Lori Indicted For Charles Vallow's Murder.
So much to talk about! Before we jump into it, though, I wanted to wish you all a happy and safe Fourth of July. There is no question that this crazy thing we call democracy is a finicky, fragile, high-maintenance child. Protecting it requires courage, vigilance, and balance. As a lawyer and a 20-year military veteran, I invite you, amid your celebration, to remember those who fought to protect this freedom over the last 245 years. Not only the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, but also the lawmakers. Rejoice that with all its flaws, our system is still one of the best in the world. The recent and long-overdue creation of a Juneteenth holiday is proof that we can learn and change for the better.
First, the biggest news; Lori Vallow has been indicted for Conspiracy to Commit Murder in Arizona for the death of her fourth husband, Charles Vallow. Let’s review the current situation so we can speculate on what might happen next.
Lori has been deemed incompetent and is receiving restorative services in a state hospital in Idaho.
Her three Idaho cases have been stayed, meaning nothing can happen in those cases as long as she is still incompetent.
She has not even made a first appearance on the Idaho murder charges.
There is a hearing scheduled for tomorrow, July 1, 2021, at 11 am MDT. The meeting is identified as a “status conference.” We don’t know what the judge will hear about which status. Stay tuned.
Lori has been deemed indigent in Idaho and will also be indigent in Arizona. As a result, she will be appointed an attorney. Hopefully, Mark Means will supply that attorney with complete information about Lori’s condition, so her rights can be protected on the new charges.
Any initial appearances and arraignment on the Arizona charges will be held by video. After that, she will remain in Idaho until the Idaho charges are resolved by conviction or plea, and she is sentenced.
States are hesitant to give up a defendant to another state once they have the defendant in custody. Remember, states are sovereign thanks to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. That means neither state can tell the other what to do. In general, cases are adjudicated in the order they were charged, so Idaho has precedence. Once Lori has been convicted and sentenced in Idaho, she will be transported to Arizona to face those charges.
The speedy trial clock is suspended, and the time tolled when a person is in custody in another state. That means the Arizona authorities are not going to bump up against any speedy trial time limits. To determine whether the defendant had a speedy trial, the time the defendant is in custody in another state doesn’t count, and it’s as if that time didn’t exist. The reasoning is that the defendant has committed some culpable conduct that makes her unavailable to stand trial in another state. Therefore, she should not benefit in the second state (potential dismissal because of speedy trial violations) because of her criminal conduct in the first state.
Arizona does have an insanity defense. To invoke it, the defendant must prove that at the time of the offense, they were unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or their ability to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired. That will be difficult, with body camera footage of Lori just minutes after the shooting, appearing calm, relaxed, and quite aware of her circumstances and surroundings.
There is no way to know why Chad has also not been charged with Charles’s murder. It could be that the DA will present his involvement to the grand jury separately or that they don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to charge him.
Chad’s murder case has been set for trial. What’s next? Once again, let’s see how accurate my crystal ball is. I think the DA will file their notice of intent to seek the death penalty soon. They have until July 25, 2021, to file. The date falls on a Sunday. Different courts have different rules about how to treat deadlines that fall on the weekends, but I think we can expect the DA to file something by Monday, June 26th at the absolute latest. Chad’s attorney, John Prior, asked to postpone the change of venue motion and has asked for the deadline to file motions to be extended. All reasonable requests. If the notice of intent to take the death penalty is filed, there will be a big shake-up. John Prior is not death penalty qualified. He could become qualified to continue as the second attorney on the case, but a lead counsel will have to be appointed. An entire defense team will be assembled, including at least one investigator (probably more) and a mitigation specialist. When the new attorney is appointed, they will need time to get themselves up to speed with the case. Chad will have a decision to make; he will have to decide whether to demand a trial within the six-month speedy trial rule or waive his right to a speedy trial and postpone the trial until next year. I expect if this circumstance arises, he will waive and postpone the trial to assure his new legal team has all the time they need to formulate his defense. It raises an interesting question about how it impacts Lori’s case and the fact that they are joined. Right now, Lori’s case is paused while she received restorative services. That may not still be the case if the trial is postponed into next year. I still anticipate that the DA will seek to consolidate the two cases (the earlier destruction of evidence case and the murder charges) into one case. I also expect that John Prior will file a motion to sever Chad’s case from Lori’s.
This week we also saw some odd filings surrounding sealing documents. Let’s see if I can explain. Apparently, Mark Means filed a second declaration supporting his motion to hold the state in contempt of court for delaying discovery. He also apparently attached 169 pages of confidential discovery to this declaration to prove the statements he’d made, yet another rookie mistake. That prompted the prosecutor to frantically seek an emergency order to seal the documents and protect the confidential information. There was also an order unsealing something. The reason will require a little explanation of how court records work. In the old days of paper files, a portion of the file was set aside for sealed documents. The document was literally sealed in an envelope. But people handling the file needed to know what was in the sealed envelope, so usually, the order to seal contained a general description of what was in the envelope – in this case it was the defendant’s declaration regarding the Motion for Contempt. Then court staff would affix the order to the outside of the sealed envelope to identify the document inside. A similar process happens now, digitally. Apparently court staff mistakenly sealed the document that is supposed to remain unsealed to identify what is in the sealed portion. The court then had to order it unsealed.
There was a period of time after Means’ declaration was filed and before it was sealed, when some people may have obtained copies of the motion and the confidential pages before they were ordered sealed. We know Nate Eaton of East Idaho News did. Nate was clear that he has no intention of making that information public. That’s journalistic ethics. Most true professional journalists are committed to a code of professional ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists has published one of the most commonly used codes. If you would like to take a look at them, the provisions can be found at www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. One of those tenets is “Minimize Harm.”
Before I was a lawyer, I earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism. I intend to make my upcoming book as truthful, unvarnished, and objective as I can. My goal from the start has been to understand all the angles of this incredibly complex story. Perhaps we can use what we learn to prevent something like this from happening again. If you have not had the opportunity to listen to Lauren Matthias’s interview with Dr. Christine, please do. It can be found on Hidden a True Crime Podcast as well as on her YouTube channel. Dr. Christine’s situation, while not the same as the Daybell case, has some interesting similarities. The story illustrates that these situations where someone declares themself a prophet and uses it to take advantage of vulnerable people aren’t uncommon.
The Lifetime Channel released their movie about the case. Many found it disgusting, unsettling, and inaccurate. It’s hard to say how much was dramatization for ratings and how much was true. We won’t know until the cases are finished, and people like me can delve into the records and interview those involved. I suspect we will find the movie bears little resemblance to the actual facts.
Finally, I keep seeing the word mistrial tossed around in comments on Facebook. I’ve addressed this before, but to be clear, a mistrial can only occur after a jury is seated and if there is some sort of misconduct by either side or if inadmissible or improper evidence is introduced. Means’ inclusion of confidential information with his motion is NOT grounds for a mistrial.
I want to thank all of you for subscribing to this newsletter and a special thanks to both Tricia Griffith from Websleuths and Lauren and John Matthias from Hidden True Crime for having me as a regular guest on their YouTube channels. Knowing them has enriched my life and extended my reach. Please support them both by subscribing to their channels and liking their videos. Until next time, stay safe out there.
