Are They Insane?!?
Could Chad and Lori Escape Justice by Claiming Insanity?
July 3, 2020
Thank your for subscribing to the newsletter! If you know others who may be interested in the case, please encourage them to sign up too.
Many people have asked whether Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell can use the insanity defense. The short answer is it’s doubtful, but there’s a lengthy explanation behind it.
Insanity vs. Fitness to Proceed and Ability to Aid and Assist. The law surrounding mental state and insanity is complex, and some nuances bear explaining. Under a general legal definition, a person is insane if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he or she lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law. This definition has to do with the person’s state of mind at the time the crime was committed. Historically, that definition meant that if a person knew that what they were doing was wrong, and had any capacity to stop, they were not insane. Over the years, this definition has held up, with tweaks from individual states. The question of whether a person was insane at the time of the crime is different from the question of whether a person has the capacity to proceed to trial and can sufficiently aid and assist their counsel. The first question has to do with the circumstances at the time of the crime, and the second has to to with overall capacity, and the person’s ability at the time of trial. In some states, the law runs these two questions together; in others, they are very clearly separate.
The Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof. It’s important here to have a quick discussion about the burden and standard of proof. Generally, the burden to prove a fact in a criminal case is on the prosecution, and anything that shifts that burden to the defense is frowned upon. There are also different standards of proof. Although quantifying those levels is usually frowned upon in court, most lawyers would explain as follows: beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in a criminal case could be quantified as being 99% sure. The legal standard for a civil case, by a preponderance of the evidence, could be quantified as being 51% sure.
An insanity defense is one of the few times it is acceptable to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. The defense must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime (that he was unable to appreciate the criminality of his act, or conform his conduct to the law). In 1982, the country was shocked when John W. Hinckley, the gunman who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, was found not guilty by reason of insanity. That turn of events led many states, including Idaho, to reconsider the insanity defense. It was also a time when, in general, public opinion had swung toward law and order. In 1982, a few months after the Hinckley decision, Idaho abolished the insanity defense.
Idaho Law. Idaho’s abolition of the insanity defense is not, however, as sweeping as it sounds. In fact, the law does allow the defense to claim that a mental disease or defect interfered with the defendant’s ability to form the necessary mental state.
Mental State. I outlined the concept of mental state in an earlier post. For the benefit of those who were not subscribers at the time, here is what I wrote:
Every crime begins with a required mental state. In general terms, a crime is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. The required mental state usually indicates the seriousness of the crime. If you intentionally murder someone, that suggests some level of planning. Knowingly murdering someone suggests that you know you are killing someone but may not have planned it until the split second before it occurred. If you recklessly kill someone, you commit an act that you were aware had the possibility of causing someone’s death, while negligence suggests that you didn’t consider the risk of death. These are loose definitions because every jurisdiction is different.
Elements of a Crime. Every crime is defined by its elements. For instance, the Idaho crime of Murder in the First Degree, the elements will look something like this:
On a specific date (to show the crime occurred within the statute of limitations if there is one)
In a county in the state of Idaho (to establish the jurisdiction)
Defendant’s name (the crime was committed by a person) did
Wilfully, deliberately and with premeditation or
By way of poison or
Lying in wait
Or torture
Kill the victim, a human being.
Items 4-7 establish the necessary mental state. If the defense can prove that the defendant was sufficiently mentally ill so that they couldn’t act willfully, deliberately or with premeditation, or didn’t have the ability to plan sufficiently to poison, lie in wait or torture, then they still get the benefit of the defense.
Many states made changes to their criminal codes around the issue of insanity. Idaho was only one of four to approach the issue by tying the mental disease or defect to the ability to form the necessary mental state. In Oregon, the legislature took a different approach. The insanity defense was replaced by a finding of “guilty but insane.” The difference is that once a person is ruled to be guilty but insane, they are committed to the supervision of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB), which acts like a parole board for people found to be guilty, but insane.
Let’s apply this information to what we know about the case of Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell. Remember, we are only using what we can observe and the information available to the public. It appears that both Chad and Lori can aid and assist in their defenses. Both have appeared in court, said they were able to hear, read, and understand documents and the judge’s questions and rulings. Both have consulted extensively with several lawyers. Both appear entirely oriented to person, place, time, and situation.
It also appears that neither is insane. But Lori Hellis (so you don’t confuse me with that other Lori), you may say, how can they believe in, and do some of the things alleged, and not be batshit crazy? Excellent question! The answer is that the law’s definition of insanity and the cultural and societal definition of insanity are very different. A jury or a judge, acting as the finder of fact, will have to determine beyond a reasonable doubt, that a mental disease or defect interfered with their ability to form the necessary mental state for a crime to declare them insane. The judge or jury will look at the evidence, including the testimony of mental health experts, to decide that. We know that Lori had a psychological examination a couple of years ago. From what we know about that evaluation, no mental disease or defect was identified then. A mental condition could indeed develop in that time, but prosecutors will surely use that prior evaluation to suggest that Lori is malingering (claiming she’s sick when she isn’t). Having strange religious beliefs that you use to justify committing a crime is not proof of mental disease or defect. In fact, it might be the opposite. If a person can understand the nuanced doctrine of a religion, it may prove their intellectual ability to understand and conform their conduct to rules. It might be splitting hairs, but not understanding or being able to conform to the law is different than merely being grandiose and believing the law doesn’t apply to you because you are a deity. If you want to look at an interesting case study, take a look at the story of the Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh. I recommend the excellent six-part series on Netflix. Followers of the Rajneesh were prosecuted for America’s only case of domestic biological terrorism. Followers of the Bhagwan believed they were creating a paradise on Earth for his adherents and that they were justified in accomplishing it by any means possible. They may have held some pretty crazy ideas, but none of them were insane.
Lori and Chad’s lawyers might try the insanity gambit, but I doubt it will succeed. First, Lori and Chad would have to agree to it. From experience, I can tell you that a client with their level of arrogance and grandiosity is unlikely to give their consent. Second, the judge or jury would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the mental disease or defect kept them from understanding that what they were doing was wrong or being capable of following the law.
Think about it: knowing something is wrong, and being capable of following the law, then choosing not to is the definition of criminal intent.
Have questions? Email me at info@thelorivallowstory.com.
Lori Hellis is an author and an experienced criminal attorney. Her book, Children of Darkness and Light, The Lori Vallow Story, is expected out in 2021.
