AZ - Lori Vallow Daybell charged w/ conspiring to kill ex-husband Charles Vallow and another relative, Brandon Boudreaux, Chandler, Maricopa County #4

[Izzylizzy]

I believe if there’s any issue here it’s that a juror admitted to looking things up from closing arguments before deciding to vote guilty the next day. Depending on which interview you view (either the one with officials media, or the ones he did with some TikTok creators), he says a bit more about heading home and looking up info that he had questions about. He is also pretty clear (in the TikTok true crime creator interview) that he was voicing not guilty before he saw/got answers to the things he looked up. I think any argument that he misspoke can be dispelled based on the level of detail he shared and considering this “interview” was done awhile after the immediate post-verdict ones but again JMOO

ALSO - I’m SO sorry. I don’t mean to sound argumentative. It’s hard since we can’t share the actual TT interview here but this one was longer than the ones I saw he did with the media. I just found some of the stuff he said a bit worrisome because jurors shouldn’t be looking anything up about the case during the trial

Hearing of her previous/other cases seems like much less of an issue that would get anywhere on appeal.

Did you consider asking Tricia if Karl's TT can be posted as a one time exception?
It is valuable info to add to the discussion.
She can review it then decide.

 

[MTW2011]

Did you consider asking Tricia if Karl's TT can be posted as a one time exception?
It is valuable info to add to the discussion.
She can review it then decide.

I didn’t consider that but it’s also not a TT from anyone named Karl. They have like 20 followers. I am not sure who Karl is but it’s not the interview I saw. (I guess he’s done several, since Karl would be yet another interview he did). I’ll try asking if it can be shared

 

[Izzylizzy]

I didn’t consider that but it’s also not a TT from anyone named Karl. They have like 20 followers. I am not sure who Karl is but it’s not the interview I saw. (I guess he’s done several, since Karl would be yet another interview he did). I’ll try asking if it can be shared

Okay.
I thought it was Karl in the blue shirt and was shocked he dug his hole even deeper.
We don't even know if the guy in the TT was an actual juror, yes?

 

[MTW2011]

Okay.
I thought it was Karl in the blue shirt and was shocked he dug his hole even deeper.
We don't even know if the guy in the TT was an actual juror, yes?

Oh sorry I thought you meant the TikTok creator was named Karl.

You meant the juror. Yep it’s the same guy, same look/outfit just done in what appears to be nighttime/later evening than the other interviews. I meant that the TikTok account wasn’t named “Karl”. So sorry for all that confusion! I’ll still be seeing if we can share it here.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I think this juror’s actions will cause the verdict to be thrown out. It seemed to me he was really eager to talk after coming out even though he knew he had the option of staying quiet. I don’t blame the media for wanting to talk to jurors because that’s their job.

I’m Canadian and was on a jury and I’m really glad jurors here have stricter rules. Having said that, if he had kept quiet we would have never found out that he went home and found out what Lori’s previous convictions were. Rules are rules.

 

[Megnut]

18 minute video with Nate Eaton, a prosecutor sounds in, on the juror's statements.

"It could be problematic but it's not automatic..."

 

[Love Never Fails]

I believe if there’s any issue here it’s that a juror admitted to looking things up from closing arguments before deciding to vote guilty the next day. Depending on which interview you view (either the one with officials media, or the ones he did with some TikTok creators), he says a bit more about heading home and looking up info that he had questions about. He is also pretty clear (in the TikTok true crime creator interview) that he was voicing not guilty before he saw/got answers to the things he looked up. I think any argument that he misspoke can be dispelled based on the level of detail he shared and considering this “interview” was done awhile after the immediate post-verdict ones but again JMOO

ALSO - I’m SO sorry. I don’t mean to sound argumentative. It’s hard since we can’t share the actual TT interview here but this one was longer than the ones I saw he did with the media. I just found some of the stuff he said a bit worrisome because jurors shouldn’t be looking anything up about the case during the trial

Hearing of her previous/other cases seems like much less of an issue that would get anywhere on appeal.

I’m sorry too. I didn’t mean to be argumentative either. I was expressing how I feel and so are you. I’ve followed this case from the beginning. I’m not at all disturbed by what the juror said. I wouldn’t be surprised that while he was thinking of voting innocent that another juror said hr should look it up. I’m not surprised if he did and it changed his opinion.
It doesn’t bother me because what she has done is so evil it should have been known anyway.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think this juror’s actions will cause the verdict to be thrown out. It seemed to me he was really eager to talk after coming out even though he knew he had the option of staying quiet. I don’t blame the media for wanting to talk to jurors because that’s their job.

I’m Canadian and was on a jury and I’m really glad jurors here have stricter rules. Having said that, if he had kept quiet we would have never found out that he went home and found out what Lori’s previous convictions were. Rules are rules.

We have strict rules too and he may have to face the judge for it. I just hope not. Rules are rules but sometimes rules have to be changed or understood in the context of four, possibly six murders! JJ, Tylee, Tammy, Charles, and possibly Alex and Joe Ryan.
IMO some are making too much of this.

 

[Izzylizzy]

18 minute video with Nate Eaton, a prosecutor sounds in, on the juror's statements.

"It could be problematic but it's not automatic..."

We know from past trials that it usually goes no where yet as MTW pointed out it causes a lot of legal issues which take time and money.

I'm curious if any of Karl's behavior during the trial and during deliberations concerned the other jurors.

Nate said he's doing an interview with a juror this morning but last I looked he has nothing posted.

 

[Izzylizzy]

We have strict rules too and he may have to face the judge for it. I just hope not. Rules are rules but sometimes rules have to be changed or understood in the context of four, possibly six murders! JJ, Tylee, Tammy, Charles, and possibly Alex and Joe Ryan.
IMO some are making too much of this.

NO!
You never change the judge's rules while being a juror for any reason, never.

imo

 

[Diddian]

NO!
You never change the judge's rules while being a juror for any reason, never.

imo

And if jurors do violate the judge's rules, we should start seeing some consequences. Findings of contempt. Fines. Possible jail time depending on the severity of the offense.

For years, investigators for the states of Arizona and Idaho and the FBI have worked tirelessly on this case and exercised discipline to stay between what is allowed and what is not under the law. Prosecutors have done the same and have been held to the boundaries that determine what is admissible and what is not. The defense has spent hours preparing a case within those same boundaries. Witnesses have appeared and have suffered the stress of doing so. Court proceedings are adversarial, so every person involved - prosecutor, defense, witnesses - has their guts roiled as they face the other side knowing the goal is to rip the credibility of the opposing side apart. The State has likely spent huge amounts of money (what - half a million or more?) and much has also been spent on behalf of the defense. (ETA: And other jurors have given up weeks of their own lives and livelihoods and have exercised the discipline to stay within the allowed boundaries and deliberate with seriousness commensurate with what is before them.)

And one juror sashays into the courtroom with the same casualness that he does his own living room and pulls this garbage.

There should be consequences for what that person has potentially cost so many others.

 

[MTW2011]

18 minute video with Nate Eaton, a prosecutor sounds in, on the juror's statements.

"It could be problematic but it's not automatic..."

Yeah, I personally - JMOO - take that statement with a big grain of salt, because very little is “automatic” on appeals anyways. Even when Rachel herself (in a previous case she prosecuted) cried in front of a jury during closings, and told the jury that they didn’t hear from the defendant (and commented on his right to remain silent), there wasn’t anything “automatic” about that. She had to explain herself, eventually, and then she resigned before facing sanctions…. but even that behavior wasn’t “automatic” in that case. But that’s a tangent for another thread and not this one.

It’s unfortunate jurors aren’t educated more/better on all of this, I have trouble faulting jurors for some of these comments since they likely don’t know better. How would they? Especially when many jurors in these high profile cases, one of the last things they hear is how they’re “free to discuss the case if they wish”. But not knowing better doesn’t mean rules are in place for nothing. JMOO

 

[SteveS]

I know thie following isn't what anyone wants to hear, me included, but I think it needs to be said.

Unfortunately, if this juror did what it sounds like he did, I'm not sure how this verdict can stand. It takes a unanimous vote, which is not possible without him, and it sounds like he not only said he did research on his own (which was forbidden), but further said his decision to vote guilty was because of that extra "evidence" - evidence that was both not presented at trial at all, and also not legally allowed to be presented.

He basically acted as a biased juror, biased by outside stuff, and because his after-bias opinions were shared with the rest in deliberations, that further taints the whole jury. And even if it didn't change anyone else's vote, it changed his, and that's too many, as in theory he could have been the lone juror who kept LVD from being convicted.

He can't be replaced by an alternate with a re-vote, because they already deliberated and he has already tainted the views of the others.

The fact that the court tried its best to prevent a biased jury from existing is good, but it's the result that matters. It would seem to me that this could completely short-circuit the rest of this trial from here, with the judge having to toss it out, or with it kicked immediately to an appellate court to rule on before any sentence is passed. But in any event, in such a blatant case of a biased verdict, doesn't justice demand some court toss it out sooner or later (so they might as well get it over with)? We'll see.

There's one other factor that might come into play, which is LVD's desire for swiftness in getting a verdict. Would she even want a do-over? I think that's a wildcard here, because there's nothing we saw in this trial that might indicate another try would lead to a different outcome. Would she want to play pretend attorney again and see if she can do better, or would she just throw in the towel?

Let me add that since the juror broke the rules, deliberately and badly and with consequences, he should be hit too. But it's hard for me see how this verdict will hold up in light of how it was arrived at.

 

[Izzylizzy]

And if jurors do violate the judge's rules, we should start seeing some consequences. Findings of contempt. Fines. Possible jail time depending on the severity of the offense.

For years, investigators for the states of Arizona and Idaho and the FBI have worked tirelessly on this case and exercised discipline to stay between what is allowed and what is not under the law. Prosecutors have done the same and have been held to the boundaries that determine what is admissible and what is not. The defense has spent hours preparing a case within those same boundaries. Witnesses have appeared and have suffered the stress of doing so. Court proceedings are adversarial, so every person involved - prosecutor, defense, witnesses - has their guts roiled as they face the other side knowing the goal is to rip the credibility of the opposing side apart. The State has likely spent huge amounts of money (what - half a million or more?) and much has also been spent on behalf of the defense. (ETA: And other jurors have given up weeks of their own lives and livelihoods and have exercised the discipline to stay within the allowed boundaries and deliberate with seriousness commensurate with what is before them.)

And one juror sashays into the courtroom with the same casualness that he does his own living room and pulls this garbage.

There should be consequences for what that person has potentially cost so many others.

Great post, as usual.
I know there are very strict laws for Grand Jurors, fines and imprisonment.
They are not permitted to ever speak about cases whether the person was indicted or not.

It had been discussed here that they'd be an older male juror who could be smitten with LVD and Karl comes across as the one.
I can't believe K went on to another interview thinking that friends/relatives were calling him after seeing what he had to say outside the court house telling him to keep his mouth shut.

imo

 

[Izzylizzy]

I know thie following isn't what anyone wants to hear, me included, but I think it needs to be said.

Unfortunately, if this juror did what it sounds like he did, I'm not sure how this verdict can stand. It takes a unanimous vote, which is not possible without him, and it sounds like he not only said he did research on his own (which was forbidden), but further said his decision to vote guilty was because of that extra "evidence" - evidence that was both not presented at trial at all, and also not legally allowed to be presented.

He basically acted as a biased juror, biased by outside stuff, and because his after-bias opinions were shared with the rest in deliberations, that further taints the whole jury. And even if it didn't change anyone else's vote, it changed his, and that's too many, as in theory he could have been the lone juror who kept LVD from being convicted.

He can't be replaced by an alternate with a re-vote, because they already deliberated and he has already tainted the views of the others.

The fact that the court tried its best to prevent a biased jury from existing is good, but it's the result that matters. It would seem to me that this could completely short-circuit the rest of this trial from here, with the judge having to toss it out, or with it kicked immediately to an appellate court to rule on before any sentence is passed. But in any event, in such a blatant case of a biased verdict, doesn't justice demand some court toss it out sooner or later (so they might as well get it over with)? We'll see.

There's one other factor that might come into play, which is LVD's desire for swiftness in getting a verdict. Would she even want a do-over? I think that's a wildcard here, because there's nothing we saw in this trial that might indicate another try would lead to a different outcome. Would she want to play pretend attorney again and see if she can do better, or would she just throw in the towel?

Let me add that since the juror broke the rules, deliberately and badly and with consequences, he should be hit too. But it's hard for me see how this verdict will hold up in light of how it was arrived at.

BBM

A fast comment because I just started reading your post.
Karl said it was "2 texts" the Nephi and one about the insurance which I believe both were entered as evidence.
I forget if it was Tash or Victoria who said the full video of LVD's LE interview was watched as soon as they began deliberations and it contained nothing of interest.
Like a "much ado about nothing".

 

[Diddian]

DBM. Unintentional post.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Ironic that at the beginning of this clip, the juror Karl says he's afraid to say anything at all because it would risk a retrial.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7496352151535357227

 

[Izzylizzy]

Nate Eaton
@NateNewsNow
Follow


Just wrapped up an interview with Juror #8 from Lori Vallow Daybell's Arizona trial. Watch it tonight at 8 p.m. on "Courtroom Insider" on the
@EastIDNews
YouTube channel.


1:10 PM · Apr 24, 202

https://x.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=https://x.com/NateNewsNow/status/1915453237517496480

 

[Love Never Fails]

NO!
You never change the judge's rules while being a juror for any reason, never.

imo

I didn’t imply the jurors can make changes. I implied the judge might or could change his rules for this trial due to the fact so much evidence was left out and the case has been going for six years. I think everyone is done with this. She was declared guilt in Idaho. We knew this was coming. We know Brandon’s trial is coming. It sounds as if everyone wants a do-over when the judge hasn’t even spoken to the guy yet. A do over will change nothing.

 

[Love Never Fails]

An hour ago, Lauren with HTC interviewed Tass. It’s on YouTube.