Will Lori's case be dismissed?
Hello, my Good Friends!
There have been some developments in the Vallow/Daybell case that need discussion. Both sides have filed new documents with the court in the past week. Here is the lineup of new documents and who filed them.
All outstanding motions will be heard on February 9, 2023, at 9 am.
Discovery Disclosure – filed by the prosecution. This document indicates that they provided DNA reports to the defense. These are the reports John Prior complained he did not have when he asked for a continuance. If you recall, the judge denied Prior’s motion to postpone the trial but commented that unless the reports were received promptly, he would consider severing the trials to permit Daybell time to receive and analyze the information. I seem to recall predicting that the prosecutors would move heaven and Earth to get those results. The hearing on the motion was on Thursday, January 19, 2023. By Wednesday, January 25, 2023, just three working days later, those reports were provided to the defense.
Motion to Extend Time For Disclosure of Witnesses and Expert Witness Opinion and Reports – filed by John Prior. Prior is asking to extend the date to disclose his pretrial witnesses and their reports. This is because of the delay in receiving the DNA reports. This motion was filed the same day as the discovery disclosure, and they may have crossed in the mail.
Motion to Sever – filed by John Prior. Prior said, during the January 19, 2023, hearing, there was still a pending motion to sever the cases. He’s asking the court to rule on it. Again, this hearing notice likely crossed in the mail with the delivery of the DNA reports. Expect the judge to deny this motion.
Motion to Compel – filed by the prosecution in Lori’s case. The state says that the defense has failed to specify times in their alibi notice. They are right; the notice is breathtakingly vague. They also want the list of experts or evidence the defense plans to use in the penalty phase. I expect that the judge will order them to provide the information.
Now the big one:
Motion to Dismiss for Speedy Trial Violation. As is my practice, I’m outlining the law and giving you my analysis. Idaho law requires that a defendant in a felony case be tried within six months of the date they are arraigned on the indictment unless they waive their speedy trial right or there is good cause. In Idaho, if a defendant asks for a postponement of their trial date, even if the trial is reset within the six-month period, it’s considered a waiver of the speedy trial right. Lori’s commitment is not considered a voluntary delay on the defendant's part. So the question is whether there is good cause for the delay. Remember, Jim Archibald said that taking into account all the delay for Lori’s commitment and the most recent period when the January trial was vacated because she needed a new competency evaluation, they believe the trial should have been scheduled to start no later than February 21, 2023. Instead, the trial is scheduled for April 3, 2023. That means that the trial will begin 41 days later than Archibald calculated. The primary case on the issue is State v. Clark, 135 Idaho 255 (2000). Before that case, the problem in Idaho was controlled by a U.S. Supreme court case called Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). Barker enumerated a list of factors to be considered. Clark takes a more holistic approach.
Quoting Clark, “But as the Iowa Supreme Court noted in State v. Peterson, the reason for the delay "cannot be evaluated entirely in a vacuum." 288 N.W.2d 332, 335 (Iowa 1980). The good cause determination may take into account the factors listed in Barker. The Barker factors, however, considered only as surrounding circumstances . . . are important, if at all, only insofar as they bear on the sufficiency of the reason itself. The shortness of the period, the failure of the defendant to demand a speedy trial, and the absence of prejudice are legitimate considerations only insofar as they affect the strength of the reason for delay. This means that, to whatever extent the delay has been a short one, or the defendant has not demanded a speedy trial, or is not prejudiced, a weaker reason will constitute good cause. On the other hand, if the delay has been a long one, or if the defendant has demanded a speedy trial, or is prejudiced, a stronger reason is necessary to constitute good cause.
Thus, the ultimate question of whether legal excuse has been shown is a matter for judicial determination upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The case also leaves the decision to the trial court's discretion, meaning that the appeals court will only review the decision if there is evidence that the judge abused their discretion.
What does this mean for the upcoming trial and any subsequent appeal? Archibald’s motion allows Judge Boyce to clearly enumerate the facts he considered and his reasons for allowing the delay. The factors that support a finding of good cause are that the delay was brief, the delay was necessary because the change of venue required coordination with the Ada County court docket, the delay did not prejudice either defendant and may actually have benefitted the defendant by allowing her to obtain the DNA samples that were recently provided on January 25, 2023. The factor that could weigh against would be any showing of prejudice. Ultimately, I expect Judge Boyce will deny the motion and let the trial go forward on April 3, 2023. If Lori is convicted, any real consideration of the issue will be done by the Idaho Supreme Court in post-conviction motions. If she is acquitted, all of the future appellate challenges become moot.
Judge Boyce also issued orders from the January 19, 2023, hearing denying the meeting between Lori and Chad requested by Lori’s attorney and denying the motion to sequester the jury.
There were hearings on January 19, 2023, and January 27, 2023. The court ordered both sealed. The first seems to be the result of an ex parte motion. Ex parte is Latin for one party, meaning one side appeared without the other. In the past, an ex parte motion meant a request to review competency, so I think many people jumped to the conclusion that there could be another motion about competency, but that’s not the case. The order that closed the hearing says that the purpose of the hearing was to review documents en camera. That means that one side asked the judge to review documents in chambers to determine whether they could be introduced at trial. That usually involves medical or mental health records. The second hearing, on January 27, 2023, also cites ICAR 32(g)(15), which applies to “documents filed or lodged with the court in camera. It appears this hearing may have been to give the parties the court’s decision from the January 19, 2023, hearing.
There is a hearing scheduled today, January 31, 2023. The court issued an order sealing that proceeding too. The order indicates the purpose of the hearing is to review the juror questionnaires.
Join me at https://www.youtube.com/@childrenofdarknessandlight on Wednesdays at 6 pm Pacific for True Crime Wednesday, discussions of cases in the headlines, and on Fridays at 6 pm Pacific for TGIF - a discussion of all things Vallow/Daybell. Subscribe and like soon!
Free wristbands are still available. Send a self-addressed stamped envelope to
Lori Hellis
104 E. Fairview, Box 381
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Don’t forget our True Crime Quilt Guild. You can Don't forget our True Crime Quilt Guild! Check out the first instruction video here: https://youtu.be/UbPGQ20qAvo
To get started, download the pattern from Etsy here:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/229677900/stepping-stones-sampler-quilt-pattern.
The cost is $12. Use coupon code THANKYOU22 for 25% off. Additional instruction: https://www.pamelaquilts.com/p/stepping-stones-sampler.html
A few other items of note, Kay and Larry Woodcock have encouraged the community to write to Judge Boyce to encourage him to reconsider this ban on cameras in the courtroom at trial. If you are interested in writing a letter at Kay and Larry’s request, you can address it to:
The Honorable Steven W. Boyce
c/o Clerk of the Court
Regarding Case Numbers CR22-21-1623 and CR22-21-1624
Fremont County Court
151 W. 1st N.
Saint Anthony, ID 83445
Free wristbands are still available. Send a self-addressed stamped envelope to
Lori Hellis
104 E. Fairview, Box 381
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Part Two - What is Pattern Evidence?
There have been quite a few questions about why the pretrial motions in the Murdaugh case included challenging ballistics evidence, so this special edition will discuss pattern-matching evidence, so-called junk science, and the place where science and the law collide.
The law and science are rarely comfortable bedfellows because the law develops slowly, with time and precedent, while science often changes rapidly as new technology develops. One needs to look no further than the use of DNA to see the proof. DNA evidence continues to cement convictions and exonerate the innocent.
In contrast, many time-tested and widely accepted so-called scientific methods have been called into question since the publication of a 2009 study by the National Academy of Science. Among the disciplines called into question are ballistics, bite marks, tool marks, tire and footwear patterns, blood spatter, handwriting, fingerprint identification, and hair analysis. Each of those disciplines requires that a person match the patterns present to make a subjective determination of the differences and similarities. While some of the analysis is now done by computers, the underlying programming of the comparison software is still done by humans who tell the computer which patterns match.
This concern about the subjectivity of pattern-matching evidence has opened the door for defense attorneys to challenge the scientific basis of evidence that was once automatically admitted under the Daubert standard. In the case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the subject of an expert’s testimony must be based on “scientific knowledge” that “establishes a “standard of evidentiary reliability.” The Court further explained that “scientific knowledge” means the expert’s opinion must be more than a subjective belief or mere speculation.
Consider the case of Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield was a Portland, Oregon, lawyer who converted to Islam after marrying his Egyptian wife. Like all attorneys, Mayfield submitted his fingerprints along with his application for admission to the Oregon State Bar. As a family law attorney, he represented Jeffery Battle in a child custody case. Battle was later convicted of trying to travel to Afghanistan to help the Taliban. It became a case of guilt by association. When a train was bombed in Madrid, Spain, in 2004, Spanish authorities identified a partial fingerprint from a bag containing bomb detonators. The partial fingerprint was shared with the FBI, who produced a list of 20 possible matches, including Mayfield. Even though there was no evidence Mayfield had ever traveled to Spain, and the Spanish government disputed the match, the FBI concluded Mayfield was a “100 percent match.” As a result, Mayfield’s home and law office were searched, including searches through his confidential legal files. The FBI secured orders to place listening devices in his home and wiretap his home and his office phones. Mayfield was arrested and held for nearly a month on a material witness warrant, even though the FBI had been notified a month before his arrest that Spanish authorities had excluded Mayfield as a suspect in the bombing. As a material witness, Mayfield was denied access to an attorney or permitted to see his family. Mayfield later settled a civil suit false imprisonment suit for $2 million. Mayfield’s case serves as a cautionary tale and may have contributed to the 2005 legislation that directed the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the study of forensic science.
Along with pattern evidence, the assigned committee was tasked with examining the protocols for DNA, paint analysis, chemical analysis including drugs, fibers, serology fire and explosives, and digital analysis. They were also asked to compare coroner systems with those using medical examiners.
The PDF of the report can be found here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html.
This week, there have been pretrial motions in the Alex Murdaugh case challenging the science of ballistics evidence. As we also saw in the Delphi case, bullets or shell casings have been collected and subjected to tool mark analysis. This involves comparing minute scratches to bullets and casings with bullets and casings known to have been fired or worked through a specific gun. Once again, the comparison requires the subjective analysis of a human technician.
In both Delphi and Murdaugh, the comparison was to other shells that had been worked through the action of a particular gun. In Delphi, the state claims that a bullet found near the bodies of Abby Williams and Libby German had been cycled through a gun belonging to suspect Richard Allen. In the Murdaugh case, the prosecution claims that the Murdaugh family owned two guns of the type used to murder Maggie Murdaugh. One of those guns, presumed to be the murder weapon, is missing. Shell casings found at the scene had been worked through the action of the remaining gun. This evidence that the ammunition used to kill Maggie Murdaugh was once in possession of the Murdaugh family is a link in the circumstantial evidence chain leading to the conclusion that Alex Murdaugh killed his wife and son.
Murdaugh’s attorney, Dick Harpootlian, argued that tool-mark evidence lacks scientific reliability and so should be excluded. The judge denied the motion. The precedent beginning with Daubert is well established, so a trial-level judge would be unlikely to go out on a limb and declare the ballistic evidence scientifically unreliable. Still, it sets up an appeal for the defense, which is why Harpootlian raised it.
We will see many more challenges to this so-called scientific pattern evidence. For example, look for challenges to blood spatter and tire and shoe imprint evidence in the Kohberger case.
