Why Did Rob Wood File That Motion to Compel Discovery?
Hello Friends! Forgive me for being just a little missing in action the past few days, but I was working on a deadline on another book project. I also took some time to revise the newsletter format based on some feedback from readers. Thanks for the suggestions.
Before we dig into the case, I want to acknowledge that it’s been a tough couple of weeks for many of our friends in the southern and eastern parts of the U.S. People in Texas were particularly hard hit by winter storms, freezing temperatures, and lengthy power outages. Please keep them in your thoughts and donate to relief organizations if you can. Thankfully, the COVID-19 numbers are edging down, and vaccination roll-outs are happening. Please take care of yourselves and each other.
A few things have happened that deserve attention.
The long-awaited and much-postponed hearing on the defense motion to change venue and motion to dismiss is scheduled for March 22, 2021, at 9 am. Before Means and Prior filed their motion, they had a survey completed in the Rexburg area to gauge the public’s attitudes about the case. People who live in Rexburg reported that people were canvassing the area, asking questions about people’s thoughts about Lori and Chad. The results of that survey were used to justify their motion to change the venue.
The rules of evidence treat expert witnesses differently. If either side wants to call an expert, they have to disclose the witness’s identity and provide the other side with the expert’s credentials so that both sides can investigate the expert’s qualifications. The rule makes sense from a fairness standpoint; finders of fact (the jury or the judge) naturally place more trust in an expert, so before that person testifies, both sides should have the opportunity to vet the expert thoroughly. One of the most often asked questions is whether that expert has a bias for either prosecution or defense.
The expert who completed the survey for the defense does not want their identity made public. Perhaps understandable in such a high-profile case, but if you operate a business that routinely assesses the public’s attitudes in these types of cases, maybe you should expect your name to be public. That makes me wonder who this expert is. Nonetheless, the solution to the problem isn’t for the defense attorney to keep the person’s identity secret; the answer is to ask the judge to issue a protective order that seals the witness’s identity. Neither defense attorney did so.
Rob Wood filed a discovery request asking for information he’s entitled to receive. John Prior’s response to Wood’s request for the names, addresses, and qualifications of any expert witness he intended to call at the March 22, 2021 hearing was “none.” Likewise, in response to Wood’s request for the data the expert relied upon to form their expert opinion, Prior replied, “None.” Curious. The defense filed the motion to change the venue. It’s their burden to prove that their clients can’t seat a fair and impartial jury in their jurisdiction. Either they must reveal the name of the polling company, even if they do it under seal, or they can’t call that expert at the hearing. If they call the witness during the change of venue hearing, the witness’s identity can’t be kept confidential. By design, court proceedings are public. It’s another Constitutional protection against government overreach. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandis so famously said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
The situation feels like some sort of falling out with the person or company that performed the poll, and it’s clearly a falling out neither Means nor Prior wants to be aired in court. So, what happens if they don’t call the pollster? They must rely on other information to prove that the jury pool in their jurisdiction has been so tainted that their clients can’t get a fair and impartial jury of their peers. Considering the breadth of the coverage, they may not find it difficult to put on a case that doesn’t include the survey, but that will depend on the judge. Proving that information about the case has been widely and frequently disseminated is not the same as proving the effect the coverage had on the listener or viewer’s opinion. Rob Wood’s motion to compel discovery is set for a hearing on March 10, 2021, at 9 am.
Speaking of national coverage, several outlets have released programs about the case. NBC Dateline has a new podcast series called Mommy Doomsday. ABC just released a new 20/20 episode called The Gravedigger’s Wife. Neither reveal any new information nor feature any new interviews with anyone close to the case. The lull in the action seems to be inspiring many outlets to recycle information to keep people interested.
It’s a pandemic. We’re still stuck at home, and we’re restless. It’s natural to want things to get moving, and you’re right – Rob Wood is taking his own sweet time. But it may be time well spent, and it’s time he has in abundance because Lori and Chad are both in jail. We’re all wondering what’s taking him so long. I continue to believe it’s because he is waiting for the children’s autopsy reports. I suspect the report on JJ’s body is finished, although it would not surprise me if the toxicology reports were not completed (we’ve talked before about why they take so long). I think the real hold-up is on the results of Tylee’s autopsy. In his conversations with Lori’s sister, Summer Shiflett, Rob Wood revealed that Tylee’s remains are being analyzed at the FBI’s crime lab. He told Summer that the FBI has many cases and that their analysis might take extra time. Why wait? I think it’s because of the awful way Tylee’s body was disposed of. I believe Rob Wood intends to use it to support additional charges and as support for seeking the death penalty.
I’m wishing you all thoughts of spring.
