What happened at today's hearing on joinder?
Did the judge order the cases joined?
October 29, 2020
Hello, Friends - thanks once again, for following my newsletter. I want to point out some other resources, in case you don't know about them. If you're not following Dr. John Matthias and his wife, Lauren's podcast, you're missing out. Dr. Matthias is a forensic psychologist who has worked extensively with criminal defendants. Lauren is a journalist. You can find their podcast, Hidden: A True Crime Podcast, on most platforms. Youtuber Awen Rees has built a great community of people interested in this case., and she does a great job of laying out the facts and cutting through the noise. Of course, Fox 10's Justin Lum and East Idaho News reporter Nate Eaton are the go-to guys for the most up to date news. If you follow Justin Lum on Twitter @jlumfox10, you'll be sure to get news about the case first.
The court held a hearing in Chad Daybell’s case this morning. The hearing was on the state’s motion to join Chad and Lori’s cases into one case. Lori’s attorney, Mark Means, didn’t object to the state’s motion, so he and Lori didn’t participate.
First, let’s talk about what happened today. In a short hearing, the judge heard argument from both sides. Rob Wood argued that the evidence in the case would be the same, and it would be more economical for the court and easier on the witnesses and the family members to hold one trial. Wood also pointed out that a joined trial would ensure that a single judge would rule on such discretionary issues as evidence admissibility. Predictably, John Prior argued that Chad would be prejudiced by joining the cases. The judge agreed with the prosecutor, Rob Wood, and ordered the cases joined. That, however, is far from the last word on the subject.
Joinder is about convenience and judicial efficiency. Severance is about fairness and prejudice. Many, myself included, wondered by Mark Means didn’t object to the joinder. Could it be he just had bigger fish to fry, such as his new discovery demands, and didn’t care? Or, might it be that he assumed the court would grant the motion and decided to hold his argument for severance for prejudice for later? I can’t say, but I expect both attorneys to file motions to sever as it stands. I still believe Mark Means has the more persuasive case because Lori is only charged with conspiracy while Chad is charged with both conspiracy and actually destroying, altering, or hiding the evidence. The difference in the evidence will be substantial. Regardless of whether the cases are joined or severed, each defendant will have their own attorney.
John Prior made the point at today’s hearing that he and Rob Wood were also still haggling over discovery, so, let’s talk about the discovery issues. To refresh everyone’s recollection, discovery is the process by which the state and the defense exchange information and evidence about the case. In a criminal trial, because of a US Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution must turn over all evidence to the defense. It is an ongoing obligation, so if the prosecution later turns up additional information, it must be turned over to the defense as soon as practicable. That includes exculpatory information, that is, information that might prove the defendant’s innocence. The discovery rules are very broad. They require that the state turn over every scrap of evidence that is either relevant or may lead to relevant information. That means that things that are not directly relevant to the case may still be demanded if the defense can argue that they may point to things that are. But, to be clear, the state is under no obligation to send police out to dig for proof of the defendant’s innocence. That is the reason defense attorney employ their own investigators. Why is John Prior grousing about discovery and having private conversations about it with Rob Wood? Why did Mark Means send the state an eight-page demand letter for discovery? Well, it is a fishing expedition to see if they can get Rob Wood to tip his hand about any future charges. It’s also a way to turn up new evidence about the current charges.
The statements of family and other people related to the case could turn up lines of investigation that Means might want to pursue, so if there are statements that Rob Woods has not turned over, Means should get those. The statements could reveal communication about the alleged conspiracy. Likewise, the autopsies of the children are relevant. Clearly, the state will be introducing them at trial. I suspect that Rob Wood is dragging his feet because he doesn’t want them leaked. The judge can issue a protective order that outlines to whom they can be given and how the reports can be used. A protective order also spells out the consequences for someone violating the order. However, that supposes that you can identify where the leak came from. As we all know, that can be difficult. I expect Wood and the defense attorneys to agree about when the state will turn over the reports, and I expect it will be closer to the trial. I don’t see how the autopsies of Tammy Daybell or Charles Vallow are relevant to these charges, and so it’s harder to argue that they should be turned over.
Let’s remember that the current trial dates are very likely to change. If the judge grants a change of venue, new trial dates will have to be set in the new jurisdiction. I’m sure neither the state nor the defense wants the autopsy reports circulating in the media for months before the trial.
