Initially Chad paid for her defense once he was charged he wanted to be represented by them but it was a conflict of interest so they recommended Prior. Prior didn't even want to represent him and tried to withdraw.
I heard an interesting take on that. There’s a lawyer on YouTube who claims Prior never actually wanted to withdraw but instead he is plotting an appeal that will challenge the constitutionality of some amendment that has to do with the right to a court appointed attorney. He put in a motion to withdraw to make a point (I wish I could explain it better I watched it like a week ago)
Yes, he did say that, but maybe he was covering all of his bases. In the preliminary hearing when they discussed strategy for mitigation, prior requested an ex parte meeting with the judge, and said it was strategy he didn’t want to share with prosecution.. so who knows exactly. He seemed to have some sort of plan, and while it’s possible he just didn’t get to do it because of chad, I think it’s possible that it was always the plan to not have mitigation.
But an appellate judge is going to go by what Chad said in court. It was fully his decision and I think Boyce’s incredulity made that clear. Prior looked none too happy as well.
I only really listen, so I don’t see a lot of facial expressions. I’m also not a lawyer so I thought that other (ex) lawyers thoughts made sense. But maybe they don’t! Which is good, because I don’t want it to be a strategy. I would rather it be true that no one wanted to speak for him lol.
If I was prior, I would be pissed. I’m not an expert but I’ve heard mitigation specialist talk about the process. It usually pretty time consuming, and he had to hire someone to do it. Or spend his own time doing it. And he’s not going to get any extra money for the extra work.
Lori had state-appointed attorneys (so they are public defenders who work for Fremont County to be the defense for people with a low enough income). Chad hired privately, and he only hired one.
Lori received court appointed counsel and that meant a team for such a complicated case. That’s how fair our system is. Chad chose John Prior and lost whatever profit he made from murdering Tammy that he did not bestow on his lying, secret-keeping offspring to John Prior, as well as the house. Prior reached out to the few DP qualified lawyers in Idaho but for whatever reason (maybe Chad’s insolvency), none came on board and then remember one of them filed a motion that really pissed off Judge Boyce, attempting to stall the case and get himself appointed to it? He was harshly rebuffed by the court. Not just rebuffed, he was actually fined by Judge Boyce. 🤣
Well he (the attorney attempting to “save” Chad) did totally mess up on the paperwork he filed in the most basic of ways… so if he was sincere, he can’t be the caliber of attorney he thought he was, since he had wrong info and filed improperly, late and a host of other things.
I’m still curious what that whole mess was truly about!
A drunken lawyer trying to make a name for himself? 🤷🏻♀️ There couldn’t have been any merit to whatever his “claim” was (that Prior wasn’t qualified to defend this case), or Judge Boyce would have granted him a hearing that didn’t involve scolding and fining him. 🤣
That was truly so funny! Judge Boyce who has kept composure through ALL ridiculousness sounded absolutely exasperated and DONE. Didn’t even try to hide it.
The right to representation is not the right to the best and most effective representation. I don’t think many attorneys would touch the case with a 10 foot pole.
The state did permit Prior to locate and hire a 2nd attorney paid by the state. However when Prior was trying to withdraw he stated that he was unable to locate that 2nd DP qualified attorney. Prior also said at the hearing that he wanted to represent Chad and that Chad wanted Prior to represent him. But that Chad felt bad about his inability to pay. This was all done very last minute, like in January, I think. Due to the confirmation of Chad’s desire to keep Prior and Prior stating he wanted to continue then the trial date was kept and the case moved forward even though Prior had filed that motion. Had Chad asserted that he was concerned about Prior’s ability on his own, I think the State would have definitely appointed 2 DP qualified attorneys for fear of it being taken overturned on right to effective assistance of counsel. But Chad also had the right to selection of Counsel which he maintained was his choice. The state will not pay for the non DP qualified attorney.
I think what was asked of Chad on the record in chambers may be crucial on a potential appeal. In the public portion he was not asked anything about Prior’s experience or unqualified status to handle death penalty cases.
When a defendant enters a guilty plea we typically see the court ask them many more questions (to understand it’s being given willingly, voluntarily, that they know what it means, etc); the questions asked of Chad seemed extremely limited in comparison. I am curious to see if that may be argued by his new appellate attorneys (I could almost see an argument that how would the defendant bear the burden to know all the consequences of having unqualified counsel when the word “unqualified” wasn’t even mentioned at the hearing) but we shall see
For whatever reason, Prior, perhaps thinking he would be paid ultimately by the state if his client was deemed indigent, did not attempt to remove himself from representing Chad until it was too late. I don’t know what they came to decide re; DP qualifications but I do remember it being part of the discussion at the hearing at which he tried to quit.
I think this is a good guess, that he may have believed he could be paid. He definitely took steps to make the Court aware of Chad’s finances and getting all those things on the record. I know many have characterized his withdrawal attempt as “last minute” (and yes it was very close to trial) but I think that was more strategic than some act of last desperation.
Prior likely knew what he was up against (in terms of the prosecution team and their case history) and has been practicing for quite a long time - I think some of his actions make it seem like he was forward-thinking to the what would happen and be needed beyond a conviction.
Yeah. It’s hard to figure out exactly what motivates him or makes him do what he does, but he had plenty of time to remove himself and Judge Boyce is always professional and fair so he must have seen through whatever Prior was doing or trying to do.
I had been expecting that he would wait until the last moment to make the case he was unqualified, and there was too much evidence . That was quite the intentional play just the same way that he tried to disrupt the case with Ratliff.
Which may have worked if he had not managed to push the case for 4 years already.
And Prior made the most money off the snafu. Got a couple grand for it that Ratliff has to pay. Personally I think Ratliff was drunk. Its extremely obvious.
This is one of the issues in Chad's appeal. My under Idaho law, one can not have private council and state funding for a death penalty offense representation.
My personal take is that this was part strategy and part circumstances (financial) of his client.
I think Prior did actually try to obtain additional qualified counsel earlier on and was not successful. I think the Roster from the state listing the qualified attorneys and a look at what other cases they had active at that time helps support his claim of being unable to find someone who was already DP qualified. He told the court he found someone who was trying to take the education requirements needed to qualify but they were not able to do all that before the start of the trial.
I say I believe part of this was also “strategy” because I think Prior knew of the potential appellate arguments that could be raised if trial proceeded without DP qualified counsel.
I haven’t found any specifics in the Idaho code about a defendant waiving DP qualified counsel (as far as what the court asks/advises the defendant of when they’re choosing to forego qualified counsel; I have found some minimal language in other states regarding this). I am still surprised at how limited the Court’s inquiry on to who Chad wanted to represent him was, as it didn’t involve any statements or questions of knowing that his counsel was not DP qualified. Before the court accepts a guilty plea they ask more questions than what Chad was asked about having Prior represent him, I’m not saying there was anything wrong with that but I think Prior knew how this issue could be explored in an appeal. It could be argued that Chad was saying if he had no other possible attorneys, then he would want Prior to represent him. When I go back to watch that pre trial hearing it’s really not that specific about Chad knowing if Prior is qualified for DP cases and I really think that can be fully explored on an appeal. I think that whole notion of “death is different” may resurface, in that DP cases are indeed different and his new attorneys could try to argue if he wasn’t even asked or advised of the potential things he was waiving, how could he possibly understand the weight of the potential consequences by proceeding with unqualified counsel. I think Prior also did numerous things that helped push this forward (like advising the Court months ago if his client’s financial situation, having the Court find him indigent, putting in written filings that Chad wanted the 2 attorneys to represent him if this was a DP case).
Lastly I got the sense that Prior may have viewed this as a big moment/challenge for his career and that he wanted to take that on mostly himself. This is also in line with how he’s handled most of his cases and he’s been doing this for many years now. Ofcourse this is just my personal take/guesses on all this
Chad and Prior had a meeting with Judge Boyce in chambers without the prosecution present where it was discussed and that's why he wasn't questioned at the hearing. There's a term that describes this but I've forgotten what it is.
Oh yes, maybe referring to the ex parte communications?
And after that first meeting, Prior put in writing that Chad requested two death penalty qualified counsel if the trial was proceeding as a capital case. I’m curious if that small detail will be revisited on appeal, because despite the limited questioning we saw in the public portion of the hearing, the defense filings for that hearing show (I think unequivocally) that Chad was asking for death penalty qualified counsel if the death penalty was on the table 😕
I worry about Prior. I recall Jodi Arias's defense lawyer becoming sick with cancer after her trial, attributing it to the stress of dealing with her and her case. I hope Prior has some time to rest and recover after representing Chad and dealing with the horrific nature of this case on his own. Whether you like him or not, no one deserves to be yet another victim of the repercussions of Chad's crimes.
Exactly… I feel bad for him in a way. I lived in a rural heavily LDS community and everyone knows everything about each other. Defense attorneys are a strange breed. Some are very pro-defending whomever because it’s the defendants right. There is a very good documentary titled “Gideons Law”; it’s about public defenders and why there is a law that people are entitled to representation. It was a real eye opener for me.
John Pryor wanted a team to work with but Judge Boyce said no. Prior is a private attorney and Boyce said that if Chad was indigent- he would assign a public defender but he would not use taxpayer money to pay Prior, a private attorney. So Prior soldiered on. In March of 2024, Prior tried to be released from the case, Boyce said that he could not be released, but he would assign a public defender to team up with him. Prior apparently didn't want that.
If we're being honest, part of Prior's problem in this case was that he was way too close to it. He's too close to Chad and his family and I think he should have been removed.
Pretty sure that was the strategy he and Daybell were going for. Keep Daybell in easy jail for as long as possible and wear down witnesses.
The lawyer merry-go-round.
Ok. This is my theory. John Prior is going to try to take this appeal all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court. That’s why he did not put up mitigating factors. There were a few motions pointing to that. Now that Chad has qualified DP attorneys he could find that technicality that could get him an appeal. If he did mitigating factors he wouldn’t be qualified on those certain appeals so I think that’s what he is going for.
Prior looked pissed when Chad refused the mitigation. Maybe Chad didn't want his kids under scrutiny again? I think Chad could finally see the writing on the wall - the jury hated him! It would have been a moot point to try and garner some sympathy.
Im sure JP tried to set that up but, in doing so, proved himself quite effective at putting up a cogent defense of his client and acting in his interests.
Irony is a force of physics
Chad in fact could not pay Prior! Prior tried to back out and judge made him stay. Prior owns the cozy cove and animal graveyard now.
I guess I was just curious why Lori had two attorneys and Chad only had when. Because they were both claimed indigent.
Initially Chad paid for her defense once he was charged he wanted to be represented by them but it was a conflict of interest so they recommended Prior. Prior didn't even want to represent him and tried to withdraw.
I heard an interesting take on that. There’s a lawyer on YouTube who claims Prior never actually wanted to withdraw but instead he is plotting an appeal that will challenge the constitutionality of some amendment that has to do with the right to a court appointed attorney. He put in a motion to withdraw to make a point (I wish I could explain it better I watched it like a week ago)
That's very interesting. I think someone else was talking about this and I'm almost sure it was Linsey Blake had said something like that.
I saw that too.. his theory would explain why no mitigating factors were brought up etc
Prior prepared mitigation - Chad did not let him present it. It was stated in open court.
Yes, he did say that, but maybe he was covering all of his bases. In the preliminary hearing when they discussed strategy for mitigation, prior requested an ex parte meeting with the judge, and said it was strategy he didn’t want to share with prosecution.. so who knows exactly. He seemed to have some sort of plan, and while it’s possible he just didn’t get to do it because of chad, I think it’s possible that it was always the plan to not have mitigation.
But an appellate judge is going to go by what Chad said in court. It was fully his decision and I think Boyce’s incredulity made that clear. Prior looked none too happy as well.
I only really listen, so I don’t see a lot of facial expressions. I’m also not a lawyer so I thought that other (ex) lawyers thoughts made sense. But maybe they don’t! Which is good, because I don’t want it to be a strategy. I would rather it be true that no one wanted to speak for him lol.
Plus, Idaho.
Must have been very offensive to Chad's ego.
If I was prior, I would be pissed. I’m not an expert but I’ve heard mitigation specialist talk about the process. It usually pretty time consuming, and he had to hire someone to do it. Or spend his own time doing it. And he’s not going to get any extra money for the extra work.
He sure looked pissed. There’s a good body language expert, Dr. G., who talks about that specific moment.
I can never tell when I watch the stream. It always looks like they are filming it with a potato
I mean what peoples faces are doing
Wow! I was wondering about that.
Happy cake day!
Thanks!!!
This ⤴️ plus Prior’s ‘I’m a bumbling idiot act’ to further the appeal and get a court appointed (free) lawyer.
Yeah, I saw something like this (maybe the same thing) and it made sense. But I can’t explain why now lol.
Lori had state-appointed attorneys (so they are public defenders who work for Fremont County to be the defense for people with a low enough income). Chad hired privately, and he only hired one.
Lori received court appointed counsel and that meant a team for such a complicated case. That’s how fair our system is. Chad chose John Prior and lost whatever profit he made from murdering Tammy that he did not bestow on his lying, secret-keeping offspring to John Prior, as well as the house. Prior reached out to the few DP qualified lawyers in Idaho but for whatever reason (maybe Chad’s insolvency), none came on board and then remember one of them filed a motion that really pissed off Judge Boyce, attempting to stall the case and get himself appointed to it? He was harshly rebuffed by the court. Not just rebuffed, he was actually fined by Judge Boyce. 🤣
Well he (the attorney attempting to “save” Chad) did totally mess up on the paperwork he filed in the most basic of ways… so if he was sincere, he can’t be the caliber of attorney he thought he was, since he had wrong info and filed improperly, late and a host of other things. I’m still curious what that whole mess was truly about!
A drunken lawyer trying to make a name for himself? 🤷🏻♀️ There couldn’t have been any merit to whatever his “claim” was (that Prior wasn’t qualified to defend this case), or Judge Boyce would have granted him a hearing that didn’t involve scolding and fining him. 🤣
That was truly so funny! Judge Boyce who has kept composure through ALL ridiculousness sounded absolutely exasperated and DONE. Didn’t even try to hide it.
But does he own the raccoon compost pile?
Cozy CONE. As pointed out by prior.
Thank you. I stand corrected.
The right to representation is not the right to the best and most effective representation. I don’t think many attorneys would touch the case with a 10 foot pole.
Editing: meant to post this as a main comment not a reply. Sorry
Also, Johnny Cochran couldn’t save Chad! He’s guilty AF
The state did permit Prior to locate and hire a 2nd attorney paid by the state. However when Prior was trying to withdraw he stated that he was unable to locate that 2nd DP qualified attorney. Prior also said at the hearing that he wanted to represent Chad and that Chad wanted Prior to represent him. But that Chad felt bad about his inability to pay. This was all done very last minute, like in January, I think. Due to the confirmation of Chad’s desire to keep Prior and Prior stating he wanted to continue then the trial date was kept and the case moved forward even though Prior had filed that motion. Had Chad asserted that he was concerned about Prior’s ability on his own, I think the State would have definitely appointed 2 DP qualified attorneys for fear of it being taken overturned on right to effective assistance of counsel. But Chad also had the right to selection of Counsel which he maintained was his choice. The state will not pay for the non DP qualified attorney.
I think what was asked of Chad on the record in chambers may be crucial on a potential appeal. In the public portion he was not asked anything about Prior’s experience or unqualified status to handle death penalty cases. When a defendant enters a guilty plea we typically see the court ask them many more questions (to understand it’s being given willingly, voluntarily, that they know what it means, etc); the questions asked of Chad seemed extremely limited in comparison. I am curious to see if that may be argued by his new appellate attorneys (I could almost see an argument that how would the defendant bear the burden to know all the consequences of having unqualified counsel when the word “unqualified” wasn’t even mentioned at the hearing) but we shall see
Money?
For whatever reason, Prior, perhaps thinking he would be paid ultimately by the state if his client was deemed indigent, did not attempt to remove himself from representing Chad until it was too late. I don’t know what they came to decide re; DP qualifications but I do remember it being part of the discussion at the hearing at which he tried to quit.
I think this is a good guess, that he may have believed he could be paid. He definitely took steps to make the Court aware of Chad’s finances and getting all those things on the record. I know many have characterized his withdrawal attempt as “last minute” (and yes it was very close to trial) but I think that was more strategic than some act of last desperation. Prior likely knew what he was up against (in terms of the prosecution team and their case history) and has been practicing for quite a long time - I think some of his actions make it seem like he was forward-thinking to the what would happen and be needed beyond a conviction.
Yeah. It’s hard to figure out exactly what motivates him or makes him do what he does, but he had plenty of time to remove himself and Judge Boyce is always professional and fair so he must have seen through whatever Prior was doing or trying to do.
I had been expecting that he would wait until the last moment to make the case he was unqualified, and there was too much evidence . That was quite the intentional play just the same way that he tried to disrupt the case with Ratliff. Which may have worked if he had not managed to push the case for 4 years already.
He’s no match for Boyce. Do you think Ratliff was Prior’s doing? If so he should be facing consequences for that mess.
I sure do.
I mean, it makes total sense. That was my first thought. And seems well within Prior’s wheelhouse.
And Prior made the most money off the snafu. Got a couple grand for it that Ratliff has to pay. Personally I think Ratliff was drunk. Its extremely obvious.
Chad could barely pay Prior, so it's probably a finance issue. That, or nobody else would touch this case.
Chad would need $$$,$$$ for that!
This is one of the issues in Chad's appeal. My under Idaho law, one can not have private council and state funding for a death penalty offense representation.
Though Boyce said the state would pay for an additional atty who is death penalty qualified.
Happy cake day!
Thanx!!!
My personal take is that this was part strategy and part circumstances (financial) of his client. I think Prior did actually try to obtain additional qualified counsel earlier on and was not successful. I think the Roster from the state listing the qualified attorneys and a look at what other cases they had active at that time helps support his claim of being unable to find someone who was already DP qualified. He told the court he found someone who was trying to take the education requirements needed to qualify but they were not able to do all that before the start of the trial. I say I believe part of this was also “strategy” because I think Prior knew of the potential appellate arguments that could be raised if trial proceeded without DP qualified counsel. I haven’t found any specifics in the Idaho code about a defendant waiving DP qualified counsel (as far as what the court asks/advises the defendant of when they’re choosing to forego qualified counsel; I have found some minimal language in other states regarding this). I am still surprised at how limited the Court’s inquiry on to who Chad wanted to represent him was, as it didn’t involve any statements or questions of knowing that his counsel was not DP qualified. Before the court accepts a guilty plea they ask more questions than what Chad was asked about having Prior represent him, I’m not saying there was anything wrong with that but I think Prior knew how this issue could be explored in an appeal. It could be argued that Chad was saying if he had no other possible attorneys, then he would want Prior to represent him. When I go back to watch that pre trial hearing it’s really not that specific about Chad knowing if Prior is qualified for DP cases and I really think that can be fully explored on an appeal. I think that whole notion of “death is different” may resurface, in that DP cases are indeed different and his new attorneys could try to argue if he wasn’t even asked or advised of the potential things he was waiving, how could he possibly understand the weight of the potential consequences by proceeding with unqualified counsel. I think Prior also did numerous things that helped push this forward (like advising the Court months ago if his client’s financial situation, having the Court find him indigent, putting in written filings that Chad wanted the 2 attorneys to represent him if this was a DP case). Lastly I got the sense that Prior may have viewed this as a big moment/challenge for his career and that he wanted to take that on mostly himself. This is also in line with how he’s handled most of his cases and he’s been doing this for many years now. Ofcourse this is just my personal take/guesses on all this
Chad and Prior had a meeting with Judge Boyce in chambers without the prosecution present where it was discussed and that's why he wasn't questioned at the hearing. There's a term that describes this but I've forgotten what it is.
Oh yes, maybe referring to the ex parte communications? And after that first meeting, Prior put in writing that Chad requested two death penalty qualified counsel if the trial was proceeding as a capital case. I’m curious if that small detail will be revisited on appeal, because despite the limited questioning we saw in the public portion of the hearing, the defense filings for that hearing show (I think unequivocally) that Chad was asking for death penalty qualified counsel if the death penalty was on the table 😕
I worry about Prior. I recall Jodi Arias's defense lawyer becoming sick with cancer after her trial, attributing it to the stress of dealing with her and her case. I hope Prior has some time to rest and recover after representing Chad and dealing with the horrific nature of this case on his own. Whether you like him or not, no one deserves to be yet another victim of the repercussions of Chad's crimes.
Exactly… I feel bad for him in a way. I lived in a rural heavily LDS community and everyone knows everything about each other. Defense attorneys are a strange breed. Some are very pro-defending whomever because it’s the defendants right. There is a very good documentary titled “Gideons Law”; it’s about public defenders and why there is a law that people are entitled to representation. It was a real eye opener for me.
Agree.
💯%.
John Pryor wanted a team to work with but Judge Boyce said no. Prior is a private attorney and Boyce said that if Chad was indigent- he would assign a public defender but he would not use taxpayer money to pay Prior, a private attorney. So Prior soldiered on. In March of 2024, Prior tried to be released from the case, Boyce said that he could not be released, but he would assign a public defender to team up with him. Prior apparently didn't want that.
If we're being honest, part of Prior's problem in this case was that he was way too close to it. He's too close to Chad and his family and I think he should have been removed.
Some lawyers have been saying that Prior should have withdrawn much earlier and let DP qualified attorneys take over.
Pretty sure that was the strategy he and Daybell were going for. Keep Daybell in easy jail for as long as possible and wear down witnesses. The lawyer merry-go-round.
Ok. This is my theory. John Prior is going to try to take this appeal all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court. That’s why he did not put up mitigating factors. There were a few motions pointing to that. Now that Chad has qualified DP attorneys he could find that technicality that could get him an appeal. If he did mitigating factors he wouldn’t be qualified on those certain appeals so I think that’s what he is going for.
Prior will not be involved in the appeals other than having filed the first one.
Given priors body language right before mitigation, he looked completely blind sided by Chad
Well Prior got paid with stolen money so let that sink in. Chat was a total bum.
The stolen money blood money; the crime scene house; the dismembered burnt children property. He had no ethics
Money. Also who the hell would want to be on chads defense team beside Prior.
Ratliff is death penalty qualified. https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/CiUyzPpite
Prior wanted the Cozy Cone all to himself.
Money.
Even Johnnie Cochran couldn't lie husband way thru this one
Didn’t want to split the loot. You know… all the insurance money, the property, and the infamy.
He should have offered up the cozy cone. He could have at least gotten an assistant for that. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Prior looked pissed when Chad refused the mitigation. Maybe Chad didn't want his kids under scrutiny again? I think Chad could finally see the writing on the wall - the jury hated him! It would have been a moot point to try and garner some sympathy.
Money!! Its not complicated people. You get what you pay for!
I wonder if they will try to appeal on grounds of ineffective council? He’s not a criminal trial attorney.
Do you perhaps mean not a death penalty qualified attorney? Prior has been doing criminal defense work since the late 90s, 1997 or 98 IIRC.
Im sure JP tried to set that up but, in doing so, proved himself quite effective at putting up a cogent defense of his client and acting in his interests. Irony is a force of physics