continues to talk to potential witnesses and not disclose it to either side of the Defense still to this day, I’m starting to think some of them aren’t thinking that far ahead in strategy either.

It’s really disappointing, because a conviction now doesn’t mean a sustained conviction later. Not when you have all this stuff that’s currently in the mix JMOO.

 

[Niner]

Any news on when their next hearing will be?

TIA!

 

[MTW2011]

Attorney Hellis on her livestream tonight reminded myself that the State dropped 150+ Discovery materials on Prior the night before the hearing / very close to the start of the hearing.

She referred to it as “sand-bagging” the Defense and said she’d be yelling and screaming about it if it happened in a case she was working on. That you “can’t just do that”.

Source - latest video on Children of Darkness and Light on YT

 

[indicolite22]

Why would Judge Boyce take that risk and wait another two months? Can someone remind me what the speedy trial exceptions are in Idaho law?

SBM. Lori Hellis said in her last live that one of the reasons could be scheduling issues with the Ada county court. That would constitute a "good cause" for the delay. She doesn't expect speedy trial issues in this case.

 

[Colorado303]

SBM. Lori Hellis said in her last live that one of the reasons could be scheduling issues with the Ada county court. That would constitute a "good cause" for the delay. She doesn't expect speedy trial issues in this case.

Thank you. I hope she’s right.

 

[Gardenista]

Here's the audio for the hearing from last week. @Niner they did not set a new date yet

 

[Niner]

Thank you @Gardenista ! I will check out the video.

 

[887sMtreme]

Here's the audio for the hearing from last week. @Niner they did not set a new date yet

You can hear the Chadster not blinking and Miss Lolo trying to. (It’s hard for a goddess to do these mundane things.)

 

[ReadySet]

JMO, my sense is that these cases will not go to trial. I think there will be plea deals. Just based on my perception.

 

[pizzaman12]

JMO, my sense is that these cases will not go to trial. I think there will be plea deals. Just based on my perception.

I think many would have been furious with a plea deal 2+ years ago. However, given some of JB's head scratching rulings and a prosecution team that appears to be lost and afraid, I think more people would be more open to a potential deal at this point.

I not saying go full on Krystal Lee Kenney (Kelsey Berreth), but I know I'd be more inclined to consider deals at this point and that is based solely on how the state & JB have handled this case to date. It almost seems like a daily thing in which more issues arise because of them.

 

[pizzaman12]

Here's the audio for the hearing from last week. @Niner they did not set a new date yet

A few things that stood out to me. Below are all JP talking

Starting around 8:40

“I believe today is the 8th of December and the jury instructions would have been due and a number of other items would have been due and yet this morning Mr. wood personally handed me a thumb drive with 115 items of Discovery on them. Now I did get a chance to look at an addendum and some of these items of Discovery are significant and it's going to take a significant amount of time for not only myself my investigative team to go through all of those and determine what we have to do and what steps I have to take to be prepared for trial”

Now when I made a representation of the court that I could be ready for trial on the night that the court did that yes but then suddenly new discovery comes out. 115 items I'm going to have to provide those to Mr Daybell he's going to have time to go through. I'm gonna have to have time to go through those I'm gonna have to have time to determine whether or not I need to do any seeking motions as it relates to that Discovery and I have no idea as of today what's in there.

Starting around 9:40

In addition to that judge I have at least I believe 60 to 70 other items of discovery that have not been turned over to me at this point I don't have those items and those are items that I have a significant interest in and that I will absolutely need now I'm creeping up on two years on this thing and it blows my mind that after two years I can't get the simplest items of Discovery in a case

Starting around 10:45

In addition at the last hearing I believe last month I sought a transcript of a grand jury procedure and there was opposition by the state to have them have them provide that to me initially they conceded that oh yes I do get it but to date I don't have that grand jury transcript and I have no idea when I'm going to get it and just because it's handed to me doesn't mean I have time that day to go over the transcript and evaluate it because once I get the transcript I'm going to have to evaluate what Witnesses I need to talk to what information I need to convey and then I'm going to need to sit down with Mr dayBell and go over that transcript and discuss you know how that affects this case so it isn't as simple as them dropping something off to me and saying here you go you've got it let's roll it doesn't work that way and they don't get to do that they need to afford me adequate time to prepare and it's not my fault

 

[MTW2011]

New Order posted today details pretrial dates and deadlines and some trial info

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/121622%20Notice%20of%20Trial%20Setting%20Pre-Trial%20Conference%20%20Scheduling%20Order%20Governing%20Further%20Proceedings.pdf

Also an order to Seal also posted today to their Cases of Interest website

 

[Niner]

New Order posted today details pretrial dates and deadlines and some trial info

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/121622%20Notice%20of%20Trial%20Setting%20Pre-Trial%20Conference%20%20Scheduling%20Order%20Governing%20Further%20Proceedings.pdf

Also an order to Seal also posted today to their Cases of Interest website

I just want to make sure this is ONLY for Chad, correct? As his name is only on this Order. Or pretrial on 2/27/23 is for both??

TIA!

 

[MySharoanah]

I just want to make sure this is ONLY for Chad, correct? As his name is only on this Order. Or pretrial on 2/27/23 is for both??

TIA!

There’s a separate notice for Lori with the same information.

 

[Niner]

There’s a separate notice for Lori with the same information.

Ah - thank you!

 

[MTW2011]

Ah - thank you!

Sorry I neglected to mention that in my post. Glad someone else was able to chime in! Love WS here

 

[Countem]

Chad Daybell's attorney wants to postpone trial again - East Idaho News

ST. ANTHONY – The attorney for Chad Daybell has filed a motion to object to the court’s scheduling order for jury questionnaire submissions. Attorney John Prior filed the motion on Dec. 23, to address the “quickly approaching Jan. 9 deadline for the submission of jury questionnaires,” according...

www.eastidahonews.com

The attorney for Chad Daybell has filed a motion to object to the court’s scheduling order for jury questionnaire submissions.

Attorney John Prior filed the motion on Dec. 23, to address the “quickly approaching Jan. 9 deadline for the submission of jury questionnaires,” according to the filing.

Prior’s motion also mentions that Daybell will be asking for a further continuance of the trial, which was set to April 3 during a motion hearing earlier this month.
[…]
The next court proceeding for Daybell and his wife, Lori Vallow Daybell, is scheduled for Feb. 27. Further hearings have not yet been scheduled.

 

[mickey2942]

Sometimes, I think that our legal process is completely broken. This has been dragging on for years. Bodies of two dead children, found on CD's property. His wife died "mysteriously" in bed, no autopsy, (which seems absolutely crazy to me, a healthy woman dies at home, it should be a requirement, not optional).

And all there has been is numerous filings, hearings, on and on. Of minutiae.

At some point, has the actual crime, and victims been forgotten in focusing on the rights of the accused?

 

[fred&edna]

I haven't been following closely of late, so I was wondering if someone can explain how not-DP-qualified Prior moves forward in representing his client in court (assuming the April date sticks)?? And, why has he been allowed to remain as CD's attorney if he's not qualified? TIA