Hidden True Crime - BEYOND THE VEIL: CHAD DAYBELL HEARING November 29, 2023 - Cameras in courtoom, Death Penalty and the court argues: Who is the ringleader?

Episode Date: November 30, 2023

Chad Daybell's trial is scheduled for April, 2024. Wednesday's hearing on the numerous motions Chad Daybell's attorney John Prior filed earlier this month was an unexpected bombshell. The prosecution and the defense argued who the ringleader was: Chad Daybell or Lori Vallow? We livestreamed the hearing on our YouTube Channel, and Lauren shared her initial thoughts after the hearing. The hearing begins with the question: Will cameras be allowed in the courtroom? It ends with an intense debate on culpability and comments by host Lauren Matthias. Our original Beyond the Veil season continues as a forensic psychologist and journalist (who are husband and wife) explore the inner workings of Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow Daybell's minds, as well as the hidden motivations driving a series of inexplicable murders in 2019. LAUREN MATTHIAS worked as an anchor and reporter for ABC, NBC, and FOX News in Boise, Idaho Salt Lake City, Utah. She spent a decade reporting on a diverse range of topics from high profile crimes and criminals to Presidential visits. Most recently, she reported for Salt Lake City’s ABC affiliate News4Utah and in 2015 she received the Idaho State Broadcaster’s Association Best Reporter award and reported with News Nation throughout the trial. She is the producer and editor of the Hidden True Crime Podcast along with her husband Dr. John Matthias, a forensic psychologist. Contact them at [e-mail] Our Sponsors:* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Armoire and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.armoire.style* Check out Effecty and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.effecty.com* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://happymammoth.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/hidden-a-true-crime-podcast1836/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, ui and c e.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Ashley's President's Day sale is going on now for a limited time. Feel the freedom to shop incredible hot buys. Your style, your choice. all at an unfeatable price.

Plus pay over time with up to 60 months special financing. From bedroom looks to living room styles and every room in between. Our hot buys make saving big and styling your space easier than ever. Only at Ashley in North Charleston and Mount Pleasant. Subject to credit approved minimum monthly payments required. Minimum purchase required. See store for details. We're waiting for Chad Daybell's hearing right now.

It's going to be a big day. We're just waiting for Judge Boyce. start any minute. While we wait, I'm just going to share. This hearing is really, really big because we're going to cover multiple motions. Will Chad Daybell receive the death penalty? The other thing is location. Where is it going to be held? Is it going to be held in Boise? Ler, Leroyce. Lori Ballows had to be held in Boise, Idaho, which is about between four and five hours away from Rexburg, Idaho, where the crimes occurred so that they could get a larger jury poll. And they pulled a great jury. And they they spent a lot of time in jury selection and they found people that did not know about the case.

Cameras in the courtroom. Will there be cameras? I'll tell you what, you guys, we're talking about this. I went every day to Lori Ballot-Daybell's trial because there weren't cameras allowed in the courtroom. If there are cameras allowed in Chad Daybell's courtroom and oddly Chad Daybell is okay with it. Well, John Pryor, his attorney is okay with it. The prosecution is not and they've set a president with Lori's trial. But if there are, I think that we might follow the trial together here every day. I could sit with you guys every day. And then the other thing again is, are Lori and Chad Daybell talking, communicating? It was really, you know, that motion was interesting. You kept reading it or I kept reading it. Wait, so are they or are they not talking? It sounds like Chad Daybel and Lori Valo Daybel married. They used to be newlyweds.

They keep wanting to say newlyweds. Like they're no longer newlyweds. but I'm pretty sure that honeymoon phase is over. But can they talk? Can they talk? But that is what we're waiting for. It's going to be a really big court hearing. And before you know it, Chad Daybell's trial is going to be here before you know it. It's scheduled for April, 2024, which means it's really like exactly a year after his co-conspirator, Lori Valo Daybell's trial.

We already had Lori Valo's trial because she did not. waive her right to a speedy trial. Chad Daybill did waive his right. So here we are. Here's the latest Chad Daybell. Several police officers are allegedly in the courtroom. This comes from someone that is there. Three to five members of the public and Chad all just walked in. He is wearing foot shackles. White shirt, light blue tie. I think we'll be starting soon. Oh boy, something just came down, guys, something just came down. It sounds like there is no court order restricting contact between the defendant and his co-defendant filed November 13th, 2023. The Fremont County case, they were joined for trial. The court upon motion entered an order denying the respective defendant's

motions for joint strategy sessions, including the request for the court to authorize then joint defendants to meet a loan in a room and also jointly with their attorneys. The court denied the request, however. The court never entered any order prohibiting communication between Chad Daveel and Lori Valo-Dabell. Accordingly, the court confirms there is no order in this case precluding communication between Chad Daybell and Lori Valo-Dabell. The foregoing reasons, the state's motion is granted. So there you go. So in other words, Lori and Chad dayball can correspond. That's pretty interesting to me if Chad's trying to throw Lori under the bus.

What's he telling her? Telling her one thing, babe, it's going to be okay. I'm going to get us out of this. And then he's going to go talk to John Pryor and be like, I don't, you just blame everything on her. We've all dated that guy. And you know what? He does that.

He does that a lot. He did it to Julie Rowe. He did it to his wife of nearly 30 years. Okay, guys, we're on. Here we go. Here we go. We're on. We'll start then.

with procedurally on the motion, the court had entered, Mr. Wood, I'll hear your argument at this point, and then I will hear the response from the others. I'll allow a rebuttal, however, after they've made their arguments. So if you'd like to present argument, now you can't. Very well. Thank you, Your Honor. So the motion before the court is whether or not we allow live broadcasting more cameras into the courtroom. I want to start out. I understand these are adversarial proceedings. We do not. The state does not see the media in any way as an adversary. We are grateful for the media. We respect the media. There's a reason why the right to a free press is in our Constitution. And one of the first things mentioned in the Bill of Rights, we understand they have an important role in preserving government transparency. They have an important role in informing the public. And so we do respect them. We this are, argument is not at all about whether or not the media should be allowed in the courtroom. They should be allowed. And we're glad they're there.

In terms of broadcasting, the trial, and we're going to, the state at least, is going to address broadcasting the trial and broadcasting any further pretrial hearings. We shouldn't fix what isn't broken. This court made a very good decision. I believe it was in the September or October of proceeding of last year. And we think the court was correct when it made that decision. We think that that decision led to more professional proceedings and helped in preserving the rights to the parties, the rights of the parties to a fair trial. Again, we're not arguing that media should not be allowed in the courtroom. In our brief, we talk about that. The right of the public and media is important in the courtroom. This specific issue is addressed in an Idaho court

administrative rule 45. This court has sold discretion over this matter. It's not even appealable by any of the parties. So the state has raised these issues several times. We actually raised this in the previous case before a preliminary hearing. Our concern, I'm going to talk quickly about pretrial hearings. Pre-trial publicity can't impede the ability of the parties to a fair and impartial trial. This cannot be denied, and it rose its head in the last trial. Individuals who had seen specific media programs were automatically cut from the jury. We expect that issue will be raised again. And while the state doesn't necessarily agree with a wholesale cutting those individuals out,

we understand the concern of when someone has consumed too much media about a case, that it may make it difficult for them to render a fair and impartial verdict. And so in terms of at least pre-trial hearings from here until the trial, the state's biggest concern there, and this might be our biggest concern overall, is if any of those hearings deal with evidence that we will be discussing at trial, we believe that by broadcasting it, it makes it even more easy to consume by the public, by the mass public, and creates further issues when picking a jury. And again, we've already seen it. This isn't a hypothetical.

It's happened. There's no reason to believe it won't happen again. Again, we're not saying the media shouldn't be allowed to report. They should. That's important. There is a difference between reporting, though, and the ability to live broadcast. And there's nothing in the law that states

that they have to be able to live broadcast. In terms of trial, and I don't want to regurgitate everything that I, all the issues I raised in my briefing, there's a lot of people who are called to witnesses in this case who want nothing to do with it. They're not there because they want to be. They didn't get dragged into a triple murder, horrible case, a sorted case, because they wanted to be a part of it. And the state is concerned, and we think validly so, about the effect on witnesses of knowing their face is being plastered on TV for millions of people to see. It's already hard enough. Get on a witness stand, be placed under oath, and then to be direct examined, to be cross-examined, trial gets aggressive, and then to have that added pressure of knowing my next-door neighbor can watch this.

The people I go to church with can watch this. It's not conducive, especially in a case like this, with fair trial for either of the parties. We understand that the defendant has a different position on that. We believe strongly that having live broadcasting this trial only makes it more difficult to get to the truth of the matter. we as stated before we do not believe visual broadcasting is necessary for a transparent and a public trial we believe in an open and public trial transparency does not require mass publicity and there's no rule there's no law that says that it does and I would note and I put this in my brief at the last trial, at Lori's trial,

there was a lot of reporting. And it was minute by minute. I called it live tweeting. I don't know if there's a specific other phrase for that, but where multiple reporters in the courtroom or in the auxiliary room were able to live tweet. And that was great. I fully support that.

And in as much as we are able to follow it, It appeared to be very accurate and timely. And so the public, the interested public, was able to follow by the minute what was happening in the trial. They didn't need to watch it. They still got that information. And again, as far as the state could tell, it was accurate information.

It was a job well done by the individuals reporting on the case. And so not only that, there's a transcript. People can obtain the transcript. there was an audio recording that was provided at the end of each day. And so in terms of a transparent and public trial, we don't have to point cameras in people's faces

for the trial to be open, transparent, and public. I would quickly note, the state is aware. Many of the victims in this case feel differently than the state. I know there was news articles about that last time. We respect, we don't technically represent the victims. We respect them and their desires, and it's appropriate for the court to know. They don't necessarily agree with us on this.

And so if we keep the status quo, if we keep it where it's at, there's no risk of a non-public trial. There's no risk of a non-transparent trial. The state doesn't see an upside to bringing cameras into the courtroom. It worked well the last time. Again, we shouldn't fix,

what isn't broken. And I put this in my brief. And if the court decides to change this decision, we respectfully request a few things. We would ask, and this hasn't been an issue lately, and it wasn't an issue at the last trial, but just, I guess, preemptively, we would specifically request no media microphones be placed at council's table, as took place in some of the other pre-trial hearings. We believe that violates Idaho court administrative rule 45 C or at least has a very grave ability to violate that rule. We would ask that the court consider alternatives to live visual broadcasting such as still photography.

And should the court allow visual broadcasting, we would ask that the court essentially retain tight control on that, at least while it's being done, as this court is aware, once video is made and public, the court loses any and all control by rule over what happens with it. But we would ask that the camera placement be limited. We think a good model would be Ms. Valo or Ms. Abel's sentencing in which I believe there was a camera on the court and one camera pointing at the parties. There was no zooming in on attorneys, on witnesses, on victims. And so we would ask that if the court does change its decision, that it do so within that framework to maintain the fairness of the trial.

Again, we do not believe that live broadcasting is necessary. Thank you. All right. Thank you for the argument. Mr. Wood. Mr. Pryor. Judge, the primary reason for Mr. Debeau questioning the cameras is, uh,

to allow his family to view the proceedings. They would like the opportunity to watch on TV and to see how the trial transpires. And those children that aren't going to be witnesses would like to be able to do that. It's extended family as well. That's our primary reason for doing that. I'm concerned about live streaming

because that allows, in my opinion, less control. Cameras in addition in the courtroom, we'd lose a little bit of control as well. I'd be more concerned about a cameraman who's, while this thing has been proceeding, has snapped a thousand pictures of me and Chad while we're sitting here, that's a bigger concern for me than the actual cameras. We can't control what this cameraman is doing and pictures he's taken. He's been sniffing along, and I'm sure I'll be seeing them with Mr. Eaton's website. the later today or tomorrow.

The court, however, can put some conditions on a live camera. And on a live camera, like Mr. Wood pointed out, and I wholeheartedly, and quite frankly, Mr. Wood, I agree almost with everything you say. He makes a good valid argument, judge. However, the overriding concern is that when our founding fathers started the process of deciding that there would be a public trial,

we didn't have cameras, we didn't have ability to broadcast this and the idea behind a public trial was that if you brought allegations against someone and they wanted to answer those allegations they should be able to do that in a public forum and the stay of media and the amount of attention and you know and then i do disagree with mr wood east idaho has been saturated with media attention on this case and but um the reality is this is a national case. It has garnered tremendous attention. And a public trial is just not limited to people coming from Fremont County to sit in the courtroom and watch the proceedings. And having sat through the entire trial of Lori Vallow and watched the entire proceeding,

there were issues with the live feed. I'm opposed to the live feed. I just didn't think it worked. It wasn't pragmatic. It wasn't practical. I think that let's use the professionals who know how to do this. I don't like the idea of a camera being pointed in my face for what's going to end up being eight to ten weeks. I dislike even more a photographer taking pictures of me while we're sitting here. And I'd much rather have a cameraman with that. And Mr. Wood pointed out some of the restrictions that we can apply. And I agree with what he said. No mics at the tables. I guess if you have to point the camera at Mr. Daybell and I, go ahead and Mr. Wood and his group as well and at the witnesses.

But part of the reason behind the public trial judge is accountability. And that's a big overriding factor. And when you're talking about due process and people having a fair right to a public trial, accountability is important. And as much as I don't like the idea of being on live TV, national TV, and I don't like the idea of it at all. The reality is it keeps everybody honest. It keeps the system.

honest, it keeps the witnesses honest, it keeps everybody honest. And the very fin, I'll disagree with Mr. Wood in just this regard. The fact that you have a camera on you, the fact that people are watching this in a public, much like in our founding fathers, you had to answer questions in a public forum. That makes the system honest. And that really is what the driving force judge is allow the public to see this in an honest way, be able to see the entire evidence. not what press releases that people are releasing, not what certain news media report. Let's allow the public to see this in a public way

and allow what really should be a public trial. And again, allowing Mr. Debel's family to review the proceedings, you can imagine, Judge, that if they show up to court, they would be inundated, whether it was here or anybody else with the media hounding them and the victims as well. and everybody else who's involved in this,

allowing them people to watch this in a public setting, there is one caveat. By doing this in a public with live cameras, judge that does create a concern for whether or not anybody witnesses are watching the proceedings. And I guess I don't know how the court would address that and that's something the court does need to look at. That doesn't change my position that we,

I believe it should be a public care of cameras, but controlling how witnesses are limited and watching the media and maybe the prosecutors and I can... Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere.

That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it all. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service.

Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. Work out something with all of our witnesses saying, you know, absolutely no opportunities to view this. If the court allows us to be a public trial with cameras, it's going to have to be some courtroom in order that advises all of the witnesses that they are not under any circumstances to review the proceedings or view the proceedings. So that is a concern of mine, but I still stick with our original position that we need to have cameras in the courtroom, judge. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pryor. What's one financial lesson you learned the hard way?

I'll go first. It's not too late to start saving. Today's episode is sponsored by Acorns. Acorns is a financial wellness app that makes it easy to start saving and investing for your future. You don't need to be an expert. Acorns will recommend a diversified portfolio that matches you and your money goals. You don't need to be rich. Acorns lets you get started with the spare money you have right now. And one of the best things about Acorns is they allow you.

you to see projected growth on their website. Simply go online, type in how much money you'd put in and see the potential future balance of your account. Sign up now and join the over 13 million all-time customers who've already saved and invested over $22 billion with Acorns. Head to Acorns.com slash Hidden True Crime or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors, LLC. see an SEC registered investment advisor. A few important disclosures at acorns.com

slash hidden true crime. Has losing weight and getting healthier been on your mind lately? Have you heard about groundbreaking GLP1 treatments like OZMPIC and WeGO? With Effecti, getting access to these powerful medications has never been easier or more affordable. Starting a new medication is always a bit scary when you aren't sure what to expect. And using Effecti makes it so much easier with their hands on support, which gives unlimited access to licensed doctors so you never have to jump through hoops

for help with any dosing questions or just other support when you need it. Effecti uses rigorous testing and their products are backed by research so you can rest assured. Ready to level up your weight loss game? Right now, my listeners can get $50 off of GLP1 weight loss treatments at effecti.com with code hidden true crime at checkout.

That's effecti.com, EFF-F-E-C-T-Y-T-Y dot com, and use code hidden true crime to get $50 off your first month of GLP1 weight loss treatment, no hassles, no memberships, and no hidden fees. Get started today. Does anyone else find themselves saying, I feel way older than I actually am, or I feel way younger? Did you know there might be some truth behind that feeling? That's where true diagnostic comes in. With their true age test, you can discover your true biological age, plus get insights into health risks for heart disease or Alzheimer's, even your mortality. I just ordered my true diagnostic test, and while nervous, I'm looking forward to what it may tell me about my own health so I can take control of things now.

When taking tests pertaining to my health, I want to make sure it's scientifically backed and true diagnostic is. Their true age test is based on peer-reviewed research from scientists working at Harvard, Duke, and Yale, and by tracking your biological age, you can actually see how the changes you make, whether that's exercise, diet, or sleep, will affect your health over time. Ready to find out your biological age? Right now, our listeners can get 20% off their entire order at TrueDiagnostic.com by using code Hidden True Crime at checkout. That's True Diagnostic, T-R-U-D-A-G and O-T-I-C-C-N-O-S-T-I-C-C-N-O-S-C-C-C-T-C-C-R-N-E-R-N-E-R-N-E-R-N-E-R-N-E-R-N-E-L-N-E-L-R-N-E-L-L-L-E. I'll note now we'll hear argument from Attorney Wendy Olson, who's representing East Idaho

News.com, the Idaho statesman, Idaho Press Club, and States Newsroom doing business as Idaho Capital Sun. A brief has been filed. The courts reviewed that. And if you'd like to present argument and support of your position, you can do so at this time. Thank you, Your Honor. And thank you for allowing my clients to be heard this morning. As the court noted, the clients are three Idaho-based news entities, and then the Idaho Press Club, which is an association of journalists who work on a variety of First Amendment matters to ensure that they can have complete coverage of matters of important interest in the state of Idaho.

Your Honor, the entities request the ability to have live, audio, and visual coverage of the proceedings in this case, consistent with Idaho Court Administrative Rule 45 in a way that will allow the defendant and the state have their constitutional interest protected in a way that is designed to respect the privacy concerns of jurors and the sensitivities of witnesses, and to really observe the dignity of the courtroom. And I think, Your Honor, that the media entities that are before you hear have done that in other cases, and they would want to work with the court on any restrictions the court thinks

is important to maintain the dignity of the courtroom to ensure that sensitive witnesses, maybe only their audio is heard at the time. They would want to work with the court to ensure that whatever guidelines the court imposes that they would follow. But they think of the court. It's important to have cameras in the courtroom and have live audio visual coverage of the proceedings for several reasons.

Primarily among them, Your Honor, the point that Mr. Pryor touched on is that we are in an age now where visual coverage of just about every aspect of public life is there, where people really have the opportunity to see with their own eyes, not by sitting in a courtroom, but by sitting in their living rooms or sitting in their offices to watch the those proceedings. The Kyle Rittenhouse trial had extensive coverage, TV coverage. Certainly the Derek Chauvin case did. That started out of COVID, but the judge after that realized the importance of having cameras in the courtroom. And then more recently, the Alex Murdoch trial in South Carolina, where those coverages, the coverage there was basically from the opening of the trial, through some through the sentencings. And I think that the coverage in those case showed how with guidelines from the court, it allows,

the public to observe firsthand what goes on in the courtroom. And the court indicated that you read our submittals, our pleadings. I would also ask the court to take particular note of Becky Boone, Rebecca Boone's declaration and where she talks about, she's worked with Idaho courts, Idaho journalists, the law school to try to improve coverage of our court system. We learn a lot in the public about the executive branch and the legislative branch, but less is known about the judicial branch and how it operates. And I think it's important for people to be able to see firsthand what happens in the trial.

How is evidence presented? I think it's important to the point that Mr. Wood raised that it's important for them to see the impact that participating in the trial demands from the people who participate in it. It is no doubt, Your Honor, that the criminal justice system, the system that I participated in for most of my legal career is very hard on the participants. It demands a lot of people. It demands a lot of the lawyers, the court, of the jurors, of the witnesses, of the family members. And I think that covering the proceedings live will allow the public to understand that better because it is still a relatively rare thing for people to have firsthand involvement in any aspect of court proceedings. I think secondly, Your Honor, why it would be important and helpful to the court to have live audio and visual coverage

is it would reduce the demand, frankly, for space in the courtroom. It's my understanding that the attendance at this hearing by the public is less than in past hearings, and maybe that's because the court elected to broadcast this live through the YouTube channel that the courts have used. Certainly, that will help the court with security and with other administrative needs and getting the trial done in a way that is most efficient. And so we think for that reason as well, it would be important to have live audio and visual coverage of their proceedings. And finally, Your Honor, with respect to how that is done, again, the media organizations want to make sure that they are working with the court on all of those things. And I know that the proceedings are being done through the court's technology today.

But I would invite the court to not do it that way at the trial if the court allows visual proceedings. And that's really for several readings, Your Honor, reasons, Your Honor. First, it is because the journalists who are experienced camera operators typically who will do the court, the pool reporting, they have more. sensitive cameras, better cameras, and more sensitive microphones that could be placed not at council table, but somewhere else if that is the court's direction. In addition, Your Honor, the court would not have to worry about whether or not there are any technical glitches if the cameras are being operated by the pool camera reporter. Of course, neither the parties nor the court nor the jurors, no anybody would want to have interruptions during the proceedings because

there was some glitch in the technology. And then I think, Your Honor, again, with having the members of the press who are experts in operating their camera, they would work with the court to ensure that there isn't anything unnecessarily intrusive if they were the ones to operate the equipment, as was done, I think, at Ms. Vallow's sentencing. And so I think for all of those reasons, Your Honor, our clients would like to see the live audio and visual coverage of the proceedings. I well understand too both Mr. Pryor's and Mr. Wood's concerns about witnesses watching things that they should not watch before they testify.

There's nothing sort of less comfortable as a prosecutor to know your witnesses have received outside information and then that comes in at cross-examination. And of course, we want to make sure the jurors aren't watching the proceedings. With respect to the jurors, Your Honor, and them reading coverage of the case once they've been set. That's a concern in every trial. The court gives firm instructions about that. And I think as media has evolved, courts instructions on those issues have had to change over time to include, for example, social media. I know in the federal courts, there's a social media instruction that's given all the time now about don't look at social media when you're a member of the jury. And this court can certainly craft instructions that would cover

all of the concerns the court would have with respect to the jurors potentially watching anything that comes from the live audio and visual coverage of the trial. Of course, hopefully they wouldn't be watching all the trial was going on. And then, Your Honor, with respect to the witnesses, it really was incumbent upon the parties, and Mr. Pryor alluded to it to speak to their witnesses and firmly instruct them not to watch and not to be influenced by any other evidence. It's no different than telling them don't talk to other witnesses about their testimony.

It's important that their testimony be from their own independent recollection. And those are challenges that are present in every kind of case. And here they're even more so because of the prior trial of Ms. Daybill. And so we would ask the court that in considering those factors, do the things that the court and the parties typically do, which is to give very firm instructions. Thank you, Your Honor. All right.

I do have a few questions for you, Ms. Wilson. Reading through your brief, you go through some policy arguments about why it's important to have cameras in the courtroom, for these proceedings. One of your captions is it will help enhance the public's understanding of court proceedings and promote respect for the rule of law. I'll note in my background,

I did some federal criminal defense work as a CJA attorney for about 15 years and I believe you were the US attorney for Idaho during the time I was CJA attorney. In the federal courts, they simply have a rule 53 that there is no permitting of any photograph any video at all in any federal proceeding.

Is that your understanding how the federal system works? It absolutely is, Your Honor. And I'm cautiously optimistic that that rule will be changing some. I think it takes sort of a major case with a lot of public interest to move things that direction. And I suspect that the federal charges pending against Donald Trump and others, there is now a lot more discussion in the media

about changing that rule. One of the things we cited for the court was a poll about people wanted to see live, live coverage of oral arguments in the Supreme Court. I understand that appellate arguments are different animals from criminal trials, but I think the federal system is far behind the state system in terms of allowing coverage of what goes on in trials.

Okay, well, I just, I want to understand that because Idaho leaves it at the discretion of the judge under Rule 45. Some other states want cameras in and have rules governing that. The entire federal system completely bans cameras. And there are high profile important criminal cases of great public interest occurring all the time

in the federal system. Would you agree with that? I agree, Your Honor. And in all of those proceedings, there are never cameras because it's prohibited by federal rule. And so the policy arguments that the public is not gonna have confidence in this case or an understanding of what's happening.

I just wonder how that's squared with whatever policy drives the federal courts to just simply disallow cameras and take it out of the judge's hand. Don't you think, in fact, the public can still have that same type of confidence in the proceedings and understanding if they want to come and watch a trial as they do in any federal case? Yes, Your Honor. I think certainly people who come and watch trials and see sort of firsthand what is going on. And we certainly had those in the federal. We had people who were just sort of trial watchers who would come and, and watch every trial and particularly the ones to add a little bit more notoriety.

And certainly those individuals well understood what was going on in the courtroom. Not everyone can do that. In every case, as Mr. Pryor has outlined here, the family members of Mr. Daybell are not able to travel to Boise for a 10-week trial. And I understand there's a motion pending to change that, but for now in Boise.

And I think, obviously, the federal government is not always ahead on policy issues of state courts or state governments on anything. And I think, Your Honor, my understanding is the federal rule is largely driven by the federal judiciary and wanting to ensure there are no cameras in the courtroom. And I think that will be changing as well, Your Honor. I think we're in the day and age where it is just the case

that people want to see it with their own eyes. And federal courts are behind the times on that. And so there's a lot more work that needs to be done by people in the federal system, whether it's judges or former U.S. attorneys or criminal defense attorneys to be able to articulate what goes on in those criminal courts. And there just isn't that under,

I don't think it's good of an understanding. And I do think there have that concerns expressed about outcomes in criminal cases and what it means. And there's a lot less direct information available for people to base that on. Well, Ms. Wilson, I really appreciate your comments on that. It's really interesting to hear your perspective, having been on both sides of state and federal litigation

and this issue, clearly there are policies in place in our state courts that maybe are different than they are in the federal courts. So thank you for the well briefed argument and your oral argument today. And I thank you, Your Honor, for the opportunity to present argument and the opportunity to appear in Fremont County, which is a great courthouse.

Thank you. All right, thank you, Ms. Olson. Mr. Wood, I will allow a rebuttal argument just from the state at this juncture based on the posture of the case and the comment you made at the beginning. If you have any rebuttal, it's not required, but if there's anything you'd like to add, I'll hear that now. Just very briefly and appreciate counsel's comments. Mr. Pryor did bring up a point that I put in the brief, but did not bring up, but it is important to note. and Ms. Olson addressed it as well. And the state's position is by broadcasting a trial.

It only makes it easier for potential witnesses to make a mistake of seeing something they shouldn't see, of hearing something they shouldn't hear. At the last trial, this issue came up with a few witnesses. And that was just the audio. The state sends out something with every subpoenae We communicate to every single witness. You're not to watch or listen to any of this trial.

Sometimes things still happen, and then we have to deal with that in court, and we have to, it takes time away from the jury. It takes time away from litigating the case. This is a long trial. I don't know if it's true. I've heard that the preceding trial in this case was the longest criminal case in Idaho state history. I don't know if that's true, but I've heard. that. This is, but this will also be a very long trial. This will probably be a longer trial. Broadcasting that length of a trial, we just really run the risk, no matter what we say to witnesses,

of people hearing things, seeing things they shouldn't. I know just a couple of things from Ms. Olson's comments. And I'm probably not going to, I probably didn't write this down exactly how she said it, but she mentioned that we live in a day and age of visual coverage of everyday life. I don't know that that's really an argument for broadcasting a trial. I don't know that that's a good thing. And we could probably spend hours talking about all the social implications of the fact that we live in a day and age where everything is televised or put on a computer or a phone. And there's videos of everything everybody does.

I don't know that that's really an argument that we should contribute to that. I don't think it's a good thing. I don't think it's a good thing to turn things, turn everyday life into a circus. And I think that broadcasting, even if done responsibly and respectfully, will contribute to that. I just finally end on noting she mentioned the Kyle Rittenhouse case. I brought this up the last time we litigated this. It's interesting because that judge said afterwards, and I quote, I'm going to think long and hard about a live television trial again next time.

I don't know. I've always been a firm believer in it because I think the people should be able to see what's going on. But when I see what's being done, it's really quite frightening. That was Judge Schroeder from the Kyle Woodardt's case. My understanding is that he said that in regards the context of a jury bus being followed by some reporters. And we're certainly not alleging that any of Ms. Olson's clients are going to do that. But the reality is, is I, broadcasting, we will, we absolutely will create more of this circus type environment, more of this reality TV environment, this true crime obsession. Again, we believe the media should be there. They should report. They have a right to be there and the public has a right to have the media there. The public has a right to an open trial. We would ask, the court to maintain its current order. We believe it was a good decision then and all the reasons that it made that decision then still apply today. Thank you. Mr. Wood. All right, thank you, Mr. Wood. All right, counsel, I've been considering the decision on this issue.

I am prepared to make a ruling today. However, I do want to take a quick recess to sort of gather my thoughts and prepare for the ruling on the motions. So we'll take a recess here for about 10 minutes or so and then I'll come back on the bench with the ruling. All right, we're back on the record on CR 2221-1623. The court took under advisement briefly. It's ruling on the issue of a reconsideration of video and photographic coverage of this case, including the trial. A couple of notes the court will have in making this decision. The court has listened to arguments of the state. And, you know, requesting that we keep the case status quo. And I'll note we did conduct a trial in the Lori Vallow case,

which was initially joined with this case, later severed and tried in Boise during the process of those proceedings in order to allow some additional access. The court did permit a broadcasting on a limited basis of that trial to two separate locations where the public could view outside of the courtroom. One was a location in Ada County in their courthouse and then a second location in Rexburg, Idaho. And there were certain reasons for doing that, mainly the fact that venue was changed and the case was taken so far from this location where the home counties are.

So that factored into the court's decision. This is now a trial of Mr. Daybell. One of the big concerns I had also for the initial trial was potentially tainting jurors for what I knew would be a second trial coming up if the entire proceedings were broadcast from the Lori Valo trial, concluding that anyone who had watched that trial or portions of it would likely be unable to serve as a qualified juror in this case. The court has also heard the request from the defense and the rationale for allowing broadcasting of the proceedings, including trial, and the courts considered the briefing and arguments submitted by Ms. Olson for her various media clients who are requesting the ability to conduct broadcasting and photography of the trial during the proceedings. A few things I'll note. First of all, under Idaho court administrative rule 45B, the court has the discretion to make this determination. That rule reads that the presiding judge may at his or her discretion limit, restrict or prohibit audio video or visual coverage of any proceeding.

And those decisions are not subject to appellate review. I am compelled by some of the arguments that, a difficulty in moving a trial about 350 miles away from where we currently are, certainly restricts access by certain individuals that wish to attend. The argument by Mr. Pryor that the defendant's family members that would like to see the proceedings is a compelling argument. I know from the last case also there are other individuals, family members of victims, family members of defendants and others very interested in the case are connected to it,

which were unable to attend because of the location. I'll note also that the court still has under advisement and we'll hear argument later this morning about changing venue, but as I sit here to make this decision, we're currently scheduled for trial to occur again in Ada County in this case. In balancing out the requests here, the court is determined, or as, made a determination that in order to provide adequate access, the court is going to permit that the trial be broadcast while it occurs with certain restrictions.

First, the court is going to be in charge of all equipment and the broadcasting of that. I'm not going to allow that to be conducted by any third parties. The court has the equipment to do so. We did that in the previous trial when it was broadcast to those other locations. It worked well in all the reporting I got back from those that attended and those that ran the system. And with the equipment to do that in the court's own website, which provides an ability to stream it live from the state of Idaho judiciary website, public is given free and unfettered access to view the proceedings that way.

So with that in mind, the court won't allow any still photography, given that the matter will be broadcast on video through the court's own system. And in addressing some of the other concerns, as it relates to any microphones placed by any media or third party, of course, those will not be allowed because the court's going to use its own equipment to broadcast the proceedings. And in addition, there were concerns about the exclusionary rule.

So witnesses who would be testifying not being allowed to view the proceedings before they testify. I'll note that was already a concern in the first trial with Ms. Fallow. And we had an affidavit that addressed that and required each witness to certify under oath that they had not viewed the proceedings. and did in fact run across a few witnesses who were not able to do that and took those matters up outside the jury. I think that system worked well to make sure that there was not any improper influence on testifying witnesses. So the court will employ that same method of allowing witnesses to testify only after they've been able to certify under oath that they haven't been tainted by viewing previous testimony. there will be some additional technical terms of how the court will allow the broadcasting, and those will be followed up on in a subsequent written order that I'll enter into the case for trial.

Going forward with other pretrial hearings, the court will take those up on a case-by-case basis, but this will be the ruling for the trial and how publicity will be handled. I have balanced out also the concern of certain witnesses who don't wish to be captured on recording forever. And I understand that and I've had to balance that out. I'd note at the last proceeding, they were also photographed whether they wanted to be or not as they went in and out of the courthouse because it's a public area. And the media was pretty persistent in trying to capture images and pictures of them. So there's really not any way to completely prohibit that. And while that's unfortunate for those that do not enjoy being on camera or all the publicity,

that's just part of the stress, I guess, of being involved in a case like this, having to testify. So the court is going to amend its current order as it relates to the case. And as I mentioned, I'll follow up with some additional detail in a written order, but I wanted the parties to be aware of where this would be heading as we get closer to trial. So that will be the court's ruling on the motion. at this time. Mr. Wood, does the state have any questions on that ruling? Not at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pryor. Any questions? No, Your Honor.

Okay. And Ms. Olson, any comment or question? All right, thank you. That will conclude the first motion then. Motions filed November 9th by Mr. Pryor on behalf of the defendant entitled motion in limine to limit state to consistent arguments on defendant's relative of culpability and that was filed, as I mentioned on that date, there's been a response filed and an objection by the state filed November 22nd. So Mr. Pryor, I've reviewed the motion

and the state's objection. If you'd like to present oral argument, you may. And Judge, I'm gonna be very brief. I'm gonna go back just a little bit of the history. Part of the history judge is at one point during the proceedings, I believe it was at the pretrial. The court had discussed what an issue is regarding discovery it was found that there was still some outstanding discovery that had not been provided by the

state to the defense and i'm talking in regards to lorry ballow and chad daybell at that time mr daybell had waived his right to a speedy trial miss vallow had not as part of a sanction the court sanctioned the prosecuting attorney for not turning over the discovery and withdrew the death penalty as a result of that case. In this particular case, because Mr. Daybell had waived his right to a speedy trial, we could proceed in the cases, now granted, it was my request to sever, and that was my request to do that.

But at this point, Mr. Daybell needed additional time, and we proceeded with a separate trial. That sort of ties in, actually, with the venue as well, but at this point, that's been settled. But in regards to this case, during the trial of this case, The closing arguments were made. And, Judge, I submitted the case law that applies, and I appreciate the state pointing out state versus fierce,

which they did in their response. And it basically confirms what I'm saying, Judge. These folks are co-defendants. That's what's very important. They are co-defendants in a case. They are called co-conspirators, and up until the state did not turn over the discovery, and basically the cases were separated,

and that was really the main reason why they were separated, they were going to have a trial at the same time. Now, it would have been impractical for the state to argue in front of the jury if both of the cases were together and say the things that Mr. Wood said. Chad is not going to act without Lori saying so. Chad seeks confirmation from Lori. Chad is not going to do anything without Lori. it's all Lori, Lori, Lori, Lori.

Now, the state provided some factual issues as it related. This is all reference, Judge, in the transcript of the trial. It is all noted in my response in terms of the trial transcript as to where it was noted in what Mr. Wood said. This is the concern, Judge. If these trials had been together, Mr. Wood would not have been able to say, Chad is not going to do anything without Lori if the trials were combined. Mr. Wood would not have been able to say this was all on Lori

and she was the one driving the ship she was the one directing the the so-called conspiracy. She was the one in charge and then turn around when it was time to talk about Chad and say the same thing. That would have been terribly inconsistent and the jury would have said which

which one is the truth? Which is the truth? Which is the truth? Mr. Wood. Was it Lori driving the force of the ship? Or was it Mr. Daibel driving the force of the ship. Which one of these was the one running the show here? And what he said in front of, and it was very clear, there's no confusion here. Mr. Woods specifically said this was Lori, and she was the one in charge of the conspiracy. There's no if, hands or butts about that. He was

very clear. Now, the case law, particularly the federal case law, and Pierce alludes to the fact that A prosecutor cannot, in one instance, sit there and tell one set of jurors, six, eight, well, a year ago, or whatever, eight months ago, say one thing to one set of jurors and stand up in front of them and say, Lori Valo was the one running the whole show. Tell that set of jurors that. And then turn around in Chad Daybell's trial that's going to occur starting, hopefully, in Ada County in four months.

and tell them, oh, well, I know I told the jurors in Lori Valo's trial that Lori was in charge and she was doing and she was the one driving force behind everything and she was in charge. But you folks here at this new jury in Ada County in April and May, I'm gonna tell you something different. I'm gonna tell you now I've decided that now Chad is the one who was doing all of this.

And it was all Chad, Chad, Chad leading the conspiracy. It was all Chad who was the leading force and he was dictating everything. They're not allowed to do that and the federal case law supports that. So the prosecutor responded in terms of culpability, but quite frankly, Judge, it's making the legal argument. You can't make one legal argument in terms of who is the culpable person leading the conspiracy in charge of the conspiracy and make representations in a court of law to one juror pool and a jurors in a trial and then turn around in a brand new trial of a co-defendant and make different representations. So what my motion in limine is saying is that Mr. Wood can allege any of the facts

he wants against Chad Daybell. What Mr. Wood cannot do under the case law, at least the federal case law and under Pierce, is Mr. Wood cannot make the representation that Chad Daybell was the one behind and leading the conspiracy was in charge of everything. He is not allowed in closing argument or otherwise to say, hey, you know what? I told the jury in Ada County one thing, I'm not allowed. I'm going to tell you that, well,

I know I told the jury in Ada County that, but I'm going to tell the jury in Ada County in Chad's case that, well, actually it's Chad who is in charge. You're not allowed to make that inconsistent representation. They can make any factual representation they want, and I'm not going to stop them from presenting any facts that they want to present as long as they're relevant. But what they can't do is make inconsistent or contradicting arguments to a jury saying one person was the leader of the conspiracy and one co-defendant. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day.

Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring,

and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance. all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. ...trial and make a different representation in Ada County. And what this motion is saying is we cannot allow Ms. Blake or Mr. Wood to tell the

jury in Chad's case, that Chad was in charge of the whole thing and that he was running the show. Now, in addition, Judge, and I'll cover the other ones now, the culpability argument is this. And it's just a fundamental fairness and due process argument. And it applies in this one as well. If you're going to say to a jury in Ada County that Lori Valo was the one in charge and he made those representations, it's completely, you know, he can't change that. It's a public. record. He said to that jury that Lori Valo was the one in charge of this conspiracy. And it's a culpability argument. And the fact is, is that Lori Valo, who had her death penalty pulled as a result of the prosecutor not providing discovery and was sanctioned. Now what they're

doing is they're seeking the death penalty against Chad Daybell because he waived his right to a speedy trial and he was not the leader of this. According to Mr. Wood's own words, prior, the death penalty was on the table way long before the cases were severed. So they're not seeking it against him because he waived speedy trial. And that's not what the point, Judge.

The point is that the, if we're really going to take Mr. Wood for his words and we're going to accept that I would assume Mr. Wood was telling the truth to a jury because if he isn't, he was, he's got some other problem. And if he makes inconsistent arguments to a jury in Canada, or in Ada County in Mr. DeBell's case, he's got other problems. But that's not the point. The point is simply this, is that when you're talking and making a representation to a jury in Ada County and Lori Valo's case, and you say to those jurors that Lori Valo was the one who was in charge of the whole conspiracy and that Chad would do nothing unless Lori told him to do it. And Laurie and Alex were following, or Chad and Alex were following Lori's lead. He doesn't get to say the same thing in the other trial.

And on top of that, we're seeking the death penalty against someone who is a, allegedly, is a lesser co-conspirator and wasn't even the leader of the conspiracy. So that's where the death penalty arguments, Judge, and I will leave it at that. All right. And to be clear then, Mr. Pryor, did you include, incorporate your other two motions within that argument as well? Or did you want to argue? Okay. I did judge.

And for the most, for the interest of saving some time, that's where the arbitrary and capricious and the other arguments come in is that if you're seeking the death penalty against someone who is, at least according to Mr. Woods words, we're not the leader of a conspiracy. My argument is simply this is that you're seeking to put someone to death when in fact, Lori Valo, according to their theory of the case, was the leader. of this entire scheme. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pryor. So the court's now heard the argument

as it relates also to the motion to strike the death penalty is arbitrary and capricious and also the November 9th motion to strike the death penalty on relative culpability. Those were incorporated into that argument. So Mr. Wood, are you going to be presenting argument as it relates to each of those three motions? Your Honor, I was planning on

arguing the motion and Ms. Blake was planning on arguing the others. Okay. And that's fine. You can divide those up. I'm fine with that. Until recently, I didn't realize how important gutters are. If you're not using gutter shutter, you may be leaving your roof, your foundation, basement, and

landscaping vulnerable to costly damage. With the protection and warranty is offered by gutter shutter, you can protect your property and gain peace of mind knowing this solution will never clog or separate from your home. For more information or a free estimate called Cantee Gutters at 277661 or visit canty gutters.com and canty offers gutter repair services too. Canty Foundation specialists and Canty gutters. Cantee can fix it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are now boarding group A. Please have your boarding passes ready to scan. If your phone is cracked, old, or was chewed up by your Chihuahua travel companion, please refrain from holding up the line. Instead, go to Verizon and trade in any phone in any condition from one of their top brands for the new Samsung Galaxy S25. with Galaxy AI and a watch and tab on any plan. Only on Verizon. With new line on my plan. Service plan required for watch and tab. Additional terms apply.

See Verizon.com for details. Lori Valo was the one running the whole show. Never said that. She was the one in charge of the whole conspiracy. Never said that. Chad would do nothing without Lori telling him to. Never said that. Not the leader of a conspiracy.

Never said that. So the defendant's contention is that the state argued at Lori's trial that Lori was more guilty or in charge, and therefore the state cannot argue that Chad is equally guilty at his trial. And that by claiming Chad is equally guilty, we would be changing the core theory of our case. This is the state's contention. We are not changing the core theory of our case. The state's core theory will be the exact same core theory as argued at least. Lori's trial that Chad and Lori Daybell, along with Alex Cox, by acting together by way of conspiracy, planned, aided, and abetted together, and encouraged and caused the deaths of Tiley Ryan, JJ

Valo, and Tammy Daybel. Those same individuals conspired to fraudulently steal social security funds and that Chad Daybell committed insurance fraud when he claimed the life insurance benefits for his murdered wife. It's the same theory. So I'm going to divide this up. The defendant's motion is not based in law. It's not based in fact either, but it's not based in law. I'll talk about the law first. The defendant's argument ignores the basic law of conspiracy.

Conspiracy requires an agreement and one overt act by one of the parties to the agreement. Once that is established, all conspirators are equally guilty. There's no relative guilt in a conspiracy. stems from the agreement that a crime should occur. This whole who's in charge, who's a leader, that has nothing to do with the guilt. The defendant has failed to argue how he should be free from the law of conspiracy. He's ignored that basic premise of that law and instead is attempting to convince the court to adopt a legal framework that simply doesn't exist. State's position that this court has actually precluded from granting this motion by a decision

it made at Lori Daybell's trial. Her trial, after the state arrested, the defendant in that case filed a motion, a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. And this defendant's whole argument is based on Lori's case. So we're going to go back to that. They filed a motion to acquit. And this court found that the state had presented sufficient evidence that Chad Daybell had committed over to acts to allow it.

jury to decide. Now, Chad wasn't on trial. And I want to be clear, this court wasn't saying Chad did those things. It wasn't saying the jury should find that Chad did those things. But it did say this court did find there was sufficient evidence of his overed acts to go in front of the jury. And in a conspiracy, one overed act by one conspirator does get held against the other. That's the law. And the court found multiple occasions. Looking at that, the the same transcript, the same day of the closing argument, page 3796. Text messages dealing with light and dark ratings. That was between Chad and Lori.

Text messages entered into evidence between the defendant and Chad Daybell, meaning between Lori and Chad Daybell about Tamara Daybell being dark. And Chad Daybell said, I feel she will be gone soon. about an application to increase life insurance to the maximum amount allowed. Cell phone data and messages admitted, sufficient evidence to send to the jury, overed acts dealing with the conspiracy.

And so it would be an incredible, a polar opposite ruling and entirely inconsistent for the court to now say, yeah, you presented sufficient evidence to go to a jury before, but now you don't get to make the same arguments. Further in the law, the defendant's argument ignores Idaho Code 1940, 30, which states the distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principle and between principles in the first and second degree in cases a felony is abrogated. All persons concerns.

What's the citation on that? 1940 30, 191430. Thank you. All persons concern in the commission of a felony, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense. or a in a bet in its commission, though not present, shall hereafter be prosecuted, tried, and punished his principles. And it goes on a little more. So in Idaho law, there's no distinction

when you're dealing with co-conspirators or aiders and abettors between the trigger-pooler and the aider and abettor of the co-conspirator. They're all equally guilty. Lori's trial, the state presented ample evidence of Chad Daybell's involvement in Tiley, JJ, and Tammy's murders. What was some of that evidence? Now, I know that the defendant's just talking about closing argument, but he's opened this door to talk about the trial. It all comes in.

So what was some of the evidence? Text messages, clearly talking about the impending deaths of the victims. Text messages and other evidence of an affair provided a motive for the murders. Evidence regarding financial gain that was another motive. Where did we find Tiley and JJ's remains in Chad Daybell's backyard? And who told us where to find them? The evidence was that Chad Daybill told law enforcement where to find him. In his infamous text, Tammy, about killing a raccoon and burning limbs.

That's not saying Lori's in charge. The defendant's argument about the state's closing argument is factually invalid. The transcript of the state's closing argument, the initial closing argument, is 42 pages. The rebuttal is 10. So 52 total pages approximately. And the defendant ignored and or omitted 99% of what was actually said. They picked out a few phrases, none of which are the full statement or sentence. None of which are the full statement or sentence.

And there's one in particular that I think really showcases this and highlights the lack of validity to this argument. In the defendant's brief, he speaks about a quote. about Lori being the conduit of information to Alex. And when you actually look at that, the citation that's given there, he literally omits the first part of that sentence, not just a whole statement, the sentence, that talks about the relationship between Chad, Lori, and Alex. So never mind that we're talking about Chad.

We're just going to take this little snippet and try to twist it into something that it doesn't say. And so what else did he leave out? They ignored the state's language, any of the state's language that placed blame on Chad Daybell. They left out the many times that the state referred to Chad and Lori as they in regards to planning, in regards to the conspiracy. They left out when the time when the state said that Chad and Lori are driving this together. This is all in my brief. They left out when the state references Chad's text to Lori.

about JJ, Tammy, and Tyley dying. They left out when the state referenced Chad and Lori Debel's plan and their future together. They left out the phrase referencing Chad, Lori, and Alex, which was used at least twice, acting together, they caused the death. We said that in regards to Tammy, we said that in regards to Tiley in the closing argument.

Acting together, they caused the death. We didn't say, Lori. say Lori it was in charge and made Alex and Chad do this. Now to be clear, we do we did talk about Lori manipulating Chad. We talked about Chad manipulating Lauren. That doesn't make one of them more guilty or less guilty. They left out the evidence presented by the state of Mr. Daybell's so-called patriarchal blessing to Alex Cox, which was strong evidence of religious manipulation of Alex on this defendant's behalf. They left out the evidence presented at trial

that Alex believed Chad said what everything Chad said and he'd do whatever Chad told him to do. In their brief, they make a common thread argument that at one point when we refer to Lori is the common thread. Being a common thread doesn't make you more guilty or less guilty.

In fact, the fact that this individual, that this defendant married within weeks after his wife's death, is what the evidence showed. The evidence showed had an affair with. The fact that she's a common thread is highly inculpatory for this defendant. It doesn't make him less guilty.

The argument of seeking confirmation is evidence of an agreement, it's evidence of a conspiracy, and it's evidence of encouraging the murders of Tiley, JJ, and Hamid. But the defendant's free to argue what he wants. he's not free to say that we said things we didn't say and he's not free to take snippets of what we said

and ignore the rest of it. If he wants to go into what happened at Lori's trial, he has to take all of it, all the evidence, all the closing argument, the full 52 pages and not just a handful of snippets. The state was clear in its closing argument and in its presentation of evidence. This was a conspiracy.

There are three counts of conspiracy. There's no relative culpability in conspiracy. We never said that, and we're not going to in his trial. In conclusion, the defendant's argument has no basis in law. It has no basis in fact. The defendant ignored the vast majority of the state's argument to pick out a few snippets. The defendant ignored the vast amount of evidence presented at trial. This defendant asked for a severance and he got it.

So of course at Lori's trial, we focused on her because she was the defendant on trial. We will focus on Chad at his trial. We will present the same core theory. And the case law in the state's brief, while we will present that same core theory, we're allowed to do it in different ways. We're not tied to the exact same presentation of evidence. We're not tied to that. The case law is clear.

So one, again, as a matter of law, or as a matter of fact, it's a misrepresentation. It's a misrepresentation of what we said. As a matter of law, even if this court believed the factual representation, the law does not provide for this remedy. Conspiracy and the law of principle in aiding and abetting does not distinguish between who is more culpable or not. As such, we respectfully request this court deny the motion. All right. Mr. Pryor, we're going to hear additional argument from Ms. Blake on the other two motions,

but for now I'd like to hear any rebuttal as it relates on the motion and limiting argument just provided by the prosecutor. Judge, it sounds like what Mr. Wood is arguing is the relative culpability. And maybe I'm not being clear. I cited the US Supreme Court case. I think it's stump that talks about

inconsistent theories. And I appreciate Mr. Wood going through all the factual allegations of this case and all of the things that he's going to try to prove against Chad in this case to show that there was a conspiracy. And my argument, Judge, although I believe in this case that Chad was not part of a conspiracy, the argument here, Judge, isn't that I'm objecting to him trying to prove that there was some kind of conspiracy. What I'm trying to show is that Mr. Wood made specific representations. And he can say all he wants that I've misrepresented things. But it's really clear. It's in black and white and it's in recording. And there are 52 pages of what Mr. Wood said in his closing argument.

And the whole world out there can see what he said. And what he did say, Chad is not going to act without Lori saying so. It's in the transcript. It's a public record, and he said it. And he made a number of other representations that are in my brief. Now, he can do this snippet thing all he wants and say, oh, you took it out of context. The out of context argument occurs when you don't want to take responsibility for what you said in front of another juror. Jury.

Cool. And what he said in front of that jury was clearly that Lori Vallow was the one driving this conspiracy if they're you know the conspiracy in this case and rather than take argument for me or take argument for mr wood judge read the closing argument i've pointed out what mr wood calls the snippets but the words are the same and it's very clear that mr wood made it very clear to that jury in ada county that lorry valo was the driving force behind this whole alleged conspiracy and this argument that there's no case law or anything to support this. Well, I cited the Supreme Court case, Judge, and the United States Supreme Court said he is not allowed to offer inconsistent theories.

And it's an inconsistent theory for him to stand up in front of one jury pool and say to that jury, Lori was the driving force behind all this. Lori was the one in charge. Lorry was doing this, this, this and this, and then turn around and say the exact opposite. Now, he can argue all the facts and he did a very fine job of relaying to the public now all of the information that they intend to try to prove in this case. And I'm not going to take debate and engage and show you all of the information I have. What I will say is that the United States Supreme Court and also the case law in Idaho under the Pierce case cited by Ms. Blake talks about the fact that you, you're not allowed to offer inconsistent theories.

And I would suggest to the court that an inconsistent theory is as simple as telling one jury pool or a number of jurors in Lori Valo's trial that Lori was the one in charge and she was running the show. And if he turns around and goes in front of the Chad Daybell trial

and says, oh no, what I told Lori Valo's jury pool isn't what I'm going to tell you folks. Chad was actually the one in charge. That is an inconsistent theory. Now, all of the facts that he brought up about raccoons and all of the other stuff, he's free to do all that he wants. He can do everything he wants.

Have at it. What he's not allowed to do, though, is suggest to a jury pool in Ada County in Chad Daybell's trial that Chad Daybell was in charge of this conspiracy. If he's able to prove there's a conspiracy, have at it. He can do all of that. But what he can't do is stand up and. front of that jury and tell them that Chad Daybell in any way was the one who was the driving force. And that's exactly what he said to the Vallow folks. He told them that Lori was in charge.

Laurie was in charge. And he can make all the representations. Oh, it's being misinterpreted. It's not being said. It's in black and white. I cited the site. I cited the transcript pages. I put the quotes that he said, the words he used, and it's in those documents. So I leave it to the court. You look at a judge and you tell me whether he represented in a court of law that Lori was in charge. And then if the court decides that Mr. Wood is allowed to change his theory and tell a different jury that, no, I told them one thing, but I'm going to tell Chad Daybell's trial a different thing, so be it. All right. This is as it relates then to the motion in limine, which was filed on November 9th.

We will hear in a moment, state's response on the final two motions of the day. But I've considered the argument on this motion, and I'm prepared to make a ruling at this point. I'll first note that some authority here on the standard I look at, a motion in limine is a request for a protective order to limit. or exclude evidence at trial and applies only prospectively. The purpose of this type of motion is to avoid injection into trial matters, which are irrelevant and admissible and prejudicial. That case is state versus Walmuller, 125 Idaho 196, Court of Appeals case from 1994.

And then a civil case cites the same standard that applies here. A decision to grant or deny a motion in limine is left to the broad discretion of the trial court. and that's Gunter versus Murphy's Lounge 141, Idaho, 16. And that similarly, the trial court has afforded broad discretion in admitting evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of the discretion. Chapman versus Chapman 147, Idaho, 756. So the motion for the court right now is a motion requesting that the court limit the state to certain arguments that are argued to be consistent.

arguments on the defendant's relative culpability. The state has countered that the citations provided in support of this motion are taken out of context. The court having looked at the context and some of the citations in the state's brief does agree that there were matters taken out of context in support of the motion. The underlying theory here of the state is a conspiracy conspiracy charge between the conspirators, Chad Daybell, Lori Vallow and Alex Cox and others. That's been from the outset through the indictment in the case. The state's theory, the court presided through the trial of Lori Vallow and heard the state's theory at trial as well. The state correctly points to Idaho Code 191430 about abolishing the distinction between a

accessories and principles, which gives the state broad latitude in arguing their theory of the case as it relates to a conspiracy charge. And the question before the court right now is, is there something in the record which would require me under a motion in limine to prohibit certain conduct or argument from the state? And I don't find that there is anything brought in the motion that would prohibit the state in its theory of the case at this point. I will note clearly I do agree with the general premise that the state cannot come in and argue a set of facts A at trial number one and then turn around and argue distinct separate other different facts. B at trial number two in the interest of trying to convict to individuals, there certainly would need to be some consistency in a theory of the case if the evidence is the same. However, I don't see any evidence the state is engaged in that or is going to. If in fact at trial there is some contradictory argument made that directly contradicts evidence or argument made, the court would reconsider that ruling as it comes up at trial.

That may be also subject to the impeachment of the defense to raise at trial since the transcript of that first trial is all available. But for purposes of making a preliminary ruling, on the evidence through this motion in limine. I don't find there's any grounds to grant the motion. So for that reason, I am denying the motion. We'll submit an order to that effect. Mr. Priority, have any questions on that ruling? Judge, I just wanna be clear that given the fact

that it was Mr. Wood that made the representations to the jury, what I'm reading the court's order is that if I find that at least from my perspective that Mr. Wood is making contrary inconsistent representations But that transcript, including the closing arguments, would then be available to the Mr. Davell's jury for review. Is that what the court's saying? Well, what I'm saying is you would have the ability

to raise a motion at trial. And we would likely take that up outside the presence of the jury to, if you believed there was a clear contradiction. And we could have that off before the jury heard it. But I'm not making any ruling on that at this point. And I don't believe the state has done that. I don't think they will do that. but I think they understand how that would work,

trying the second case with the same facts with a separate defendant. So we'll submit an order that for these reasons based on the bench here today, the motion is denied. Mr. Wood, do you have any questions about that ruling? Not at this time, Your Honor, thank you. All right, thank you.

What we'll conclude with then for now is Ms. Blake, if you'd like to respond to the remaining two motions, which were incorporated, into Mr. Pryor's previous argument on the motion to strike the death penalty due to the court striking the death penalty in Lori Vallow's case and also the motion to strike the death penalty on relative culpability. I'll hear your arguments on those and then any rebuttal from Mr. Pryor. Thank you, Your Honor. And I'll try to be brief with these as well. When we're looking at the potential imposition of the death penalty, there is a significant amount of case law regarding

that and turning to Kennedy v. Louisiana 554 U.S. 407, a 2008 Supreme Court case, they reiterate that the Eighth Amendment provides that a person is supposed to be free from cruel and unusual punishments that may or may not be excessive. That court went on to note capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution. There is a lot of case law that goes into the different factors, and they're outlined in our brief, and our brief is quite lengthy, so I won't go through all of them. But the common theme and the common thing that we see, and through a line of cases that have helped drive and create the death penalty

procedures that we have in place now in each state, we see the common theme that it is supposed to be an individualized sentencing. The jury, here's penalty information, including the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances. And we see time and time again where case law references that it is to be in an individualized capacity, taking into account the culpability of the offender, their participation in the crimes themselves, as well as the mitigating information. The mitigating factors are unique to each individual. And so when we talk about similarly situated co-defendants or similarly similarly situated defendants in general, that's usually they are going to factor in all of those things.

It isn't just limited to the culpability. There is some case law that talks about comparative culpability, but the majority of the case law cited in the defendant's motion deals with felony murder cases. There are a few that deal with conspiracy, but by and large, the bulk of the case law deals with felony murder, wherein individuals set out to commit one crime and someone is killed during the commission of that crime. In Tyson v. Arizona, Tyson v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 and 1987 Supreme Court case, they specifically talk about the two factors that are determined that are looked at when imposing death. And those include the deterrence, the potential deterrence, and the retribution that are two purposes that are advanced by the imposition. And they cite to the

Edmond's case. And the Edmonds case was a felony murder case. They determined that the main factor that they considered in the Edmonds case was that the defendant that had been sentenced to death did not intend or have the purpose to take a life. And they found in that case that it wouldn't be a deterrent to execute someone that had no intention to take a life. We find ourselves in a very different situation here based on the state's theory of the case. The state's theory with the conspiracy is that absolutely lives were intended to be taken and not one but three. When we look at the defendant's argument that he is being unfairly punished or potentially unfairly punished, and I think the state has raised before that we do not believe that these

type of motions are ripe based on Schaffer v. Reno that's an 11th Circuit case, 55F3D, 1517, that indicates Eighth Amendment claims are not ripe when raised prior to actual or immediately pending imposition. I recognize the court has provided some differing authority on that, and we had a differing on that in the co-defendants case. However, none of the cases cited by the defendant include cases where there was a predetermination made with regard to the death penalty. All of the cases cited and all the cases cited and found by the state deal with a review conducted after the imposition of the death penalty, where a court was in a position to review all of the evidence presented, the findings made, looking at the mitigating, the aggravating factors,

and or if a co-defendant was sentenced differently, why that occurred, and making that as a full determination in being able to review whether or not the death penalty was disproportionate or arbitrary and capricious in his imposition. I think we are well before even being in a position to try to make that determination. And looking at some of the cases, that deal with some constitutional rights or choices given a defendant. We have U.S. v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570. In that case, it was different because the statute was set out in such a way that a defendant had to choose between a jury trial, and if they chose a jury trial, there was the potential of a death sentence being imposed. If they chose a bench trial, there was no potential

for a death sentence to be imposed. And the courts in that case said, that isn't fair. You're penalizing someone for exercising a constitutional right. By choosing to go to jury, now there's the potential for death, and they found that to be unconstitutional. Turning to State B. Lopez 144, Idaho 349, that provides that a defendant's waiver of speedy trial is a voluntary relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. State v. Youngblood 117, Idaho 160 went on to find that a knowing waiver, a knowing written waiver is dispositive of a later motion to dismiss based on a defendant's waiver of speedy trial. There's no question the defendant in this case absolutely waived his right to a speedy trial. It is different from USV Jackson because when he chose to waive the speedy trial, there was

nothing contingent upon his waiving that and the death penalty being pulled or being imposed. And I think the court previously made reference to that. The state announced the decision to seek the death penalty in the timely manner as required pursuant to statute and prior to the defendant opting to waive his right to a speedy trial. The potential imposition of the death penalty is in no way linked to his waiver of speedy trial. I know the defendant tries to argue that it is because the co-defendant, by not waiving her speedy trial, ultimately ended up making an argument and a successful argument to get the death penalty removed from her side of the case. The defendant at that time didn't opt to ask to have his motion to sever reconsidered. He didn't opt to ask to

reconsider the motion to continue the trial. He didn't at that time try to join in a motion, arguing in any way he was being unfairly treated or penalized for waiving his right to a speedy trial. Instead, her case went through trial. He had the benefit of observing that trial and has now brought some motions based on his observations of that trial. And only now is trying to bring this as a reason to have the death penalty pulled from his case. In Spanziano v. Beck, 468 U.S. 447. Similarly, a defendant was given a choice. He could waive his right to statute of limitations on a lesser included offense and have the jury instructed on both what would be a capital offense and what would be a lesser included or he could move forward with just the capital offense. He opted

not to waive his right to that statute of limitations on the underlying offense. And the court found he chose to knowingly not waive that right. And when death was imposed, they determined that it was appropriate. Similar in this case, there is no question that Mr. Debel, the defendant, absolutely opted to waive his right to a speedy trial. He had other remedies he could ask for, but the state's position would be in no way is the potential imposition of death linked to the defendant's waiver of speedy trial. The California Supreme Court in People v. Holmes, McLean v. Newborn, 12 Cal 5th, 719, and also 503P. 3.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5. And also 5. 3D-668 states. It is well established.

Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web.

But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. Again, ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at ORA.com slash remove. The punishment meted out to a co-defendant is irrelevant to the decision the jury must make at the penalty phase, whether the defendant before it should be sentenced to death.

Again, that would follow the line of cases and the reiteration that when we're dealing with imposition of a sentence, it is individualized. And specifically with imposition or the potential imposition of a death sentence, it is supposed to be an individualized consideration. That clearly indicates the jury is not supposed to consider what happened in a co-defendant's case or what the sentence may have been in that case. The Ninth Circuit Court in Paradis B. Arrive, 20F3D, 950, and that's a Ninth Circuit from 1999, found the Supreme Court has determined that the death penalty is not a disproportionate punishment

for those who kill, attempt to kill, intend to kill, intend that lethal force be applied, or act with reckless indifference to human life, while playing a major role in the felony that results in the murder. Again, most of the cases cited deal with culpability as to each individual defendant involving felony murders.

rather than conspiracies. There are a few that were cited to and that deal specifically with conspiracies. And those include Larzile, I'm going to say that wrong, I'm sure, v. State, and it's a Florida Supreme Court case, citation 676 South 2D-394, and it's from 1996, and they determined that where there was a conspiracy, a co-defendant, that it was appropriate for her to be given the sentence

of death, given the fact that it was determined that she was more culpable and that she was a mastermind and driving force behind a murder that was done for financial gain. Even though there were two others that were not charged and one co-defendant that was acquitted, the court upheld her death sentence as appropriate. In this case, when we talk about relative culpability, and I won't rehash it too much because it's been hashed out. But one thing that I will indicate with regard to the defendant is he has an additional count of first-degree murder over and above what his co-defendant has. He also has two counts of insurance fraud over and above what his co-defendant had. Those are specifically in relation to the death and the homicide of his wife, Tammy Davo.

When we look at that Florida court case, we're in a similar situation where the state's theory would be he was absolutely a moving, driving force behind that homicide and that it was done for financial gain. And while the co-defendant was charged in the conspiracy, he does in fact face an additional charge. In looking at people v. Kleiner, it's an Illinois Supreme Court case 185. Actually, I'll give the other citation, 705, Northeast 2D 850, a 1998 case. And basically, again, that's talking about that when we're looking at an individual sentence, we have to look at the nature of the offense, offense. each individual's relative involvement or copability, the defendant's character or background,

including any criminal record and the potential for rehabilitation. In that case, they had determined that it was appropriate to give a trigger man a death sentence where the co-defendant who initiated the plan was not given a death sentence. The court upheld that in part given the background of the two. And again, could not be considered until all the evidence was presented and before a jury. One of the other major differences with most of the cases cited is they were not cases in which both co-defendants went to a trial. They were not cases in which the court pre one of the defendants going to trial had pulled the death penalty as a potential sentence. They are generally cases where a plea deal was taken or cases in which both went to trial and ended up with different sentences from their respective juries.

The Idaho Supreme Court in State v. Gibson, 106 Idaho 54, it's a Supreme Court case from 1983, found that the death penalty is not an unduly severe punishment for an aider and a better to a murder when that person intends that a killing takes place. Again, we see that intend language again and again in a lot of these cases and their review of it. What did the defendant intend that a homicide take place? In this case, again, the state's theory is absolutely the defendant intended for three homicides to take place, not just one. And again, when we talk about the copability, I would just reiterate, contrary to the position raised by the defense, the state's theory of the case and belief has always been that Lori Valo-Dabel, the co-defendant and the defendant here today, manipulated not only those around them, but each other, and that they did so with a common goal in mind, that goal of being together,

To ultimately achieve that goal, it included the ending of three people's lives and had the underlying goals as well of financial gain and to and lust. So the state's position would be several things, one that it would be premature to even make a determination if the court were to even consider that death should be pulled for any of the reasons

outlined by the defendant at this juncture, that we would be premature until we see all the evidence presented and are able to weigh everything for the court to make an appropriate copel culpability analysis and relative culpability specifically. In addition to that, that would be if the court found any grounds to even consider that. The state's review of the case law and as more clearly outlined in our brief would be that the defendant fails to provide any valid reason or grounds or case law to support this court being required to remove the death penalty as an option.

And to the contrary, that if the state has brought the death penalty, that it should be the jurors who make a final determination whether or not this crime or the crimes alleged are of such a nature that regardless of any mitigating evidence presented to them that the imposition of the death penalty is appropriate. So we would ask that the court deny these motions at this at this time. Ms. Wake on the premature argument then, are you asking the court to defer ruling? Our initial ask, and I probably said that backwards, our initial ask is that these just simply be denied. think there are no grounds or basis or valid case law provided to support them in the event that the court was going to consider either of these in any capacity we believe that it would be premature

to make that determination until the court makes a finding regarding culpability and relative culpability of the two again as we outlined mr. dabel the defendant here today has some additional charges that the co-defendant did not we think with regard to the waiver of speedy trial that in no way is even linked to the potential imposition of the death penalty or reason to pull the death penalty as an option with regard to the relative culpability. If the court were to consider that one at all, we think it's premature until all of the evidence is presented in the defendant's trial, including through the penalty phase for the court to make a proper determination. We think it could be denied today simply because we don't think that it fits within the line

of cases presented regarding, generally speaking, the felony murders. So I just wanted to clarify that. So if it were a deferred ruling, your argument based on the case law you've reviewed would be the deferral is post-conviction and then after the penalty phase? Yes, that would be. And I would also know,

I don't think I had indicated this, but the Idaho statutes actually already provide for an automatic review regarding a death penalty and whether or not the imposition was appropriate. Idaho Code 192827. It specifically states whenever the death penalty is imposed and upon the judgment becoming final in the trial court, the sentence shall be reviewed on the record by the Supreme

Court of Idaho. So I think there actually is already a built-in review to make a determination whether or not the imposition of the death penalty is appropriate, which is the other reason that we would say this is premature to raise today. All right. Well, I appreciate the clarification on that point. Mr. Pryor, you've heard the state's response to your two final motion. if you'd like to offer any rebuttal argument on either you may at this time judge i will be extremely

brief i just want to point out just a couple of things judge the um at the time of the uh failure to provide adequate disclosure uh the only difference between miss vallow and mr daybell was that mr mr daybell waived his right to a speedy trial now she's correct it was a valid waiver of a speedy trial they timely provided the notice of the death penalty but the sanction that was was imposed on the state for this failure was the pulling of the death penalty. That was not an option for Mr. Daybell. And what the culpability issue goes to judge is simply this,

is that if we're gonna apply Mr. Woods words about Ms. Valo's involvement and Mr. Daybell's alleged involvement in this thing, the relative culpability simply is that if Mr. Daybell truly was the second wheel or a lesser wheel in this thing, and Ms. Daibel was driving, driving the ship, he's being punished for the waiver of his speedy trial.

And I'm just, for purposes of this motion, Judge, I'm just preserving this for future consideration if there is a conviction of any kind, and that can be addressed at another court, Judge. Thank you. All right, thank you. And I'll just make a final note and comment. I'm gonna take the matter under advisement,

but the court would note that at the time I made that ruling on, On the Lori Valo case, I also made an explicit finding that the ruling there in no way impact that are affected the ability of the state to still seek the death penalty as it related to this case with Mr. Daybell. So with that in mind, I will take those matters under advisement. The court will issue a written decision on those as well. So that will conclude our argued motions for today. The court will get back with written orders and rulings on those matters under advisement. I appreciate counsel's briefing and arguments this morning and this afternoon.

Mr. Wood and Ms. Blake, is there anything further to bring up on the matter today? No, Your Honor. I think further from the defense. No, Your Honor. Thank you for your consideration today. Thank you. And thanks everyone in attendance for complying with the court's conduct order. I appreciate that as well.

We'll be adjourned. Wow. How's everyone doing? Good? I was not expecting that today. I mean, did the trial start early or what? Because I felt like that was a day of sitting in court for Lori Valo-Dadeville's trial. That was, I think we were just shown both of their hands, the prosecutions, the states, as well as chats, the defense.

It's clear that John Pryor is going to continue driving home this idea that Lori was the ringleader and Lori was driving the bus, the religious bus, the murderous bus. We'll talk about that. I have some things to say about that. We learned that cameras are going to be allowed in the courtroom. At this moment, the death penalty, Chad, facing the death penalty is. undecided. It'll be to be determined. I mean, right now, you know what else is interesting too? I just want to point out, John Pryor is not a death penalty attorney. I don't have the answers there, but I just want to throw that out. If Chad Daybill faces the death penalty,

I just don't know what that means. I don't think John Pryor can be lead counsel. First off, I want to share a few things. I was looking at my phone to comment when I can, but I was also communicating with a couple of people and I communicated with Heather Dayball and she has something that I am allowed to share publicly when it comes to cameras in the courtroom. While she's not going to be doing any interviews pre-trial, she states that I can share this publicly for her. I am grateful and supportive for the judge's ruling for cameras in the courtroom. That takes a burden off of family who wish to watch but cannot be there. So that is how family, or at least some family members,

feel about Judge Boyce's decision today. I too, as a journalist, am grateful for Judge Boyce's decision to have cameras in the courtroom. And I want to ask each of you today to be thinking about the best ways you want me to be covering this tribe. in, as John Pryor taught us 120 days. So he let us know it's 120 days away. I will be planning to cover every single day of this trial with our community here.

And I want to cover that in a way that if you guys know of other channels that have covered trials and you like the way they cover them, let me know. For example, today I had my mic on mute while I listened if you want commentary, whatever the case may be, just let me know. But I will be dedicated and here with you. And if the trial is not, is televised and continues to be televised, I will most likely just be doing it from my laptop. I don't know if I will be in Idaho or not.

I will be with all of you though every day. Let's talk about, you know, so I have so many things I want to say. Chad and Lori communicating. Can we talk about that? That came down before before. I read, I read as we were waiting for this hearing to start today, that they will be able to communicate. I love this.

I love this. We just learned that Chad Daybell will be throwing Lori under the bus. He's already started. This is, I mean, we're just arguing motions here. And it has begun full force, full throttle. Like he is throwing his wife under the bus again and again and again. I hope that those two are talking. We know that Pryor's argument is going to be Lori as the ringleader.

Lori ran the bus or drove the bus. And so to have their conversations and to be a fly on the wall, I am so curious how Chad will communicate with Lori if that's his defense. I think that you can get some really solid evidence out of some conversations with them or lack of conversations too. What Chad says or what he doesn't say to his wife would be very, very interesting. So for me, I support their communication because especially now knowing Pryor's arguments, let's hear how Chad manages this on his own when he actually has to speak to his wife.

People brought up a lot of things that Chad Daybell did to, that were brought up in court during Lori Valo Daybell's trial. You know what else is interesting about Lori Valo Daybell's trial? Is that many people said that didn't believe that Chad was the ringleader or that it was his belief system or that he was super involved. After listening to that entire trial, they were like, wow, he was so involved at the very least a co-conspirator. Lori was not in town when Tammy Daybell was killed.

Chad Daybell was in town when his own wife was killed. People also want to say that Laurie is more culpable because she is the mother of these children. Chad Daybell is Tammy's husband. These are both their family members. Both of them.

Chad Daybell was there at the house the night his wife was murdered. and he starts with first degree murder there. Lori was in Hawaii with Audrey Baratero and Melanie Pulaski. Lori's phone never pinged when Tiley's body was being burned in Chad DeBel's yard. Alex's phone, her brother's pinged, and Chad's pinged there. And then right when they concluded the burning, Chad wrote the raccoon text to his wife Tammy. He was still alive at this time and said that he had just shot a raccoon and they were burning limbs.

before the coming storm. He was burning limbs before the coming storm. He let his wife know that. I want to talk about something that prior brought up in his motions and our moderators brought up to this quote from Chad Daybell. It's a text to Lori Valo. Grab me by the storm and I will follow you to the ends of the earth. This is a really important line because it was brought up in the

closing arguments by both the prosecution and the defense at Lori's trial. It was brought up to show how Lori, you know, ran the bus, drove the bus. I say ran now. It's like the train sailing. You run the bus and the train sails. Okay. Who was leading this conspiracy, although the entire definition of conspiracy is co. They both did.

So this line grabbed me by the story. storm and I will follow you to the ends of the earth. It's becoming quite well known. It's up there with his lowing fire story. Chad's got some good one-liners and this is one of them. And it's been using court over and over again. And making it to all closing arguments by both Archibald, Lori's counsel, her defense used it to say that it shows that this was Chad, that Chad was led by his storm. And then the prosecution used it to say Lori was in charge. She was sexually manipulating Chad. So so so so then prior uses this line and his motion to say Lori is the ringleader. Lori sexually manipulated Chad DeBow. And this is proof. This line is proof. This text that Chad

wrote is proof. Grab me by the storm and I will follow you to the ends of the earth. That's what Chad texts Lori. And so so so John prior, Chad's attorney saying, see, Lori, was a sexual manipulator. To me, I just got to say this that drives me crazy. That is the most sexist argument. Who owns the storm? Chad. So if you're saying that Lori is the ringleader because she sexually manipulated him, who does the storm belong to? It's Chad's storm. And you're right. It's a little, little itty bitty storm, little bitty guy. But it's Chad's, not Lorry's. And Lori cannot force Chad to text that or to want that or to be led by that or to kill his wife of 30 years because she has that much control. There's only one owner of the little little idly store and it's not Lori.

I'm pulling up my live tweets. What do we call live tweets now? That was brought up in court too. Rob would mention live tweets and he said, oh, whatever they're called. You know, the lives formerly known as tweets, I don't know, the exes, the live exes, I'll probably be on threads during the trial, just throwing out of that out there. Okay, May 8th, I pulled it up. We're going to go over this thread together.

We're going to read it. So I was live tweeting. We're going to call it live tweeting for nostalgia sake. We're going to go through what happened that date, how it came up. Let's go through the context. So this May 8th was a big day. It was an emotional day. It was a heartbreaking day.

And this is when this line came up in court. that we learned that Chad texted Lori, grab me by the storm, and I will follow you to the ends of the earth. So let's go through that. Let's get context to that line and decide for ourselves who is in charge here. Here we go. Judge Boyce will review the exhibits and the witnesses take the stand. Jury is now in court.

Smith continues examining of FBI agent Doug Hart. So Hart, Doug Hart is on the stand. He's an FBI agent, and they are going to discuss text exchanges. The texts continue from Lolley Time and Lori for Style iCloud. Those are all the texts they found on Lori's iCloud accounts. This is 715, 2019. And then let me, let me say that date again. 715, 2019.

What happened on 7.11? 11, 2019, Charles Valo was murdered. Murdered. So 11, 12, 13, 14, we're talking three days later. Three days later now is this text. Okay. So here is the text exchange. Three days after Charles Valo was murdered, this text exchange happens.

715, 2019, from Chad to Lori. My love for you is overflowing. I want to hold you. endlessly. You are my wonderful best friend that I cannot live without. Three days after her husband's killed in Arizona. Lori responds to Chad on 715, 2019. I just got a letter from insurance saying I am not the beneficiary to Charles's insurance. It is a spear through my heart. 718. Chad to Lori. So now we're five days after Charles Valos killed.

So Chad responds to this. This is terrible, but it's probably another step in bringing down the Gadiantans, especially Brandon. The Gadiantin robbers are wicked people in the Book of Mormon. So Chad is suggesting what this is all about. Lori has a spear through her heart because he doesn't get Charles follows life insurance money. But Chad is saying to her, it's probably another step in bringing down the Ganyantans, especially Brandon, Brandon Boudreau, so he's evil.

So Chad is bringing up that Brandon is evil like a Gadiantianton robber. 718 continues. 718, 2019. A lot of lovey-dovey. And are mixed with how Charles possibly changed the insurance before his death. and then from Chad to Lori. Hmm. It will be interesting if the insurance got changed after he had two bullets in his chest.

Chad Dayball said that. That wasn't Lori. That was Chad DeBowell. From Chad to Lori on 718, 2019. So we're talking less than a week after Charles is killed. Or a week, a week after Charles is killed. It will be interesting if it got changed. after he had two bullets in his chest.

Chad knew how many bullets went through Charles. Lori confirms to Chad that Charles changed insurance in March before his July death. Hart explained to the Gandhantins are and that it denotes evil. 718, Chad to Lori. I have been instructed to focus my efforts on Hillary, so I will. Kissy face emoji. Hillary is a zombie name of Tiley. So on 718, Chad is letting Lori know that he has been instructed, I assume, by God,

to focus his efforts on Hillary, and so I will with a kissy-face emoji to Lori. Lori to Chad. Okay. Find out her percentage for me and find out the percentage of JJ. Chad to Lori. He lets her know. Well, she, Hillary, is at 0.13. I turned up the pain to 10.

And I placed a spiritual virus in her. As far as JJ, he is at a 99.99.99. Raphael, aka Chad, visited him and told him to follow Amy into the light. I also assured JJ that James, also Chad, would love and take care of his mommy, which he will with all of his heart and soul, end quote. So Chad just told Lori that he turned up the pain on Tiley and put a spiritual virus on her and she's at a 0.13, which means closer to death. Heart will tell you that in a second. Then he lets Lori know that he's going to.

to love Lori with all his heart and he's going to let JJ know that so he can, you know, feel okay. Lori to Chad responds to that message. This is sweet. I miss you desperately. Heart now says, in quotes, the closer someone was to zero, the closest, the closer they were to death. So Tiley is out of 0.13. This is before her move to Rexburg guys. So now we're talking premeditated with both of them.

We're talking a week after Charles's death, that Chad is letting Lori know that Tiley is very close to death and that he's upping her pain. Hart also explains that Raphael and James are two names that Chad references for himself. On 718, 2019 at 8.40 p.m. And this is Chad to Lori. You are so adorable, beautiful, heavenly, luscious, angelic, so many divine attributes rolled into one dynamic, desirable, I want you more desperately than you want me, end quote. Then here we go. Chad to Lori admits what he really wants.

Here's the line. Just grab me by the storm. Chad's, you know what. And I will follow you to the ends of the earth, end quote. From Lori to Chad. And then what? From Lori to Chad. Back to crying and saying goodbye.

Back to the box. Chad responds to Lori. Chad to Lori explains after Lori says that, this trip to Utah had a lot of finality to it. I was told, Chad explains, that extreme changes are coming for me. And to Utah, I welcome them both. End quote.

On 7.20, so now we're at about nine days after Charles's death. Lori to Chad asks, what is Blake's percentage? Blake is Melanie Boudreau's little child. Laurie to Chad, in quotes. Oh, and then Lori to Chad again explaining why she's asking. Blake drew three crosses on the wall on his bedroom. We just finished painting over them, like he was marking it for the dark side to find him.

Chad to Lori, Blake is at a seven. I took my sword of light and sliced his aura. Chad to Lori, I also decreased Blake's pain tolerance to 1%. And I greatly increased Blake's pain. His desire to depart is at 80%. End quote. And then they continue. Then they continue to talk about Rhonda.

Rhonda is Kay Woodcock. That's her zombie name. Chad says about Rhonda, we will work hard on Rhonda. And then when we are together, I will get her numbers. Lori, good. Let's work on it hard. And then on 721, 2019, a couple days later, James and Elena, those are Lori. That's Lori and Chad and Lori, James and Elena.

Those were their love story names. Had agreed to visit the temple the following morning, the LDS Temple. She returned to the hotel room and after additional romance on the couch, they calmed their nerves enough to give each other a blessing. End quote. And then we get into the love story quotes that Chad sent Lori. That all happened in the same week that he told Lori to grab him by the storm and he would follow her to the ends of the earth.

If you want to know who's in charge and who is driving the bus, I'm pretty sure it's both of them. So if this is going to be prior to argue, And let me, let me be more specific. Pryor is arguing right now. He's citing a Supreme Court case that I miss. I'm going to go look into it. Pryor is arguing that because of the state's arguments saying that Lori was the ringleader,

thus they have to stick to their arguments. That's essentially the argument that Pryor is making. But the undertone and what we're hearing is this is, going to be Pryor's argument that Lori is the ringleader and that she is driving the bus. But I think from that line alone grab me by the storm and I will follow you to the ends of the earth, the context of even that line shows us that Lori is not the ringleader here and that they have been charged as co-conspirators for a reason. This is going to be a very, very interesting trial.

So those were some things I wanted to share before we ended here. It was a really big day for the day bell trial today, a lot bigger day than I thought or intended. So I'm going to sign off and process a lot, but I wanted to share that. Thank you to everyone who has been here. It was your last minute. And thank you to the well wishes for our family right now. John and I will share a little bit more later, but we appreciate it during this time. And it was so wonderful hanging out with our amazing gems. I agree. We will talk soon again. We'll see you. Bye.

Wow. What's up? I just bought and financed a car through Carvana in minutes. You? The person who agonized four weeks over whether to paint your wells eggshell or off white bought and financed a car in minutes. They made it easy. Transparent terms, customizable down and monthly. Didn't even have to do any paperwork. Wow. Mm-hmm. Hey, have you checked out that spreadsheet I sent you for a dinner option? Finance your car with Garvana and experience total control. Financing subject to credit approval. Ashley's President's Day sale is going on now.

For a limited time, field of freedom to shop incredible hot buys. Your style, your choice, all at an unfeatable price. Plus pay over time with up to 60 months special financing. From bedroom looks to living room styles and every room in between. Our hot buys make saving big and styling your space easier than ever. Only at Ashley in North Charleston and Mount Pleasant. Subject to credit approved, minimum monthly payments required, minimum purchase required. See store for details.

Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web.

But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. Again, Aura gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.