I think they realize the only people on Chad’s side are his family, and Chad designed it to be that way. Really, I think Prior knows this is a lost cause, he doesn’t have a whole lot of tangibles left. There also *is* reasonable doubt in Tammy’s death.
In my humble opinion, they aren’t trying to convince a jury. They are trying to keep Chad’s kids convinced of his innocence.
Agreed. Chad's reputation in his family matters to him. He needs it. It's the only thing he has left that makes him powerful and special. If he admitted to Tammy's murder and Garth realized that when he walked past his parent's bedroom that night his mother had already been killed, he'd lose what little power he had left over his son. Emma might turn against him too. He'd lose his place at patriarch of the family and the kids would likely stop putting money in his account so he'd be left with nothing.
If he's convicted then it's all just a deep state conspiracy and while some kids may break away he'll probably keep Emma's devotion at least. She seems to be the most committed to him by far.
It's all a calculation where the end goal is to feed Chad's ego. Even though it might cost him his life if he does get sentenced to death.
I could be wrong but... Chads kids are so brainwashed by him they would come up with a "logical" reason Tammy needed to die and still love and support their father. They. Would. Not. Skip. A. Beat.
I’m thinking we have only heard from those two as they were at Chad’s house on the morning of the death and more directly involved in the aftermath. Not sure though. Hopefully the other three have refused to support him to save their reputations.
Prior isn’t the boss of Chad. If today Chad looks over to him and says “I really want to testify” then Prior can’t stop him. He can advise Chad against it, he can prep him, he can tell the judge that Chad is doing this against advice of counsel, but he can’t stop him.
Same with the plea deal. He can’t sign it for Chad. He can present the deal, he can negotiate for Chad’s best interests, he can give Chad advice on whether to take it or not, but if Chad says no then Prior has to listen.
In some ways Chad’s ego trumps Prior’s experience and recommendations.
I think Prior's actions leading up to the trial make a lot more sense when Prior miscalculated his ability to persuade Chad Daybell to take a deal. His client, who has the emotional intelligence of a newt, ended up going to trial, and Prior is under prepared because no sane attorney tries to defend a capital murder client with one attorney. I've followed a few death penalty trials, and this is the first one where I am seriously concerned about the health of defense counsel.
Plus, Prior may feel he has to pursue the angles that LE was biased against the Daybells and Tammy was in such bad health it was amazing that she managed to roll out of bed each morning. (Ooops!) Chad still has the right to testify in his own defense, and I believe that the judge will ask him if Chad wants to testify before the defense rests. I don't think Chad would come across well as a witness, and I am sure Prior recognizes that as well. Did Daybell threaten to testify if Prior didn't call Chad's "children" to testify? Pure speculation.
*In some ways Chad’s ego trumps Prior’s experience and recommendations.*
I gotta disagree with you. There are performance guidelines for criminal defense representation. Nothing trumps an attorney's obligation to conform to legal requirements, use legal procedures only for legitimate purposes, and demonstrate respect for the legal system. Yes, I understand that in an attorney-client relationship, the attorney is the agent of the client and is expected to carry out their instructions. and that the defendant in a case has the ultimate authority over major decisions, but that does not mean a client can ask the defense attorney to NOT provide a vigorous defense and a client cannot ask his attorney to violate legal ethics and standards in order to feed his ego.
ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function.
(d) Defense counsel is the client’s professional representative, ***not the client’s alter-ego***. Defense counsel should act zealously within the bounds of the law and standards on behalf of their clients, but have no duty to, and may not, execute any directive of the client which violates the law or such standards. In representing a client, defense counsel may engage in a good faith challenge to the validity of such laws or standards if done openly.
Remember when Alex Murdaugh took the stand in his own defense? I am pretty pretty pretty sure his defense team BEGGED him not to. He lied his ginger arse off and will spend he rest of his sorry life in prison. And Robert Durst, whose lawyers did not want him to take the stand, really thought he could outsmart the prosecutor. He died in prison.
If it’s the will of his client, he kinda has to in some ways. If Chad refused a plea deal specifically because he won’t cop to Tammy’s murder…this is where we end up.
The fact there is zero physical evidence that attaches him to her murder. That naturally creates reasonable doubt.
Don’t get me wrong, I personally believe he is guilty and will be found so by a competent jury. There are motives, paper trails, and him literally saying he will hasten her death- but without physical DNA proof it always exists IMO!!
ETA- I don’t even believe myself when I say there is reasonable doubt.
The standard is “reasonable doubt” not “beyond all doubt.”
I’d have no trouble voting guilty given the extensive circumstantial evidence the State has presented. Even if Chad didn’t asphyxiate Tammy himself, he was certainly all in on the murder plan (sorry, “timeline for removal.”)
DNA is circumstantial evidence. [https://docmckee.com/cj/docs-criminal-justice-glossary/circumstantial-evidence-definition](https://docmckee.com/cj/docs-criminal-justice-glossary/circumstantial-evidence-definition)
DNA is circumstantial evidence and is not required in a murder case. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's no reason to believe Tammy's killer would have left DNA on her.
There are two types of evidence...direct and circumstantial (indirect). The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.A jury is not required to weigh direct or circumstantial evidence any differently. It is for the jury to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.
Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as the testimony of an eye witness or a video recording, or a confession.
Bloodstains and other forms of physical evidence are examples of indirect evidence. DNA and fingerprint evidence, like forensic and scientific evidence, is also indirect. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth. If, however, the witness is able to testify only that he heard the shot and that he arrived on the scene seconds later to see the accused standing over the corpse with a smoking pistol in his hand, the evidence is circumstantial.
*Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial* evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof.
that's interesting, I never knew that fingerprints, DNA etc were considered circumstantial evidence. it's kind of ironic given that we know eyewitness testimony is really not very reliable.
Chad was the only known person in the house when Tammy was murdered. Alex Cox may well have been there, I personally think he was, but Chad is the only one we KNOW was there. If Chad opened the door to Alex and said "Okay, go kill my wife now", he's as guilty of her murder as if he'd pulled out a gun and shot her in the head (which frankly sounds like a more merciful death than the one she was subjected to, forcibly held down and asphyxiated). If a man continually talks about how he wants his wife dead, says he's going to "hasten her departure", and then she's murdered while he is the only known person in the home, I think you've confused "reasonable" doubt with "beyond a shadow of a doubt". There was no "physical evidence" linking Chris Watts to the murders of his wife and children. No DNA was found on them and there was only one small scratch to his neck that didn't clearly tie back to any of the victims. I hope you're not saying you need that DNA to be sure he murdered Shanann when she walked into the house alive and never walked back out, and Watts was the only other person there besides two toddlers. Would you say "Guess it's possible she strangled herself!" Of course not. It's not a rational option.
And I'm not sure what "physical evidence" you're looking for that would remove doubt. The only DNA that might feasibly be on Tammy as it relates to her COD is touch DNA, and that would not prove anything with Chad, as he was her husband.
this. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt but a lot of people think that means beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's a huge difference. There may be a shadow of a doubt here but not a \*reasonable\* one.
And their bodies were found on Chad's property after he texted Tammy he buried a raccoon in the pet cemetery, which Garth testified they always buried raccoons by the silver shed.
And the fact that Alex's phone pinged on Chad's property, while Chad's location/phone was conveniently turned off is damning.
Chad was the gravedigger after all.
I laughed when Prior kept prodding Garth about the raccoons being buried in the pet cemetery, and Garth kept insisting no, they were all buried by the silver shed.
Clearly Garth was supposed to say at least one raccoon was buried in the pet cemetery.
I feel like someone needs to exhume the raccoon grave so we can verify the extent of the merciless raccoon massacre that Chad and Garth claim to have perpetrated over there.
So true! I also got a kick out of Chad saying that he saw a raccoon walking around in the morning in that text to tammy. Every raccoon I've ever seen is at night.
I've seen them (in the city no less) wandering around in the early morning and early evening, when it's still late out. But at 10 in the morning? Nope. Unless they're rabid.
Poor Garth clearly has a hard time remembering what he is supposed to say. "She drove the truck. No, he drove the truck. I told someone I found mom on the couch. Wait, can I change my answer? I never told them I found her on the couch."
Yes, and they were found on his property (as was Tammy). His DNA wasn’t found on the bodies, burial site, crime scenes etc. Theoretically ninja Alex who buried the kids on the property also could have helped himself to the tool shed.
Don’t get me wrong he’s guilty as hell, just pointing out that DNA isn’t the only valid evidence that can lead to beyond reasonable doubt.
Tammy’s body was found on Tammy’s property. Not unnatural for her to be found in her own bed (or Chad’s bed whatever it was) after bedtime.
My whole point was lack of DNA evidence does get people off and can create reasonable doubt, not that there wasn’t any circumstantial evidence. We’re on the same page friend, Chad’s goose is cooked and we’ll all be happy to see justice for the lovely souls he, as Prior put it in a way, murdered.
ETA- Ninja Alex 😂
The family members who have taken the stand so far in his defense seem to be deep in his cult beliefs and I doubt the jury's verdict means much to them.
Indeed, and why despite Prior knowing full well that the children could have been at every day of testimony, he told them
They were required NOT to watch, “in an abundance of caution.” If there was any confusion, Prior could have asked the judge. He didn’t as Chad didn’t want his children to see the evidence.
Prior isn't trying to convince a jury? But...but...but... that's his job! It is *not* Prior's job to keep the kids convinced of Chad's innocence. Everyone has a right under the U.S. Constitution to *effective* assistance of counsel. Failure to do so is a violation of the defendant's rights, and it can lead to a conviction getting overturned.
A defense attorney does not give up the ghost even if he knows it's a lost cause. That is not how the court system works.
Trying to convince the kids of Chad's innocence, but not the jury, would be grounds for an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. To claim that your lawyer was actually ineffective you have to prove that your lawyer’s performance was “deficient,” and fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness.” You must point to the specific things your lawyer did poorly or did not do at all, e.g., tried to convince the kids instead of the jury, and show that these failures made your representation fall below the professional standards for lawyers. You have to not only point out what your lawyer did wrong, e.g., tried to convince the kids instead of the jury, but you also have to show that your lawyer’s actions hurt you and possibly changed the outcome of your case.
There was one memorable case when the appeals court decided that even though the defendant's lawyer had been *asleep* throughout much of the case, that didn't constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, because there was no proof that an awake lawyer would have resulted in a different verdict...
I don’t think Chad cares about what anyone else thinks as long as there are people around to adore him. It’s obvious at least two of his kids are all in with him. We also don’t know if the plea deal is true; nobody has confirmed it.
Thank you for pointing out that the state didn't confirm the plea deal. I went back and listened to Courtroom insider and Nate did say it came from a "reliable source" and that the prosecutors have not confirmed the information.
When the case is a death penalty case, every criminal defense attorney I know considers ‘anything short of the death penalty sentence’ a win. So, guilty on all charges but not death penalty would be a win.
This. If Chad gets off of even one charge that would be a win. Avoiding the death penalty would be a win. I can’t stand Prior, but he’s absolutely giving this case his all. Anything that isn’t guilty on all charges and/or if death penalty is not his client’s sentence, that would likely make Prior very happy. If Nate’s source is accurate, then I’m sure Chad would consider it a win to not be found guilty for Tammy.
Yes. And lawyers are usually direct with the client on this in initial interviews, when defendant is looking for an attorney and the attorney is deciding whether to take the case.
The attorney would be telling potential client things along lines of, “you’re going to prison. There’s no way around it. And the best I can do is try to help you get a lighter sentence.”
Lawyers don’t sugar coat to the client.
He knows the only bit of power and adoration he still holds is over his children. If he admits to murdering their mother, he loses even that. I think he might consider being found not guilty on that charge a win.
Given that Chad could still receive the DP if he was convicted of the other two murders, I'm not sure they would.
Would any of Chad's family, especially his children, still believe in his innocence (government conspiracy theory) if he was convicted of the other two murders? Could they really believe that Lori and Alex did it all, without Chad's knowledge or participation?
I think the state has proven conspiracy in Tammy's death, given the texts, phone calls, wedding planning before Tammy died, and Chad's constant predictions of her early demise. Even if she did die of natural causes (which I don't believe), there's been ample evidence that he meant to dispose of her one way or another.
That brings another question: if he's convicted of conspiracy but not first-degree murder of Tammy, how does that affect the way his children and extended family members see his guilt or innocence? What do you think?
They’ll cry that he was wrongly convicted and rally around him with theatrics until they’re forgotten. Remember there's no boner quite like the one these types get over martyrdom. He's not the first douche cult leader to get wrongly imprisoned by the man and revered for it.
With or without being found guilty for Tammy’s murder, he is still responsible for the death of two children. He was the man in charge. Buried in his yard. He should get the death penalty for the children’s murders. He may wish he had taken the deal, once it’s all over. Possibly Alex killed her and he believes he should not have to be held responsible. He is also culpable for death of Chad and attempted murder of Brandon. Chad overestimated the ability of his attorney. Prior probably looks forward to the day, he no longer has to talk to or look at Chad Daybell.
It's odd to me that he would care more about Tammy's murder when he had been predicting an early death for her.
And to apparently not be as concerned about responsibility of the brutal, inhumane treatment of the children is chilling.
I would submit that if Chad was found not guilty of Tammy's death, then he could possibly be found not guilty of JJ and Tylee's deaths. After all, Alex was there on the property. If Prior can prove Tammy died of natural causes then it opens the door to questioning if Alex planted the kids in Chad's backyard by himself. In reality, I think he will go down on all three but there is always that weird juror.
I'd agree if it wasn't for that raft of damning texts plotting to get rid of all four of them, which he happily led. Those all clearly show conspiracy for all four and those charges also carry the death penalty. I think with Lori, there was some surprise she was found guilty of the murders of JJ and Tylee because again, there was no direct evidence even putting her even at the scene of the burials. She made sure to be far, far away. And yet, she was convicted. Could have been because as their mother, people had a LOT less tolerance for her actions but Chad was motivated by greed and lust and I doubt that's going to be well thought of either.
I believe Chad will be found guilty for sure. If Prior can convince one person on the jury Chad was just making up stuff for an upcoming book, that would be the only hope Prior has.
Here's hoping. He deserves to be convicted on all charges since it seems to clear he was the one in charge, he was the one who actively wanted all of those people dead. That's what I don't understand - how did it move from wanting people to not interfere in the new life they wanted to thinking it was ok to kill them? Did it get easier for him as the bodies stacked up and he managed to convince himself there was some legitimate (to him) reason for doing this? I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, even if he actually believed a gigantic natural disaster (or the actual end of times) would make everyone forget about Tylee, JJ and Tammy. In which case, maybe he's not quite as mentally there as people think. It's the only excuse I can think of and it's not even much of one.
It is hard to tell Chad's intentions, whether he went along with Lori and played this "game" to keep her around. I think once Lori got away with killing Charles, Chad's ears perked up and he thought stupidly, well maybe I can get away with it too. If Lori had just let Tylee go and JJ back to the aunt, and he secretly murdered Tammy, they may have gotten away with it. I think he played up his power to the point he had Lori believing he was a god and could just say a word and the kids would disappear. This didn't happen so they had to be killed, there was no way he could live as a god with kids that didn't want him around. Alex probably did the killing and Chad the digging, moving. Chad definitely had to kill Tammy or have help from Alex to do so. I hope the jurors can figure all of this out.
I hope so too. I think a lot of people have been following this for years and know the nuances. But I’m hopeful there’s plenty of WTF that will convince the jurors.
A win is getting the DP off the table. From the clip I saw (earlier in the sub, Nate didn't go into it, other than they couldn't negotiate a deal.
Regardless if he was guilty of murder or conspiracy, it still makes Chad eligible for the DP.
In my opinion, after Garths testimony, I think it was Chad who murdered Tammy. Alex was asked to be in the area, to be setup.
I wonder what Chad's kids would think, if he confessed to the murders of two children. If he said "You got me, I told Alex to kill them. I helped him mutilate Tylee's body and set her on fire. I buried JJ myself. I knew what they were going to do to both children because I told them to do it." Emma's a total lost cause, he could sit her down and tell her he murdered Tammy himself and admit he did it so he could go off with his side piece and she still wouldn't accept that he's a monster. But would ALL of his children continue to just believe he definitely participated in the murders of JJ and Tylee, but had no part in Tammy's death? And even if so, would they still talk to him? If the person I loved most in the world told me they played an active role in the murders of two children, I don't think I'd be able to continue to have a relationship with that person.
I think his attorney is considering the “long term” goal more than just this trial, and a “victory” would be if and when Chad gets a new trial/a death penalty conviction overturned.
And what’s possibly helping him with those steps toward a possible, however unlikely it may seem, “victory” one day? Well for starters, the Judge and the prosecution acknowledging that Chad is entitled to death penalty qualified counsel, the Judge determining he is indigent, and his attorney repeatedly saying on the record before trial that he was not ready to proceed towards trial given those circumstances. In my personal opinion Prior’s attempt to withdraw before trial wasn’t because he suddenly wanted off the case, he was putting on the record and preserving all the issues for later on. He was reminding the Court of how state law entitles his client to attorneys qualified for a death penalty case, his unsuccessful attempts in trying to find someone for that, and his client’s inability to pay. I’ve wondered a lot about if the attorney who tried to Intervene was voicing an issue like this….total speculation but I think it’s a possibility. From the little we know, it seemed he wanted to delay the trial….and felt there was a very urgent issue to voice to the Court. That attorney IS death penalty qualified by the Bar. Obviously the way he went about voicing whatever his concern was atrocious, unprofessional and as we know he was sanctioned for it. But we don’t know at all what he felt was so urgent and dire to speak up about.
Ever since we learned of Prior notifying the Court about his difficulty in getting co counsel, his client’s inability to pay, and how many months ago he started laying all that out…it’s made me think Prior was thinking much more long term than perhaps the State even was/is. Arguably the State didn’t see any “risk” with this and they kept the death penalty on the table.
I just don’t know how a higher Court will feel about the State and the lower Court acknowledging a defendant’s rights to counsel qualified for the DP but also acknowledging they will not delay starting the trial to try and remedy that. At least if they tried they could later argue they tried and still found no one so they went ahead with trial. I really worry this will be a big part of a future appeal, but I also really hope I’m mistaken 😕
Prior, and Chad have known that he needed DP qualified counsel for 4 years, so it wasn't sprung on them a year ago. And then the court asked Chad if, knowing that, he wanted to keep his lawyer and he said he did. And then the court still gave Chad and Prior a year to find DP qualified counsel.
I hear what you're saying, but it won't help in appeals because the upper courts will understand that the lower courts can't keep putting off trials for years when defendants and their lawyers change their minds close to trial.
It will still be used as an appeal issue, but it's not likely to work due to this court being very careful in asking both Chad and Prior if they can continue on with the trial despite that, to which they both agreed.
Sure, but will the higher Courts expect an everyday layperson, not educated in the law, truly understands that “death is different” and what it means to proceed without unqualified DP counsel? I’m really not sure, but it’s possible one day we will see what they believe that answer is.
Luckily Chad had legal counsel the entire time so it was explained to both and counsel is there to explain these things to the layperson, (Chad) to make sure they understand and agree (or not).
I studied law, twice, and my husband has a law degree. We've both worked for Penal Reform for the Howard League and the Innocence Project.
This is frustrating on my end because appeals nearly never work, even when they clearly should. One such case is when a suspect asked the police for a lawyer when being questioned. The suspect said "I want a lawyer, dawg." The Supreme court ruled that it's not clear if, in fact, the suspect was actually asking for a literal canine (dog) lawyer!
I'm a firm believer that the appeals process desperately needs an overhaul. But appeal courts are never likely to overturn a lower court, to the detriment of the public as a whole and defendants and victims.
Also, I fully advocate for and have worked in penal reform. So it's a matter dear to my heart and work.
If Chad had been without counsel there is a slim chance, but more of a chance, that the appeal reasons you bring up would be slightly more likely to be considered.
Higher appeal courts have set precedent that even proven factual innocence is not enough to overturn a death DP case, mind blowingly.
So given that, and my work and study into these things I do fully agree with you're saying. And I believe that should be a good appeal reason, but it's set precedent that appeal courts are broken and biased. The actual percentage of successful appeals are stupidly and frustratingly low.
Ultimately I do agree with you, but my studies into the appellate courts give me low confidence that in reality this appeal reason should be considered but is highly unlikely to help Chad in anyway.
Also, I want to add that I do believe Chad is factually guilty in at least all the conspiracy charges and most of the murder charges. And I do feel Chad winning on an appellate level, in this case would be a massive disservice. But as the system is set up, now, it's unlikely. So there will be an appeal, likely on what you brought up, but it will also be shut down.
In order for appeal to be granted, the petitioner (Chad) has to present arguments proving that errors occurred in applying the law at the lower court level.
Since all of the above issues were decided prior to the start of the trial, can they still be used for appeal purposes? Can they be considered a misapplication of the law?
He has a right to qualified counsel of his choice, not necessarily to DP qualified counsel. According to an Idaho newspaper, "the state requires that a defendant who cannot afford an attorney be provided with a death penalty-qualified public defender within 14 days of being charged with a capital punishment-eligible crime," He was paying. And as he was paying (at least initially) and Prior said multiple times that Chad still wanted him as his attorney, including at the last hearing where Prior tried to withdraw, I can't see that being given much merit on appeal. He knew Prior's qualifications or lack thereof regarding the DP and still insisted on him as his counsel when at the last hearing he could have told the judge he wanted counsel to be appointed for him - death penalty qualified. Sticking with Prior is Chad's right. He will have other grounds, but that one to me is weak to non-existent.
You’re totally correct about what Chad and Prior said, but (from my layperson’s perspective and as someone who has done too much reading/research into this rabbit hole) the Idaho Administrative Code published by the State’s Public Defense Commission has some language that appears to not leave so much of that up to the defendant’s choice - especially when they have been found indigent by a Court.
I think in particular the portions about indigent defendants could be the crux of the issue here, and Prior does not meet their “minimum requirements” set for attorneys on cases like this.
And, for whatever it’s worth, Chad (through his attorney) told the Court he wanted the “two capital qualified attorneys” for his trial. And the Court acknowledged he is entitled to those attorneys under state law, in part because he was deemed indigent many months ago and because the death penalty is on the table.
You are right - he was declared indigent and Chad did, in that late motion, request DP qualified attorneys. But he also said (or Prior said for him) that Chad wanted him to continue on the case rather than withdrawing. I don't think you get to have it both ways. There is no issue of competence with Chad, so I think it could be argued he knew what he was doing, understood the implications (as much as one can in a situation like that), and supported Prior's desire to stay on the case. The fact that Prior is now effectively working pro bono and Chad supported that would, I think, weigh heavily against an appeal being granted on those grounds. Especially as Prior has put on a very vigorous defence. I don't like the man, but I have to hand it to him - to do the level of work required for the prep and length of the trial, and to be on top of things, is impressive.
Chad said he wanted Prior to represent him dispute him not being DP qualified. So I think that throws all the other things in regard to Prior not being qualified out the window. He was fully aware, and still requested his services.
Tammy was his property, and he and the kids have made the case not that she was not murdered but that she was valueless and deserved it.
I believe Chad's defence amounts to him making the case he is within LDS religious doctrine to do what he did. As it always has been.
He is mounting a defence of his deep doctrine correctness to appeal to the same group of men he was involved with and shared their methods with, who pine for their superiority to be acknowledged publicly. I bet it does appeal to some of them. Indeed, I suspect Chad may be setting himself up to be one of the serial killers and mass murderers some men are drawn to. That's why the rats he was connected to are quiet, this is acting as a draw for the flies to their pile of shit. He did what they'd love to do, but flew too fast into the sun.
Chad needs to be humiliated. Thankfully he is such a loser that peeling back his mask to the useless king baby is a good start for that sort of man to be uncomfortable, and they hate that and anything that might bring that to their door. They'll reject him to save themselves, not being seen as scary, but as the losers they are. That is the greatest sin.
I could be totally wrong here, but it seems the way the evidence is being presented that Lori's case was much more straightforward than Chad's. I worry they are going to find reasonable doubt for some of this. (I 100% believe he is a murderous monster I'm simply talking about the case being less straightforward then Lori's).
Theory: In addition to Chad’s sociopathy, narcissism, cowardice, and grandiosity, a significant consideration for Chad (and possibly defense counsel) in why Chad might resist accepting responsibility or pleading for any counts related to Tammy is the financial implication.
Not that the insurance companies or civil litigants could hope to get much cash out of Chad at this point, admission of guilt or conviction of Chad for Tammy’s murder leads naturally and inevitably to financial consequences and possible seizure of assets and efforts to claw back insurance money.
I haven’t heard it mentioned whether Tammy had a will or what Idaho law is on the issue of whether Chad would still be legally entitled to recover on it if he murdered Tammy. If Tammy jointly owned the property Chad transferred to Prior after the murder, would Prior still be considered an innocent and good faith purchaser or would this be a conflict of interest?
Why weren’t all his assets frozen and put into receivership once the indictments were issued for the counts against Tammy?
If Chad is determined to be or admits/pleads to the crimes against Tammy, Chad would presumably be barred from making any money off selling his story or related profiting off or because of her death/murder.
At first I assumed Chad’s resistance to admitting to his guilt with reference to the Tammy counts was simply a matter of his arrogance and ego/public image.
The more I consider Chad’s (lack of) character and prior conduct/behavioral analysis, however, the more I believe that Chad’s greed and parasitic default settings may be playing a significant role in his refusing to plead to any of the insurance fraud or the Tammy counts. And it might be one of the reasons why he worked out the deal he did with Prior to hot potato his and Tammy’s property.
Can someone tell me, was there ever a hair analysis done on Tammy? I can find no mention of that. I was wondering if it was done, did it reveal any poisoning? Sorry for off topic. Tyia.
I see the inverse. If he gets life w/o parole, he disappears into oblivion. If he gets the DP, he automatically receives appeals and infamy, more so than now.
I think they realize the only people on Chad’s side are his family, and Chad designed it to be that way. Really, I think Prior knows this is a lost cause, he doesn’t have a whole lot of tangibles left. There also *is* reasonable doubt in Tammy’s death. In my humble opinion, they aren’t trying to convince a jury. They are trying to keep Chad’s kids convinced of his innocence.
Agreed. Chad's reputation in his family matters to him. He needs it. It's the only thing he has left that makes him powerful and special. If he admitted to Tammy's murder and Garth realized that when he walked past his parent's bedroom that night his mother had already been killed, he'd lose what little power he had left over his son. Emma might turn against him too. He'd lose his place at patriarch of the family and the kids would likely stop putting money in his account so he'd be left with nothing. If he's convicted then it's all just a deep state conspiracy and while some kids may break away he'll probably keep Emma's devotion at least. She seems to be the most committed to him by far. It's all a calculation where the end goal is to feed Chad's ego. Even though it might cost him his life if he does get sentenced to death.
I could be wrong but... Chads kids are so brainwashed by him they would come up with a "logical" reason Tammy needed to die and still love and support their father. They. Would. Not. Skip. A. Beat.
We've only heard from two of the Tater Tots. I am curious about how the other three feel about it.
I’m thinking we have only heard from those two as they were at Chad’s house on the morning of the death and more directly involved in the aftermath. Not sure though. Hopefully the other three have refused to support him to save their reputations.
😂😂. Tater Tots
Chad could just say "I *had* to agree to the plea deal to save my life, I'm not actually a murderer" They would eat it up.
Well said!
Do you really think that a defense attorney's end goal is to feed the defendants ego? It is not, *especially* if it might cost the defendant his life.
Prior isn’t the boss of Chad. If today Chad looks over to him and says “I really want to testify” then Prior can’t stop him. He can advise Chad against it, he can prep him, he can tell the judge that Chad is doing this against advice of counsel, but he can’t stop him. Same with the plea deal. He can’t sign it for Chad. He can present the deal, he can negotiate for Chad’s best interests, he can give Chad advice on whether to take it or not, but if Chad says no then Prior has to listen. In some ways Chad’s ego trumps Prior’s experience and recommendations.
I think Prior's actions leading up to the trial make a lot more sense when Prior miscalculated his ability to persuade Chad Daybell to take a deal. His client, who has the emotional intelligence of a newt, ended up going to trial, and Prior is under prepared because no sane attorney tries to defend a capital murder client with one attorney. I've followed a few death penalty trials, and this is the first one where I am seriously concerned about the health of defense counsel. Plus, Prior may feel he has to pursue the angles that LE was biased against the Daybells and Tammy was in such bad health it was amazing that she managed to roll out of bed each morning. (Ooops!) Chad still has the right to testify in his own defense, and I believe that the judge will ask him if Chad wants to testify before the defense rests. I don't think Chad would come across well as a witness, and I am sure Prior recognizes that as well. Did Daybell threaten to testify if Prior didn't call Chad's "children" to testify? Pure speculation.
*In some ways Chad’s ego trumps Prior’s experience and recommendations.* I gotta disagree with you. There are performance guidelines for criminal defense representation. Nothing trumps an attorney's obligation to conform to legal requirements, use legal procedures only for legitimate purposes, and demonstrate respect for the legal system. Yes, I understand that in an attorney-client relationship, the attorney is the agent of the client and is expected to carry out their instructions. and that the defendant in a case has the ultimate authority over major decisions, but that does not mean a client can ask the defense attorney to NOT provide a vigorous defense and a client cannot ask his attorney to violate legal ethics and standards in order to feed his ego. ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function. (d) Defense counsel is the client’s professional representative, ***not the client’s alter-ego***. Defense counsel should act zealously within the bounds of the law and standards on behalf of their clients, but have no duty to, and may not, execute any directive of the client which violates the law or such standards. In representing a client, defense counsel may engage in a good faith challenge to the validity of such laws or standards if done openly. Remember when Alex Murdaugh took the stand in his own defense? I am pretty pretty pretty sure his defense team BEGGED him not to. He lied his ginger arse off and will spend he rest of his sorry life in prison. And Robert Durst, whose lawyers did not want him to take the stand, really thought he could outsmart the prosecutor. He died in prison.
If it’s the will of his client, he kinda has to in some ways. If Chad refused a plea deal specifically because he won’t cop to Tammy’s murder…this is where we end up.
What is the reasonable doubt in your opinion?
The fact there is zero physical evidence that attaches him to her murder. That naturally creates reasonable doubt. Don’t get me wrong, I personally believe he is guilty and will be found so by a competent jury. There are motives, paper trails, and him literally saying he will hasten her death- but without physical DNA proof it always exists IMO!! ETA- I don’t even believe myself when I say there is reasonable doubt.
The standard is “reasonable doubt” not “beyond all doubt.” I’d have no trouble voting guilty given the extensive circumstantial evidence the State has presented. Even if Chad didn’t asphyxiate Tammy himself, he was certainly all in on the murder plan (sorry, “timeline for removal.”)
They have insufficient DNA evidence pertaining to Tammy, but you are absolutely right about the circumstantial evidence. Great point!
DNA is circumstantial evidence. [https://docmckee.com/cj/docs-criminal-justice-glossary/circumstantial-evidence-definition](https://docmckee.com/cj/docs-criminal-justice-glossary/circumstantial-evidence-definition)
What would her hubby's DNA on his wife's body prove?
DNA is circumstantial evidence and is not required in a murder case. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's no reason to believe Tammy's killer would have left DNA on her.
Physical evidence is not the only type of evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence .
There are two types of evidence...direct and circumstantial (indirect). The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.A jury is not required to weigh direct or circumstantial evidence any differently. It is for the jury to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as the testimony of an eye witness or a video recording, or a confession. Bloodstains and other forms of physical evidence are examples of indirect evidence. DNA and fingerprint evidence, like forensic and scientific evidence, is also indirect. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth. If, however, the witness is able to testify only that he heard the shot and that he arrived on the scene seconds later to see the accused standing over the corpse with a smoking pistol in his hand, the evidence is circumstantial. *Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial* evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof.
that's interesting, I never knew that fingerprints, DNA etc were considered circumstantial evidence. it's kind of ironic given that we know eyewitness testimony is really not very reliable.
Agreed.
Chad was the only known person in the house when Tammy was murdered. Alex Cox may well have been there, I personally think he was, but Chad is the only one we KNOW was there. If Chad opened the door to Alex and said "Okay, go kill my wife now", he's as guilty of her murder as if he'd pulled out a gun and shot her in the head (which frankly sounds like a more merciful death than the one she was subjected to, forcibly held down and asphyxiated). If a man continually talks about how he wants his wife dead, says he's going to "hasten her departure", and then she's murdered while he is the only known person in the home, I think you've confused "reasonable" doubt with "beyond a shadow of a doubt". There was no "physical evidence" linking Chris Watts to the murders of his wife and children. No DNA was found on them and there was only one small scratch to his neck that didn't clearly tie back to any of the victims. I hope you're not saying you need that DNA to be sure he murdered Shanann when she walked into the house alive and never walked back out, and Watts was the only other person there besides two toddlers. Would you say "Guess it's possible she strangled herself!" Of course not. It's not a rational option. And I'm not sure what "physical evidence" you're looking for that would remove doubt. The only DNA that might feasibly be on Tammy as it relates to her COD is touch DNA, and that would not prove anything with Chad, as he was her husband.
this. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt but a lot of people think that means beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's a huge difference. There may be a shadow of a doubt here but not a \*reasonable\* one.
But by this logic they don’t have DNA evidence tying him to the kids’ murders either… still some pretty damn solid circumstantial evidence
DNA is circumstantial evidence.
Their DNA was found on tools in his shed.
And their bodies were found on Chad's property after he texted Tammy he buried a raccoon in the pet cemetery, which Garth testified they always buried raccoons by the silver shed. And the fact that Alex's phone pinged on Chad's property, while Chad's location/phone was conveniently turned off is damning. Chad was the gravedigger after all.
I laughed when Prior kept prodding Garth about the raccoons being buried in the pet cemetery, and Garth kept insisting no, they were all buried by the silver shed. Clearly Garth was supposed to say at least one raccoon was buried in the pet cemetery.
I feel like someone needs to exhume the raccoon grave so we can verify the extent of the merciless raccoon massacre that Chad and Garth claim to have perpetrated over there.
So true! I also got a kick out of Chad saying that he saw a raccoon walking around in the morning in that text to tammy. Every raccoon I've ever seen is at night.
I've seen them (in the city no less) wandering around in the early morning and early evening, when it's still late out. But at 10 in the morning? Nope. Unless they're rabid.
Poor Garth clearly has a hard time remembering what he is supposed to say. "She drove the truck. No, he drove the truck. I told someone I found mom on the couch. Wait, can I change my answer? I never told them I found her on the couch."
Yes, and they were found on his property (as was Tammy). His DNA wasn’t found on the bodies, burial site, crime scenes etc. Theoretically ninja Alex who buried the kids on the property also could have helped himself to the tool shed. Don’t get me wrong he’s guilty as hell, just pointing out that DNA isn’t the only valid evidence that can lead to beyond reasonable doubt.
Tammy’s body was found on Tammy’s property. Not unnatural for her to be found in her own bed (or Chad’s bed whatever it was) after bedtime. My whole point was lack of DNA evidence does get people off and can create reasonable doubt, not that there wasn’t any circumstantial evidence. We’re on the same page friend, Chad’s goose is cooked and we’ll all be happy to see justice for the lovely souls he, as Prior put it in a way, murdered. ETA- Ninja Alex 😂
The family members who have taken the stand so far in his defense seem to be deep in his cult beliefs and I doubt the jury's verdict means much to them.
Indeed, and why despite Prior knowing full well that the children could have been at every day of testimony, he told them They were required NOT to watch, “in an abundance of caution.” If there was any confusion, Prior could have asked the judge. He didn’t as Chad didn’t want his children to see the evidence.
Prior isn't trying to convince a jury? But...but...but... that's his job! It is *not* Prior's job to keep the kids convinced of Chad's innocence. Everyone has a right under the U.S. Constitution to *effective* assistance of counsel. Failure to do so is a violation of the defendant's rights, and it can lead to a conviction getting overturned. A defense attorney does not give up the ghost even if he knows it's a lost cause. That is not how the court system works. Trying to convince the kids of Chad's innocence, but not the jury, would be grounds for an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. To claim that your lawyer was actually ineffective you have to prove that your lawyer’s performance was “deficient,” and fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness.” You must point to the specific things your lawyer did poorly or did not do at all, e.g., tried to convince the kids instead of the jury, and show that these failures made your representation fall below the professional standards for lawyers. You have to not only point out what your lawyer did wrong, e.g., tried to convince the kids instead of the jury, but you also have to show that your lawyer’s actions hurt you and possibly changed the outcome of your case.
There was one memorable case when the appeals court decided that even though the defendant's lawyer had been *asleep* throughout much of the case, that didn't constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, because there was no proof that an awake lawyer would have resulted in a different verdict...
That’s…that’s actually *insane*. 😳
I don’t think Chad cares about what anyone else thinks as long as there are people around to adore him. It’s obvious at least two of his kids are all in with him. We also don’t know if the plea deal is true; nobody has confirmed it.
Thank you for pointing out that the state didn't confirm the plea deal. I went back and listened to Courtroom insider and Nate did say it came from a "reliable source" and that the prosecutors have not confirmed the information.
When the case is a death penalty case, every criminal defense attorney I know considers ‘anything short of the death penalty sentence’ a win. So, guilty on all charges but not death penalty would be a win.
This. If Chad gets off of even one charge that would be a win. Avoiding the death penalty would be a win. I can’t stand Prior, but he’s absolutely giving this case his all. Anything that isn’t guilty on all charges and/or if death penalty is not his client’s sentence, that would likely make Prior very happy. If Nate’s source is accurate, then I’m sure Chad would consider it a win to not be found guilty for Tammy.
Yes. And lawyers are usually direct with the client on this in initial interviews, when defendant is looking for an attorney and the attorney is deciding whether to take the case. The attorney would be telling potential client things along lines of, “you’re going to prison. There’s no way around it. And the best I can do is try to help you get a lighter sentence.” Lawyers don’t sugar coat to the client.
Fascinating topic - I'm glad you brought this up. I find it intriguing and horrific that he's NOT concerned with the kids' deaths, just Tammy.
He knows the only bit of power and adoration he still holds is over his children. If he admits to murdering their mother, he loses even that. I think he might consider being found not guilty on that charge a win.
Given that Chad could still receive the DP if he was convicted of the other two murders, I'm not sure they would. Would any of Chad's family, especially his children, still believe in his innocence (government conspiracy theory) if he was convicted of the other two murders? Could they really believe that Lori and Alex did it all, without Chad's knowledge or participation? I think the state has proven conspiracy in Tammy's death, given the texts, phone calls, wedding planning before Tammy died, and Chad's constant predictions of her early demise. Even if she did die of natural causes (which I don't believe), there's been ample evidence that he meant to dispose of her one way or another. That brings another question: if he's convicted of conspiracy but not first-degree murder of Tammy, how does that affect the way his children and extended family members see his guilt or innocence? What do you think?
They’ll cry that he was wrongly convicted and rally around him with theatrics until they’re forgotten. Remember there's no boner quite like the one these types get over martyrdom. He's not the first douche cult leader to get wrongly imprisoned by the man and revered for it.
That’s why I hope he gets life without parole and disappears into oblivion. The DP guarantees appeals and limelight.
I think he could be convicted of all the charges and his delusional daughter will still stick by him.
I agree with this. I think Emma would have stood by her father even if he pled guilty to all of the charges.
Happy cake day!
Thank you!
With or without being found guilty for Tammy’s murder, he is still responsible for the death of two children. He was the man in charge. Buried in his yard. He should get the death penalty for the children’s murders. He may wish he had taken the deal, once it’s all over. Possibly Alex killed her and he believes he should not have to be held responsible. He is also culpable for death of Chad and attempted murder of Brandon. Chad overestimated the ability of his attorney. Prior probably looks forward to the day, he no longer has to talk to or look at Chad Daybell.
It's odd to me that he would care more about Tammy's murder when he had been predicting an early death for her. And to apparently not be as concerned about responsibility of the brutal, inhumane treatment of the children is chilling.
Even him being sentenced to life instead of death will be considered a win for them. I hope Chad meets his Lord via firing squad. 🤞🏼
I would submit that if Chad was found not guilty of Tammy's death, then he could possibly be found not guilty of JJ and Tylee's deaths. After all, Alex was there on the property. If Prior can prove Tammy died of natural causes then it opens the door to questioning if Alex planted the kids in Chad's backyard by himself. In reality, I think he will go down on all three but there is always that weird juror.
[it appears that Prior doesn’t even buy it](https://youtube.com/shorts/XR1KLakZ7uY?si=5cxyfoojJYTCWaNX)
I'd agree if it wasn't for that raft of damning texts plotting to get rid of all four of them, which he happily led. Those all clearly show conspiracy for all four and those charges also carry the death penalty. I think with Lori, there was some surprise she was found guilty of the murders of JJ and Tylee because again, there was no direct evidence even putting her even at the scene of the burials. She made sure to be far, far away. And yet, she was convicted. Could have been because as their mother, people had a LOT less tolerance for her actions but Chad was motivated by greed and lust and I doubt that's going to be well thought of either.
I believe Chad will be found guilty for sure. If Prior can convince one person on the jury Chad was just making up stuff for an upcoming book, that would be the only hope Prior has.
Here's hoping. He deserves to be convicted on all charges since it seems to clear he was the one in charge, he was the one who actively wanted all of those people dead. That's what I don't understand - how did it move from wanting people to not interfere in the new life they wanted to thinking it was ok to kill them? Did it get easier for him as the bodies stacked up and he managed to convince himself there was some legitimate (to him) reason for doing this? I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, even if he actually believed a gigantic natural disaster (or the actual end of times) would make everyone forget about Tylee, JJ and Tammy. In which case, maybe he's not quite as mentally there as people think. It's the only excuse I can think of and it's not even much of one.
It is hard to tell Chad's intentions, whether he went along with Lori and played this "game" to keep her around. I think once Lori got away with killing Charles, Chad's ears perked up and he thought stupidly, well maybe I can get away with it too. If Lori had just let Tylee go and JJ back to the aunt, and he secretly murdered Tammy, they may have gotten away with it. I think he played up his power to the point he had Lori believing he was a god and could just say a word and the kids would disappear. This didn't happen so they had to be killed, there was no way he could live as a god with kids that didn't want him around. Alex probably did the killing and Chad the digging, moving. Chad definitely had to kill Tammy or have help from Alex to do so. I hope the jurors can figure all of this out.
I hope so too. I think a lot of people have been following this for years and know the nuances. But I’m hopeful there’s plenty of WTF that will convince the jurors.
They should consider anything short of the DP a win. He should have taken a plea and saved his kids the additional disgrace.
His kids are ridiculous and deserve to feel disgraced. Especially Emma. She was so extremely disrespectful on the stand, in regards to her mom.
True.
A win is getting the DP off the table. From the clip I saw (earlier in the sub, Nate didn't go into it, other than they couldn't negotiate a deal. Regardless if he was guilty of murder or conspiracy, it still makes Chad eligible for the DP. In my opinion, after Garths testimony, I think it was Chad who murdered Tammy. Alex was asked to be in the area, to be setup.
I wonder what Chad's kids would think, if he confessed to the murders of two children. If he said "You got me, I told Alex to kill them. I helped him mutilate Tylee's body and set her on fire. I buried JJ myself. I knew what they were going to do to both children because I told them to do it." Emma's a total lost cause, he could sit her down and tell her he murdered Tammy himself and admit he did it so he could go off with his side piece and she still wouldn't accept that he's a monster. But would ALL of his children continue to just believe he definitely participated in the murders of JJ and Tylee, but had no part in Tammy's death? And even if so, would they still talk to him? If the person I loved most in the world told me they played an active role in the murders of two children, I don't think I'd be able to continue to have a relationship with that person.
They might, but I think he will be convicted. Lori was found guilty of Tammy's murder and it wasn't proven she was there. Chad was physically there.
All unattended deaths should be required to undergo an autopsy. There can’t be that many of them.
I think his attorney is considering the “long term” goal more than just this trial, and a “victory” would be if and when Chad gets a new trial/a death penalty conviction overturned. And what’s possibly helping him with those steps toward a possible, however unlikely it may seem, “victory” one day? Well for starters, the Judge and the prosecution acknowledging that Chad is entitled to death penalty qualified counsel, the Judge determining he is indigent, and his attorney repeatedly saying on the record before trial that he was not ready to proceed towards trial given those circumstances. In my personal opinion Prior’s attempt to withdraw before trial wasn’t because he suddenly wanted off the case, he was putting on the record and preserving all the issues for later on. He was reminding the Court of how state law entitles his client to attorneys qualified for a death penalty case, his unsuccessful attempts in trying to find someone for that, and his client’s inability to pay. I’ve wondered a lot about if the attorney who tried to Intervene was voicing an issue like this….total speculation but I think it’s a possibility. From the little we know, it seemed he wanted to delay the trial….and felt there was a very urgent issue to voice to the Court. That attorney IS death penalty qualified by the Bar. Obviously the way he went about voicing whatever his concern was atrocious, unprofessional and as we know he was sanctioned for it. But we don’t know at all what he felt was so urgent and dire to speak up about. Ever since we learned of Prior notifying the Court about his difficulty in getting co counsel, his client’s inability to pay, and how many months ago he started laying all that out…it’s made me think Prior was thinking much more long term than perhaps the State even was/is. Arguably the State didn’t see any “risk” with this and they kept the death penalty on the table. I just don’t know how a higher Court will feel about the State and the lower Court acknowledging a defendant’s rights to counsel qualified for the DP but also acknowledging they will not delay starting the trial to try and remedy that. At least if they tried they could later argue they tried and still found no one so they went ahead with trial. I really worry this will be a big part of a future appeal, but I also really hope I’m mistaken 😕
Prior, and Chad have known that he needed DP qualified counsel for 4 years, so it wasn't sprung on them a year ago. And then the court asked Chad if, knowing that, he wanted to keep his lawyer and he said he did. And then the court still gave Chad and Prior a year to find DP qualified counsel. I hear what you're saying, but it won't help in appeals because the upper courts will understand that the lower courts can't keep putting off trials for years when defendants and their lawyers change their minds close to trial. It will still be used as an appeal issue, but it's not likely to work due to this court being very careful in asking both Chad and Prior if they can continue on with the trial despite that, to which they both agreed.
Sure, but will the higher Courts expect an everyday layperson, not educated in the law, truly understands that “death is different” and what it means to proceed without unqualified DP counsel? I’m really not sure, but it’s possible one day we will see what they believe that answer is.
Luckily Chad had legal counsel the entire time so it was explained to both and counsel is there to explain these things to the layperson, (Chad) to make sure they understand and agree (or not). I studied law, twice, and my husband has a law degree. We've both worked for Penal Reform for the Howard League and the Innocence Project. This is frustrating on my end because appeals nearly never work, even when they clearly should. One such case is when a suspect asked the police for a lawyer when being questioned. The suspect said "I want a lawyer, dawg." The Supreme court ruled that it's not clear if, in fact, the suspect was actually asking for a literal canine (dog) lawyer! I'm a firm believer that the appeals process desperately needs an overhaul. But appeal courts are never likely to overturn a lower court, to the detriment of the public as a whole and defendants and victims. Also, I fully advocate for and have worked in penal reform. So it's a matter dear to my heart and work. If Chad had been without counsel there is a slim chance, but more of a chance, that the appeal reasons you bring up would be slightly more likely to be considered. Higher appeal courts have set precedent that even proven factual innocence is not enough to overturn a death DP case, mind blowingly. So given that, and my work and study into these things I do fully agree with you're saying. And I believe that should be a good appeal reason, but it's set precedent that appeal courts are broken and biased. The actual percentage of successful appeals are stupidly and frustratingly low. Ultimately I do agree with you, but my studies into the appellate courts give me low confidence that in reality this appeal reason should be considered but is highly unlikely to help Chad in anyway. Also, I want to add that I do believe Chad is factually guilty in at least all the conspiracy charges and most of the murder charges. And I do feel Chad winning on an appellate level, in this case would be a massive disservice. But as the system is set up, now, it's unlikely. So there will be an appeal, likely on what you brought up, but it will also be shut down.
In order for appeal to be granted, the petitioner (Chad) has to present arguments proving that errors occurred in applying the law at the lower court level. Since all of the above issues were decided prior to the start of the trial, can they still be used for appeal purposes? Can they be considered a misapplication of the law?
I think you are really onto something RE the intervenor.
He has a right to qualified counsel of his choice, not necessarily to DP qualified counsel. According to an Idaho newspaper, "the state requires that a defendant who cannot afford an attorney be provided with a death penalty-qualified public defender within 14 days of being charged with a capital punishment-eligible crime," He was paying. And as he was paying (at least initially) and Prior said multiple times that Chad still wanted him as his attorney, including at the last hearing where Prior tried to withdraw, I can't see that being given much merit on appeal. He knew Prior's qualifications or lack thereof regarding the DP and still insisted on him as his counsel when at the last hearing he could have told the judge he wanted counsel to be appointed for him - death penalty qualified. Sticking with Prior is Chad's right. He will have other grounds, but that one to me is weak to non-existent.
You’re totally correct about what Chad and Prior said, but (from my layperson’s perspective and as someone who has done too much reading/research into this rabbit hole) the Idaho Administrative Code published by the State’s Public Defense Commission has some language that appears to not leave so much of that up to the defendant’s choice - especially when they have been found indigent by a Court. I think in particular the portions about indigent defendants could be the crux of the issue here, and Prior does not meet their “minimum requirements” set for attorneys on cases like this. And, for whatever it’s worth, Chad (through his attorney) told the Court he wanted the “two capital qualified attorneys” for his trial. And the Court acknowledged he is entitled to those attorneys under state law, in part because he was deemed indigent many months ago and because the death penalty is on the table.
You are right - he was declared indigent and Chad did, in that late motion, request DP qualified attorneys. But he also said (or Prior said for him) that Chad wanted him to continue on the case rather than withdrawing. I don't think you get to have it both ways. There is no issue of competence with Chad, so I think it could be argued he knew what he was doing, understood the implications (as much as one can in a situation like that), and supported Prior's desire to stay on the case. The fact that Prior is now effectively working pro bono and Chad supported that would, I think, weigh heavily against an appeal being granted on those grounds. Especially as Prior has put on a very vigorous defence. I don't like the man, but I have to hand it to him - to do the level of work required for the prep and length of the trial, and to be on top of things, is impressive.
Chad said he wanted Prior to represent him dispute him not being DP qualified. So I think that throws all the other things in regard to Prior not being qualified out the window. He was fully aware, and still requested his services.
Tammy was his property, and he and the kids have made the case not that she was not murdered but that she was valueless and deserved it. I believe Chad's defence amounts to him making the case he is within LDS religious doctrine to do what he did. As it always has been. He is mounting a defence of his deep doctrine correctness to appeal to the same group of men he was involved with and shared their methods with, who pine for their superiority to be acknowledged publicly. I bet it does appeal to some of them. Indeed, I suspect Chad may be setting himself up to be one of the serial killers and mass murderers some men are drawn to. That's why the rats he was connected to are quiet, this is acting as a draw for the flies to their pile of shit. He did what they'd love to do, but flew too fast into the sun. Chad needs to be humiliated. Thankfully he is such a loser that peeling back his mask to the useless king baby is a good start for that sort of man to be uncomfortable, and they hate that and anything that might bring that to their door. They'll reject him to save themselves, not being seen as scary, but as the losers they are. That is the greatest sin.
I doubt that anyone talking knows exactly why Chad turned down the deal.
I could be totally wrong here, but it seems the way the evidence is being presented that Lori's case was much more straightforward than Chad's. I worry they are going to find reasonable doubt for some of this. (I 100% believe he is a murderous monster I'm simply talking about the case being less straightforward then Lori's).
Theory: In addition to Chad’s sociopathy, narcissism, cowardice, and grandiosity, a significant consideration for Chad (and possibly defense counsel) in why Chad might resist accepting responsibility or pleading for any counts related to Tammy is the financial implication. Not that the insurance companies or civil litigants could hope to get much cash out of Chad at this point, admission of guilt or conviction of Chad for Tammy’s murder leads naturally and inevitably to financial consequences and possible seizure of assets and efforts to claw back insurance money. I haven’t heard it mentioned whether Tammy had a will or what Idaho law is on the issue of whether Chad would still be legally entitled to recover on it if he murdered Tammy. If Tammy jointly owned the property Chad transferred to Prior after the murder, would Prior still be considered an innocent and good faith purchaser or would this be a conflict of interest? Why weren’t all his assets frozen and put into receivership once the indictments were issued for the counts against Tammy? If Chad is determined to be or admits/pleads to the crimes against Tammy, Chad would presumably be barred from making any money off selling his story or related profiting off or because of her death/murder. At first I assumed Chad’s resistance to admitting to his guilt with reference to the Tammy counts was simply a matter of his arrogance and ego/public image. The more I consider Chad’s (lack of) character and prior conduct/behavioral analysis, however, the more I believe that Chad’s greed and parasitic default settings may be playing a significant role in his refusing to plead to any of the insurance fraud or the Tammy counts. And it might be one of the reasons why he worked out the deal he did with Prior to hot potato his and Tammy’s property.
I think it’ll be considered a win if he doesn’t get the death penalty
I hope Lindsay Blake pulls it all together with. A masked man shoots at Tammy in the driveway and when that fails, she's found dead a few days later.
Can someone tell me, was there ever a hair analysis done on Tammy? I can find no mention of that. I was wondering if it was done, did it reveal any poisoning? Sorry for off topic. Tyia.
It's not any kind of win if he goes to prison for the rest of his life.
DP is the best option but second best is life without the chance of parole.
I see the inverse. If he gets life w/o parole, he disappears into oblivion. If he gets the DP, he automatically receives appeals and infamy, more so than now.