I'm Baaaack!
Hello Friends – Yes, it’s been a minute – since March 25, to be precise. Since then, I’ve sold a house, bought a house, moved out of a house, and moved into a house 949 miles away. I also moved my mom into an assisted living residence about ten minutes away from my new house. And I still managed to make it to CrimeCon 2022 in Las Vegas! More about CrimeCon later.
There have been many significant developments in the Vallow/Daybell case.
There have been some recent developments in the case that warrant discussion. Unfortunately, the past weeks have been a blur for me, so forgive me that I’m just catching up.
First, the big news was that Lori Vallow was restored to competence and fit to stand trial. She was arraigned on April 19, 2022. She declined to speak at her hearing, and the judge, as is typical, entered a not guilty plea on her behalf and set her trial to begin on October 11, 2022. Chad Daybell’s trial is scheduled to start on January 9, 2023.
The judge denied John Prior’s motion to sever the cases and his motion to dismiss the indictment. Judge Boyce then denied the state’s motion to reconsider the change of venue and bus a jury in instead.
The state has now filed a motion titled “ Motion to Find Good Cause to Continue Trial & Prevent Improper Severance.” The prosecution asks the court to find that there is good cause to continue Lori’s trial to coincide with Chad’s. They say, “The relevant part of Idaho Code §193501 provides that the Court must order that a prosecution or indictment be dismissed if not brought to trial within six months, “unless good cause to the contrary is shown.” The State bears the burden of demonstrating that good cause exists for delay of a trial beyond the six month statutorily prescribed time period.”
At the heart of the argument is the question, what constitutes good cause? As the state points out, “Ultimately the Clark court decided that good cause could be determined by an examination of the reasons for the delay and concluded “good cause means that there is a substantial reason that rises to the level of a legal excuse for the delay. ” Id. at 260.”
“In State v. Clark, the Idaho Supreme Court took the opportunity to analyze what constitutes good cause in relation to the U.S. Supreme Court’s four factor balancing test announced in Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514 (1972): The Court adopted a balancing test in which the conduct of the defendant and the prosecution were to be weighed and identified four primary factors the courts should evaluate in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his speedy trial right: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted the right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. Clark, 135 Idaho 255 at 258.”
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law defines a legal excuse as “The explanation for the performance or nonperformance of a particular act; a reason alleged in court as a basis for exemption or relief from guilt.”
Generally, the question before the court is who is responsible for the delay? So, for example, when a defendant who is out on bail and absconds is caught three years later, she can’t demand her case be dismissed on speedy trial grounds because her behavior was the basis of the delay.
So, can we attribute the delay to Lori’s mental illness, saying the delay was her fault, so there’s good cause to delay her trial to coincide with Chad’s? The short answer: no. If there were proof Lori was malingering, the answer would be different. While I understand many believe her mental illness is a ruse, so far, there’s no proof. The time Lori was incompetent is considered tolled (that means it doesn’t count in time computation). We know the length of the delay, and it’s clear that Lori asserted her right to a speedy trial. So the only remaining question is whether she will be prejudiced by the delay from October until January.
The state’s contention that “The Court’s determination of good cause to continue Defendant Vallow Daybell’s trial date for a short period as proposed by the State ensures the cases remain properly joined and avoids further complications in the future.” may or may not be true. The right to a speedy trial is considered nearly sacred. Whatever Judge Boyce rules, there will surely be an appeal of his ruling. The question becomes, which decision is the least likely to be overturned by the appeals court?
The state cites case law, particularly the case of State v. McNew, 131 Idaho 268, 271-272 (Ct. App. 1998). The Vallow case can be easily distinguished from McNew, though. In the McNew case, the defendant was primarily responsible for the delay. Like Vallow, McNew asked for a psychological evaluation, but it’s there that the similarities end. First, McNew was not in custody. It is an important distinction because there is a heightened obligation to provide a speedy trial when a defendant is in custody. McNew contributed to the delay by dragging his feet in getting the evaluation done. Once the evaluation was done, it was shown that he was competent.
Conversely, in Vallow’s case, she was in custody, the evaluation was done promptly, and she was found to be incompetent and committed to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare for treatment. See the difference? There’s also one other critical piece of evidence: McNew’s attorney indicated in court that his client intended to waive his right to a speedy trial. Generally, the court requires that speedy trial waivers be put in writing out of an abundance of caution. However, the appellate court can use the verbal assertion to prove the defendant’s intentions and state of mind.
Vallow’s defense team has filed a response. Some interesting tidbits are being telegraphed if you read between the lines. Here are some of the high points.
Lori is currently competent, but that could change at any moment. She has been referred for a neuropsychological examination. For the uninitiated, a neuropsychological examination is a hybrid – in the territory where psychology and psychiatry intersect. The evaluation will determine if there is some organic, physical reason for Lori’s mental illness, such as a physical brain injury or defect.
Her lawyers have carefully explained to Lori the pros and cons of a joint trial. Nevertheless, Lori wants a joint trial with Chad Daybell and does not want to waive her right to a speedy trial.
Her attorneys have explained the gravity of the charges and the necessity to prepare for such a complex and consequential trial, and she’s not budging. They encouraged her to consider that a short continuance would permit more time for them to prepare, and despite that, she declined.
Her attorneys are carefully covering their butts. They are documenting before the court that they have fully advised Lori and that she has chosen to exert her speedy trial rights despite their good advice.
What are Judge Boyce’s options at this point? He can find good cause for the short delay and move her trial to January. He can find good cause to sever the cases and leave both dates where they are, or he can move Chad Daybell’s trial up to October. Let’s remember that Chad has already waived his speedy trial rights. Unless there is a speedy trial issue, the scheduling of trials is entirely within the judge’s discretion. If the judge rules that Lori’s case will go forward in October, the state could ask the court to accelerate Chad’s trial to avoid severing them. John Prior’s position is a little harder to discern. On the one hand, he’s repeatedly reported he either is or will be ready for trial. On the other hand, he’s also in support of severed trials.
If Judge Boyce finds good cause to delay Lori’s trial and moves her date to November, she will undoubtedly appeal. If the appeals court sides with Lori and finds her speedy trial rights were violated, the only remedy is to dismiss her charges. There’s no do-over. That’s a lot of risk, and Judge Boyce has already shown himself to be careful, nearly to a fault. If he moves Chad’s trial up, and if Chad appeals and wins, the remedy would be a new trial for Chad. If Judge Boyce severs the trials, and if Lori or Chad appeals and wins again, the remedy would likely be a new joint trial. My prediction: unless Lori changes her mind and waives her right to a speedy trial, her trial will happen in October, with or without Chad.
Now a personal anecdote. A defendant was charged with an armed robbery. He was in custody and demanded a speedy trial. He also reported dissatisfaction with his court-appointed lawyer and demanded that the judge appoint him a new attorney, claiming he couldn’t work with his current lawyer. As it happened, I was next on the appointment rotation. The problem? His trial was scheduled nine days later. The judge had a lengthy discussion on the record with the defendant. He pointed out that he was asking for a new attorney, knowing that the new lawyer would only have nine days to investigate and prepare for his case. He suggested that the defendant reconsider his decision. The defendant was adamant; he had been in the system before and was something of a jailhouse lawyer. The judge appointed me and was clear on the record that I was to do my best to prepare in the nine days available to me. My assistant, investigator, and I dropped everything and prepared as best we could for the trial. After a two-day jury trial, the defendant was convicted, and the judge sentenced him to a lengthy mandatory prison sentence. Of course, he appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, among other things. In my jurisdiction, appeals were defended by appellate defense lawyers. I provided the appellate lawyer with the file and explained the situation. I had kept careful track of all the work we had done to prepare for the case, including all the extra evening and weekend work. When the appeals court ruled on the case, they found that there was nothing more my team could have done under the circumstances and with the time constraints. It was a case of, as this particular judge was fond of saying, “be careful what you wish for.”
Oh, how I’ve missed you and missed writing these newsletters! Amid all the packing, moving, and unpacking, I got the chance to attend CrimeCon 2022 in Las Vegas, which was amazing! I had the chance to meet people in person I had only met online, including Kay and Larry Woodcock, and other creators, including Scott Riesch of Crime Talk and Gigi from Pretty Lies and Alibis. I also spent time with Lauren, Dr. John Matthias, and Julie Holden of Hidden True Crime and met many of our followers. Next year, CrimeCon will be in Orlando, Florida, at the Orlando World Marriott on September 22-24, 2023. I hope we’ll see all of you there.
I’ll be chatting with Lauren Matthias on YouTube at Hidden True Crime on Friday. So grab your favorite beverage and join us for TGIF!
