The legal team representing Chad Daybell, accused of murdering his first wife, Tammy Daybell, and the two children of his second wife, Lori Vallow Daybell, has launched a determined effort to avoid the death penalty. Two motions filed in Fremont County, Idaho, argue that imposing capital punishment on Daybell would be unjust and inconsistent, given Lori Vallow Daybell’s life sentence without parole for the same crimes.
Chad Daybell during a court appearance.
The defense’s primary argument centers on the concept of relative culpability. During Lori Vallow Daybell’s trial, prosecutors portrayed her as the mastermind of the conspiracy, manipulating both Chad Daybell and her brother, Alex Cox, to carry out her plans. Daybell’s attorneys contend that if the prosecution successfully argued Lori’s greater culpability, sentencing Daybell to death would be disproportionate and unconstitutional. Their motion states, “Even when two co-defendants are equally culpable, it is unconstitutional and unacceptable to subject one of them to the most extreme punishment available, while the other did not face that possibility.”
The second motion challenges the death penalty as “arbitrary, capricious, and disproportionate,” particularly since it was removed as a sentencing option for Lori Vallow Daybell. Judge Steven Boyce, who presided over both cases, struck the death penalty from Lori’s case due to prosecutorial misconduct involving late disclosure of evidence. This decision stemmed from Lori’s assertion of her right to a speedy trial, a right Chad Daybell waived. The defense argues that “willingness to waive speedy trial rights cannot constitutionally be the deciding factor in who lives and who dies,” and that Daybell was not advised of the potential consequences of waiving that right.
Lori Vallow Daybell at her sentencing hearing.
A third motion filed by the defense seeks to compel the prosecution to maintain a consistent narrative between the two trials. Specifically, they argue that the prosecution must continue to portray Lori Vallow Daybell as the “driving force” behind the conspiracy. They contend that presenting a different theory in Chad Daybell’s trial would violate principles of fundamental fairness and due process. Citing legal precedent, the motion states that presenting inconsistent theories in co-defendant cases is a violation of due process. They emphasize the prosecution’s previous portrayal of Lori Vallow Daybell as the manipulative figure at the center of the alleged conspiracy, utilizing both emotional and sexual manipulation to control Chad Daybell and Alex Cox.
The defense has requested the judge to restrict the prosecution to arguing that Chad Daybell merely followed Lori’s lead in the alleged conspiracy. This motion directly challenges the prosecution’s ability to shift their narrative and potentially place greater blame on Chad Daybell in his upcoming trial.
The defense’s strategy seems focused on highlighting the perceived inconsistencies between the two cases and emphasizing Lori Vallow Daybell’s established role as the dominant figure in the alleged conspiracy. They argue that deviating from this established narrative would be unjust and prejudice Chad Daybell’s right to a fair trial.
A hearing on these motions is scheduled for November 29, 2023. Chad Daybell’s trial is slated to begin in April 2024. The outcome of these pre-trial motions will significantly impact the prosecution’s strategy and could ultimately determine whether Chad Daybell faces the death penalty.
