Newsletter
Hello Friends!
We are so close to the Lori Vallow Daybell trial that I can smell the furniture polish on the wood panels in the hallowed halls of justice!
As we get closer, we have the inevitable last-minute motions and issues. The latest one concerns witnesses in the courtroom and who is considered "immediate family." On Wednesday, Judge Stephen Boyce held an unexpected hearing to discuss the exclusion of witnesses. Generally, witnesses are excluded from the courtroom until after they have testified. No attorney wants witnesses sitting in the courtroom hearing what everyone else has to say before they give their testimony. That usually means anyone called as a witness must sit in the hall until they are called. Typically, they can sit in the courtroom and watch the trial once they have testified. There are crime victim rules that make victims that will be called as witnesses exempt from the exclusion rules. Judge Boyce issued an order yesterday that "any witnesses in this matter shall be excluded from observing or listening to other witnesses' testimony during the trial, excepting those witnesses who are victims as defined by Idaho Law and Article 1, Section 22 of the Idaho Constitution."
Now, don't shoot the messenger, but here is my analysis.
When we analyze the law, we start with the general, move to the specific, and start with the best controlling authority and move to the least.
The Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 22 covers Crime Victims' Rights. 22 (4-6) says victims have the right:
(4) To be present at all criminal justice proceedings.
(5) To communicate with the prosecution.
(6) To be heard, upon request, at all criminal justice proceedings considering a plea of guilty, sentencing, incarceration, or release of the defendant, unless manifest injustice would result.
Idaho Criminal Code 19-5306 also covers crime victims' rights. The statute is a little confusing because it doesn't follow the usual format of starting general and then moving into specifics. Let's start with the definition of a crime victim. 19-5306(5)(a)
"Victim" is an individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial, or emotional harm as the result of the commission of a crime or juvenile offense;
The question is, who is a "victim?" I think it's clear from the statutory construction that a crime victim is an individual who suffers direct harm. Otherwise, why would the statute need to go on and extend the protections to families of homicide victims? As I read it, under the statute and the Idaho Constitution, Tylee, JJ, and Tammy are victims.
Because they are deceased, 19-5306(3) says
(3) The provisions of this section shall apply equally to the immediate families of homicide victims or immediate families of victims of such youthful age or incapacity as precludes them from exercising these rights personally. The court may designate a representative from the immediate family to exercise these rights on behalf of a deceased, incapacitated, or minor victim.
Now the question becomes, who is considered "immediate" family? The Idaho Supreme court decided that issue in State v. Payne 146 Idaho 548, (2008)
Further, the Court defined "immediate family members" as "parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband, wife, sister, brother, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or a son or daughter." 146 Idaho at 575, 199 P.3d at 150.
The relationships are defined relative to the victim. If we consider Tammy, for instance, her parents, Chad and Chad's parents, Tammy's siblings and their spouses, and Tammy's children and their spouses would be immediate family. Tammy's aunts, uncles, cousins, grandchildren, and grandparents would not.
I know many people took exception to Jim Archibald's comments about adoption law and Kay giving herself the designation of grandmother. There's no question his comment was inartful and insensitive. But he was right. While he quoted Idaho adoption law, it's the same in all states, including Louisiana, where JJ's adoption was finalized. Adoption terminates the natural parents' parental rights. It also has the legal effect of terminating any other familial ties. Kay became JJ's aunt when her brother, Charles, and his wife, Lori, adopted JJ. Now, we all know that Charles and Lori encouraged Kay and Larry to maintain their role in JJ's life as his grandparents. We also know that Kay and Larry had a close emotional bond with JJ, and JJ believed they were his grandparents. No one disputes any of those emotional attachments. But the judge has to apply the facts – the legal status of the parties – to the law. Kay and Larry have hired an attorney licensed in Idaho to file a memorandum in the case. His arguments echo those made by Prosecutor Rob Wood, and I don't believe they are any more persuasive when you read the constitution and the statute.
Whether Kay and Larry Woodcock are considered grandparents or aunt and uncle is a red herring. Under the law, neither would be considered "immediate family." I think Judge Boyce will likely rule that they can be excluded from the courtroom until after they testify. The defense could argue they should also be excluded after their testimony in case they are recalled as rebuttal witnesses. If I were the prosecution, I would argue that any rebuttal would only be about their direct testimony, so being in the courtroom won't matter.
Please note that this has nothing to do with whether Kay and Larry will have a reserved seat in the courtroom; it only has to do with when they can be in the courtroom, not whether the court will permit them reserved seating.
As an aside, several people have asked me about JJ's natural parents and whether Kay and Larry were granted wardship over JJ.
First, JJ's natural parents were Kay Woodcock's son, Todd Trahan, and his girlfriend, Mandy Leger. Both were suffering from addiction when JJ was born. The state of Louisiana child welfare removed JJ from them at birth because the baby tested positive for drugs. He was initially placed with Kay and Larry while the state worked with the parents to help them get clean and sober. Charles and Lori were allowed to adopt JJ when neither parent overcame their addiction. That adoption terminated both parent's legal rights and those of all other family. JJ's father, Todd, has recently completed a long-term treatment program and is working hard on his recovery. Sadly, JJ's biological mother, Mandy, died of a drug overdose last year. I'm sure JJ's murder affected them both deeply.
Regarding wardship, Kay and Larry filed a petition for guardianship while still searching for JJ, reasoning that guardianship would prevent him from being placed in foster care if he were found alive. No judge ever ruled on the guardianship because JJ was not found alive. Once the children's bodies were found, the guardianship case was dismissed. The judge could not grant guardianship or legal wardship over someone deceased. From the date of the adoption, there was never a time when anyone other than Lori and Charles had a claim to legal custody of Tylee or JJ.
