More Time for Motions, COVID and a Doomsday Book

Hello, Friends.

Holy Kleenex, Batman! Let me say that even a mild case of COVID-19 is no joke! We’ve vaccinated and boosted in our house, and I’m sure that’s why my symptoms have been annoying but not debilitating, but, combined with taking care of my husband post-surgery, it’s been a lot. If you’ve sent me an envelope for a wristband, thanks for your patience, I promise I will get them out soon.

'Rona be damned, Lauren and I will be live tonight, wearing our Peppered by Leopard swag - click here to join us at 7pm PST https://youtu.be/OWybA2P1QQo or catch us later at your convenience.

There was a hearing today on the Daybell case. John Prior filed a motion to preserve objections available to defendants under the Idaho rule of criminal procedure 12. What the heck does this mean?

The relevant portions of the rule are outlined below.

(b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense objection or request which can be determined without trial of the general issue may be raised before the trial by motion. The following must be raised prior to trial:

(1) defenses and objections based on defects in the prior proceedings in the prosecution;

(2) defenses and objections based on defects in the complaint, indictment or information (other than that it fails to show jurisdiction of the court or to charge an offense, which objections may be made at any time during the pendency of the proceedings);

(3) motions to suppress evidence because it was illegally obtained;

(4) request for discovery under Rule 16;

(5) request for a severance of charges or defendants under Rule 14; or

(6) motion to dismiss based on former jeopardy.

(d) Motion Date. Motions under Rule 12(b) must be filed within 28 days after the entry of a plea of not guilty or seven days before trial whichever is earlier. In felony cases, motions under Rule 12(b) must be brought on for hearing within 14 days after filing or 48 hours before trial, whichever is earlier. The court may shorten or enlarge the time and, for good cause shown or for excusable neglect, may relieve a party of failure to comply with this rule.

In all cases, the defense is entitled to challenge the foundation of the case, the charging instrument. The charging instrument in a misdemeanor is called an “information.” As we’ve seen already in this case, felony charges may be made initially on an information and then presented either to a judge in a preliminary hearing or a grand jury.

If the matter is presented to a court in a preliminary hearing, as Chad’s first charges were, and the judge finds sufficient evidence to bind the defendant over for trial, the prosecutor files an indictment. On the other hand, if the prosecutor presents the facts to a grand jury, the jury panel issues either a “true bill” or a “no true bill.” If the grand jury issues a true bill, the prosecutor may file an indictment but is not required to. Either way, the standard isn’t high – the question is whether there was probable cause to believe the named defendant has committed a particular crime. Rule 12 gives the defense the chance to challenge that process.

The challenge comes when there is some defect in the charging document or the process by which probable cause was determined. It’s a foundational question, and therefore the rules say that the defense must file their challenge within a specific time or waive the objection entirely. However, the rule allows the court to give the defense more time if they can show good cause or some excusable neglect. Chad’s attorney, John Prior, first filed his motion for additional time back in June 2020, right after Chad was indicted. The motion has been pending since. Today, Judge Boyce heard argument as to why Prior should be granted that extra time so that any challenge filed now would be considered timely. Rob Wood objected.

John Prior explained that the process of determining whether there is even a basis for a motion under rule 12 is very time-intensive. First, there had to be a written transcript made of five days of testimony. That transcript was not completed and filed with the court until November 2021. Prior then said he had to review the entire transcript and compare it with the sworn testimony from Chad’s earlier preliminary hearing and any statements provided to him in the discovery materials. Prior commented that it was the longest jury transcript he’s ever gotten. Wood then countered by saying that Prior only recently asked for the grand jury voting sheet and that somehow proved Prior is dragging his feet. The voting sheet is just what it sounds like. It’s the record of how the grand jurors voted. The treatment of the voting sheet varies by state and jurisdiction. Sometimes they are included in the transcript, and sometimes they are not. The defense has the right to know how many grand jurors voted to indict.

I was not surprised that Judge Boyce allowed the motion and set a deadline for Prior to file any appropriate motions. It should be noted that the allowance does not change the January 2023 trial date. Judge Boyce set the trial out so far to allow for all the pretrial motions.

There was some interesting news that came out in the hearing, though. Prior pointed out that he had heard that the state had asked to reconvene the grand jury recently. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and Wood was not required to give notice of the new grand jury session. He did, however, confirm the grand jury had been reconvened and that Chad Daybell was not the subject of that grand jury session. So what did Wood present to the grand jury? Either new charges against Lori OR new charges against a new defendant. Remember, the prosecution is not required to file charges, even if the grand jury returns a true bill. Instead, the prosecutor sometimes uses the potential grand jury indictment as leverage to bargain.

Who would Rob Wood and Lindsey Blake want to bargain with, and why now? Well, prosecutors are always trying to leverage one codefendant against the other, and it’s become harder in this case with Lori ruled incompetent. All codefendant’s statements are suspect because they are self-serving, but using Lori’s could be even more challenging. Anything Lori says now could also be attacked as simply her delusions. Bringing in a third party could bolster the prosecutions’ case. It might also create a “squeeze play” by applying leverage from two directions. Who might it be? Anyone close to the case, but if I had to guess, my money would be on Zulema, Melanie Gibb, or Melani Pawlowski (the one the hosts at Pretty Lies and Alibis call “Melaniece”). It’s possible that any one of them could face charges in Idaho, but it’s more likely they would be charged in Arizona. All three have been very quiet lately.

It’s also possible the grand jury recommended further charges against Lori. The state isn’t required to wait until Lori is competent to file additional charges, but they could. So it’s just another instance of having to wait and see.

In my last appearance on Hidden True Crime’s YouTube Live, I said I thought Adam Cox was one of the “normal ones,” and I got some push back. In 2007, Adam Cox was a morning radio DJ in Sacramento, California. His show was called The Morning Rave. The station held a “Hold your Wee for a Wii” contest. The contestants were told to drink massive quantities of water. The one that could go the longest without going to the bathroom won a Wii game console. One of the contestants, Jennifer Strange, age 28, later died at the hospital of water intoxication. Cox, who went by the on-air name Lukas, and several other people were fired over the incident. Cox was unable to get a job in radio for years after. There was evidence that the radio personnel knew drinking too much water could be deadly. The Sacramento County District Attorney declined to prosecute anyone connected with the incident. Savage’s family won more than $16 million in a wrongful death suit against the radio station’s parent company. Cox and others filed suit against the company for wrongful termination and settled for an undisclosed amount. Cox now works as a radio host in St. George, Utah.

There is no question Cox and the other radio station personnel exercised some poor judgment. They were aware of a case two years earlier when a young man named Matthew Carrington died after being forced to drink water during a fraternity hazing ritual at a nearby university. Listeners called in, trying to caution them that the contest was dangerous. They said they were aware but that the contestants had all signed liability waivers. Adam Cox self-published a biography in early 2019 called My Crazy Radio Life. It is available on Amazon.

I think a person can make a terrible mistake in their life, learn from it and come out stronger. It appears that’s the case with Adam. I didn’t say Adam was a victim, but it seems that he viewed Lori’s spiral into delusions as alarming and frightening, as most normal people would. He tried to help Charles. Adam appears to be one of the few people who saw the possibility that Lori and Alex were dangerous. I am sure he lives with a great deal of regret and a great deal of gratitude that his son, Zac, who had lived with Charles and Lori, wasn’t hurt. Adam has lost three siblings, a brother-in-law, and a niece and nephew because of the dysfunction and psychopathology of his family. Only one of those people is still alive, and she is facing the death penalty.

Some of you have asked if I have read John Glatt’s book, The Doomsday Mother. I just finished reading it. The book covers Lori and Chad from their early years until they were charged with the first murder charges in Idaho. While the author claims to have completed “eighteen months of strenuous research,” there’s nothing new in the book. It presents an accurate timeline of events in a clear, journalistic style but doesn’t add anything that hasn’t already been released to the public. The book ends with a perfunctory epilogue.

My book will be only one of many written about this story. I am grateful that I have a publisher who wants a complete telling of the story and is willing to wait for it. I hope that waiting for the story to conclude will allow me to synthesize information and look for patterns to help us understand it rather than just report what happened. I appreciate all of you who are on this journey with me.