New motions and wristbands

So many things to talk about!

First, let’s get some of the announcements out of the way.

I have ordered wristbands. They will be available in early December and look like the one pictured above.


If you are a subscriber, you will be entitled to one free band. I will have a PO Box set up early next week. Once I publish the address, if me a self-addressed stamped envelope and you are on our subscriber list, we will send you a free band.

I will be setting up a shop on the lorivallowstory.com website that will allow you to order extras for a small charge.

I want to address making money from the case. I am writing a book that I expect to put thousands of hours into writing and researching. I hope the book will make money.

I will NOT make money off of Tylee and JJ’s image or name on products. I am offering the wristbands free to subscribers because you asked for them to honor the children. The nominal cost of extras is to defray the cost of ordering and shipping the extra bands.

I also want you all to know that I do not accept money for my appearances on any other creator’s channel or podcast.

Now let’s talk about the crazy Friday filings. It’s not unusual for attorneys to drop filings on Friday. The reason is twofold. First, it might spoil the other attorney’s weekend (yes, attorneys do this weird passive-aggressive shit), especially if the trial is coming up soon. Second, dropping stuff on Friday assures that some media frenzy will have died down by Monday. News agencies are less likely to pursue a story when they have minimal staff on over the weekend.

Mark Means is at it again. If you are looking at his latest filing and saying, “What the ***k?” you’re not alone.

First, as subscriber, Denise Hovland, has pointed out before, Idaho statute 19-3005 (3) says, witnesses

“If a person comes into this state in obedience to a subpoena directing him to attend and testify in a criminal hearing or prosecution in this state, he will not while in this state, pursuant to such subpoena, be subjected to arrest or the service of process, civil or criminal, in connection with any matter which arose before his entrance into this state under such subpoena.”

There’s a good reason for this law. We want people to appear when they are subpoenaed for a proceeding. Melanie Gibb was under subpoena to appear before the Grand Jury. Therefore, she is exempt from service of process, which includes being served with a discovery motion.

In his most recent filing, Mark Means asks the judge to hold Gibb in contempt because she didn’t comply with an improperly served discovery demand. The tricky part is that she needs someone to assert the argument to the court in answer to Means’ motion for contempt. The state doesn’t represent Gibb, and Rob Wood and Lindsey Blake may feel it’s not their place to defend Gibb. On the other hand, they could argue that Gibb was there because of their Grand Jury subpoena, and so they have an interest in the contempt motion. I hope Gibb has an attorney who will make the argument in court that she can’t be held in contempt of court for a discovery demand that was improperly served.

Second, a subpoena isn’t a court order. A person can only be held in contempt if they disobeyed a court order. Means should have first asked the court for an order directing Gibb to comply with the subpoena. If the court issued such an order, and she still didn’t produce the necessary discovery, the judge could hold her in contempt of court. There’s a reason for it; it’s so the subpoenaed person has the opportunity to come into court and raise any lawful challenges to the subpoena (such as that the subpoena wasn’t properly served).

The motion goes on to allege that Gibb has “possibly” evaded prosecution and has engaged in inappropriate communications with the prosecution. These allegations are silly and irrelevant in a motion of this kind. Additionally, Mr. Mean alleges that Ms. Gibb is “believed to be a residence of the State of Arizona.” Do you think Melanie knows she’s a house? Once again, there is absolutely no prohibition against the prosecution talking to witnesses, and what that has to do with whether she’s complied with a discovery request is beyond me.

We’ve all taken notice of the fact that Jim Archibald has not joined his co-counsel, Mark Means, in any of these silly filings. Means may “I’m in charge” himself into a malpractice suit and disbarment.

No matter how I try, people seem intent on disparaging Mark Means because of his client’s character. Please don’t. Criminal defense lawyers represent bad people. That does not make the lawyer a bad person; it makes the lawyer a person who is doing their job to uphold the constitution. Mark Means does enough on his own to disparage himself. He’s proven he can’t spell, doesn’t know a thing about grammar, and will routinely try to make the law say what he thinks it should and not what it does. He’s proven his poor judgment over and over, and you are welcome to disparage away for that.

I think this filing goes nowhere.

Next, there’s the filing by the prosecution to present additional evidence in support of their request that a jury is selected in a different venue and bussed to Rexburg. If you recall, the judge asked the attorneys to present information about the cost of a change of venue versus the cost of bringing in an outside jury. At the change of venue hearing, the prosecution presented several witnesses that were not especially helpful. The Prosecution didn’t, as the judge had asked, present a financial comparison. Now they’ve had time to compile information and want a second bite at the apple. Procedurally, once the judge finds grounds to move the trial, the case is referred to the state supreme court, and the Chief Justice makes the final decision as to where the trial will be held. The Idaho Chief Justice has already issued an order directing the trial to be moved to Ada County (Boise) and that Judge Boyce remains on the case. I don’t think Judge Boyce even has the authority to reopen the issue if he wanted to.

I think this filing goes nowhere.

I’ve saved John Prior’s motion for last because I think there is some meat to it worth discussion. Friends, I can’t dispute that John Prior is a blowhard and a bully who is condescending to women. In other words, he’s a typical 59-year-old male attorney. However, Prior is also experienced and knowledgeable about criminal law and doesn’t file spurious or specious motions like Mark Means.

For the uninitiated, Mark Means filed pleadings last week, alleging that Lori Vallow had contact with an attorney representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Means claims that a clinician at her treatment facility encouraged Lori to call the church attorney to ask for help in getting a different attorney. The Church attorney reported his contact to the prosecutor, who reported it to Lori’s other attorney, Jim Archibald. Means was indignant that another attorney may have spoken to Lori while she was represented and may have made incriminating disclosures that were not protected by attorney/client privilege. Furthermore, Means’ account of what Lori told him happened varies drastically from the account given by the Utah attorney Lori contacted.

John Prior has now filed a Motion for Discovery Concerning Events That Were Revealed in Lori Vallow’s Motion Dated October 27, 2021. Prior is right to be upset because the prosecutor didn’t notify him of Lori’s contact with the Utah attorney. He points out that as long as Lori and Chad are codefendants, the prosecution had a duty to notify him, and they didn’t. Prior is right. He’s entitled to the same information, and the prosecution has the same ongoing obligation under Brady vs. Maryland to turn over discovery to him as it occurs or develops. Prior is correct that if the state exploited information received from Lori while she is incompetent, it implicates Chad as well and may very well impact his ability to get a fair trial.

Unlike Mark Means, Prior’s motion is well-argued and free of grammatical and spelling errors. I particularly appreciate Prior’s subtle dig at the prosecution when he wonders, “how a seemingly unaffiliated attorney in Utah was able to contact and get an audience with Mr. Wood…” (Is he suggesting Wood is a king? At least he’s not telling the court Wood is a house.) I also think the question plays into his request for a non-LDS special prosecutor. Did Rob Wood take the call because every member of the LDS church knows the McConkie name?

Prior correctly points out that the court must apply a higher standard at every phase of the case once the state asks for the death penalty. He then goes on to ask to be permitted to “fully investigate this incident.” Prior then makes a specific discovery request, asking to get everything that exists about the incident. The list seems comprehensive and reasonable. The only item I question is item 12), A “list of the trainings attended by all members of the prosecution team on this case within the past five years.” ”his request appears out of place unless Prior knows that the Prosecution attended a training relevant to the issues.

Prior asks the court to appoint a special prosecutor not affiliated with either the current prosecutors or the LDS Church. Prior claims that Wood has become a witness in the case and that the other prosecutors in the case have some allegiance to him. Interestingly, Prior doesn’t give a reason for wanting a non-LDS church prosecutor. I’m sure he will argue in a hearing that the prosecutor took the call from the church attorney because every LDS member recognizes his name and that the Church may influence the prosecution either directly or indirectly.

Prior asks that the witnesses be sequestered by asking the judge to order that Rob Wood have no contact with the witnesses until they testify at an evidentiary hearing about this incident.

Finally, Prior objects to the sealing of the pleadings and proceedings. I have to agree. At the prosecutor’s request, I think the judge has been over accommodating when it comes to sealing documents and proceedings. Prior makes a salient argument that the proceedings should be open to the public. Unless the information is protected health information (PHI) under HIPPA, it should be released. PHI includes names, addresses, dates, phone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, medical records numbers, health insurance information, license numbers, photographs, and other identifying information. It also covers medical diagnosis and treatment. Prior is correct that the neither the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare nor prosecution have a right to confidentiality. Lori Vallow does; however, Mark Means has made clear that he doesn’t want this motion or these proceedings sealed.

It will be interesting to see what the judge does with this motion; I can’t predict it.