Chad Arraigned and Pleads Not Guilty

Hello Friends!

There is much to talk about today.

Let’s start with Chad Daybell. Chad appeared in court today before Judge Boyce for arraignment. Judge Boyce reviewed the charges and Chad’s legal rights before asking Chad how he pled to each charge. To each one, Chad replied, “not guilty.” Now, these cases truly begin. What happens next? As Judge Boyce noted, this would usually be the time the court would set a trial date. However, given the nature of the charges, he decided to set a pretrial scheduling conference in two weeks, on June 23, 2021, at 9:30 am. Chad’s entry of his plea triggers the 60 days for the prosecutor to file their notice of intent to seek the death penalty. I expect that notice is forthcoming and may even be filed before the scheduling hearing. Once the Prosecution files that notice, the court will appoint an attorney from the death penalty panel. There are twenty-seven lawyers on the state list. I have heard the names John Thomas, and James Archibald suggested, but we’ll have to wait and see. I also expect prosecutors to ask the court to consolidate the earlier destruction of evidence charges with the new murder charges. If the judge consolidates the cases, John Prior will not be able to remain on Chad’s case as the lead counsel. While Lori’s portion of the case is stayed, she will not be required to go forward with arraignment and enter a plea. That means there can’t be a notice of intent to seek the death penalty or a motion to consolidate the case filed for her.

There are some interesting possibilities if Lori remains incapacitated while Chad’s case continues. Chad’s trial may go forward while Lori is still incompetent. If it does, Lori would not be available to testify. Chad could try and blame the whole thing on Lori, but I suspect the Prosecution has ample proof of Chad’s complicity. With Lori incompetent and Alex Cox dead, Chad is the one left twisting in the wind. If the Prosecution files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, it could be the nudge Chad needs to negotiate a plea deal and tell all. Remember, once Chad is convicted, he no longer can assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and would be required to testify against Lori once she becomes competent.

There were two other documents released today. The first is the order of commitment for Lori Vallow Daybell. The order commits her to the custody of the Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare for care and treatment in an appropriate facility for a period not to exceed 90 days. The judge has the discretion to extend that period another 180 days if necessary. It’s unclear whether the “appropriate facility” will be a mental hospital or whether they will continue to treat her in the jail. I think it will depend on whether the state facility can ensure her security and safety if she is placed there. The order goes on to direct that the court be notified immediately if Lori refuses treatment. There is a process in the statute that allows the judge to review a refusal and order medically necessary treatment over the defendant’s objection.

The third document was filed by Mark Means, Lori’s attorney. The document is a motion to hold Melanie Gibb in contempt for not responding to his subpoena for documents. You may recall that Gibb was served with the subpoena as she left the courthouse after testifying before the grand jury. Means claims he has received no response to the subpoena. The motion is a show cause motion, asking the court to issue an order for Gibb to appear in court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court. It’s no secret that Means and his “team” are after Melanie Gibb. Means’ motion reports, “The Defense believes that Ms. Gibb has possibly evaded criminal prosecution regarding incidents relevant to the above case(s), has engaged in inappropriate private communications including phone calls, emails and text messages with the above said Prosecution and has made multiple conflicting statements regarding her personal knowledge, action, in actions (sic), in regard to the above case(s) and compliance with the subpoena is the initial first step to address these concerns.” Interesting. Subpoenas are not generally seen as a device to investigate someone’s criminal behavior. They are usually used to gain access to evidence that may exonerate a defendant. Prosecutors and law enforcement use warrants to investigate criminal conduct. It’s not the role of the defense to investigate other people’s crimes; it’s their role to review and follow up on evidence, especially evidence that might exonerate their client. There are times that the investigation may point the defense to someone else as the person who committed the crime.

So what is Mark Means implying? Is he, perhaps, suggesting that Melanie Gibb and not Lori Vallow conspired with Chad and murdered the children? If so, maybe then his inquiry is relevant. On the other hand, if he’s attempting to distract from the case before him by pointing at Melanie and saying, “yes, but look at all the bad stuff she did,” his inquiry may be irrelevant to his case. The Prosecution has an absolute obligation to share exculpatory evidence with the defense. That means that if Rob Wood has information that someone other than Lori committed the crime, he has an obligation to share it. Or is Mark Means intending to use Melanie’s unindicted wrongdoing as a way to impeach her testimony at a trial? The Idaho Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(b)(1) prohibits that. The rule says: “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” IRE Rule 608(b) says, “Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of (1) the witness; or(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.”

In other words, Mark Means can’t use any of Melanie’s bad acts to show she’s a bad person who can’t be trusted. However, he may be able to bring in some limited evidence on cross-examination if that evidence proves her character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, such as that she lied under oath about specific things.

It’s looking more and more like Means is on a fishing expedition, and it’s hard to see why. Because Lori’s case is stayed, she can’t enter a plea, and the Prosecution can’t issue a notice of intent to seek the death penalty in her case, which means she is stuck with Means for the time being.

I want to thank everyone who has been listening to my appearances with Lauren Matthias on Hidden True Crime and Tricia Griffith on Websleuths Live. I will be appearing with Tricia tonight at 7 pm PDT and with Lauren on Friday, June 11, 2021, at 7 pm PDT. Here is the link for Friday with Lauren: https://youtu.be/xVOxIjOBD5I Please join us, and please like and subscribe to both channels.