Daybell Jury Selection Day 1

50 jurors were called in on April 1st, 2024. Prospective jurors were broken up into smaller groups for the voir dire process.

GROUP 1

EXCUSED JURORS

• Juror 11: Challenge for Cause - Defense (Hardship)
• He has a 3 month old and also works. No hardship indicated. Works early mornings. No immediate hardship. Being sequestered would be difficult but if it is required, as his civic duty he would make it work. He has no prior knowledge of the case. He came across it looking through news but didn’t delve any deeper than glancing at it. He doesn’t know work policy, if jury duty is unpaid it would be a financial hardship.
• Attorney Prior: “Your honor I think this young man is being honorable but he doesn’t know what his employer is going to say.” (Challenge for cause, state has no objection)
• Juror 11 is excused.
• Judge Boyce: “Your attitude is very much appreciated by the court and your willingness to serve.”
• Juror 41: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Hardship)
• Has a pre-paid upcoming trip. Has already spent money. Doesn’t want her to resent missing her trip. Juror is excused.
• Juror 48: Challenge for Cause - Defense (Bias/Pre-trial Publicity)
• Juror is excused.
• Juror 67: Hardship
• Sole provider. Wife has autoimmune disorder. Would be difficult for him to do this and he may be laid off. Operator, short staffed. Answers alarms for places all over the country. If he is gone for ten weeks they will have to let him go.
• No objection from state or defense. Juror 67 is excused based on facing loss of employment.
• Juror 121: Challenge for Cause - Defense (Hardship/Bias)
• Exposed to pre-trial publicity.
• Has a work function May 3rd she is responsible for planning
• Juror is excused.
• Juror 249: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Hardship)
• Gets two weeks of paid juror time. Sole provider. Family relies on his income.
• State moves to excuse juror 249 for hardship. Defense stipulates. Juror is excused
• Juror 348: Judge - Hardship
• Two family events transpiring during the time or directly after, one is daughters graduation from college. Beginning of May. Were not able to have any graduation for high school due to Covid. Mother passed in February and she is responsible as executor of estate, to prepare documents and she is working with east coast lawyers (challenging), as well as planning for her service in June on the east coast.
• No objection from prosecution or defense. Juror is excused.

Prior Knowledge of Case:

Prior Opinion on Case:

• Juror 48
• Juror 121

Group Voir Dire

• Juror 48:
• Hesitates with remaining impartial.
• Juror 121:
• Hesitates with the death penalty issue.
• Juror 249:
• Has a possible hardship. Camping trip planned in May.
• Juror 296:
• Has a possible hardship. She is in school Mondays and Wednesdays. She takes biology and one other course. Court gets out at 3:30 PM and she could possibly take online classes but isn’t sure of the policy. She can make it work. Not an undue hardship.
• Juror 321:
• Has a possible hardship. Unsure about the work policy for unpaid time off. He is the sole provider in his family. His children have baseball games in Oregon City. This is not an undue hardship to miss some of the games. He will figure out the PTO policy.
• Asked “What do you think of when I say ‘brutal honesty?’”
• Not mincing your words. Telling the full truth.
• Juror 394:
• Has a possible hardship. There is a family reunion scheduled for week 10, June 6 - 10. Travel would be needed on either side to Arkansas. It’s not a hardship and he’s not losing work, but he didn’t anticipate checking on his jury duty leave from work. He doesn’t know the policy. He is a data engineer. He is a year and a half into a job building a team and is trying to hire another person. He questions whether his success will be as good as it could be if he was there vs out for ten weeks. He has three children. His wife works ten hours a week. He needs to talk to his manager today and see how it would realistically impact his future growth and the PTO policy.
• Judge Voir Dire:
• Important trip first week of June. Has concerns about work situation. Judge Boyce says they will need to know today about the work policy. If the case is going longer than anticipated, will this be a severe distraction thinking your vacation will be canceled? He won’t consider the vacation a hardship, he would focus on the case.

Regarding Autopsy Photographs

• Juror 48: Wants to make sure he understands the question asked. Can he “see the photos and not be swayed one way or the other and continue to weigh the totality of the evidence?”

Regarding the Right Not to Testify

• Juror 31: Checked off the “a person who doesn’t testify is probably guilty” box on the juror questionnaire. Could look beyond that. “I should’ve put no. Reading that now, it’s no.”
• Juror 41: Checked off the “a person who doesn’t testify is probably guilty” box on the juror questionnaire. Agrees not to hold it against the defendant.
• Juror 394: Checked off the “a person who doesn’t testify is probably guilty” box on the juror questionnaire. He understands state has the burden of proof but his gut tells him. He was being honest.

Regarding Jury Instructions and Not Adding Your Own Elements

Prosecutor asks the jury to think of a time that they had to do something a certain way.

• Juror 27: Her children are very opinionated about how their toast is cut. Sometimes she just follows what her kids are asking for even if there’s a better way.
• Juror 186: Same thing. Kids like their food a certain way especially when they’re little. But, it’s anything to get them to eat. He tries to sneak stuff in to change their mind.

Regarding No Need For Motive in Burden of Proof

• Juror 394: It would be difficult for him to follow the instruction that says otherwise.

Circumstantial Evidence Instruction

• Juror 296: Would be able to tell it rained.
• Juror 321: Would also be able to tell it rained.

Regarding the Graphic Nature of the Case

• Juror 56: [called upon by Attorney Prior, possibly nodding] She was just agreeing with the process.
• Juror 121: She understands the duty but has been thinking about the troubling aspects of it. She didn’t want to be here today. She would rather not be a part of this. But she would be able to be impartial.
• Juror 394: He doesn’t want to think deeply about a murder case, just the content, but he wants to do his civic duty.
• Juror 146: Every one of us would be lying to say we were excited to be here. It is what it is. If we’re supposed to be here, we’ll be chosen. She has five children. and runs a daycare with 3 - 4 children. Her husband has a landscaping business; she helps with paperwork.
• Juror 186: [called upon by Attorney Prior] He was just smiling at her comment of being a free secretary. “I just thought it was funny. It has nothing to do with me.”

Jurors That May Think Chad is Guilty/Probably Guilty:

• Juror 48: It will not impact his ability to be fair and unbiased.

“Impartial”

• Juror 31: Not sure what impartial means. Trying to think in her mind the difference between impartial and biased. “Depending on what I see if I trust in that or if I don’t trust in what I see?”
• Juror 219: Neutral. There’s insufficient information to make up my mind one way or another.

Regarding Law Enforcement Bias / Bias For Law Enforcement

Attorney Prior: “Does being influenced and not coerced think this only applies to citizens? Can law enforcement be swayed to go and testify a certain way to support one side or the other? No one thinks that’s possible?”

• Juror 27: Father is a retired police officer.

Attorney Prior: Is it offensive that I’m bringing this up?

• Juror 27: No, there are good cops and bad cops.

Attorney Prior: Officers are no different than ordinary citizens. They’re susceptible to the same influences and manipulation as other people. What is their role in that case?

• Juror 27: The same as all of us. Seeking the truth without bias.

Attorney Prior: What if they have an agenda in advance of the investigation? Does that cause you concern?

• Juror 27: if they had an agenda they would have a bias

Attorney Prior: A police officers role in a case in to investigate and report the facts.

• Juror 27: Absolutely.

No one disagrees.

“Agreement”

How do you define what an agreement is?

• Juror 11: Two or more parties formally agreeing to something or seeing like one another and formally you know planning something together
• Juror 219: Hard to define without using the word. Basically understanding the same thing.

So you think there needs to be a formal arrangement, how is that set up? Does it need to be verbal?

• Juror 11: I think it varies based on the situation. It can be formal, it can be verbal, nonverbal, it depends on the situation.
• Juror 27: Would agree. Based on what you’re coming to agreement of there might be different protocol. Your word is your word.
• Juror 31: An agreement is verbal or sometimes written. Even though you say it, doesn’t mean it’s for sure. If it’s written down, a signature, you can’t get out of the agreement now

What constitutes an agreement?

• Juror 41: [Can’t hear her, very soft spoken]

Regarding Capital Punishment

• Juror 27:
• Judge Boyce: “Do you recall answering that these questions on part 5 (attitudes regarding the DP)?” Yes.
• Judge Boyce: “To your best recollection are your answers still true and accurate?” Yes.
• Judge Boyce: “In this case, it may be necessary to make a determination in regard to the imposition of the DP or some other penalty. You’ve indicated you are in support of the death penalty. Is this accurate?” True.
• Judge Boyce: “Remember, any penalty you consider should be done as if it is absolute and will be carried out in this case. Your conscientious, religious, or other objections to the DP are not grounds for you to be excused as a juror. Did you understand that?” I understand.
• Judge Boyce: “Based on your responses would you be in favor of the death penalty in every case where a murder has been committed or will you follow instructions from the court?” I’d follow directions of the court.
• Does not think every murder case should be a death penalty case. Age of the victims does not have to do with DP. The death of anybody is sad. Death penalty is not automatic. Do you start with the DP and work backward? No.
• Juror 31:
• Is opposed to the death penalty but could remain impartial. Would be able to find him guilty if the state proved their case.

Individual Voir Dire

Juror 27: [possibly has a name that got flagged or something]

• Judge Boyce: “Have you ever lived in Florida?” No. “Have you ever been charged with a crime in Florida?” No I have not.
• She has seen headlines. Has a vacation June 15th but it’s not an issue. It’s a vacation on the 24th that would cause her concern. June 15th vacation is flexible. Her oldest child is 12, also has a 10 year old and 8 year old twins. She is the primary caregiver but husband works from home. Children are homeschooled part time. Husband is always home and very involved in homeschooling.

Juror 31: [Is opposed to the death penalty]

• She has seen the case on the news but doesn’t know if she has an opinion on guilt. She won’t know how she feels until she knows more. She can wait until she heard the evidence to make a decision.
• She has sequestration concerns. It’s just a long time away from home. Her husband is on disability. They’re used to doing everything together 24/7. Weeks after weeks after weeks not seeing him would be hard but she could do it. His disability does not require her care.
• She could evaluate the evidence if Chad doesn’t testify. She can be impartial.
• She is opposed to the DP but she could set aside that view and follow the law and instructions given by the court.

Juror 41: [she is VERY hard to hear]

• Has a potential vacation May 30. Has seen info about case in the media. The vacation is a weeklong trip. Trip pre-paid and vacation time already set aside.
• Also seems to think someone who doesn’t testify is guilty but she is hard to hear.
• Has a health condition, possibly bronchitis or something breathing related but it wouldn’t impact her ability to be there.

Juror 48: [followed the cases in the media]

• Already has an opinion of Chad’s guilt or innocence. “If he didn’t participate he did nothing to prevent what happened.”
• Has served on a civil jury before; was able to carry out the duty.
• Could put the previous knowledge out of his mind and only weigh the evidence presented in the trial.
• He is neutral but he wanted to be honest about his opinion.
• “I believe that Chad Daybell is a weak character.”

Juror 56: [Is a forensic interviewer, has a Bachelor’s Degree in Religion]

• Defendant having different religious beliefs would not sway her either way; will not judge him based on religious beliefs.
• Has seen some news about the case on CNN and Idaho news apps. Has seen articles here and there; doesn’t watch the news or get on news apps regularly.
• Saw something about the case early on, something about them in Hawaii, something about the search for the children’s bodies. Makes it a point to avoid the news.
• Thought “well, he probably did it.” Not a deep conviction. Just being honest.
• Can be impartial.
• Has not formed an opinion of defendant’s guilt.
• Daily proactive practice of neutrality.
• Supports the death penalty but is neutral.
• Could follow the court’s instruction.

Juror 121: [has potential bias and hardship]

• Exposed to pre-trial publicity. “It seemed like he was guilty from that info”.
• Understands the need to be impartial as a juror.
• Is helping plan a golf tournament at work scheduled for May 3rd. Could do the planning but it would be difficult for them to not have her there the day of.

Juror 146: [has five kids and runs a daycare]

• Could serve but was concerned about sequestration.
• Has seen news about the case on Facebook but not enough to keep her from being impartial.
• Doesn’t think being away from the daycare would cause her to not be impartial.
• “It is a lot but it’s what I do.”
• Would be able to focus if sequestered but needs to be able to check that her children are home and safe every day.
• Supports the death penalty but is not in favor of the death penalty in every murder case.
• Mentioned insanity defense but could follow the law and instructions.

Juror 186: [supports the death penalty]

• Would base the decision on the facts of the case and instructions.
• Is in favor of the death penalty in every murder case if the defendant is guilty; means, if it’s a death penalty case and they’re being tried for murder, he supports it.
• Is pre-disposed to choose the death penalty in murder cases [only when it is a death penalty case].
• Defense motions to strike for cause.
• [There seems to be a miscommunication here.]
• It is not his default to choose the death penalty.
• State objects to motion to strike. Judge overrules. Juror is not excused.

Juror 219: [pre-trial publicity]

• Has seen brief coverage on television. Has not intentionally followed the case.
• Has not formed any opinion of guilt.
• Supports the death penalty.
• The decision to impose the death penalty would depend on the individual case.
• Could follow instructions on whether or not to consider the death penalty.

Juror 296: [has class Monday and Wednesday]

• Is not positive that she could take the courses online. Withdrawing would not cause her a hardship.
• Has watched YouTube videos (Annie Elise) but not in quite a while.
• Understands there could be more to the case than is in the media.
• Is in favor of the death penalty but is neutral; it’s a circumstantial situation. Doesn’t fully believe in the death penalty but doesn’t not believe in the death penalty.
• Could follow the instructions in the case.

Juror 321: [prefers to discuss privately due to personal matters]

• Would experience unpaid time off if he serves; hasn’t been able to determine how much time. Is the sole provider for family.
• Stream is stopped due to personal matters.
• Unsure whether juror was excused.

Juror 394: [overheard people in jury summons room mention the case]

• Had not heard of the case before this.
• Possibly knows a witness based on the name; it sounds familiar. Nothing about the name causes concern though.
• Scheduled vacation from June 1 - June 16; week 10. (Actually June 6 - 10 but the dates given include travel time). Would be able to miss trip or be late and would not be distracted. He would just cancel, it would be fine. “I feel like this is important, so.”
• Has a downpayment on an AirB&B but it can be canceled and refunded by a certain date.
• Generally favors the death penalty but would follow the law and instructions.
• Is not in favor of the death penalty in every case where a murder has been committed but would be in favor of it if the defendant was guilty of the crime.
• Would be inclined to choose the death penalty over life in prison if someone is convicted. “It’s a just penalty for murder.”
• Would be able to follow instructions.
• Motion to strike for cause - defense. Prosecution objects.
• Would be able to follow instructions regardless of their personal views.
• Judge Boyce overrules motion to strike.

Issues/Motions Before Group 2

• Prosecution: Attorney Prior is “pandering to the jury” by referring to the “four prosecutors.”
• Prior: “If you wanna tell me exactly how to refer to those folks, I’d be glad to do that.”
• Judge Boyce: Not going to limit reference to four prosecutors, jurors can see them sitting there. If it is unnecessary or in an irrelevant way he will take it under advisement.
• Prosecution: Attorney Prior mentioned his personal belief that Chad Daybell is not guilty which is beyond the scope of voir dire.
• Prior: He will refrain from this.

GROUP 2

• Juror 841 is questionnaire 465

Group 2 Jurors:

EXCUSED JURORS

• Juror 440: Challenge for Cause - Defense (Opinion)
• Has seen news about the case.
• Believe Chad Daybell is guilty.
• Juror is excused.
• Juror 465: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Hardship)
• Works nights and usually wakes up at [bad audio].
• The start time would be like waking up at 3 AM for him.
• He would be falling asleep during the day probably.
• Judge Boyce tells him he would not be able to maintain a night shift job and be at the trial.
• Juror is excused.
• Juror 496: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Hardship)
• Out of town for work in April and May. Has a training going on. Has to travel for it. [Audio is bad] Could be rescheduled but [bad audio].
• Due to hardship given the additional information and the expenses associated with that, juror is excused for cause.
• Juror 539: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Hardship)
• Has two vacations planned, each is a week long. May 18th to the 24th or 25th and she is the primary caretaker for a two year old. Would need to find alternate childcare. The first vacation is already purchased.
• Juror 544: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Hardship)
• Has a wedding in Atlanta April 18 to 20something [audio is bad]. Nephew’s wedding. Purchased the airline tickets before he got the summons.
• Juror is excused.
• Juror 591: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Anxiety, Graphic Nature of Trial)
• This juror may have gotten too upset to think clearly when presented with the evidence.
• Juror is excused.
• Juror 617: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Death Penalty)
• This juror would not be able to choose the death penalty under any circumstances.
• Juror is excused.
• Juror 641: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Hardship)
• Has a vacation in May to visit elderly grandparents. May 18th til end of the month. Has scheduled time off work which is very hard to move. He has already purchased tickets in advanced. [audio is bad] Also interruption in school and work.
• Juror is excused.
• Juror 740: Challenge for Cause - Prosecution (Pretrial Knowledge)
• Prosecution is concerned the burden would have shifted against presumption of innocence of the defendant.
• Juror is excused.

Prior Knowledge of the Case

• Juror 505
• Juror 591
• Juror 740

Prior Opinion of Case

• Juror 591

Group Voir Dire

What is brutal honesty

• Juror 505: “It’s being very direct. Telling it like it is”

Hardships:

• Juror 617:
• [bad audio]
• Juror 631:
• Is a medical technician. His equipment at a specific hospital may not be maintained. He is the only technician trained on that specific [bad audio]. Has taken care of it, though.
• Juror 653:
• Possible financial hardship. [bad audio]

Regarding Autopsy Photographs

• Juror 591: (Challenge for Cause - Prosecution)
• May not be able to be impartial.
• May be emotional. Is a retired schoolteacher. Spent her whole life trying to keep kids safe.
• She has a very vivid imagination; is a very visual person. No matter what you say, she pictures it already. “I’m already living in movies”
• She doesn’t watch anything violent, even action movies. “They stay with me” and cause anxiety.
• Cannot “just stop picturing it.”
• Has already lost about a week of sleep over this.
• She has dreams that loop. Is in counseling.
• “It’s a warning and also very intuitive.”
• “It’s like I have a different sense about me.”

Regarding Jury Instructions and Not Adding Your Own Elements

• Juror 505: [bad audio] Will follow the law for the case.

Prosecutor asks the jury to think of a time that they had to do something a certain way.

• Juror 686: If a kid wants PB&J a certain way, you make it that way without any variation. Most of the time you go along with how they want it made.
• Juror 740: Work. People are set in their ways. You go along with their ways if it’s their call to make.

Circumstantial Evidence Instruction

• Juror 653: [bad audio]
• Juror 647: Technically, I would say that it rained [bad audio]

Does Anyone Watch CSI?

• Juror 526: [bad audio] Criminal Minds

Difficulty Sitting Long Periods of Time

• Juror [?]: Doesn’t want to talk about it. Not medical. Bad audio. Wouldn’t be distracted.

“Agreement”

• Juror 526: [called upon by Prior]
• [bad audio] positive affirmation [bad audio]
• Juror 536: [called upon by Prior]
• [bad audio] specifically to do a certain act [bad audio] agree on something [bad audio]
• Juror 617: [bad audio] If they’re tricked into it, it’s not an agreement.
• Juror 647: [called upon by Prior]
• Attorney Prior: Is it an agreement if someone is fooled into it or tricked into it?
• No, because they weren’t given all the information or the proper information. Someone needs to know the terms.
• Juror 631: [called upon by Prior]
• Agrees with 647.
• Juror 653: [bad audio]
• Juror 686: Two or more parties come to a similar plan, agree on the details of the plan or whatever the idea is and [bad audio] but both parties have a similar thought. Direct agreement has to be stated. Implied agreement [bad audio] that could be argued either way.

Individual Voir Dire

Juror 536: [pre-trial publicity]

• Learned about the case on local news, watched Dateline
• Has an opinion that he was involved.
• Felt like the kids were missing for a long time with no voluntary knowledge of what might have happened.
• Knows they need to go by the evidence they are given.
• Has no other opinion of Chad Daybell
• Generally opposed to the death penalty. Could follow instructions in the case.
• Believes the death penalty is a waste of money. A lot of times they end up serving life in prison anyway.
• Chad has been untruthful so she may not believe everything she says. (She doesn’t necessarily believe everything anyone says)

Juror 617: [potential media exposure]

• Would try to act impartially. Stopped watching the news “they were sort of beating us up with it a long time ago.” It’s important to try to listen to the evidence.
• Trial by jury of your peers [bad audio] Something you’re supposed to do as a citizen.
• Didn’t watch Dateline. It’s been overwhelming. Could set it aside. Will do his best.
• Opposes the death penalty.
• [bad audio]
• Can’t imagine the instructions will be to sentence him to death. Would rather vote for life in prison without parole. Could not choose if the only choice is the death penalty.
• Would not choose the death penalty under any circumstances.
• Is Catholic.
• Prosecution moves for cause. Juror is excused.

Juror 631: [potential hardship]

• Maintenance of medical equipment at a hospital. He is the only person at the hospital trained to work on the machine. He was able to work it out.
• Supports the death penalty.
• Is not in favor of the death penalty in every murder case. Could consider the death penalty.

Juror 647: [potential bias]

• Has specific knowledge of the “companion case” (Idaho V. Vallow)
• She would be able to give Chad Daybell a clean slate despite Lori Vallow’s guilty verdict.
• Nothing she has seen will influence her decision making process in any way.
• Does not have a strong opinion on the death penalty. She would need to have more information to grasp and understand the process.
• She would be impartial.

Juror 653: [hardship]

• Could be financial hardship with ten weeks of no paycheck. Knows now he is covered. Not an issue.
• Supports the death penalty if it’s appropriate under Idaho law.
• Generally opposed to the death penalty.
• Could impose the death penalty.
• Death penalty is not appropriate in every case.

Juror 686: [Judge voir dire]

• Length of the trial is not a problem. Thought that with the schedule finishing at 3:30 they could continue to work.
• Would not be full time. Needs to keep their residency. [bad audio]
• Generally opposed to the death penalty but supports. the death penalty as an option.
• Is not in favor of the death penalty in every case.
• Life in prison in a small cell is a worse punishment than killing someone.

Juror 740: [potential hardship, knowledge of case]

• Has a medical procedure that would need to be rescheduled. Wouldn’t be a hardship. Is an elective procedure, not a critical timeframe.
• Followed the case closely.
• Is familiar with Lori Vallow’s case. (Idaho V. Vallow)
• Followed this trial in news reports.
• The media has portrayed this defendant as guilty.
• Could (she thinks) put the prior knowledge out of her mind.
• One of her [bad audio] got into trouble with the law.
• She has a bias about how his court went.
• Possibly could subconsciously create a bias but she doesn’t think so.
• Prosecution moves for cause.
• Juror is excused.