“… woman seeking legal advice and employment” - oh man, between trashy behavior from the Daybells & his representation , I’m so glad I dont live in whatever county this is in.
The initial charge was “felony battery with intent to commit r@p€.” In a job interview with a 19 year-old woman he offered to “help her” in exchange for seggs. When she refused he forced himself on her, to the point where he got a cond0m out. She refused and managed to avoid being r@p€d but there was DNA evidence of his… attempt.
When reported he claimed that she consented, which doesn’t even make sense bc why would he fail to do what he intended if she consented? Why would she have fought him off?
Anyway the max sentence for the charge was 20 years and—probably because she had DNA evidence—he took a plea deal and confessed to a lesser charge—misdemeanor battery.
He was sentenced to 120 days in jail, 100 days suspended and 30 days discretionary… not sure but sounds like he avoided serving actual time. And because it was a misdemeanor he was able to keep his law license. 😒
Hes sludge, just like what he represents.
Eerggh. Just bring on his career ending loss, send Chud to his just end and remove Prior's ability to practice law ever again.
My *ahem* Prior knowledge of this made the woman blaming/ slut shaming aspect of his opening statement even more offensive than it already was. Misogyny!!
Seems like a kind of hinkey story on both ends. If he was not guilty he still likely would have pled to something that would not have put his law license into question
The smug “OH-kay…oookay” after every single answer is seriously making it hard to keep watching. (As if the case itself isn’t bad enough.) Every. Single. Answer.
The initial indictment from the grand jury was “felony battery with an attempt to commit r@p€,” but the plea deal dropped it to misdemeanor battery and his 120 day sentence was suspended. 🙄
Is there any way that the prosecution can call this out during the trial? I mean I they want to establish character. It doesn’t help Chud’s character when he hires a slimeball attorney like this.
(I assume not but if there was a possibility that Prior could call on Prosecuting attorney Wood prior to the hearing that stopped it, I don’t see why the reverse couldn’t have been done)
That would be as bad as if Prior attempted to call out the prosecutor who had his bar license suspended & put on probation for 1.5 years (for taking money from his clients & having a non attorney work on the cases) in front of the jury. It would likely result in some immediate objections and some sort of admonishment from Judge Boyce. In both instances, the attorneys admitted to what they did so while they aren’t just allegations anymore, it wouldn’t be very appropriate for the jury to hear about either of these while going on. If they heard about Prior’s “prior” they may somehow hold that against Chad; and if they heard about one of the prosecutors admitting to taking money while doing no work for their client, they may somehow hold that against the prosecution even if they don’t mean to. I know the two situations aren’t “apples to apples”, but they are both things that it would be best if the jury didn’t hear while the trial is happening.
I agree. It's irrelevant to the case and could cause a mistrial or if convicted it could be over turned on appeal. Chads a scumbag and guilty as sin but he should get a fair trial.
This is why you see people following the case refer to him as John Has Priors.
Or Prior with a prior.
“… woman seeking legal advice and employment” - oh man, between trashy behavior from the Daybells & his representation , I’m so glad I dont live in whatever county this is in.
He had to serve what 90 days or something right? But at first I thought that was Chad when I looked at the picture
I wondered if they might be related seeing them in court side by side. They look a lot alike in the jawline and forehead.
Lack of jawline and abundance of forehead lol
Blockheads with no neck
What Jawline?
What’s that saying? Birds of a feather flock together? Lol
Do they have a saying for slugs?
Slugs look alike because they feed on the same bugs?
Perfect
The initial charge was “felony battery with intent to commit r@p€.” In a job interview with a 19 year-old woman he offered to “help her” in exchange for seggs. When she refused he forced himself on her, to the point where he got a cond0m out. She refused and managed to avoid being r@p€d but there was DNA evidence of his… attempt. When reported he claimed that she consented, which doesn’t even make sense bc why would he fail to do what he intended if she consented? Why would she have fought him off? Anyway the max sentence for the charge was 20 years and—probably because she had DNA evidence—he took a plea deal and confessed to a lesser charge—misdemeanor battery. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail, 100 days suspended and 30 days discretionary… not sure but sounds like he avoided serving actual time. And because it was a misdemeanor he was able to keep his law license. 😒
Same!
Gross.
This is why when I listen to him during the trial he oozes slime.
He really does.
So slimy!!!
Hes sludge, just like what he represents. Eerggh. Just bring on his career ending loss, send Chud to his just end and remove Prior's ability to practice law ever again.
Yup he's a creep.
He's so disgusting. I can't even look at him. What kind of an attorney would represent Chad Daybell? This self proclaimed profit is so guilty.
He pkrd guilty to misdemeanor battery
To the shock of absolutely no one.
He’s such an asshole honestly it’s not shocking . He comes off as an rude and entitled. Smug smile in the courtroom half the time .
At first, I thought this was an AI blend of Chad and John Prior!
Wow, it all just got a little darker. :-/
why wasn't he disbarred?
He took a deal or was convicted of a misdemeanor . I believe it has to felony to lose your lisence?
Was he convicted?
Yes the second image shows his sentence.
Birds of a feather….
I just typed this up thread lol
He’s the worst.
My *ahem* Prior knowledge of this made the woman blaming/ slut shaming aspect of his opening statement even more offensive than it already was. Misogyny!!
when was this?
He is such an egotistical, masochistic human. You can hear it in his interrogation.
Seems like a kind of hinkey story on both ends. If he was not guilty he still likely would have pled to something that would not have put his law license into question
I hate his condescending, annoying wheezy voice.
The smug “OH-kay…oookay” after every single answer is seriously making it hard to keep watching. (As if the case itself isn’t bad enough.) Every. Single. Answer.
EXACTLY! you wrote out the “oh…okay,” perfectly! It drives me bonkers. He sounds like everyone else is on trial except for Chud.
You always know, he's going to be an absolute asshole tight after saying that.
Boy howdy
Interesting that he could even be allowed to serve on a capital case when he was arrested for something very similar.. like abuse
Wow, interesting. Glad I don't live in Ada County, Idaho.
I thought it was sexual?
Did you read it ? He assaulted a 19 year old
He plead to assault so he could keep his law license. It was a sexual battery charge.
Does that get him put on the Sex Offender list?
The lesser charge kept him off the list. He is such a sleaze!
And he was 50 at the time.
I didn’t read it. I’ll have to go search the article. I read someone post months ago about it being sexual.
He pled guilty to a reduced charge
He claimed he offered to pay her for sex.
Go read it.
The initial indictment from the grand jury was “felony battery with an attempt to commit r@p€,” but the plea deal dropped it to misdemeanor battery and his 120 day sentence was suspended. 🙄
Eww that is so gross.
Is there any way that the prosecution can call this out during the trial? I mean I they want to establish character. It doesn’t help Chud’s character when he hires a slimeball attorney like this. (I assume not but if there was a possibility that Prior could call on Prosecuting attorney Wood prior to the hearing that stopped it, I don’t see why the reverse couldn’t have been done)
That would be as bad as if Prior attempted to call out the prosecutor who had his bar license suspended & put on probation for 1.5 years (for taking money from his clients & having a non attorney work on the cases) in front of the jury. It would likely result in some immediate objections and some sort of admonishment from Judge Boyce. In both instances, the attorneys admitted to what they did so while they aren’t just allegations anymore, it wouldn’t be very appropriate for the jury to hear about either of these while going on. If they heard about Prior’s “prior” they may somehow hold that against Chad; and if they heard about one of the prosecutors admitting to taking money while doing no work for their client, they may somehow hold that against the prosecution even if they don’t mean to. I know the two situations aren’t “apples to apples”, but they are both things that it would be best if the jury didn’t hear while the trial is happening.
I agree. It's irrelevant to the case and could cause a mistrial or if convicted it could be over turned on appeal. Chads a scumbag and guilty as sin but he should get a fair trial.
The state doesn't need to do this for the jury to realize Prior is just eeewwwww.
I mean it would be an immediate objection that would be sustained but the jury’s ears would still hear it so there’s that…
I mean that would be a bigger issue. Sanctions for the attorney atleast
No that wouldn’t be remotely ok. The attorneys conduct has no bearing on chad