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

[wenwe4]

I can see what you’re saying ....but what about the entire part of if Summer than talks to her sister, in jail on a recorded call, and then Lori’s says something information used against her? it may be a hypothetical but I don’t think something like this is far fetched at all
Summer tells Lori something to the effect of “the prosecutor told us more charges are coming, possibly the death penalty” and then Lori says something that can then be used against her, something that very likely would have not come out freely since before this meeting Summer didn’t know about more charges and definitely didn’t know about the death penalty because she asked about that.
Is there anything to be said about that? We can forget her not being a crucial witness or not being called for the trial, as those points are valid in my opinion, but I don’t think that takes away from the effect on the State’s case, a positive effect for them, that may not have resulted if they never spoke or if Wood didn’t say some of the things he did. Sorry to disagree somewhat.

Wood said he had already told the Attorney's representing both CD & LVD this. How would it be any different if LVD heard this info from her Atty? All calls to the jail are recorded so that info would be coming straight from Lori because everywhere she leaks they are hanging a bucket. (IMO). It is ok to disagree but I just don't see Summer's testimony as being all that relevant (unless there is something we simply do not know), nor do I see anything that Summer says would take away any of the evidence and facts of this case. I guess I am just saying that the standard of Forensic Interviewing should not be expected in a casual atmosphere (ie: interview room being recorded) where Wood was there to introduce himself and update on the case (as much as he was able).

 

[Tortoise]

I'm curious that they didn't use that call between Lori and Chad, at his preliminary hearing, where she wanted to talk and he talked her out of it.

 

[indicolite22]

I'm curious that they didn't use that call between Lori and Chad, at his preliminary hearing, where she wanted to talk and he talked her out of it.

Perhaps they spoke in code, because they knew they were being recorded. Maybe the recording will be used in the trial where their power dynamic and level of responsibility will be examined in detail.

 

[MTW2011]

sure, but I don’t think, even with the Defense witnesses, that they’re expecting a level of forensic interviewing. One of their witnesses repeatedly stated that the best practices he outlined are just that, best practices, a higher goal, the most ideal situation, etc.
I still have trouble getting over these, and have not seen much from the State that fully explains them. Wood said this was introductory and not investigative, but I’d agree with their witnesses that this seems more than introductory when some of this happened:
-an introductory meet and greet does not include revealing the State’s theory of the case
-an introductory meet and greet does not include revealing the State’s possible next moves and charges coming in the future
-an introductory meet and greet does not include telling a close family member of the defendant that the State doesn’t want to have to use the death penalty against their family member
-an introductory meet and greet does not include telling a close family member of the defendant that their lawyer is incompetent, ill -equipped To handle their case, and that they’ll eventually be removed anyway

the list could go on but I think Wood immediately trying to couch the entire thing as an introduction meeting, before the real interview with police. He said they were not investigative, which I guess might be true if you consider he barely asked any questions.
I think there is a lot of gray area here, and I will echo my previous posts again, that while any or all of this may not be misconduct or coercion or manipulation, it can still cause potential problems both now and down the road for this case.

I thought it said a lot that the very first argument the State tried to refute the Defense witness was trying to attack small details about how he used a transcript but not the official one marked as the Exhibit, how some quotes may have missing words or joined up multiple phrases together. They didn’t start with any large picture issues with him or his testimony, and I would’ve thought they would’ve started with something much stronger and “big picture” before moving onto smaller details with his testimony. Was that really their strongest argument? I’m not sure. Then they tried to object to qualifying their second witness as an expert, someone who seems to have extensive legal history, death penalty case experience, teaches current law students, & has been a licensed attorney for longer than Wood has been one. He seemed over qualified to be an expert per the standards, and the Judge agreed with that and denied their objection. I couldn’t understand why they wouldn’t want him qualified as an expert and I thought most of the arguments they brought up were not that strong. And later on after some more confusion from the Court, it seemed that the issues with the different transcripts was resolved, as Means pointed out the copy their witness used was also certified, as the Judge asked him to check, but that it didn’t appear/stand out on the page because it was written in the same style and format as the rest of the transcript.

I don’t support the Defense and any of this but I don’t think it is really a stretch some of the arguments they’re bringing up. Like their second witness said, all of these potential problems could’ve been entirely avoided by the State, and it seems at this point they’ve only gained some delays, extra hearings, and not much positive from doing all this. Did it actually help them? Well we will have to see. I don’t know. Obviously it’s JMO and numerous will still disagree.

 

[BeachSky]

IMO Wood didn't influence SS's testimony with the interview. He didn't try to change her recollection of the events/facts of the case that she would be asked about by the investigators. What he did appear to try to achieve was get his message through to Lori and influence her decisions. As some have observed, he might be really needing Lori's cooperation because without it the murder case is much weaker. I believe that he had a goal in the interview and was aware that he was walking a thin line, thinking he kept on the right side of it. Since the conversation was conducted in a friendly tone with no objections from SS's attorney, Wood was probably really surprised by the backlash. Talking about MM was also likely a part of the same strategy, although not smart, since MM was easily triggered by it.

AND from Summer’s TV interview (pre children’s bodies being found) she just smiled & laughed.. seemed not concerned ...but totally enjoying all the attention.
I could see her baiting Wood. Yep.
MOO of course.

 

[pseudo_hum]

IMO, Attorney GS could have prevented this by divulging his intention to record the conversation "to protect his client". I am unsure how removing Mr. W is protecting his client?

 

[Colorado303]

I just finished watching the full hearing. Some random thoughts:

1. If Smith thought Wood’s discussion w/Summer was inappropriate/problematic, why didn’t he object during the conversation? Isn’t that why he’s there—to protect his client? He’s acting very much like an agent for the defense, which suggests Summer wasn’t swayed despite the many “biases” Woods supposedly subjected her to.

2. Means is an idiot. He is defending one of the most despised women on earth and is trying to replace a prosector seemingly intent on diverting much of the blame to that woman’s husband. Another prosecutor might think them equally guilty or see Lori as the driving force.

Prior on the other hand is defending the person Woods appears to be after most. He has every reason to want to oust Woods and take his chances w/someone new.

3. Isn’t it interesting that Prior is clearly acting as lead attorney even though Means is the one who filed to remove Woods first? Watching these two, it’s evident Prior is the better courtroom attorney. Stunningly so. Is Means expecting Prior to do the heavy lifting throughout the trial? And is Prior ethically obligated to give Means any warning before he tosses Mean’s client under the bus Woods/DA is driving?

4. Is the second “expert witness” one of these guy’s buddies or did they find him on Craig’s list? He seemed no more an expert in the issue at hand than any other criminal attorney who teaches. I was expecting him to have personal experience dealing with or testifying about witness questioning/ tampering. Or at least teach a Legal Ethics class. But nooooooo. Not that he isn’t a great lawyer, good teacher, smart guy and presentable on the stand. But an expert? I was surprised.

 

[MTW2011]

I just finished watching the full hearing. Some random thoughts:

1. If Smith thought Wood’s discussion w/Summer was inappropriate/problematic, why didn’t he object during the conversation? Isn’t that why he’s there—to protect his client? He’s acting very much like an agent for the defense, which suggests Summer wasn’t swayed despite the many “biases” Woods supposedly subjected her to.

2. Means is an idiot. He is defending one of the most despised women on earth and is trying to replace a prosector seemingly intent on diverting much of the blame to that woman’s husband. Another prosecutor might think them equally guilty or see Lori as the driving force.

Prior on the other hand is defending the person Woods appears to be after most. He has every reason to want to oust Woods and take his chances w/someone new.

3. Isn’t it interesting that Prior is clearly acting as lead attorney even though Means is the one who filed to remove Woods first? Watching these two, it’s evident Prior is the better courtroom attorney. Stunningly so. Is Means expecting Prior to do the heavy lifting throughout the trial? And is Prior ethically obligated to give Means any warning before he tosses Mean’s client under the bus Woods/DA is driving?

4. Is the second “expert witness” one of these guy’s buddies or did they find him on Craig’s list? He seemed no more an expert in the issue at hand than any other criminal attorney who teaches. I was expecting him to have personal experience dealing with or testifying about witness questioning/ tampering. Or at least teach a Legal Ethics class. But nooooooo. Not that he isn’t a great lawyer, good teacher, smart guy and presentable on the stand. But an expert? I was surprised.

i can’t address all your questions/comments right this moment, but Prior appears better because 1) he’s done criminal defense 2) he’s been an attorney almost as long as Means & Wood have been practicing combined 3) and despite some of his lowball other slimy tactics we’ve seen so far, he has handled many cases, I think much more than people know or give him credit for.
I’m not saying he’s some GREAT defense attorney, but he does have experience

the dynamics at play, with widely varying levels of experience, is really interesting as you noted

 

[MTW2011]

4. Is the second “expert witness” one of these guy’s buddies or did they find him on Craig’s list? He seemed no more an expert in the issue at hand than any other criminal attorney who teaches. I was expecting him to have personal experience dealing with or testifying about witness questioning/ tampering. Or at least teach a Legal Ethics class. But nooooooo. Not that he isn’t a great lawyer, good teacher, smart guy and presentable on the stand. But an expert? I was surprised.

Newton appears to have been a licensed attorney since 2004. He work as a Public Defender in multiple states, then went into private practice as a criminal defense attorney, then was public defender in Montana for the State, and currently teaches @ University of Idaho, he said he teaches classes on evidence, criminal procedure, among other things. He cited his experience in numerous amicus briefs, experience in capital cases, among other things. I think he brought with him a lot of experience, if the Defense brought someone in who graduated from a university like two years ago then yeah he's definitely not an expert or even very experienced. More than one of his classes, which appear to be at least 5 right now, discuss topics like the ethics you mentioned.

 

[pizzaman12]

Not just you. I think that guy was paid by the word. And I would add that he talked in circles.

I think he's actually

I just finished watching the full hearing. Some random thoughts:

1. If Smith thought Wood’s discussion w/Summer was inappropriate/problematic, why didn’t he object during the conversation? Isn’t that why he’s there—to protect his client? He’s acting very much like an agent for the defense, which suggests Summer wasn’t swayed despite the many “biases” Woods supposedly subjected her to.

2. Means is an idiot. He is defending one of the most despised women on earth and is trying to replace a prosector seemingly intent on diverting much of the blame to that woman’s husband. Another prosecutor might think them equally guilty or see Lori as the driving force.

Prior on the other hand is defending the person Woods appears to be after most. He has every reason to want to oust Woods and take his chances w/someone new.

3. Isn’t it interesting that Prior is clearly acting as lead attorney even though Means is the one who filed to remove Woods first? Watching these two, it’s evident Prior is the better courtroom attorney. Stunningly so. Is Means expecting Prior to do the heavy lifting throughout the trial? And is Prior ethically obligated to give Means any warning before he tosses Mean’s client under the bus Woods/DA is driving?

4. Is the second “expert witness” one of these guy’s buddies or did they find him on Craig’s list? He seemed no more an expert in the issue at hand than any other criminal attorney who teaches. I was expecting him to have personal experience dealing with or testifying about witness questioning/ tampering. Or at least teach a Legal Ethics class. But nooooooo. Not that he isn’t a great lawyer, good teacher, smart guy and presentable on the stand. But an expert? I was surprised.

BBM- Smith answered this in the testimony. It was basically that he was doing what is client wanted and that was to talk to them. It was an absurd answer. I'll see if I can find the exact time in the video

What I don't get is that Smith says that he planned to record it and his client knew as well...Yet, he goes on to say he decided to record it when flags went off (deputy being present, etc...)

 

[MTW2011]

I think he's actually


BBM- Smith answered this in the testimony. It was basically that he was doing what is client wanted and that was to talk to them. It was an absurd answer. I'll see if I can find the exact time in the video

What I don't get is that Smith says that he planned to record it and his client knew as well...Yet, he goes on to say he decided to record it when flags went off (deputy being present, etc...)

I could be wrong but I thought he meant he already had plans to record to discussions with the law enforcement, the actual interview that happened after this with Wood, because he had concerns both about what she would be asked and how she would answer since she could be called to testify in this case. I took this to mean that he just started recording the conversation with Wood as well, rather than just the police interview, after he thought there were some red flags because they were standing in this ante-room area, waiting to go in to interview with police investigators, and when the conversation quickly turned into more than a meet and greet he was alarmed.

 

[Colorado303]

Newtown appears to have been a licensed attorney since 2004. He work as a Public Defender in multiple states, then went into private practice as a criminal defense attorney, then was public defender in Montana for the State, and currently teaches @ University of Idaho, he said he teaches classes on evidence, criminal procedure, among other things. He cited his experience in numerous amicus briefs, experience in capital cases, among other things. I think he brought with him a lot of experience, if the Defense brought someone in who graduated from a university like two years ago then yeah he's definitely not an expert or even very experienced. More than one of his classes, which appear to be at least 5 right now, discuss topics like the ethics you mentioned.

I’m aware and not disputing he’s a very experienced lawyer— just noting I was surprised that his experience/expertise seems to be general criminal law (including capital cases) rather than witness questioning, evaluating legal conduct or “ethics” expertise. Yes he teaches, but if he was chosen for his teaching role, why not get someone who teaches an actual Ethics class?

He’s unquestionably qualified if the definition of expert is “experienced criminal attorney”. It just surprised me that two criminal attorneys would feel the need to call a third criminal attorney to testify. It would seem much of what he knows they would also know and be able to bring up in their closing arguments.

But now I get it. After listening to the defense questioning him I see the value in being able to drill down on key points they want to get across. It would probably be hard to dwell on those points as effectively in closing arguments. Plus, because he testified as an “expert” things said by him could be considered “fact”/evidence where an identical statement made by a defense attorney in closing arguments would not be.

Which makes me wonder why Woods didn’t call a similar witness. An experienced DA who could explain Wood’s point of view on the stand. Were his actions so egregious it was impossible to find anyone willing to mitigate them? Or did he and his attorney simply not think of it?

Which leads me to:

I’m not sure if the Judge will or should remove Woods, but I’m sort of hoping he does. Even if legally defensible, yesterday’s expert testimony convinced me Wood’s conversation w/Summer could have been handled much better. And he could/should have (IMO) done a better job on his own defense. Plus, while Woods is probably a very qualified, successful DA I’ve been underwhelmed by his courtroom presence/charisma. I want the shrewdest, most aggressive and compelling prosecutor possible on this case so Lori and Chad are locked up for life. I’m concerned that Woods may not be the best fit.

 

[Colorado303]

I think he's actually


BBM- Smith answered this in the testimony. It was basically that he was doing what is client wanted and that was to talk to them. It was an absurd answer. I'll see if I can find the exact time in the video

What I don't get is that Smith says that he planned to record it and his client knew as well...Yet, he goes on to say he decided to record it when flags went off (deputy being present, etc...)

Thank you! Somehow I missed that part of the testimony.

I guess it’s OK for an attorney to let their witness client be unduly influenced if the client insists. But did he fully explain to her the dangers of real and perceived undue influence first?

It still feels a bit shady to me.

 

[MTW2011]

I’m aware and not disputing he’s a very experienced lawyer— just noting I was surprised that his experience/expertise seems to be general criminal law (including capital cases) rather than witness questioning, evaluating legal conduct or “ethics” expertise. Yes he teaches, but if he was chosen for his teaching role, why not get someone who teaches an actual Ethics class?

He’s unquestionably qualified if the definition of expert is “experienced criminal attorney”. It just surprised me that two criminal attorneys would feel the need to call a third criminal attorney to testify. It would seem much of what he knows they would also know and be able to bring up in their closing arguments.

But now I get it. After listening to the defense questioning him I see the value in being able to drill down on key points they want to get across. It would probably be hard to dwell on those points as effectively in closing arguments. Plus, because he testified as an “expert” things said by him could be considered “fact”/evidence where an identical statement made by a defense attorney in closing arguments would not be.

Which makes me wonder why Woods didn’t call a similar witness. An experienced DA who could explain Wood’s point of view on the stand. Were his actions so egregious it was impossible to find anyone willing to mitigate them? Or did he and his attorney simply not think of it?

Which leads me to:

I’m not sure if the Judge will or should remove Woods, but I’m sort of hoping he does. Even if legally defensible, yesterday’s expert testimony convinced me Wood’s conversation w/Summer could have been handled much better. And he could/should have (IMO) done a better job on his own defense. Plus, while Woods is probably a very qualified, successful DA I’ve been underwhelmed by his courtroom presence/charisma. I want the shrewdest, most aggressive and compelling prosecutor possible on this case so Lori and Chad are locked up for life. I’m concerned that Woods may not be the best fit.

I really very much appreciate your thoroughness. I agree with a lot of what you just said. I think it’s ironic that Wood is alleging Means isn’t good enough for this case when it is his own actions that causes this current mess they’re in. I believe a good prosecutor, as I’ve said before, would’ve avoided any type of situation like this like the plague.

I just re-watched the CourtTV clip on this and two of their attorneys on their panel thought this was bad for Wood to do, even if it doesn’t get him removed. Julie Grant said that prosecutors avoid situations like this because IF it happened to be just a prosecutor talking to a witness with no third party to corroborate or verify what was said, the witness could tell the prosecutor something and, again IF, they are called to testify they say something different the only other person left to refute that is the same prosecutor. So it quickly becomes a prosecutor becoming a potential witness, and she seemed to say this is such a basic and fundamental principle of law that it was very foolish to do this.

The other attorney on the panel said he believes the case might not really be as strong as Wood was making it sound, because after all he did travel multiple states away, planned in-person meetings, went thru a lot of effort more likely because he will have a stronger case of one of them flips on the other. Now of course it can be said that the State would have a better case if one of them flipped, regardless of the reason they chose to flip, but he seemed to think that Wood was doing this because he really does need more to get a solid case against one or both of them.

Again I go back to previous comments, I apologize as I’m a bit of a broken record right now, but I think a really good and experienced prosecutor would have avoided any of this a mile away. It just seems sloppy to me.

 

[Colorado303]

I really very much appreciate your thoroughness. I agree with a lot of what you just said. I think it’s ironic that Wood is alleging Means isn’t good enough for this case when it is his own actions that causes this current mess they’re in. I believe a good prosecutor, as I’ve said before, would’ve avoided any type of situation like this like the plague.

I just re-watched the CourtTV clip on this and two of their attorneys on their panel thought this was bad for Wood to do, even if it doesn’t get him removed. Julie Grant said that prosecutors avoid situations like this because IF it happened to be just a prosecutor talking to a witness with no third party to corroborate or verify what was said, the witness could tell the prosecutor something and, again IF, they are called to testify they say something different the only other person left to refute that is the same prosecutor. So it quickly becomes a prosecutor becoming a potential witness, and she seemed to say this is such a basic and fundamental principle of law that it was very foolish to do this.

The other attorney on the panel said he believes the case might not really be as strong as Wood was making it sound, because after all he did travel multiple states away, planned in-person meetings, went thru a lot of effort more likely because he will have a stronger case of one of them flips on the other. Now of course it can be said that the State would have a better case if one of them flipped, regardless of the reason they chose to flip, but he seemed to think that Wood was doing this because he really does need more to get a solid case against one or both of them.

Again I go back to previous comments, I apologize as I’m a bit of a broken record right now, but I think a really good and experienced prosecutor would have avoided any of this a mile away. It just seems sloppy to me.

Me too. I’ve also wondered if a different prosecutor might be more aggressive, cleverer and/or more confident thus willing to bring conspiracy to commit murder charges based on the info/evidence they have now.

 

[MsJosie]

If Woods is removed the defense may wish they never went down that road. The maybe “new prosecutor” maybe far worse then they ever imagined. Any Judge would not look happy to get another motion to remove a second prosecutor.
I believe the defense is extremely worried about the info Woods has. They are trying anything to get him off the case.

 

[pizzaman12]

I could be wrong but I thought he meant he already had plans to record to discussions with the law enforcement, the actual interview that happened after this with Wood, because he had concerns both about what she would be asked and how she would answer since she could be called to testify in this case. I took this to mean that he just started recording the conversation with Wood as well, rather than just the police interview, after he thought there were some red flags because they were standing in this ante-room area, waiting to go in to interview with police investigators, and when the conversation quickly turned into more than a meet and greet he was alarmed.

He testified that he started the recording BEFORE entering the room with RW (is what he recalled). After hearing the audio, he wanted to let everyone know that it triggered (not sure that the term he used) something and he remembered turning it on later. I'll have to go back and listen but if I recall, his intent was to record and started the recording in the lobby. Either way, he testified that he thought he was recording prior to walking into the room with RW...Yet, he then had red flags and started recording? Hard to keep track of the lies I guess

If you thought (and stated) you turned on your recorder before you entered the room, why would you need to turn on a recorder because you don't like what you're hearing or seeing (deputy, etc...)? It's absolute garbage.

In my opinion, I think they're asking for trouble even asking for a different prosecutor. Imagine what they're going to get if they get what they're asking for. Hah!

 

[LinasK]

Defense (Daybell) also requested that the 1/6/21 hearing be closed. But defendant Vallow objects to closure of hearing.

Why would she opt for open hearing?

My theory is that she wants to falsely throw dirt on the prosecutor.

 

[MTW2011]

My theory is that she wants to falsely throw dirt on the prosecutor.

that’s possible. The Defense likely has some more allegations to toss into this mix, like the posts Wood made on his personal social media (FB) page about the case. I saw it discussed elsewhere before and even though it does not say much, just IMHO it was extremely foolish for him to do that. Even sharing a news article about the case you are prosecuting seems like a touchy area and ever since I heard about that I was worried that the Defense had been given some more to try and use in their favor.

that, combined with this conversation with Summer, seems like some errors in judgement here. I keep asking myself, even if this whole discussion with Summer situation does not get him disqualified did it really help the State?Was it worth having this discussion before the first interview with police, rather than afterwards? I don’t know. If the State already got or will get information that is helpful from it then maybe it is worth it. The same can be said for the Defense, if they get their way and now have another prosecutor who has much more experience, will all of this have been worth it? Only time will tell.

 

[Niner]

Friday, January 8th:
*Motions Hearing (re all charges) for both (@ 3pm MT) – ID – Joshua Jaxon (JJ) Vallow (7) & Tylee Ashlyn Ryan (16) (JJ last seen 9/23/19 & Tylee on 9/9/19, Rexburg; found 6/9/20 buried in Daybell’s yard in Salem, ID) – *Chad Guy Daybell (51/now 52) arrested & charged (6/9/20) & arraigned (8/21/20) with 2 felony counts of destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence & concealing remains. Plead not guilty. $1M bond. Fremont County
*Charged (7/1/20) & arraigned (8/21/20) with 2 felony counts of conspiracy to commit concealment, destruction or alteration of evidence. Plead not guilty. Bond stays at $1M. Fremont County
Trial set to begin 7/12/21 thru 8/6/21 all @ 9am
Court info from 6/10/20 thru 12/28/20 reference post #472 here:
Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #55
12/28/20 Update: Motions hearings for change of venue & dismissal of charges on 1/6/21. 1/6/21 Update: Judge Steven Boyce, prosecutor Rob Wood, Mark Means representing Vallow & John Prior representing Daybell. Co-defendants not present. Prior wants to submit audio recording & transcript of Wood speaking to witnesses (Vallow's sister & sister-in-law) as exhibits. The prosecutor next to Wood is deputy prosecutor Troy Evans representing Wood against the motion to DQ him. Prior says it was Daybell's intention to not appear in this hearing. Means also says Vallow did not intend to appear today. Garrett Smith, attorney for Summer Shiflet & Zulema Pastenes has the recording & wAS called on as a witness. Smith says he was concerned about potential death penalty for Vallow being discussed with Shiflet & Wood talking about Means' competency. John Prior questioned Smith. Recording was played. Deputy prosecutor Troy Evans cross-examined Smith.
See post #s 486, 492 & 495 thru 498 here:
Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #55
Defense attorney hired Dr. James Davidson PhD. to listen to the audio recording & create a written report of his conclusions on the content of the conversation. He is speaking about different effects that different interviewing techniques can have on witnesses like eliciting false confessions or testimony, or inaccurate information. Davidson went thru his report. Court has heard all the arguments and wants to give time to counsel to prepare final arguments, and would like to conclude the hearing this Friday, 1/8/21 at 3pm.
*Lori Norene Vallow aka Lori Norene Daybell (46/now 47) arrested (in Kauai, Hawaii), Charged (6/30/20) with 2 counts of conspiracy to commit destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence. Bond set at $1M. Fremont County
Trial set to begin on 7/12/21 thru 8/6/21 all @ 9am
Court info from 3/5/20 thru 12/28/20 reference post #472 here:
Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #55
12/28/20 Update: Defense attorney Means files motion to dismiss & motion for transfer of trial. Motions hearing on 1/6/21. 1/6/21 info see above for Daybell. Motions hearing continued to 1/8/21.
Madison County: Pretrial conference hearing on 8/17/21 & trial set to begin on 8/30/21 (thru 9/3/21 @ 9am).