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

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1918438784548372827

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

xIMO

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.

If only the judge removed him then for being on the phone.

 

[Izzylizzy]

If only the judge removed him then for being on the phone.

I highly doubt Karl's comments after the verdict will be part of an appeal if she's granted one.
IIRC: It's very rare to be granted a new trial for juror misconduct and when questioned by the judge Karl will most likely insist after listening to Ray's closing and the other jurors during deliberations he was sure of his guilty verdict.

Some good lessons for the judge though in the upcoming BB trial.
NO cell phones during the trial, bailiff takes them and returned when court is over for the day.
Jurors need to be sequestered during breaks and lunch, in this trial they mingled with visitors and the media.
IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Breaking: Chad's magic pendulum says Lori has a new protector. He's at 4.2 light and on his third life, coincidentally. At least that's the word from the veil.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Nate Eaton on LVD's court filing.
@ 4:20 Nate opens with Karl.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Breaking: Chad's magic pendulum says Lori has a new protector. He's at 4.2 light and on his third life, coincidentally. At least that's the word from the veil.

OMG! lol

 

[Izzylizzy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1918438784548372827

View attachment 583353

Summary

Lori Vallow Daybell files motion for new murder conspiracy trial in Arizona

Vallow Daybell was convicted of conspiring to kill her former husband, Charles Vallow, on April 22. Less than two weeks later, she has requested a new trial.

www.12news.com

 

[aafromaa]

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

I’d so love to be able to see it this way, Megnut, because I hate the very idea of LVD getting a new trial. Even though I have no doubt she would be convicted again, just the thought that she would be able to consider getting the new trial a feather in her cap makes me ill. But, alas, I simply cannot make the stretch you have regarding his statement about his drive home and her 3 life sentences. However, I think I would nominate you to make the argument to the court on the juror’s behalf that he just mispoke because your take on it certainly makes a better argument than that juror could make on his own.

 

[Diddian]

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

IF she's granted a new trial on that one point, I'd like to know the implications of her having "stipulated" to aggravating factors after the guilty verdict.

Does that just make the list-of-things-that-cannot-be-known-by-jurors longer, or does it have other implications?

 

[aafromaa]

If only the judge removed him then for being on the phone.

At times like these I wish we could hit the like button multiple times for a single post. I can’t tell you how many times since that Fox 10 juror interview that I keep thinking this same thought

 

[aafromaa]

IF she's granted a new trial on that one point, I'd like to know the implications of her having "stipulated" to aggravating factors after the guilty verdict.

Does that just make the list-of-things-that-cannot-be-known-by-jurors longer, or does it have other implications?

My opinion only… none zip nada - there would be no implications at all for stipulalting to aggravating factors for a guilty verdict that no longer exists.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Live streaming now

 

[aafromaa]

When Tricia posted that video and I heard that juror say that he was in the car yesterday or the other day or whatever he said I knew that LVD would move for a new trial. Still seeing it today, made my heart sink. I know a new trial hasn’t been granted yet and I know that she had a slew of other reasons in her motion. I don’t think any of them would get her a new trial - but this juror’s misconduct seems clear to me as I do believe that he knew about her prior convictions before the verdict was reached and read in court. I don’t know if he googled it or found out by accident - heard something on the radio on the drive home or overheard someone talking about it or something but it seems clear to me that he knew and that he did not report that knowledge to the court. I can’t find a way to convince myself that was just a mis-statement that day. I wish I could and I wish I thought the court could. Now he also said something about “researching” something - either in that interview or one of the others that I saw later - and I actually do think whatever he was referring to there he could have meant he looked up something in the evidence or transcript in the jury room before they came back with their verdict - but that’s not the way it sounded when he said it and I think I either listened to it in context multiple times or perhaps got some additional context in one of his later interviews that made me think he meant in the jury room instead on his own or googling or whatever I thought the first time I heard him say it. But I’ve listened to every interview I could find that he did and nothing has convinced me that his statement about being in the car and thinking of her 3 life sentences was anything other than juror misconduct. And I cannot think of any way that the state could prove that knowledge did not affect his guilty vote and I cannot see any way that the court can do anything other than order a new trial. And I can’t stop thinking of how totally unfair that is for Colby and Kay and others to make them go thru all of this again because a juror didn’t follow the rules.

 

[Luna20]

If she is granted a new trial it shouldn’t be televised. She is still basking in being on tv from the last time.

 

[MTW2011]

I believe this was the juror was the same juror who was caught on his phone and then asked a very specific question, one so specific it apparently concerned the State. See attached from EastIdaahoNews, day 2 updates

IMOO this only helps Lori’s current arguments, because even the State brought up a concern about a juror and phone access. Nevertheless the Judge remained seemingly nonchalant about enforcing the “no phones” rule and here we are today. Not great.

 

[Megnut]

If only the judge removed him then for being on the phone.

Following orders of the court seems like an important part of JURY DUTY.

You break small rules IN THE COURTROOM, Judge gonna trust you when no one's looking?

I suggest justice would be better served by a one strike rule. Swing batta batta, Juror, yer out!

 

[Megnut]

If she is granted a new trial it shouldn’t be televised. She is still basking in being on tv from the last time.

Nooooooooooo, don't take out TV away. I say take away LVD's prison makeup, her ragtie curlers and --who coined this?-- her shih tzu doo (perfect description!)

Let her show her ugly soul, unadorned.

JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Live streaming now

.
@ 36:50
Lauren addresses what's being said in the chat and wants to correct people because according to her they have it wrong about Karl and what he said and didn't say.

Paraphrasing...She said pertaining to Karl's comments he repeatedly said he did not know about LVD's 3 murders beforehand.

Lauren forgot to explain how he knew about her 3 life sentences which to me is 6 in one, half- dozen in the other, 3 murders or 3 life sentences.

Any way that Lauren tried to spin what Karl said the bottom line is that he had crucial info (3 life sentences) about LVD that he should not have known before casting his vote in the deliberations room.
From the get-go I've been very confused why Lauren is so obviously on the defense about Karl?

IMO:

I don't see anything in LVD's filing that Karl said "3 murders" which is what Lauren referenced in the filing as being not true.

 

[MTW2011]

Following orders of the court seems like an important part of JURY DUTY.

You break small rules IN THE COURTROOM, Judge gonna trust you when no one's looking?

I suggest justice would be better served by a one strike rule. Swing batta batta, Juror, her out!

Sadly I think there were some decisions made in this trial because “Lori doesn’t know better, she’s not an attorney” but I also think they’re now going to find out the hard way that she knew/kept track of even more.

I posted on here how the Judge kept some records indicating Alex testified. Sure, a simple typo, but what else may have been mistakenly entered or recorded? Same with the discovery violations, dumping that hard drive on her in the middle of trial. Just because she didn’t waive speedy trial, does not mean she has to give up that in order to accommodate the state failing to meet their own deadlines. And she argued over and over for that info before the trial, during the trial, and now in this motion. And if anything has legs in this, I think things like that may/will. Also, how long did they have that info for? How many years has it been? (No one needs to answer that)

Charles deserved a better handling of all of this, as several of her arguments could’ve been undercut already if the jury was handled better, if the judge held the prosecution to the local rules, etc. JMOO.

 

[MTW2011]

.
@ 36:50
Lauren addresses what's being said in the chat and wants to correct people because according to her they have it wrong about Karl and what he said and didn't say.

Paraphrasing...She said pertaining to Karl's comments he repeatedly said he did not know about LVD's 3 murders beforehand.

Lauren forgot to explain how he knew about her 3 life sentences which to me is 6 in one, half- dozen in the other, 3 murders or 3 life sentences.

Any way that Lauren tried to spin what Karl said the bottom line is that he had crucial info (3 life sentences) about LVD that he should not have known before casting his vote in the deliberations room.
From the get-go I've been very confused why Lauren is so obviously on the defense about Karl?

IMO:

I don't see anything in LVD's filing that Karl said "3 murders" which is what Lauren referenced in the filing as being not true.

Yeah, I thought she was a bit defensive about Carl. Also seemed in disbelief that someone in the public emailed the court, like it was somehow their fault that started all this.

Someone was concerned, they wrote to the Court. If anything, the Judge was the one who said the video must be showed to Lori. We shouldn’t blame someone from the public for voicing what they felt was a concern. It’s not their role to determine if there’s a legit concern, they left that up to the court and obviously we know now what the court decided to do with that. Even without that one issue, Lori raises several other issues that don’t involve the jury and we probably would’ve seen this without someone from the public writing in. It’s one small piece of her motion, not all of it. JMOO.