Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #55

[pizzaman12]

I think many have mixed emotions on RW which made the motion to disqualify a very bizarre choice. If he would have been tossed out, you think JP or MM would be happy with the newly appointed? Absolutely not.

 

[Algo214]

Questions for our legal websleuthers:
I was of the belief that the prosecution was only required to turn over exculpatory evidence. So, question #1, am I mistaken in that belief? If not, question #2, who determines what is exculpatory?

Thank you to anyone who can clarify this for me.

@gitana1 ?

"...prosecuting attorney must also disclose the general nature of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, it intends to introduce at trial"

This is the closest to disclosing evidence that is not exculpatory or mitigating, which has to be turned over without exception that I could find.
May of course be missing something, grain of salt is adviced.

I think many have mixed emotions on RW which made the motion to disqualify a very bizarre choice. If he would have been tossed out, you think JP or MM would be happy with the newly appointed? Absolutely not.

One swallow does not a summer make, they lucked out that RW was off guard for whatever reason. I still hold high hopes he's more than capable to handle this

 

[montegrl]

"...prosecuting attorney must also disclose the general nature of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, it intends to introduce at trial"

This is the closest to disclosing evidence that is not exculpatory or mitigating, which has to be turned over without exception that I could find.
May of course be missing something, grain of salt is adviced.


One swallow does not a summer make, they lucked out that RW was off guard for whatever reason. I still hold high hopes he's more than capable to handle this

Yes, that is section A. They also have to disclose other classes of information subject to a written request, which MM and (I think JP) filed early in the case. These include Section B: (and I am just listing the major headings)

(1) Statement of Defendant.
(2) Statement of a Co-Defendant.
(3) Defendant's Prior Record.
(4) Documents and Tangible Objects. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:
(A) books,
(B) papers,
(C) documents,
(D) photographs,
(E) tangible objects,
(F) buildings or places,

or copies or portions of them, that are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecuting attorney and that:
(A) are material to the preparation of the defense,
(B) are intended for use by the prosecutor as evidence at trial, or
(C) were obtained from the defendant or belong to the defendant.

(5) Reports of Examinations and Tests.
(6) State Witnesses.
(7) Expert Witnesses.
(8) Police Reports.
(9) Digital Media Recordings (Audio and Video Files).
(10) Disclosure by Order of the Court.

Then in Section C, it details what the defense must provide to the Prosecution, etc. MOO and her's the reference link: I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court (idaho.gov)

ETA: Here's the exact language on what the prosecution does not need to provide (this is what RW argued):

(g) Prosecution Information Not Subject to Disclosure.

(1) Work Product. Disclosure must not be required of:

(A) legal research or of records,

(B) correspondence, or

(C) reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of the prosecuting attorney or members of the prosecuting attorney's legal staff.

(2) Informants. Disclosure must not be required of an informant's identity unless the informant is to be produced as a witness at a hearing or trial, subject to any protective order under subsection (l) of this rule or a disclosure order under subsection (b)(6) of this rule.

 

[kshultz06082]

Yes, that is section A. They also have to disclose other classes of information subject to a written request, which MM and (I think JP) filed early in the case. These include Section B: (and I am just listing the major headings)

(1) Statement of Defendant.
(2) Statement of a Co-Defendant.
(3) Defendant's Prior Record.
(4) Documents and Tangible Objects. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:
(A) books,
(B) papers,
(C) documents,
(D) photographs,
(E) tangible objects,
(F) buildings or places,

or copies or portions of them, that are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecuting attorney and that:
(A) are material to the preparation of the defense,
(B) are intended for use by the prosecutor as evidence at trial, or
(C) were obtained from the defendant or belong to the defendant.

(5) Reports of Examinations and Tests.
(6) State Witnesses.
(7) Expert Witnesses.
(8) Police Reports.
(9) Digital Media Recordings (Audio and Video Files).
(10) Disclosure by Order of the Court.

Then in Section C, it details what the defense must provide to the Prosecution, etc. MOO and her's the reference link: I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court (idaho.gov)

ETA: Here's the exact language on what the prosecution does not need to provide (this is what RW argued):

(g) Prosecution Information Not Subject to Disclosure.

(1) Work Product. Disclosure must not be required of:

(A) legal research or of records,

(B) correspondence, or

(C) reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of the prosecuting attorney or members of the prosecuting attorney's legal staff.

(2) Informants. Disclosure must not be required of an informant's identity unless the informant is to be produced as a witness at a hearing or trial, subject to any protective order under subsection (l) of this rule or a disclosure order under subsection (b)(6) of this rule.

Thank you for this great response! This is mostly a rhetorical question, but is the defense required to do any of their own work or can they just sit back and demand stuff from the prosecution? It seems like criminals are afforded so many rights and the victims have none. I understand that most of the rights are just in case an innocent person is accused of a crime, but sheesh... jmo

 

[montegrl]

Thank you for this great response! This is mostly a rhetorical question, but is the defense required to do any of their own work or can they just sit back and demand stuff from the prosecution? It seems like criminals are afforded so many rights and the victims have none. I understand that most of the rights are just in case an innocent person is accused of a crime, but sheesh... jmo

Yeah it is a really big rhetorical question. Really, the burden of proof is on the prosecution so generally there isn't a hard and fast rule on what the defense must do. However, they are subject to discovery and evidentiary rules just like the prosecution so they must also supply what they intend to work with to the prosecution also. It really is a case-dependent analysis and it can be quite frustrating sometimes. This is all MOO.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Thank you for this great response! This is mostly a rhetorical question, but is the defense required to do any of their own work or can they just sit back and demand stuff from the prosecution? It seems like criminals are afforded so many rights and the victims have none. I understand that most of the rights are just in case an innocent person is accused of a crime, but sheesh... jmo

No, defense has plenty of work to do. Double check everything prosecution is giving them and they better have an alibi, a defense like insanity, where allowed, not here, as I recall, any information that raises doubt in the jury’s mind that the person is guilty. Doubt kills the prosecution’s case. The ‘ole if it doesn’t fit, gotta acquit!

 

[Leney]

BBM

This isn't correct and it has been clarified in previous threads.

Only if the defendants become indigent or they stop retaining their own attorneys then court appointed attorneys must be so qualified.

I.C.R. 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases. | Supreme Court

Yes in fact it is correct as per the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, The DOJ, as well as Federal laws.
It matters not whether you are indigent or not.

Just because someone chooses a defense lawyer (I would state specifically in this case where it appears the representation is indeed ineffective), does not mean that the lawyer of choice is capable of representing their clients effectively.
I could effectively cite numerous rulings, laws etc. but it is common sense that a Court would expect no less from any attorney especially in a murder case where there is the potential for the death penalty.

I did review what most cited previously as per Idaho law and was surprised by the responses.
Here is a basic site that gives the applicable overviews.

"Defense Representation in Capital Cases
The Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a right to an attorney and to due process of law. The Supreme Court has held that legal counsel must provide effective representation. In many cases the appointed attorneys are overworked, underpaid, or lacking the trial experience required for death penalty cases. "

"Supreme Court decisions addressing representation fall into two major categories: those that define the parameters of the right to counsel and those that discuss standards for counsel’s performance. Each of these categories is important in the discussion of capital defense practices."

Representation in Capital Cases | Capital Punishment in Context

 

[Leney]

For the first time in this entire case, my faith in Rob Wood is waining. The fact that MM was the opponent with the upper hand makes me sick to my stomach. I kinda hope that MM just got lucky and this will be the only thing he throws at the wall that actually sticks. I think RW has gotten a little cocky, which can cause carelessness, and that this minor win for MM will bring RW back down to earth. I would hate to see these or future charges dismissed. Ugh. Jmo

I would not worry about RW.
He knows these attorneys are not capable of representing their clients effectively in what lies ahead.
If I was RW, I would continue to allow the attorneys to show how ineffective they are so that effective counsel can be appointed when needed.
These are not going to be the prevailing charges.
This is just one chapter in a very long novel.

 

[Leney]

Do you have a reference for this please?

I'm interested because it makes sense to me to combine the trials (if murder charges come) because all the deaths are interlinked by same players, patterns of behavior and motivation. Even though motive doesn't have to be proved it makes sense to have a cohesive story, and if one death is stand alone that probably reduces what the jury can hear about and oversight which would be very material. MOO

I would review the Court case for the joining of the two defendants in this case.
Complete different set of fact patterns.
There is precedent with respect to adding charges.
I don't believe that TD's death for example follows the same fact pattern.

 

[887sMtreme]

Respectfully snipped for focus

I would be interested to know who the executors of the estate would of

I should think Chad would have been his wife’s executor, no?

 

[Tortoise]

Yes in fact it is correct as per the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, The DOJ, as well as Federal laws.
It matters not whether you are indigent or not.

Just because someone chooses a defense lawyer (I would state specifically in this case where it appears the representation is indeed ineffective), does not mean that the lawyer of choice is capable of representing their clients effectively.
I could effectively cite numerous rulings, laws etc. but it is common sense that a Court would expect no less from any attorney especially in a murder case where there is the potential for the death penalty.

I did review what most cited previously as per Idaho law and was surprised by the responses.
Here is a basic site that gives the applicable overviews.

"Defense Representation in Capital Cases
The Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a right to an attorney and to due process of law. The Supreme Court has held that legal counsel must provide effective representation. In many cases the appointed attorneys are overworked, underpaid, or lacking the trial experience required for death penalty cases. "

"Supreme Court decisions addressing representation fall into two major categories: those that define the parameters of the right to counsel and those that discuss standards for counsel’s performance. Each of these categories is important in the discussion of capital defense practices."

Representation in Capital Cases | Capital Punishment in Context

Thank you for the link.


"The Supreme Court has held that legal counsel must provide effective representation." refers to a remedy available to defendants for ineffective assistance of counsel, not a court's mandated duty to appoint qualified counsel. The very next sentence says that many appointed attorneys are lacking experience, which they wouldn't be if they were death penalty qualified.

From your link "Right to Counsel for Indigent Criminal Defendants" refers to indigency.

There is a further paragraph in your link setting out the remedy for ineffective assistance, after the fact -

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Counsel
After the right to counsel was established, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that evaluated the effectiveness of trial counsel. Strickland v. Washington (1984) established a framework for evaluating attorney performance in capital cases. Strickland requires that the defendant prove that counsel’s representation was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficiency, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Ineffective assistance of counsel is established only when the defendant has satisfied BOTH prongs of the Strickland test.


I don't think "common sense" answers the point at all. Perhaps you have further citations of the law requiring that defendants must give up their choice of privately appointed unsuitable and unqualified attorney. What about defendants who represent themselves? I think they can be advised not to, but not forced to accept a court appointed attorney. Tiffany Moss is one such defendant. I think Chase Merritt (McStay murders) also had a go at representing himself at one time.

MOO

 

[elliefant]

Ted Bundy

 

[Tortoise]

Ted Bundy

Yes.

10 Cold Killers Who Made The Mistake Of Representing Themselves - Listverse

 

[JerseyGirl]

This thread is full and will be closed. Please continue here:

Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #56