Skip to Content

Prosecutor wants to know who conducted a change of venue survey in the Vallow-Daybell case

FREMONT COUNTY, Idaho (KIFI) - Special Prosecutor Rob Wood filed a motion to compel in order to get Chad Daybell's attorney, John Prior, to identify the person who conducted a change of venue survey.

Prior submitted articles, comments on articles and surveys of Fremont County residents to support his claims that Daybell would not get a fair and impartial jury within that county. Daybell's wife, Lori Vallow-Daybell, had a similar motion filed by her attorney, Mark Means.

"Defendant Chad Daybell responded to the State's specific request with a one word response of 'none.' The Defendant has refused to provide the State with the name of the witness and other requested information he is required to provide under Idaho Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and Idaho Rule of Evidence 705," Wood said in the motion to compel.

A hearing has been scheduled for March 8.

This is the latest argument over discovery and evidence in the case. Last week, Judge Steven W. Boyce granted the motion to compel filed by Means in terms of requiring the State to provide a response to the question as to whether or not the prosecution has discussed the case with those persons identified in the list in a discovery request.

He did make an exception and did not require part of the list where the findings are too broad.

You can follow our coverage of the Vallow-Daybell case and read past articles here.

Author Profile Photo

Bre Clark

Bre is an anchor for Local News 8 and KIDK Eyewitness News 3.



  1. ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive’
    Walter Scott
    Of course, when lawyers are involved, the assumption becomes that–by the time they pass the bar–they’ve had PLENTY of ‘practice’ untangling the web, huh? 😉

  2. A change of venue should be issued due to the press wanting more than they deserve before the trial. These two, whether guilty or not, cannot get an impartial jury in that county, and most likely in the state of Idaho.

    And you 666, have NO Idea what you are talking about when it comes to lawyers, the constitution and the law.

    Would you really prefer a system where people are automatically guilty till the prove themselves innocent? The press has already deemed these two guilty of all crimes and people, being small minded like you, have already sentenced them to the gulag.

    That is not the way this system is supposed to work.

    Nice to always go after the lawyers, but I would bet if you were arrested for a crime, had the money, you would hire the best lawyer in the neighborhood to help you. It’s their job. And yes, in many cases, those who can afford it get the better representation and that needs to change; how, I don’t know. But I do know these lawyers are doing what they are supposed to do.

    And what gets me is your last ignorant statement. I graduated from law school in the 70s; I did it for a job with the US government, it was not a requirement to pass the bar, although I did and remained a member for a few years. I was never a practicing attorney, I found it more exciting to carry a gun and enforce the law on the streets vs. in a court room.

    However, now in my 70s, looking back I have determined that possibly (POSSIBLY) 5 percent of the morons who call themselves Americans deserved to be protected. If I had it all to do over again….I would never have placed myself in harms way to protect people with the same views as you! Not worth it.

    Have a nice day; (not really, I could care less as you do for me).

    1. During my long lifetime I have been casual acquaintances/friends with six lawyers. I believe there were TWO of them that I would personally would have judged to be human! Interestingly, BOTH of these were Criminal Defense attorneys, one of whom was qualified to practice in federal court.
      As an attorney, you should be aware of the phrase ‘preponderance of evidence’, probably in greater detail than MY definition of the term.
      As a simple point of fact, my opinion of the news media/press (i.e. regarding the ever present bias which automatically accompanies ALL reporting) has deteriorated almost AS much as my opinion of politicians.
      That said, the case at hand is NOT a simple grab-two-people-off-the-street-and-‘lynch’-them (think ‘Angie Dodge’!) farce.
      Do I think every ‘accused’ is entitled to a fair and honest trial? Sure. Do I believe that such a trial should be a circus of one-, two-, or THREE- (see: The State versus O.J. Simpson) rings? Hell no.
      As every other aspect of my life, I apply logic/experience to my judgement of people, either in groups OR individually. Were my experiences involving one or more lawyers trying to circumvent some crime I had committed/been accused of committing, there is a chance I would feel differently.
      Instead–as with MOST of my life’s experiences–I FEEL only as my personal experiences have CONDITIONED me to feel. If the (NEW & IMPROVED!) cancel-culture defines that as some sort of bias/prejudice/racist, or whatever the pejorative de jour is….well, I guess I can live with that.
      Since I consider the phrase ‘have a nice day’ to be at least AS superficial as the average political sound-byte, I don’t use it. However, you DO–at times–provide a bit of engaging ‘comment’, so you should be aware that I wish YOU no ill. 😉

Leave a Reply

Skip to content