New Means monkey business and no AZ charges for Chad
Hello friends, there are a few developments to talk about this week.
Let’s talk first about the documents Mark Means filed this week. For what it’s worth, I can’t stop rolling my eyes at just Means being Means again.
First, he asks to hold Heather Daybell in contempt of court for not answering his subpoena. Subpoenas, for information, known as subpoenas duces tecum, are not an excuse for a fishing trip. A subpoena is for specific information, not, as Means seems to think, a chance to demand that the subject produce proof of every conversation or correspondence they’ve had with any person living or dead in the past five years. Means’ demands are overly broad. Rather than being intended to turn up relevant information, they’re meant to turn up all information on the off chance that somewhere in the volumes of data is something relevant. That’s not how the law of discovery works, and both Heather Daybell and Melanie Gibb have been advised so. Their attorneys should have filed a motion to quash the subpoena, but given the absurdity of the demands, neither may see it as necessary for their client to bear the expense.
The next filing is simply ludicrous. In Idaho, like all states, the law outlines the procedures for both civil and criminal cases. The rules of civil procedure do not apply in criminal cases. Yet, in his document titled Reservation of Rights and Defenses, Means cites to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12. In a civil case, if a defendant does not challenge certain things, such as jurisdiction or venue, before they file a responsive document, the challenges are waived. It, therefore, makes sense to reserve the right to challenge them later, particularly if your client is presently unavailable. In case Means missed the brief, he’s involved in a criminal action. That means ONLY the Idaho Rules of Criminal Procedure apply. IRCP 19-1701 says, “the only pleading on the part of the defendant is either a demurrer or a plea.” That’s unambiguous. It doesn’t say unless you’re a civil attorney who is entirely out of your depth and wants to do what you know. To demur is to object, and a demurrer is the proper form for an objection in a criminal case. Here is the Idaho rule on the ground for demurrer. It’s vastly different from the civil procedure rule Means cited.
19-1703. GROUND FOR DEMURRER. The defendant may demur to the indictment when it appears upon the face thereof, either:
1. That the grand jury by which it was found had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged by reason of its not being within the legal jurisdiction of the county.
2. That it does not substantially conform to the requirements of sections 19-1409, 19-1410 and 19-1411.
3. That more than one offense is charged in the indictment.
4. That the facts stated do not constitute a public offense.
5. That the indictment contains any matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse of the offense charged, or other legal bar to the prosecution.
19-1711. OBJECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN BY DEMURRER. When the objections declared grounds of demurrer by this chapter appear upon the face of the indictment, they can only be taken by demurrer, except that the objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the indictment, or that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense, may be taken at the trial under the plea of not guilty, or after the trial in arrest of judgment.
Means seems to think he needs to preserve Lori’s time to challenge the indictment, but the time doesn’t even start until she’s actually arraigned. Because of the point where the stay was entered, nothing can happen that might put Lori’s rights at risk.
The last document is titled Motion to Transfer trial. This is not the way one asks for a change of venue. There should be supporting documents, affidavits, and declarations. Simply citing the rules of criminal procedure (which it’s clear Means has not read) and the Constitution is not sufficient.
Now let’s talk about what you all really want to know. Why in the hell didn’t Arizona charge Chad with conspiracy to commit Charles’s murder? Well, the answer is simple. They can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chad actually participated. I know what you’re thinking, but in AZ, encouraging or manipulating someone into committing a crime isn’t enough. This isn’t the last word on the subject, though. This is not a situation where double jeopardy applies. (Jeopardy only attaches once a jury is empaneled.) The state can and likely will file charges against Chad if additional evidence surfaces, which it very well might, once the Idaho charges against Lori are actually back on track. Those charges can be filed any time, even after Lori’s charges are adjudicated. The attempted murder of Brandon Boudreaux is still under investigation, and I expect we will see some charges coming soon.
Lastly, it’s Friday, and you know what that means. Lauren Matthias and I will be live tonight! Catch us on YouTube on Hidden True Crime at https://youtu.be/kn2nP9KwekE. See you then!
