#eastidahonews #daybell #trial
A hearing was held in Lori Vallow Daybell's Arizona case on Tuesday morning. Daybell argued a series of motions as prosecutors and the judge responded.
Watch the entire hearing in the video player above.
A hearing was held in Lori Vallow Daybell's Arizona case on Tuesday morning. Daybell argued a series of motions as prosecutors and the judge responded.
Watch the entire hearing in the video player above.
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00you have a motion to adjourn
00:30this morning? The first thing I want to address is there's been multiple media requests.
00:34I don't know if there's a representative of the media that can address this, but my
00:43question is, if there's a single pool camera, is there some sort of agreement or cooperation
00:51between other media outlets to use a single camera?
00:55Your Honor, if I may, Matthew Kelly, I represent Court TV, and our understanding is that yes,
01:01there is a pool arrangement, and Court TV has asked to be the pool for the trials in
01:08this matter. I believe that that request is pending with the PIO. Regardless, the media
01:17that are interested in camera coverage do have a pool arrangement.
01:21Okay. I know that there was, I don't know if it was Court TV or another outlet requested
01:31multiple cameras and a still camera. I'm inclined to just allow a single camera. Do you want
01:40to speak to that? Yes, Your Honor. Court TV would prefer to have two of its own cameras.
01:48One of its own cameras is perfectly fine. Court TV's equipment is actually smaller than
01:54the camera we have here today and can be operated remotely, so it is much more unobtrusive.
02:01Court TV also has, in the past, used the feed from one of the cameras here for the webcasting
02:11of hearings for its purposes as well. Court TV will position its camera so that jurors
02:18are not in the field of view and would not use any of these cameras that have a view
02:24of the jurors. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else here from the media that wants
02:29to be heard? I don't hear any. State, want to take a position? Yes, Your Honor. All right.
02:36I know the defendant filed an objection. I've read your objection. Do you have anything
02:42you want to add to that? Yeah, Your Honor, I'd just like to add some case law to that.
02:47Shepard v. Maxwell, 337 U.S. United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Clark held that
02:53failure of the state judge in murder prosecution to protect defendant from inherently prejudicial
03:01publicity, which saturated the community to control disruptive influences in courtroom,
03:06deprived the defendant of a fair trial consistent with due process. So that, and Arizona v.
03:13Cheney, which was the defendant is entitled to fair and impartial trial when publicity
03:19pervades court proceedings to the extent that the proceedings were prejudiced to the defendant.
03:27Obviously, you read my objection, so I just wanted to add those on the record. Thank you.
03:34Your prior attorneys had filed a series of objections to media coverage being, or media
03:43being allowed in the courtroom, and I made a prior ruling that was filed back on September
03:484th, which was fairly comprehensive. I am inclined to allow one pool camera. I'll issue
03:56an order with more detailed findings later today or tomorrow, but essentially there won't
04:04be any media coverage during the jury selection process, and I'll put the reasons for that
04:10in the order. So that's, again, I'll issue a more detailed order later today or tomorrow.
04:20Your Honor, there's also the issue of whether Court TV will be allowed to live stream the
04:27trial, in other words, broadcast online in real time. Court TV would prefer to do that.
04:36Are they able to do a one or two minute delay?
04:43Certainly, we can certainly do that. I just want to inform Your Honor, however, that when
04:51we share the footage with the pool, we can't delay that footage. So your order would need
04:58to require that all media receiving the feed delay it by, you know, however long you wish
05:07to delay it.
05:09And the camera, the pool camera would be simultaneously distributing that feed to whatever media
05:18requests it?
05:19That's correct. We have the capability to distribute to up to 30 or 40 different media
05:24outlets, so we have plenty of bandwidth to do so.
05:29All right. Thank you.
05:37All right, let's get down to business on some of the...
05:42Your Honor, could I just add that we want to make sure that the cameras are going to be
05:47zooming in at any level to get to our notes and the things that are going to be on the table.
05:52I also, previously, what has happened before is that they just have the camera on my face
05:59the entire trial. So I think when the judge is speaking, the judge needs to be on the
06:03camera. When the state is speaking, they need to be on camera. If we can add that to the
06:08order.
06:09All right. Well, my draft already includes that there will be no zooming in on council
06:13table, anything on council table, or anything being handled, notes or that sort of thing
06:20being handled by any of the parties or the attorneys. As far as what they focus on, they'll
06:26be limited to focusing on the parties, myself, the witness, depending on the witness. I need
06:32to ask the state about that in a second, but they won't be allowed to broadcast any image
06:37of any juror. While I'm on that subject, let me ask the state, are you seeking any sort
06:43of protective order when a named victim testifies?
06:50Not at this time, your honor.
06:52Will you let me know if that changes?
06:54Yes, I will.
06:55Do you have the names of your designated victim or victim representatives that might be testifying?
07:04Kay Woodcock is a statutory legal victim and will be testifying.
07:12Is that the only one?
07:14At this time, yes.
07:15Okay.
07:16For this trial, I should say.
07:17For this trial, okay.
07:18Okay.
07:28Let me ask this, are the parties ready to proceed around March 31st or April 1st?
07:34Yes.
07:36All right, let me ask the state next. Earlier during these proceedings and past hearings,
07:41you indicated you thought the state's case in chief would take two weeks.
07:46You requested yesterday to screen for six weeks.
07:50Your honor, I did say two to three weeks.
07:52Okay.
07:54But I did say that while we had a defense attorney on and not Ms. Vallow herself.
08:02I am familiar with other pro per trials where generally the timelines are in excess of those with a defense attorney assigned.
08:15So in order to ensure that we aren't asking a jury later to stay longer than we pre-screened them,
08:21I believe it would be appropriate to screen them for six weeks.
08:25So now that you're gearing up for trial and maybe have a better idea,
08:30how long do you think your case in chief would take with a normal amount of costs?
08:35I know that's hard to estimate.
08:37And again, I would say two to three weeks.
08:41Three weeks?
08:42That would be at the outset of it.
08:49Probably, yeah, two to three weeks.
08:51Okay.
08:54Let me ask advisory council, if we do an e-questionnaire,
08:59would you be assisting Ms. Daybell with your laptop in going through the answers that are received?
09:06Yes, your honor.
09:07I mean, assuming we do all of that, because a lot of times the courts send us back to our office to go through that.
09:12So if we do that here, then yes, of course, she's welcome to use our laptops.
09:16All right.
09:19My plan is to we can do jury selection in the south court tower 5C.
09:28I know that the state has requested that the entire trial be held there.
09:34We can't do it.
09:35We can do jury selection there.
09:37I can give you rooms here for your victims and witnesses as need be that are outside this courtroom that we'll have.
09:47We can have them stream in if you want, depending on, I guess, who the witnesses are, who's back there.
09:54And obviously, your honor, I don't know if the public will be attending this or not.
10:00This also is a little different in that even in the mornings, the jury is going to be potentially out here while the court is having morning calendar.
10:08If there's media out there as well.
10:11I'm just trying to protect the integrity of the trial by ensuring that the public, the media are not interacting with witnesses at any time while they're out there.
10:24It's difficult when it's a very small hallway and very limited rooms just to put them in.
10:31Obviously, I need a room for the victims that's separate from our any witnesses.
10:37Well, we have on this floor six rooms.
10:43Five or six rooms throughout.
10:46We have three right behind this courtroom.
10:49And we can utilize them as need be to ensure that there's no improper contact between media or the public in general and any victims or witnesses.
11:01We can also ensure that the jurors don't have contact.
11:07If that means we bring them up in a separate elevator and have them assemble somewhere else, we can accomplish that.
11:13So, my plan will be to do an e-questionnaire, remote questionnaire for the first 200 jurors.
11:24That questionnaire, I need to get a final joint pretrial statement with the list of witnesses to include the names of witnesses in that.
11:36But I'd like to send out a draft to everyone by the end of this week.
11:44Let me bring up my calendar.
11:54We'd probably send that out to the first 200 jurors around next Thursday, March 20th.
12:07Oh, I guess they can't send it out.
12:12Okay, so we can send out that the 24th to the 27th, meaning it would be cut off on the 27th.
12:20The answers to those questionnaires would be emailed to the parties.
12:26That would give the parties the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st to go through those answers.
12:35We would meet on the morning of the 1st, discuss who needs to be let go based on those answers.
12:43Also, on the morning of the 1st, a number of walk-in jurors that, for whatever reason, don't fill out the questionnaire in advance would come in to the jury assembly room that morning and fill out the questionnaire.
12:58So that morning, we'd also deal with those walk-in answers as best we can.
13:07Oh, that's right.
13:08I back up.
13:10Oh, that's right.
13:11I back up.
13:12The initial answers for the remote, we're going to meet on the 31st.
13:15Let those people go.
13:17Whoever we don't let go will be told to report on the afternoon of the 1st.
13:21On the afternoon of the 1st, we'll be dealing with the walk-ins that come in the morning of the 1st.
13:28And the people that we haven't let go the afternoon of the 1st will be in-person or here as needed.
13:41If we need to, which I anticipate we probably will, we'll do another 200 jurors on the 2nd.
13:51And if need be, we have another 100 jurors on the 3rd.
13:56That next set of 200, would that be, that wouldn't be a remote?
14:01They don't have a capability to do it remote.
14:03So we may have to...
14:08What'll happen is on the 1st, all those people, after they give their answers, will be randomized.
14:16The list will be re-randomized.
14:19As we proceed through the 2nd, those people get added on to the bottom of the list.
14:22So as soon as we get 12 jurors that qualify, that everyone's happy with, that don't have issues,
14:30plus probably 3 or 4 alternates.
14:34So as soon as we get to about 15 or 16, we're pretty much done with jury selection.
14:39So we don't have to necessarily question all 200 of those people.
14:43We can do panels of 20 or something like that.
14:48I anticipate losing quite a large number of people just based on prior media coverage
14:56and people already having some sort of opinion about the case.
15:00I normally wouldn't include a defendant's name in the e-questionnaire that goes out remotely,
15:07but on this case I'm inclined to, just because that's what we want to know.
15:12We want to know if people have heard about the defendant
15:15and whether or not they've formed an opinion about her or this case prior to them.
15:22Does anyone have an issue with that state?
15:24No, Your Honor. I think that that's a good idea.
15:27That's going to be at least one of the initial reasons to strike a lot of jurors.
15:34My only issue with it, Your Honor, is that it could be bad both ways, right?
15:40If you put the name in there, if you don't put the name in there.
15:42It's been my experience that people will say they haven't heard when they know who that really is
15:48and there's people that will want to be on this jury just for this purpose.
15:54It's going to be complicated.
15:56All the research indicates that these e-questionnaires,
15:59people are more likely to give honest, candid answers than if they're in a group of people
16:04and they feel sort of that peer pressure of what's a good answer and what's a bad answer.
16:08Your name is going to come up sooner or later,
16:10so I would prefer to just get it out in front of the potential jurors to begin with.
16:17My e-questionnaire is going to be fairly basic.
16:19It's going to focus on qualifications, the charges, the witnesses,
16:27and then obviously whether they have an opinion about you or this case.
16:33For the people that make it past that level, we'll question them more thoroughly in person.
16:40And like you were saying, as far as group kind of voir dire,
16:45in my experience, we went through 1,900 jurors in my last trial,
16:49so it would be good to do individual voir dire if we can than group voir dire
16:55because they learn things just in the voir dire and it disqualifies a lot of jurors.
17:03I'm not opposed to that, but that's going to be sort of a day of play it by ear sort of situation,
17:12whether we do small panels or just go a single person.
17:17If we go single person, our jury selection could extend into the next week.
17:26But if we're able to seat a jury, I would expect opening statements on April 7th.
17:33Somewhere around there.
17:37The state indicated I have it.
17:41There was just one day in April that you wanted to go a half day?
17:46Correct, Your Honor, the 24th.
17:51All right.
17:52When can you file some sort of pretrial statement that sets forth all your potential witnesses
17:58and a statement of the facts?
18:01Probably by Thursday.
18:05All right.
18:09Does the state anticipate any presentation of autopsy photos or crime scene photos?
18:16In other words, I'm trying to gauge.
18:18I would usually put in a question about jurors may be required to view evidence that shows wounds
18:25or that sort of thing.
18:26Is there anyone that's unwilling to look at this type of evidence?
18:30Yes, Your Honor.
18:31We will have both, obviously.
18:33The self-defense trajectory and those injuries are very relevant.
18:37Okay.
18:38So I will include a question about that type of evidence.
18:41Sometimes jurors don't want to look at that type of evidence.
18:48All right.
18:49Any questions or concerns about our jury selection, the proposed trial dates from the state?
19:00No, Your Honor.
19:02Just so I have it clear, Your Honor, we're going to start on the 31st with jury selection?
19:06Is that correct?
19:07We'll be meeting on the 31st and then actual dealing with in-person jurors on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
19:14Okay.
19:16Robert and I.
19:28Let me ask Advisory Council.
19:34Are there any dates that Advisory Council would need to be dark?
19:40I am fine for April.
19:42I didn't hear back from Robert.
19:47Please let us know because in that e-questionnaire I'm going to put in a proposed schedule.
19:52I don't know that I'm going to screen for a full six weeks based on the state's anticipated presentation.
20:03Maybe five weeks.
20:06So let us know the schedule into the first week or two of May.
20:12As soon as I get an answer from him, I'll email your judicial assistant.
20:18All right.
20:19All right.
20:26And one more time, Your Honor, so the remote question is going out on March 24th.
20:32All answers have to be back by the 27th, so we will get them on the 27th?
20:37You'll either get them late the 27th or first thing the 28th.
20:40Late in the morning on the 27th.
20:43Oh, okay.
20:44You should get them some point on the 27th.
20:46Just so we can plan because it sounds like we'll just go out to Estrella and go through these.
20:55You'll have to have an internet connection.
20:58Yeah, we can use our laptops out there.
21:01Because you want to be ready to discuss everything on March 31st.
21:04Yeah, and if the parties have an obvious, you know, there's some jurors that are going to be obvious that need to be let go.
21:12If you're ready for that, that's always helpful.
21:14I know it's a little bit more difficult with a pro-pro defendant in consulting like that.
21:23All right, let me get to...
21:33All right, the defendant had filed two separate motions for specific discovery.
21:40The first dealt with communication between the assigned deputy county attorney and law enforcement agencies.
21:47I've read the...
21:50And the second one was...
21:52Well, let's deal with the first one.
21:54I've read the response from the state.
21:59Basically, your response is you have disclosed all those communications.
22:03There are no other communications.
22:05Correct, Your Honor.
22:06All right.
22:08So, let me ask the defendant.
22:13Yeah, we received six email communications.
22:16And they were in a short time frame, not the full time frame.
22:20And it seems to me that in the last email ends in kind of a question that was probably answered.
22:27And then there's, like, no more communication.
22:29So, it doesn't make sense that there's no more.
22:31We asked for all of them, if they could be provided to us.
22:33We don't understand why they're not being provided to us.
22:36And what the state is possibly hiding at this point.
22:40And they can't just turn it over so that we can go through them.
22:42It's been, you know, long over a month since we filed that motion.
22:46So, we would just like them to please turn over whatever they have left.
22:51All right, and I'll ask the deputy county attorney.
22:55I imagine some communications are by phone.
22:58So, in other words, we're not captured.
23:01Correct, Your Honor.
23:02All right. Based on the state's avowal, I don't know.
23:09I can't tell them to turn over something they say they don't have.
23:13So, I'll find that the state, based on their avowal, and officers of the court have complied with the request.
23:22The second one is a little more I wanted to get clarification on.
23:26That was defendant's request for video interviews.
23:33But it seemed like, based on the state's response, that there was some confusion about what was an interview recorded in an interrogation room situation versus a body cam.
23:45Did the state's response provide clarification to you?
23:49No.
23:50So, the body cams were turned over, and they're in, like, 12-minute increments.
23:55There's, like, four different body cams.
23:57This was a full two-hour video that was released by Gilbert Police to the public, and it's online.
24:03So, I would like that video of the interrogation room, the full two-hour one, to be turned over to the defense.
24:10All right, so do you know what that is?
24:14Your Honor, based upon the defendant's reply, she's requesting a video interview from the 31st.
24:26Those are on body cam and were turned over to the defense.
24:33We have requested everything from, I think that one was from, actually, the Gilbert Police Department.
24:42A lot of these overlap.
24:45So, I am not sure what the defendant is.
24:49Who was the person being interviewed in, you said, the two-hour interrogation that Gilbert released?
24:58So, it's myself and my daughter, Tylee Ryan, and Melanie Gibb.
25:04And is that in an interrogation-type room?
25:07Yeah, it was at the Gilbert Police Station.
25:09I didn't realize we were being filmed that whole time.
25:11I didn't know we were being filmed, but we were being filmed in that room.
25:18And are you familiar with a video in a room?
25:22Yes, that's what we have disclosed.
25:25And you're saying you haven't gotten that?
25:31They have given four about 12-minute body cam videos of the policemen's body cams that were in the room with us,
25:39and they go in and out of the room at different times.
25:41So, there's different body cams.
25:43They're all mixed up.
25:45It's not the full entire one.
25:47My understanding is that the full entire two-hour interrogation room video from the ceiling is available online,
25:58but I don't have it in Discovery.
26:00That's what I'm trying to clarify.
26:02So, did the state disclose a, not a body cam, but an interrogation from up in the corner of a room vantage point?
26:13We disclosed a lot.
26:15Let me see if I can find out.
26:19You did?
26:21Yes, my paralegal is present here as well, and she has advised that we did.
26:25Your Honor, we disclosed over.
26:27Can your paralegal provide a Bates number or something so that maybe the defense just has overlooked it?
26:36Let me see if we can find the actual, maybe the Discovery notice, Discovery letter.
26:44Okay.
27:05Okay.
27:35Okay.
28:06Okay.
28:07Okay.
28:08Okay.
28:09All right.
28:21Your Honor, all we do have is the four body cam.
28:23We can ask again and see if they have a overall.
28:30Are you getting this?
28:32Have you seen this?
28:33that's how I know about it
28:40or someone told you that
28:40there's this video my
28:41mitigator showed me part of
28:42that video. Yes, previous with
28:46my previous team. That's how I
28:47know about it otherwise I
28:49wouldn't know about it. She
28:49said you know this is online.
28:50I didn't have any idea.
28:51And you're sure it's the
28:55Gilbert. PD on that date.
28:56Correct. All right, I'll ask
28:57for a motion and a second.
29:04If that is out there.
29:05Obviously it should have been
29:11disclosed. All right. Remind me
29:11to follow up on that next time
29:15we are together. Next. I have
29:19a motion limine. 2 motions and
29:21let me one regarding Alex Cox
29:22and the defendant. And I have
29:27a motion. And a second.
29:35All right, so. Let me ask the
29:40defendant. Generally any out
29:42of here says defined as any
29:43out of court statement offered
29:47for the truth of the matter.
29:48Asserted the state is
29:48blanketing the whole thing.
29:50And obviously there's some
29:56exceptions to the hearsay rule
29:56and there are other things
29:57that are characterizes non
29:58hearsay. So how do you think.
30:04Let's first talk about Alex
30:04Cox. How do you think the
30:08statements. Fit into your
30:09either one of those exceptions
30:15or not. I feel like that.
30:15I feel like that's a pretty
30:16good. I think that's a pretty
30:19good basis right on the
30:22state's statement. So there's
30:25the police interview of Alex
30:26Cox that I did not think falls
30:26under hearsay. They why not.
30:31Why does it not fall under
30:35hearsay. Because I we're not
30:37using it for the truth of the
30:38matter asserted we're using it
30:39in cooperation of the
30:39circumstances. Everyone came
30:45together. And I think that's
30:46what we're trying to do.
30:51Arguing that what he said was
30:57true.
30:57I can't say with another
30:58person says that it's true or
31:01not. But I'm saying what he
31:02said and what my daughter said
31:03and what I said in those 3
31:06police interviews.
31:06Determined what the police
31:10said how the police acted what
31:10they did after that their next
31:11steps how they treated the
31:15police.
31:16And I think that's what we're
31:16trying to do. And I think
31:17that's what we're trying to
31:18address. I think they're.
31:26For that purpose.
31:29But I also think that.
31:35Alex's statements also.
31:36A lot of the exceptions apply
31:398 o 3 8 o 4.
31:40There's a lot of exceptions
31:41that also apply to some of his
31:41statements.
31:47With like which statements do
31:54you think.
31:55Specifically his statements
31:59made on body cam to police in
32:00the driveway specifically his
32:00I don't I don't know what the
32:01statements are so that's what
32:02I'm asking what statement was
32:05specific statements you think.
32:06Are allowed to come in under
32:118 o 3 2.
32:12And I think that's what he's
32:13saying.
32:16Police officers at at the
32:17House of a present sense
32:22impression is.
32:22Where you're actually
32:23observing something and you're
32:24talking about it as you see it
32:30happened so.
32:30Is that he's saying. Again, I
32:31don't know what the statements
32:32are, but as he's saying.
32:38What happened prior.
32:39I don't know what he's saying
32:42but I think that's what he's
32:42saying.
32:46He falls under 8 o 3, 2,
32:46excited utterance he was under
32:47the stress of the whole
32:48situation when he made those
32:48statements.
32:55What was his demeanor when he
32:55made those statements.
33:01What's the specific
33:06statement.
33:07I don't know what all the
33:07statements are, but I don't
33:08know what he's saying.
33:12There was an altercation. I
33:13don't know what all the
33:13statements are but how long
33:17after the.
33:17Incident that he make the
33:20statements.
33:20Immediately after as far as I
33:24know.
33:24Well immediately to some
33:25people means 2 seconds to
33:26other people, it means.
33:2930 minutes.
33:30Tell me what immediately means
33:33to you.
33:35I don't know what he's saying
33:39but I don't know what he's
33:39saying.
33:40I don't know what he's saying
33:40but I don't know what he's
33:41saying.
33:44I was not there I do not know
33:45what time they are.
33:49All right.
33:52Let me.
33:56So you're asserting excited
33:57utterance some of these
33:58statements come in what else.
34:028 o 3, 3, the mental emotional
34:03and physical condition because
34:04that's what you're saying.
34:168 o 3, 5, be the recorded
34:16recollection. I know that in
34:20the in the states replied to
34:24my response.
34:29They did not think that 5.
34:32Applied because a B and C but
34:33they did not think that the
34:35mental emotional and physical
34:35and physical condition.
34:42Needed to be put together.
34:45So be was made or adopted by
34:45this witness when the matter
34:47was fresh in the witnesses
34:48memory and accurately reflects
34:52the witnesses knowledge. So I
34:53felt like 8 o 3, be 5, be the
34:56recorded recollection of his
34:57police interview and the body
34:58of the witness.
35:06Generally 8 o 3, 5, is a
35:07recorded recollection me it's
35:09something they wrote down or
35:10maybe they recorded their
35:13voice. Saying something.
35:17That's the state to respond.
35:18We're just talking about the
35:25Alex Cox. Statements.
35:26That they were not.
35:28That they were not.
35:34Statements from Alex
35:37decided if we will at this
35:37point we would I can say 100%
35:39certainty we will not be
35:40admitting his interview by
35:42police that was done it.
35:48After 10 o'clock in the
35:51morning. We don't. Are you
35:52referencing what time he was
35:54it's motion the timeline. That is actually in our motion we show that when 8.30 a.m.
36:07when the 9-1-1 call was made. So we have soon after that the police arrived and
36:12there's body cam video from that that interview. Then Alex Cox is later
36:21brought to the police station and there is a in-depth interview with detectives
36:25at a little after 10 o'clock in the morning. So you may or may not be
36:32attempting to introduce statements at or around the time that the police
36:39responded. Correct your honor if we do those would be brought in as co-conspirator
36:44statements against a party interest. So obviously the state can bring in
36:50statements that are hearsay against a party. Right, but I guess is the state
36:59intending on introducing any statements of Tylee. No your honor, Tylee made no
37:07statements at the scene other than giving her general biographical
37:12information on body cam. Her entire statements were made at the police
37:17station again after 10 in the morning. All right, so on your response as it
37:25relates to Tylee, you say again present sense impression. I don't think it's a
37:29present sense impression. You also argue excited utterance. What else? 8033
37:37which is mental emotional and physical condition with the same thing her state
37:41of mind then being scared and also 8043 statement against interest. They use
37:49that statement in the indictment where Tylee says that Charles says if you hit
37:54me with that bat you're going to jail. That's the part where she's nervous in
37:57her interview saying she she's scared to tell the police that she's the one that
38:01brought in the bat. So state of mind and the statement against interest both
38:08apply to Tylee's police interview. All right, anything else the state want to
38:21be heard further on that? Your honor, the only further thing I think that the
38:24state will bring in is that obviously the defendant has been found guilty of
38:28killing both Tylee, other individuals, but in this case the defendant cannot
38:34from killing a witness and then later try to bring in their statements for
38:39their benefit. So in addition to none of her statements being admissible under
38:43the rules of evidence as any of the exceptions that the defendant has done,
38:48we also believe that it would be improper for her to be allowed to bring
38:51them in under that theory. In other words, the there's been a judicial finding
39:04that Tylee's, the reason Tylee's unavailable as a witness is because of
39:08the defendant's actions. Correct, your honor. There has been a jury trial and she has been convicted of that.
39:13All right. All right, the court is on a preliminary basis precluding references
39:24to Tylee Ryan's statements, any statement made by Tylee Ryan. If there's some
39:29reason where a door might be open to any of those statements coming in, the
39:36defendant's requested to make a request outside the presence of the jury
39:42regarding that and we'll deal with that outside the presence of the jury. On Alex
39:47Cox, I think that's probably going to be more of a statement by statement basis,
39:54but I'm skeptical of any statements coming in hours after the initial
40:02police response. I think we'll deal with what statements may or may not come in
40:06when the police first arrived on scene and or the 911 at the time that they're
40:16attempted to be introduced. All right, I also received yesterday
40:35state's notice of disclosure and request for disclosure. Did you get a copy of
40:40that? No. You haven't seen that yet? No. State's notice of disclosure and
40:52request for disclosure. I don't actually I didn't realize it was actually filed
40:56in January so you should have seen that. I misspoke when I said I got it
41:01yesterday. It was filed January 16th. Have you seen them? I'm looking at what
41:10what are we. I think the court may have ruled on that one your honor. Well I
41:18don't think I ruled on at the very end. You're requesting she submit to
41:29fingerprints, palm print, footprint. Oh that's okay. I think that was fired yes
41:36significantly so that would be to tie her to any of her. Is that for other
41:44conviction purposes? Yes. All right and when did you want to do that? If we are
41:53going to be here on the 18th we can take them then. I don't know that we need to
41:57be here on the 18th. And obviously I wasn't aware we were going to set this
42:02because we said it just recently so I don't know if we can keep that on just to take
42:12that. Okay what about the state you requested copies of any recorded
42:18statements made during interviews conducted outside of your presence. Is
42:23there any of those were there any interviews conducted by you or your team?
42:29Were there any interviews conducted of any witnesses out by you or your team
42:34that you're aware of? So far not that I'm aware. Do you plan on calling any experts
42:44to testify? We do plan on calling one expert. Has it been disclosed to the
42:50state? We are yes my we're working on that today as an addendum to the
42:57witness list that Lonnie Dworkin. All right that's your
43:04investigator? No my investigator Jeff White. Oh that's the expert. What kind of
43:10expert is Lonnie Dworkin? Phone and digital. I think I've yeah I remember
43:16his name. Are you aware of that? No your honor. All right expert reports and
43:22disclosures are due 30 days before trial generally under the rules so if you're
43:33planning on using that witness you need to get that disclosed right away and I
43:38may have to take that up depending on what the state's position is. But at this
43:44point it's technically late. Maybe another reason to be here on the 18th
43:47obviously if that's disclosed this week we can potentially address that issue on
43:52the 18th. All right let me ask the defendant do you have a position on the
43:59taking of prints and photographs generally identification type things are
44:08permitted over any defendant objections so do you have a record you want to make
44:13on that. Not really. All right I don't see any reason why. For what purpose I don't
44:17understand. In the event that you're convicted it may be used to prove other
44:24convictions. That reminds me is the state planning on proceeding in the second
44:33trial regardless of what happens in the first trial? I believe so yes your honor.
44:37And how much time would you need between the conclusion of the first trial and
44:43the start of the second trial? I would say at least 30 days since we do need
44:46to just to actually subpoena out-of-state witnesses for the second
44:50trial. I'm wondering if it wouldn't benefit everyone to go ahead and set
45:01that a provisional second trial date now.
45:25Is that second trial how long do you think it would take the state to
45:30present. About three weeks as well. Similar.
45:49Your honor I'd like to remind the court that the last day is May 11th. Well I'll
45:58probably exclude some time based on the fact that you can't do two trials at
46:01once. The state could combine the trials and do two trials at once but they don't
46:08want to do two trials at once so it really violates my speedy trial rights
46:11if they do not give me a speedy trial by May 11th for both cases. Not to mention
46:22that they did they did combine all the discovery into one case. They didn't
46:26give me two different separate discoveries for two different cases
46:29which would be a much more convenient considering the voluminous amount of
46:33discovery that they piled on to us. Does the state want to combine both cases? Your
46:40honor if the court gave us a little time to work it out and the defendant wants
46:43to join them I mean obviously I don't know that the normal defense attorney
46:50and I don't mean that in any way normally they would be severed. Severed
46:56because you don't want one jury to know about the other correct two separate
47:00charges and have a harmful rub-off effect of one the evidence in one case
47:07affecting the evidence in another case. Correct your honor that's why they were
47:10filed separately but if the defendant wants them together the state would have
47:15to request this be pushed back slightly so that we could then get all the
47:18witnesses for that trial together since they were not subpoenaed for this trial
47:24but if that's what the defendant wants to join them and she understands that
47:28prejudice and that she's then going to be waiving that prejudice with that then
47:34the state is certainly willing to do that but we would then have to request
47:39to have that trial or this trial they moved back to allow us to get the other
47:44witnesses lined up.
48:14That was not yeah that's not what I was saying to combine them I'm just saying
48:22give me my second trial by May 11th so the court can figure that out. All right
48:27well I'm going to waive some time on that second trial over the
48:32defendant's objection primarily again the defendant can't try both cases at
48:38the same time. Secondly I'm not sure how much actual prejudice there is with a
48:47time violation in the sense that you wouldn't be released from custody anyway
48:56and thirdly the rule for time violations under rule 8 I think it's 6 is 8.6 is
49:06that any violation should be a dismissal without prejudice unless
49:10there's an actual prejudice shown in which case the state could just refile
49:14the charge. Regardless I think some time is warranted to be excluded because
49:20primarily you can't try two cases at once. What if we set a start date for
49:27May 12th? I realize that's a quick could potentially be a quick turnaround but
49:33again I don't think this case is going to take six weeks. We can adjust that as
49:38necessary. I again I'm going to ask for a longer time I believe this will go
49:44through the beginning of May and to have the state try to get those witnesses
49:50lined up and subpoenaed while in trial I don't believe it is. Well if I push it
49:58out any further the parties need to be aware that I won't be trying the case.
50:03I'm I don't think I would be anyway I'm rotating at the end of June and given
50:11some of the trainings I have to attend in June I don't think we could get it
50:19done. Well both parties could send out subpoenas now for that second date for
50:24May 12th correct? Well that's assuming we're done by about May 1st probably in
50:36this case the first case.
50:40And then your honor I did indicate that the state needs to be dark in May the
50:5521st 22nd and 23rd. You said 21, 22, 23? Correct. And I would need to be dark the 19th,
51:1120th and 21st as well so. Given that we would be dark that entire week anyways
51:17it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to. All right let me sorry to
51:22interrupt I need to let me speak with the criminal presiding judge about
51:27scheduling the second trial we can discuss it on the 18th. Let's keep the
51:3818th but let's move it to later in the morning. Actually let's move it up all
51:49your all we're going to do is discuss a couple matters and then there's no
51:54reason for the fingerprinting and stuff to be broadcast or on video so I'll
52:00prohibit that from being recorded or otherwise broadcast. So have your person
52:09here let's do that at 8 15 a.m. on March 18th and then we'll also discuss whether
52:19the defense is disclosing Lonnie Dworkin as a witness and whether or not he has a
52:26report expert report prepared and disclosed at that time. I will have the
52:36questionnaire for you by then so you can review it. Anything else we need to
52:42discuss that I've forgotten about from the state's perspective? I showed two other
52:47motions that the defense filed that I did not see rulings on by the court.
52:51They were both motions to dismiss. One of them only related to the 2022 case I think.
53:05Both of them related to both. What's the filing due? January 14th for one of them.
53:20It was an 8.2 speedy trial one. February 4th which was an extradition rule 8.3.
53:41February 4th.
53:51Okay so the motion to dismiss CR 2022-001-242 for lack of speedy trial I ruled on on January 24th.
54:01That minute entry was filed January 24th and then the motion
54:08was that the motion to dismiss CR 2021 and 001-704 and the other for violation of speedy
54:15trial act. Correct. That was ruled on on February 25th so last week a week ago.
54:26Anything else from the state? Anything else from the defendant? Yes your honor I have one kind of
54:32housekeeping matter that I wanted to ask you about. I know that MCSO has some security restraints the
54:42things that I have to wear during trial and I meant to I wanted to ask about that as far as
54:49am I going to be able to stand at the podium to talk to witnesses to question my witnesses and
54:53to cross-examine or am I going to be able to move about with the leg thing and the shock vest and
54:59all that? You can you're going to stick to your table and you can go to the podium okay when
55:07you're giving your opening statement and closing argument you'll stay by the podium okay and if
55:13you need to hand a witness and exhibit your advisory council will do that. Okay am I
55:20paralegal can do that? Well is your paralegal going to be present here designated as your
55:28I guess they can be present. I'd prefer advisory council to be the one that
55:34approaches witnesses if you need to hand an exhibit or something like that.
55:38Okay so I'm going to be standing there and if she's sitting here she's going to come get
55:42something from me and go walk it over to the witness and then come back? Correct. Just the
55:46logistics of it. Yeah and there'll be a there'll be a table or a cart here that'll have all the
55:51exhibits on it within reach of the podium so. Okay anything else?
55:58Your honor do you use case lines for exhibits? No. Thank you. I think they're still working out
56:05the bugs on that so. Do we need to have our exhibits in place? All right we'll see you 8-15 on March 18th.
56:15March 18th get recess on this matter.
56:45you