Analysis of Chad's current charges
What does the prosecutor have to prove and what is the possible sentence?
August 21, 2020
I want to say thanks to all of you that have subscribed. It’s a reality of today’s publishing market that publishers want to see that an author has an online platform. They want to know that an author has a community of people who are interested in her subject matter and her work. I started this site and my newsletters to build that platform for a book that could be two or three years in the future. The content is free, and I hope it adds to the conversation. I’ve met some interesting and remarkable people through the site, and I enjoy exchanging ideas with all of you. As of this morning, there are almost 1200 subscribers. I also know many don’t subscribe but do read the posts once they’re posted in the archive. Whichever you choose, thanks for taking the time to engage with me on this fascinating journey.
Thanks to Nola Vee for this question.
For those of you that have not heard yet, Chad Daybell was arraigned this morning on four felony charges. These are the charges that were the subject of the preliminary hearing on August 3 and August 4, 2020. There are four counts. 1) Destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence; 2) Conspiracy to commit destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence; 3) Destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence; 4) Conspiracy to commit destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence.
Nola wants to know what the prosecution will have to prove and what the possible sentence could be for the charges Chad was arraigned on today.
Let’s run through what happened today. An arraignment is a time when the defendant is formally notified of the charges against him. The defendant is informed that they have a right to an attorney, and if they have not retained counsel, the court will appoint a public defender. The defendant is then asked to tell the judge whether they are pleading guilty or not guilty. If the defendant had a preliminary hearing, he should already have an appointed attorney. If a grand jury made the charges, he may not. If the person has just been appointed a public defender at arraignment, the judge should give the defendant additional time to meet with his new lawyer to evaluate the case. In Chad’s case, John Prior was prepared to enter Chad’s plea of not guilty.
A plea of not guilty now does not stop Chad from changing that plea to guilty later. A pretrial conference was set for December 10, 2020, at 10:30 am. The trial is scheduled for three weeks in January 2021, beginning on Monday, January 11, 2021, and finishing on Friday, January 29, 2021.
For every crime, the prosecutor must prove each and every element. The elements of IC 18-2603, Destruction, Alteration, or Concealment of evidence are:
Date. On or about or between specified dates. This assures that the charge is within the statute of limitations.
Location. In the county of Fremont. This assures that the crime occurred in a location that this court has jurisdiction over.
Chad Daybell – the charged must be a person and must be identified as the person who is alleged to have committed the crime.
Wilfully – this is the required mental state, IC 18-101 give us the definition, “a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to.” The law does not require proof that the defendant intended to break the law, injure another, or obtain an advantage.
Defendant knew that the evidence is the subject of a trial, proceeding, inquiry or investigation,
Defendant Destroyed, altered or concealed any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other object, matter or thing
That was about to be produced, used or discovered as evidence at a trial, proceeding, inquiry or investigation authorized by law,
The proceeding inquiry or investigation involves a felony offense.
Conspiracy further adds these elements:
Two or more people
Combine or conspire to commit any crime
One or more of the people does any act intended to effect the crime
For Rob Wood to prevail, he has to prove that Chad Daybell, committed an act in Fremont County, on or between specific dates, that is against the law; specifically, that Chad Dabell knew that the bodies of the children were the subject of an investigation, and he willfully concealed, destroyed or altered that evidence and that the investigation involved criminal acts. In the case of the conspiracy charges, Wood must also prove that Chad conspired or combined with one or more other persons and that one or more of them took some step or act to commit the crime.
From the evidence we know, it seems like Wood will be able to make his case. Chad is identified as the person charged (he confirmed that he was named correctly in the charging document at his arraignment today). The property is in Fremont County, Idaho. The evidence of a crime, human remains, was concealed on his property by being buried. Tylee’s remains were also dismembered and burned. He knew the evidence was the subject of an ongoing investigation into the whereabouts of the children. He conspired with one other person to conceal the evidence (probably Alex Cox).
The issue of sentencing is confusing to the layperson. All state criminal statutes lay out a maximum punishment, both in time in prison and in monetary fines, leading people to think that is the presumed sentence. It’s not. Most states also have sentencing guidelines. That means that in nearly all cases, the court will not sentence the defendant to the statutory maximum. Many states have adopted sentencing guidelines. I am most familiar with the guidelines in Oregon, which look like this:
In states that have sentencing guidelines, each crime is categorized, and the judge must follow the guidelines. It’s is called determinate sentencing. Idaho has not adopted a determinate sentencing scheme. According to IC 19-2513, the judge must determine a minimum period of confinement and a subsequent indeterminate period. For instance, The judge could sentence Chad to a maximum of five years, with a minimum of one year to be served before he would be eligible for parole. During that first year, he would not be eligible for parole, credit for good conduct, or release or furlough to any program. Once the indeterminate part of the sentence starts, he could be eligible for all those things. The fines, fees, and costs that could be assessed against Chad are also at the judge’s discretion.
So, could Chad be sentenced to four consecutive sentences? Not quite, because of a legal theory called merger. If you are convicted of several crimes that arise out of the same criminal act or occurrence, the sentences for those charges merge into the most severe sentence. So in Chad’s case, there are clearly two different criminal acts or occurrences, one on September 9, 2019, for Tylee and one on September 23, 2020, for JJ. That means the maximum Chad could be sentenced to would be five years on each occurrence, with some period, to be determined by the court, to be served without parole. The sentence for JJ could be stacked consecutively on top of the sentence for Tylee, for a total of ten years. I hope that makes sense because it’s a little legal-nerdy.
It’s important to think of the bigger picture in this case, too, because JJ and Tylee’s deaths are not the only crimes. Prosecutors have to think like chess masters – always three moves ahead. Rob Wood has to look at the case from two places. First, from the granular present, where he is focusing on the case, he can prove now, and second, from the thirty thousand foot level, where those charges intersect with other parts of the case. He has to think about how other charges, even charges in other jurisdictions, can help him prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Sometimes that means going easier on one person to get them to give up another, more severe crime. That was the subject of my earlier post titled “Will Chad Turn on Lori or Vice Versa?
Nola Vee, I hope this answered your question.
