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

[MTW2011]

a Motion for New Trial has officially been filed.
hopefully someone will get/share a copy of it soon!

 

[lisette]

After hearing all that Karl has to say, I have to think that it is truly a miracle that she was found guilty… That he wasn’t a hold out. He had no business being on that jury… But how can you know until after everything is over?

 

[Diddian]

a Motion for New Trial has officially been filed.
hopefully someone will get/share a copy of it soon!

Well, once we heard what Karl had to say immediately upon leaving the courthouse, I guess we could all see this coming.

No, Lori - Jesus is not going to come and save you in the form of a white-haired, black rim eyeglass wearing, gum chewing juror who sees it as his civic duty to serve, but not as his civic duty to abide by the rules of that service. His lapses required the judge to remind him of the obligations of that duty twice (that we know of) and now will require investigation and hearings so the judge can determine whether he mucked up the trial enough that a do-over is due.

At best (as far as LVD is concerned) this individual slows down the process and increases the cost (financial to taxpayers, emotional to witnesses and family members of Charles Vallow).

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1918424509033623583

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1918424509033623583

View attachment 583297

 

[SteveS]

Once we heard the juror make it clear he stepped over the line, this motion was inevitable. The juror has even realized his error and his comments are now sketchy, and trying to avoid clarity, but what he did is fairly clear.

It seems to me that the court would want to actually be proactive here and order another trial NOW, to precede the BB one. Otherwise, any ensuing BB conviction becomes tainted if using this CV outcome as evidence, as they plan to do, and then this trial gets tossed, and then the BB one has to be tossed and retried too because jurors hear evidence of a conviction that technically did not exist. Big waste of time and money for AZ.

And it's a biggie. The issue of juror bias (or self tampering) seems to be clear, and it's also clearly material, as this juror was actually one adopting the LVD claims until persuaded by his unpermitted outside research to think otherwise. He did this BEFORE his time with other jurors, impacting his input to other jurors in deliberations, tainting the whole result.

Unfortunate. Unlikely to be of any help to LVD in actually winning the case. But it's not justice as is, and that certainly matters to us all.

 

[MTW2011]

Well, once we heard what Karl had to say immediately upon leaving the courthouse, I guess we could all see this coming.

No, Lori - Jesus is not going to come and save you in the form of a white-haired, black rim eyeglass wearing, gum chewing juror who sees it as his civic duty to serve, but not as his civic duty to abide by the rules of that service. His lapses required the judge to remind him of the obligations of that duty twice (that we know of) and now will require investigation and hearings so the judge can determine whether he mucked up the trial enough that a do-over is due.

At best (as far as LVD is concerned) this individual slows down the process and increases the cost (financial to taxpayers, emotional to witnesses and family members of Charles Vallow).

Some poetic irony in that the juror who complained of these trials wasting taxpayers’ money….may soon be the cause the taxpayers are going to pay even some more. Does this get her a new trial? No

Does his comments about looking stuff up after closing arguments help her argue towards that? Yup, and we’re seeing it now. JMOO.

 

[Megnut]

I won't name names but it's almost like someone who napped through the trial realized during the closing statement that the defendant was actually guilty and he needed to find the trial Cliff Notes to get caught up to speed on what he missed, crammed for the test, propped his eyes open with wikipedia, and here we are.

Meanwhile, LVD illustrious trial career is a traincar pileup of trials and retrials, where she's no doubt STILL demanding her right to speedy trials. Even Justice is exhausted.

JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

Her Motion is 13 pages so I’ll probably post it here in 2 or 3 posts few at a time

https://twitter.com/x/status/1918430223084994964

 

[Cindizzi]

Pages 1 - 4

 

[Cindizzi]

Pages 5 - 8

 

[Cindizzi]

Pages 9, 10 and 11

***. No 12 or 13 ***

 

[indicolite22]

I wonder how the problematic juror feels now that he has been included in Lori's appeal? Does he regret talking to the media about his experience? Will the judge want to speak to him before Lori's second trial?

 

[Megnut]

Pages 9, 10 and 11

***. No 12 or 13 ***


View attachment 583333View attachment 583334View attachment 583335

Karl all but handed LVD a new trial.

The rest isn't worth the paper she printed it on.

CV's phone data contains exculpatory evidence? Really LVD? But you didn't share what the evidence is in your motion? Now would be the time.

And no one could say your demeanor was off (the whole dayum day) because in the part of your video which couldn't be shown, you touched a tissue? That's your proof? That you had normal, genuine grief? Because you reached for the Kleenex box? Cry me a river, Lady who can't produce an actual tear.

JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Pages 1 - 4


View attachment 583325
View attachment 583326View attachment 583327View attachment 583328

Thank you!

 

[Megnut]

If Juror 15 did do personal research, then he perjured himself, assuming the judge polled the jury as is standard at the opening of trial that day.

I'm not convinced he did however (the judge, yes; Karl, maybe no).

I think he drove home, thinking about the case, knowing he'd just moved from not guilty to guilty, feeling sorry for her.

We know the next day, as soon as they were released from jury service, Juror 15 looked up things on his phone, and IMO, this is why it was so fresh on his tongue --

But ut also caused him to reflect on his drive home the previous day, when he felt sorry for her in the face of ONE life sentence, and now to think there would be three --

I know that it takes some effort to rework how his words came out, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. The judge will have to evaluate it, rightfully.

If he did his own research, he should have fessed up that morning and given the Court and counsel the opportunity to remove/replace him, allowing an alternate to take his place.

But again, until or unless he comes under oath before the judge and the judge finds he jeopardized LVD's right to a fair trial, I reserve judgment and hope he bungled his words badly, not the instructions.

JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Karl all but handed LVD a new trial.

The rest isn't worth the paper she printed it on.

CV's phone data contains exculpatory evidence? Really LVD? But you didn't share what the evidence is in your motion? Now would be the time.

And no one could say your demeanor was off (the whole dayum day) because in the part of your video which couldn't be shown, you touched a tissue? That's your proof? That you had normal, genuine grief? Because you reached for the Kleenex box? Cry me a river, Lady who can't produce an actual tear.

JMO

From Lauren's interview Karl didn't understand why the prosecution went through all the details of the murder before getting to the evidence of conspiracy. He had no clue that the state had to establish that a murder took place before they can prove the conspiracy.

Oh, and putting LVD on trial for the killing of CD was a waste of the state's money because they knew she already had 3 life sentences.
IMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

If Juror 15 did do personal research, then he perjured himself, assuming the judge polled the jury as is standard at the opening of trial that day.

I'm not convinced he did however (the judge, yes; Karl, maybe no).

I think he drove home, thinking about the case, knowing he'd just moved from not guilty to guilty, feeling sorry for her.

We know the next day, as soon as they were released from jury service, Juror 15 looked up things on his phone, and IMO, this is why it was so fresh on his tongue --

But ut also caused him to reflect on his drive home the previous day, when he felt sorry for her in the face of ONE life sentence, and now to think there would be three --

I know that it takes some effort to rework how his words came out, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. The judge will have to evaluate it, rightfully.

If he did his own research, he should have fessed up that morning and given the Court and counsel the opportunity to remove/replace him, allowing an alternate to take his place.

But again, until or unless he comes under oath before the judge and the judge finds he jeopardized LVD's right to a fair trial, I reserve judgment and hope he bungled his words badly, not the instructions.

JMO

IMO

For me it's the "while driving home" part.
He had no problem remembering where he was/car what he was doing/driving home and what he was thinking/ she already had 3 life sentences.
I don't give him a pass.
He had no respect for the law and being a juror.
He got caught on his phone during the trial and while LVD was questioning SS witness he was talking about his SS issue with another juror and got caught.
Reprimanded by the judge 2x.

 

[MTW2011]

The prosecutor commenting on the defendant’s demeanor, and lack of crying, is something I’ve seen overturn other cases before. There’s an extremely fine line there, and Treena Kay may have crossed that line. Ironically, Rachel Smith had a past death penalty case overturned because she told the jury something very similar, and something the higher courts found wildly inappropriate for a prosecutor to comment on.

Add the juror issue and other claims, and we shall see where this goes. Sigh.

 

[Megnut]

IMO

For me it's the "while driving home" part.
He had no problem remembering where he was/car what he was doing/driving home and what he was thinking/ she already had 3 life sentences.
I don't give him a pass.
He had no respect for the law and being a juror.
He got caught on his phone during the trial and while LVD was questioning SS witness he was talking about his SS issue with another juror and got caught.
Reprimanded by the judge 2x.

Oh, I hear you. I'm trying REALLY hard to find a path through it that can be explained by poor communication skills. It's a stretch, to be sure.

If she's granted a new trial on this one point, what happens to her BB trial?

JMO