Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by Patch Tuesday, Dec 20, 2019.
That’s two days in a row!
I couldn't post my original source as it is not allowed, but can be found by googling 'stacey cope 22nd anniversary' (and I am not sure even this is allowed).
I have, however, found a source for the court documents (which is a website and not SM), which gives some background - https://www.modishdata.com/steve-vs-stacey-cope
This is new in LV's Murder case:
Order Allowing Unsealing of Motion for Pro Hac Vice and Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Admisstion
And this is new in CD's Murder case:
Allowing Unsealing of Motion for Pro Hac Vice and Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Admission
So it looks like RS is now active in those cases, MOO.
What does this mean?
I think it means that the request by the prosecution to add to their team has been granted.
Oh thank you! I didn’t know the term “pro hac vice”. Maybe expert witnesses?
Thank you Nikynoo. Appreciate your expertise here.
Not an expert witness. Its' a lawyer that practices or represents in a state other than where they are registered.
An example I have is - our lawyers are based in Minnesota and our case was in California. We had to hire a local lawyer (in Cali) to introduce our lawyers (via a motion) to the court and the court gave permission (an order) for the MN lawyers to present our case in the Cali court.
From below link -
Attorneys who are not active members of the Idaho State Bar may petition an Idaho court for permission to appear pro hac vice pursuant to IBCR 227.
Pro Hac Vice Admission
Oh, good information! Leads to another question. Ron Woods already added a female attorney to his staff for the Vallow/Daybell cases. Does this mean he is asking for more?
ETA: I should have asked, does this mean he asked for and was granted more attorneys?
I have another question if you don’t mind. Why is Rob Woods asking for out of State attorneys? Surely Idaho has many attorneys in State that he could ask to join his team? Is this a common practice?
It's the same one that was announced (back in March I think). The young lady who has done some court appearances is also part of the team but is DA for a neighbouring county(?). I suspect that RS has been assisting the team already, she just could not make an appearance before the court until the court granted permission.
to answer the second part of your question, yes, it is normal, especially when you file an action against a plaintiff out of state (e.g. a civil case). In this case, the prosecution team is small and the cases are massive. I also suspect that the prosecustion team is lacking in experience of this type of case (and I am not being detrimental here)and needed support of someone more experienced.
I hope this helps.
ETA - document link -https://www.eastidahonews.com/2021/03/letter-prosecutor-explains-why-he-needs-additional-help-in-daybell-case/
Yes it does help me understand more. Sometimes cases like this seem open and shut to me. Makes me wonder if Chad and Lori chose this place for their murders believing they could never be convicted.
Do we know why the motions and orders were sealed?
Sorry, I have no idea (especially when RW's letter about this was posted by the Idaho News). I cannot find the documents online so cannot say.
NEW: Our FOIA request made last year for all Chandler PD emails regarding investigation into Lori Vallow is now processed. We have obtained more than 2,500 redacted emails to go through. #fox10phoenix
this is odd. Looking at the documents here Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest - JP did not object to the Pro Hac Vice and that order was granted. I wonder whether RW has found another attorney for the team?
Are you able to provide links please?
IIRC, RS was recommended to RW by one of the owners of the consulting firm he's employing for this case.
iCourt Portal - Online records & payments for the Idaho courts
Click on Smart Search and then search for them by name. It only pulls up the docket, not the document themselves
There was an order made to admit Rachel Smith onto the prosecution team back in March, on the conspiracy charges.
This unsealing is a motion and order to admit her on the murder charges. It's the reason for the sealing I'm trying to find out about.
Hopefully Lori Hellis will give us the answers in her next news letter.
Pure conjecture, but maybe they are going to ask for the DP and so it was sealed for that reason? @Nikynoo do you know?
ETA: or maybe the defenses are adding new members?