TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #5

[legalmomma]

Judge noted also that THE COURT raised this issue, not the defense.

Prior did not know or he would have argued this in his motion at the end of the states case.

 

[Ruminations]

Apparently, Prior knew also-- look at the last sentence

2:57 p.m. Prior cites a rule that says the court can allow an amendment before the state rests – but not after. Prior says the state doesn’t have any right to ask for a various or amendment at this point in the trial. “They have to make any amendment and correction prior to resting their case,” Prior says. He says four lawyers have had over a year to analyze this and after they rest their case, the court corrected it. Prior says he wasn’t going to tip the court off that there was a problem.

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2024/05/live-updates-judge-catches-major-error-on-daybell-indictment-regarding-jj-vallow-prosecution-will-address-this-afternoon/

And thus, Boyce mentioned his failure to say anything as a fact supporting that changing the error back will not be prejudicial to Chad.

If Prior thought it were prejudicial, he should have said something earlier.

I am still amazed nobody in the prosecutor's oiffice, no journalist, and no person from the public picked this up. But if Prior is truthful that he had picked it up, the judge just used his decision to keep silent against him.

MOO

 

[cocomod]

Holy cow!! That was truly a nail biter. I love this judge and his reasoning and complete explanation!

 

[justtrish]

I don't think Prior saw it either, he would have mentioned it as soon as the state rested if he had seen it.

I thought I heard him say he didn't notice, but someone would have or something like that.

 

[iamshadow21]

I thought I heard him say he didn't notice, but someone would have or something like that.

Yeah, he did.

 

[justtrish]

Yeah, he did.

So if he didn't notice, then I think that's shows perfectly that it didn't hinder his case. Nobody noticed and the case was presented with correct info and defended against with correct dates.. both sides on the same page (well sorta lol) so it didn't hurt his client at all and didn't change how the case was presented.

 

[lisette]

Hallelujah!! So glad common sense prevailed!!

 

[nodamselindistress]

So if he didn't notice, then I think that's shows perfectly that it didn't hinder his case. Nobody noticed and the case was presented with correct info and defended against with correct dates.. both sides on the same page (well sorta lol) so it didn't hurt his client at all and didn't change how the case was presented.

while this is all true, a State Prosecutor's office has to do better than this. There was also a last minute amendment to the LVD documents, so there seem to be issues with the clerical staff or something in that office that need to be addressed.

 

[Nikynoo]

We shall see very shortly, but my guess is the same as yours.

Prior can legitimately claim they have been defending testimony against the wording of the indictment, and now the state - having already rested its case - wants to change that charge to something else. That's not fair to the defendant and his rights, and I see no way the state gets to say "Never mind, let's have a do over."

This would lead to a dismissal with prejudice of count 4 (JJ murder) but does not impact the other charges.

It's a big deal that the state has already rested its case.

But he never questioned the date on cross did he? He knew what the date was and he pursued his cross examinations accordingly.

 

[Nikynoo]

First Judge I've wanted to kiss on the mouth since Judge Werner.

And yes, I'm considering a drink. Or a valium. I feel wrecked.

But nothing compared to Kay and Larry. All strength and peace to them right now.

Let’s have a party!

 

[Artis]

while this is all true, a State Prosecutor's office has to do better than this. There was also a last minute amendment to the LVD documents, so there seem to be issues with the clerical staff or something in that office that need to be addressed.

This is why it's a bad idea to check your own work. Seriously. We have a tendency not to see our own mistakes where others would catch them. Whoever was responsible for this error is the one who needs three martinis tonight.

 

[iamshadow21]

Let’s have a party!

You have it without me, it's 8:20am here. I was up all night for this terrifying nonsense. Over a typo. I need sleep if I'm going to be able to face the trial again come Monday.

 

[Pruddennce]

I don't think Prior saw it either, he would have mentioned it as soon as the state rested if he had seen it

You have it without me, it's 8:20am here. I was up all night for this terrifying nonsense. Over a typo. I need sleep if I'm going to be able to face the trial again come Monday.

what I saw and heard is that the state, when arguing, did rely on a clerical error, but substantially the law and all connecting pieces. Judge B IMO of course when he ruled relied on the law but did point out before retiring to consult, did say "CLERICAL" in addition to all of the other pieces which I really am not equipped to reiterate at the moment....wine

 

[alexwood]

http://

but...JP repeats alot of what the court would say during trial...I dont think he saw it.

It's the only thing JP had to rest his case on. This acquittal was going to be his ace in the rabbit hole -- so to speak. Well, he didn't have much.

 

[nodamselindistress]

You have it without me, it's 8:20am here. I was up all night for this terrifying nonsense. Over a typo. I need sleep if I'm going to be able to face the trial again come Monday.

And I was complaining it messed up my afternoon! You are entitled to nightmare free sleep over the next 3 days because soon we will get to see what Prior has in all its glory. I can't even imagine what next will be like!

 

[Tortoise]

But he never questioned the date on cross did he? He knew what the date was and he pursued his cross examinations accordingly.

He even said something at one point about how no one has proved Chad was home on the date of JJ's death/burial

Prior never noticed until Judge Boyce said it, so he should've added himself to the list of lawyers who didn't spot it. Talk about pots and kettles.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

You have it without me, it's 8:20am here. I was up all night for this terrifying nonsense. Over a typo. I need sleep if I'm going to be able to face the trial again come Monday.

Poor baby...go to sleep. Well all be with you in your tomorrow !!

 

[alexwood]

Let’s have a party!

Hey, where are you guys? I started an hour ago!

 

[nhmemorymaker]

what I saw and heard is that the state, when arguing, did rely on a clerical error, but substantially the law and all connecting pieces. Judge B IMO of course when he ruled relied on the law but did point out before retiring to consult, did say "CLERICAL" in addition to all of the other pieces which I really am not equipped to reiterate at the moment....wine

Yep. Wine time here too!!

 

[Pruddennce]

He even said something at one point about how no one has proved Chad was home on the date of JJ's death/burial

Prior never noticed until Judge Boyce said it, so he should've added himself to the list of lawyers who didn't spot it. Talk about pots and kettles.

JP missed his Perry Mason moment about the date..25 days of the state's case? why wait? why not jump after they rested. IMO, I agree with you, he didnt notice. the entire case revolved around 3 time periods. and he did his cross for each death accordingly.