Why is Rob Wood Bringing in a big gun?
Hello Friends:
There are a few things I’d like to chat about today. First, let’s talk about some case developments. Rob Wood filed a motion Pro Hac Vice to permit an experienced attorney from out of state to join the cases. Both Madison and Fremont County District Attorney’s offices are small, and the Daybell/Vallow case would overwhelm even the best-staffed prosecutor’s office. Additionally, both counties have populations that are, for the most part, very law-abiding. As a result, neither county has vast experience prosecuting complex crimes. While there has been a great deal of discussion about whether the defense attorneys are qualified to continue representing Chad and Lori if murder charges are filed, we may have overlooked whether Rob Wood has the experience and qualifications to prosecute a death penalty case. As I’ve said before, I think Wood is a careful and thorough lawyer, but sometimes you have to admit what you don’t know. Bringing in an experienced lawyer to advise on the case is smart. It assures that there will be fewer errors that could lead to appeals. I have wondered why Wood didn’t ask for help from the Idaho Attorney General’s office, which would usually be the way to handle a case that exceeded their office’s capabilities. As we saw with the investigation into Tammy Daybell’s death, when the AG’s office steps in, they take over the case. Rob Wood has a lot already invested in the case, and I suspect he wants to see it through. It appears that Rachel Smith is a very accomplished and experienced lawyer who could bring a lot of depth to the prosecution team.
Yes, the move to bring on a seasoned death-penalty attorney loudly telegraphs the state’s intentions. I think we can expect new charges soon, but perhaps not as soon as I originally predicted.
Because of a POSSIBLE next development.
Something is afoot, but it’s hard to say what. I’m about to go deep down a rabbit hole, so stay with me. Please understand this is ONLY SPECULATION. I am looking at the following series of events and trying to read the tea leaves.
There was a hearing on February 17. The day before that hearing, Lori’s attorney, Mark Means, filed a “Motion For A Status Conference Under Seal.” The judge took up that motion in a breakout session before continuing with the hearing on Means’ Motion to Compel.
The court initially set a hearing for March 10, 2021, to hear argument about the expert testimony and motions in limine ahead of the hearing on the change of venue coming up on March 22. Without explanation, the court accelerated the hearing to March 8, 2021. As soon as that hearing began, Judge Boyce initiated a private session with Mark Means and Rob Wood. Wood then came back on and asked the clerk to add Chad’s lawyer, John Prior, and the court reporter to the session. At the end of the lengthy private breakout, the judge announced they had put some things on the record and that he had ordered that record sealed. These are unusual moves. The judge said he was vacating all the future hearings and issuing a stay in the case. Stays are uncommon in criminal cases because of the rules surrounding speedy trial rights.
Prosecutor Rob Wood filed a Motion Pro Hac Vice in both cases, and Mark Means filed an objection. The first objection was that the “Motion is barred (suspended) from hearing as result of previous Court Order(s).” When the video feed went live, the judge reported some “housekeeping” discussions held before they went on the record and the video feed went live. He did not disclose what they discussed. Once on the record, he announced that he would only be ruling on the motion as it applied to Chad Daybell. For reasons that were not apparent, he deferred a ruling on the motion as it applied to Lori. The judge allowed Rachel Smith to join in Chad’s case.
Hmmm. What does it mean? When you put all the pieces together, it COULD mean that Lori is unavailable for some reason. Could that be because she is ill or incapacitated? While I don’t want to “put the cart before the horse,” I think it’s possible.
Lastly, I want to get on my soapbox for a moment. We are all following this case to understand the story and see justice done for the victims. Recently, a group following the case invited followers to make a list of every person who was somehow culpable for the children’s deaths, including anyone who could have raised a red flag about Lori’s behavior. The list included people like Charles’ Vallow’s ex-wife and Lori’s adult son, Colby Ryan. I objected and was advised by the administrator to “scroll and roll,” and to keep my opinion to myself. I will not be participating further in that group. To quote my French grandmother, “les opinions sont comme des connards. Tout le monde en a un,” and I have an opinion too: Lori Vallow had a moral and legal responsibility to care for her children. Up until recently, most people who knew her believed that she was fulfilling that responsibility. Yes, there may have been some cracks that appeared in her perfect-mother persona. There may have been red flags. But let’s be clear: NOTHING that happened to Tylee and JJ is the fault of anyone else but Lori Vallow and the people she conspired with. I’m grateful for the thoughtful and insightful people who subscribe to my newsletter and engage me in conversation. I refuse to engage in victim-blaming, and I refuse to condone others who do. Sitting on the sidelines like a bunch of armchair quarterbacks assigning blame is small, cowardly, and unfair. The victims, in this case, deserve support, not scorn.
