My take on Chad Daybell's Appeal
Travis Rice
First, I want to say that I didnt follow the trial because I was trying to get things done for trials of my own. Sometimes as an attorney it gets that way. I know people feel passionate about this case though and so some people may disagree with me. I know both attorneys. Both attorneys are fantastic at what they do.
My secretary told me that John Prior, who is Chad Daybell's attorney filed an appeal on Mr. Daybell's case. I noticed that this was very quick. Many times you have 48 days to appeal. This appeal took place rather quickly. To me that signifies there may be a very big problem.
Here is what the defense is appealing....
1. Did Judge Sten Boyce Err in not granting Daybell's motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment in the case?
2. Did Boyce err in ruling Dr. Davidson's report and testimony would be inadmissible in the case?
3. Did Boyce err in allowing the prosecution to amend their indictment after they rested?
4. Did Boyce err in providing to the jury the most current jury instruction of reasonable doubt at the guilt stage?
5. Did Boyce err in providing the jury the most currently instruction of reasonable doubt at the sentencing phase?
The one that is a big deal to me is #3. When the state rests its case it cannot be reopened. Most defense attorneys lie in wait and do not bring death nail objections until after the State closes. Because at that point, its too late for the state to fix them. One of these types of death nail objections is contesting the indictment. If an indictment is unclear, its VERY hard for an attorney to defend a person. Imagine if someone was told the entire time an act they are being charged with occurred on October 5, 2024. You have an Alibi for October 6, 2024 but you didnt for October 5, 2024. You go to trial and its found out that this actually criminal act occurred on October 6, 2024. But now, you dont have a defense because you didnt have get your alibi witnesses together. Then the State rests their case. Your defense attorney saves your bacon and objects to the indictment. But then the State gets up and amends the indictment after the rested their case to October 6, 2024. Oh no....now you have a problem. Its very unusual to allow the state to reopen their case, and if it was amended after they rested any defense attorney would object to it and appeal that. I think this is absolutely the best grounds for appeal.
Another great objection that Mr. Prior occurred when Mr. Prior contested the reasonable doubt instruction that we have in Idaho. In Idaho we have "stock" criminal jury instructions. They advise the jury on how they should decide a case. Reasonable doubt has never really been defined. Juries normally should define it for themselves. Our new jury instructions which we got last year define reasonable doubt. So defining something that is so amorphous and a matter of interpretation can always be tricky. Many defense attorneys and prosecutors have complained about the new instructions and they are still working out the kinks on them. Mr. Prior's appeal on this ground will likely fail, because the Idaho Supreme Court and Court of Appeals made these instructions but it should be interesting for a law nerd like me.
What do I think? Its very common to appeal any sentence. The speed of the appeal shows me that their may have been problems in the prosecutions case to the jury. The biggest problem that I see was that the state was allowed to amend the indictment after they rested their case. That would surely be a procedural problem that could rise to the level of a due process violation where Mr. Daybell would have to be retried. Its uncertain what the Court of Appeals will do, but I imagine they will find some way to justify this procedural defect given that Mr. Daybell's was so highly publicized. I am sure they will also find their own instruction was valid, but if you want my opinion, people do not need to have reasonable doubt defined by the same government that is prosecuting them.
Comments
Post a Comment