Lori Vallow Believes THIS Happens After Her Appeal

Tony Brueski (0:00)

This is Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski.

Tony Brueski (0:13)

LoriVallowDaybell, she's attempting an appeal, and we're going to be getting into that and give you anything you need to know about it. Your thoughts on the comments section and Substack on YouTube as we work our way into it. She actually sat there on Dateline and told Keith Morrison that she and Chad Daybell would be exonerated. Remember that? Yeah, she claimed Jesus showed her the future, and in her vision, neither of them were behind bars. She even offered to go on Dancing With the Stars. Once it all blew over, invited Morrison to come along for the ride. Wouldn't that be great? Yeah, Dancing With the Stars. There's Lori! Oh my God. Well, fast forward to November 2nd, the Idaho Supreme Court is set to hear her appeal. Five justices in Boise, 30 minutes per side, and Lori won't even be in the room. Her attorney is going to argue that the trial convicting her of murdering JJ and Tylee was completely unconstitutional, and he's asking the court to either toss out every single charge or grant her a brand new trial, because God knows the world needs, what would this be now? A fifth, fourth, fifth LoriVallow trial?

I've lost track, because there was multiple ins... I think there will be fourth, I think. I think.

By the time the last ones were going on, it was kind of just like, yeah, whatever. Gets the same shit over again.

Now, she does have one argument here that actually carries some weight. I know we may want to hear this, but look, don't be surprised. If the judge was wrong to strip away the lawyer she originally hired, her entire conviction collapses automatically. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the evidence was. It doesn't matter if her replacement defense team was top-notch.

In Lori's mind, it probably was. It was her.

That's how the law handles this exact type of mistake. If the law or if the Supreme Court views that decision to be wrong, the conviction vanishes. And then you go back in time and you dust it off and you try again. That's the legal play, but let's look at who's making it. A woman who has been convicted across three separate trials in two states and has never once taken an ounce of responsibility or acknowledged the horrors she caused. Let's rewind back to December of 21 Judge Stephen Boyce booted Lori's attorney Mark Means off the case. The issue Means had also represented Chad Daybell, Lori's husband and co-defendant. Judge Boyce laid out 17 pages explaining why one attorney couldn't possibly represent both halves of an alleged murder conspiracy without a massive conflict of interest. Lori's appellate lawyer, Craig Durham, argued that conflict was overblown. He pointed out that Means' work for Chad was brief, both signed waivers, and no one ever proved specific conditional and confidential info was leaked to hurt Lori's case. Durham's argument is straightforward. Stripping her chosen lawyer away was a direct constitutional violation, and the state can't just hand wave it away by saying her next defense team did a great job.

The state's counterargument, though, kind of hits like a freight train. Prosecutors point out that Means publicly claimed to represent Chad. Chad even talked on a recorded jail call about Means being his lawyer and shared privileged details. On top of that, Chad allegedly helped pay for Means to represent Lori. By the time murder indictments came down, Lori and Chad were co-conspirators in a capital case. Their interests could turn hostile in a split second. And don't forget, Lori was officially declared incompetent when that call had to be made. The court ruled she wasn't mentally fit to understand her own legal proceedings, meaning she couldn't legally or knowingly wave that conflict. Judges have broad discretion to pull a lawyer off a conspiracy case if there is a real conflict, and boys exercise that power. This is a massive legal hurdle standing between Lori and a retry. Still, the core constitutional argument is there. Dismissing it just because she's a monster is a shortcut the law doesn't really allow. That's the exact tightrope the Idaho justices have to walk come November 2nd. Her four other appeal claims get weaker as we go down the line. But each one sheds light on the massive divide between a clean legal brief and the actual person behind it. She claims she was denied legal representation at the hearing that decided who her lawyer would be since the means battle was moved into Chad's case while hers was paused. She also claims the court picked her council while she was too mentally incompetent to participate. That could be a bit of an argument. Sure, those points sound persuasive, but the state's response is this. If she was too unfit to understand the proceedings, she was also too unfit to waive a severe conflict of interest. Judge Boyce was trapped. He had to make a move or leave a mentally unfit defendant paired with a conflicted attorney. Then there's the evidence argument, which runs straight into what happened down in Arizona. Remember, the trials moved from Idaho to Arizona because there's people in different states. During her Idaho trial, prosecutors presented evidence concerning the murder of Charles Vallow in the drive-by shooting targeting Brandon Boudreau. Her defense argued those uncharged Arizona crimes were introduced just to smear her character. The state argued it established a distinct pattern. Chad marks someone as a dark spirit. Alex Cox steps in and the target gets attacked and Lori or Chad profit from it. In April 25, an Arizona jury needed just three hours to convict Lori for conspiring to murder Charles Vallow. By June 25, a second Arizona jury took a mere 44 minutes to convict her in the attempted murder of Brandon Voudreau. Lori represented herself in both trials. Judge Justin Brueski handed down two more consecutive life sentences telling her straight out that she should never breathe free air again. She labeled that testimony uncharged prejudice in Idaho. Two separate Arizona juries labeled it a cold-blooded crime. Her speedy trial argument demands the ultimate win, demanding all charges be tossed out completely, based on the thinnest legal logic ever.