Death penalty remains a possibility for Daybell

Seventh District Judge Steven Boyce has denied attorney John Prior’s request to remove the death penalty for his client Chad Daybell.

Prior filed three motions listing reasons why the death penalty should not be a possible punishment for Daybell, the main argument being the state found his wife, Lori Vallow, “the driving force” behind the murders.

Daybell was indicted by a grand jury in May 2021 for multiple counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to murder in the deaths of 7-year-old J.J. Vallow and 16-year-old Tylee Ryan and for his first wife, Tammy Daybell. He also is charged with two counts of insurance fraud regarding Tammy Daybell’s life insurance policies.

In November, Prior alleged that Vallow was the one in control of Daybell and her brother, Alex Cox, and had Cox commit the murders.

Vallow was found guilty in May of killing her two youngest children and conspiring to kill Tammy Daybell. She was sentenced to three life sentences and is now in Arizona, where she pleaded not guilty to new murder conspiracy charges in relation to the death of her former husband Charles Vallow.

Prior wrote the state had consistently argued that Vallow was the most culpable in the deaths of the three and, “as the state plainly put it, Lori ‘manipulated Chad through emotional and sexual control.’”

Another part of Prior’s argument was the fact that Daybell waived his right to a speedy trial, which allowed the state to pursue the death penalty, even though it was taken off for Vallow.

“(Daybell) was not advised of this potential outcome at the time of his waiver, and this raises many issues,” Prior said. “He did not know it may lead to a situation where he would — solely on the basis of this asserted right — face far more severe punishment than his co-defendant.”

Boyce countered many of Prior’s defenses in his recent motion, stating that a jury decides whether to adjudicate the maximum penalty to the judge.

“Pursuant to Ring, it is a jury of one’s peers — not judge — who recommends the imposition of the death penalty for individuals first charged, and then duly convicted of crimes eligible for capital punishment in Idaho,” Boyce wrote.

Boyce also stated that many of the quotes Prior used in the motions where from the transcripts from Vallow’s trial were taken out of context and are incomplete in their presentation.

“To make pre-trial determination about whether Daybell is more, less, or equally culpable to Vallow… would require this Court to invade the province of the jury and make premature determination about what the facts of Daybell’s case — not Vallow ’s case — are,” Boyce wrote.

Looking at Prior’s second motion to strike the death penalty, Boyce stated since Daybell made the motion to sever the case as he “argued, he needed additional time to evaluate and weigh the discovery,” it allowed Daybell enough time to prepare for his trial.

Boyce also made the argument the cause that made Vallow’s death penalty moot was a sanction on the state for introducing new evidence on the “eve” of Vallow’s trial.

“Daybell was provided full additional year to review the material and prepare his defense,” Boyce wrote.

Boyce also reaffirmed while it is correct that Daybell and Vallow have similar charges, Daybell has an extra charge of first-degree murder of Tamara “Tammy” Daybell, which, if found guilty, is punishable by death. Vallow was not charged with this.

“Each defendant has been given individualized consideration from the outset of these cases — and will continue to be afforded individualized consideration by this Court,” Boyce wrote.