Discussion in 'Currently Awaiting Trial' started by Patch Tuesday, Dec 20, 2019.
Is that why my like button stopped working? It works fine today.
Motion hearing for Chad Daybell to cover multiple matters
A quiet hearing for us. We might learn something if new motions are filed in the next few days.
Local update: MM was at the women’s detention center today.
*Sorry for a late response, we’ve had some real life things to take care of today.
No apologies necessary Sleuth. Real life always takes priority, and you are doing us a favor with your reporting.
Local update: MM was at the women’s detention center today
Another motion hearing scheduled for Chad Daybell tomorrow 9/22 at 3PM MDT. Available to watch on Judge Boyce’s YT channel.
The prosecution filed a 16-page motion on Sep 20. I'm not sure why MSM has not published it yet, but some true crime content creators have.
Do you have a link, or any suggestions on how to find it?
Just sent @indicolite22 was kind enough to send it to me.
You can search for latest post on Twitter with prosecution daybell.
Local update: MM is at the women’s detention center today
Did anyone see the hearing today? Was it available to the public? If so, what happened? Thank you! MOO
the State is willing to keep their cases together and stay everything…..I guess until if/when Lori is deemed competent. But they very much want the cases kept together.
judge Boyce is stating there should be “limits” on those types of delays, and cites already the several delays that has happened so far from LV’s competency issue. He doesn’t seem to like that, especially since he is also bringing up again the Constitutional right to a speedy trial.
We are certainly in interesting legal territory here folks.
Thanks sassyblue for the Judges link.
JMOO but it’s a pretty weak argument - to keep the cases together - because it may be difficult to keep track of filings, if they’re only filed in one case and not the other, ESPECIALLY when you say you’ve already been providing “courtesy copies” to the other respective parties so far. I think Attorney Blake what a much stronger argument before she added that part in.
Judge Boyce is explaining how these cases are currently all in their pre-trial phases and not yet at a trial. He talks about some of the cases cited by the State and how exactly delays happened in those cases, and that Defendants (even defendants joindered in a case) may not go through the same Pretrial Motions and hearings.
He then tackles their argument of having separate (and multiple hearings) and how that would be inefficient, he mentioned that’s not yet happened once in this case - and even says he won’t have that happen. I think that really takes down part of their argument (see my previous post if you’d like).
“the assignment of two Case numbers does not sever the right of the State to seek a single trial in this case. I am going to set one trial, one trial for both defendants. And we’ll hope that we can get both defendants to trial, but now when there’s a delay and no one knows how long that delay is going to be, at some point we may need to reconsider.” Judge Boyce says.
Judge denies the Motion of the State.
Judge says he will hear and consider the Motion to Sever at a future time.
State asks if Judge will issue a written order with his findings and rulings.
Judge Boyce says he will issue an Order that mentions what he said on the record…..and this hearing is in recess.
[sorry for my lack of formatting, was trying to capture as much as I could, as quickly as I could]
I have to admit, I was somewhat confused by the motion of clarification. It appeared that the prosecutors wanted the cases joined under one case#? Whereas the defense wants the cases completely severed? Bottom line, the cases remain joined with their separate case numbers intact, and at some point, if at the time of trial Lori's still stayed, then severance of the cases will be considered?
I thought it was interesting that the State mentioned, the defense is not sharing things with each other. Hmmmm…..and MM could not get to the meeting in time. Missed at least two meetings we know of.