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

[SteveS]

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.

I appreciate so much of what you write, but on the above, I think it's WAY WAY WAY off base legally - and the legality is what matters here. To be specific:

1 "the judge might or could change his rules for this trial due to ..." -- No, the judge has rules regarding evidence because THE LAW says those are the rules -- they are not arbitrary. If he allows otherwise, the cases get tossed out BY LAW when appealed and they have to be tried again, doubling the workload. The question to be determined is whether this violated the law (which it appears it did) and the proper penalty.
2 "I think everyone is done with this." -- The fact this has been a long process and onlookers or participants may be ready to have it over with has no LEGAL bearing whatsoever on where they go from here. Also keep in mind that each crime is a separate issue, with guilt or innocence for that charge to be determined separately.
3 "She was declared guilty in Idaho." -- While that's proof she did those crimes later in her life, it's completely irrelevant LEGALLY to this trial.
4 "We knew this was coming" - Our past expectations are irrelevant to the legal process.
5 "We know Brandon’s trial is coming." - Irrelevant to this case. But if this verdict is in jeopardy, or vacated, it will almost certainly impact the ability to use any of it as allowable evidence in a BB trial.
6 "It sounds as if everyone wants a do-over ..." -- I don't think ANYONE wants this verdict tossed, but the question is "What does the presumption of innocence and the need for an unbiased jury require in this situation."
7 "...the judge hasn’t even spoken to the guy yet." -- 100% true. It's certainly VERY necessary for the court to investigate what occurred, and we should expect that to follow at some point before any decision might be made. As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting any rush to judgment on the issue. Investigate, see what's true, then go from there - but also gotta recognize that where it takes us may not be what we would prefer.
8 "A do over will change nothing." -- While that's likely true, the law tries to avoid making guesses and assumptions, and instead demands proper process and proof. How they deal with this impacts how they administer justice elsewhere as well ('we just figured we didn't need to do a trial because we all know how it will go' is not gonna fly legally).

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915453237517496480

 

[Izzylizzy]

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915496193196793989

 

[Diddian]

Watching interview of Tass on Hidden True Crime - Tass should get a medal for reading aloud the “love messages” between Chad and Lori to the other 11 jurors without vomiting or laughing uproariously. SOME REPORTER is going to want that reenacted.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I appreciate so much of what you write, but on the above, I think it's WAY WAY WAY off base legally - and the legality is what matters here. To be specific:

1 "the judge might or could change his rules for this trial due to ..." -- No, the judge has rules regarding evidence because THE LAW says those are the rules -- they are not arbitrary. If he allows otherwise, the cases get tossed out BY LAW when appealed and they have to be tried again, doubling the workload. The question to be determined is whether this violated the law (which it appears it did) and the proper penalty.
2 "I think everyone is done with this." -- The fact this has been a long process and onlookers or participants may be ready to have it over with has no LEGAL bearing whatsoever on where they go from here. Also keep in mind that each crime is a separate issue, with guilt or innocence for that charge to be determined separately.
3 "She was declared guilty in Idaho." -- While that's proof she did those crimes later in her life, it's completely irrelevant LEGALLY to this trial.
4 "We knew this was coming" - Our past expectations are irrelevant to the legal process.
5 "We know Brandon’s trial is coming." - Irrelevant to this case. But if this verdict is in jeopardy, or vacated, it will almost certainly impact the ability to use any of it as allowable evidence in a BB trial.
6 "It sounds as if everyone wants a do-over ..." -- I don't think ANYONE wants this verdict tossed, but the question is "What does the presumption of innocence and the need for an unbiased jury require in this situation."
7 "...the judge hasn’t even spoken to the guy yet." -- 100% true. It's certainly VERY necessary for the court to investigate what occurred, and we should expect that to follow at some point before any decision might be made. As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting any rush to judgment on the issue. Investigate, see what's true, then go from there - but also gotta recognize that where it takes us may not be what we would prefer.
8 "A do over will change nothing." -- While that's likely true, the law tries to avoid making guesses and assumptions, and instead demands proper process and proof. How they deal with this impacts how they administer justice elsewhere as well ('we just figured we didn't need to do a trial because we all know how it will go' is not gonna fly legally).

@Steve, yours is an excellent post. I do not think about things with a legal view. I have never been a juror. Everything I have said is only my opinion. Of course it doesn’t mean I am right. I thought it was okay to express an opinion here. In other words, it’s my feelings and not about the law.

I am so glad this trial is over. And if the juror did wrong, if he misspoke, whatever he did I am sure the judge and the law will handle it.
We have gone from being happy she was found guilty once again to retrying the case due to a clip we heard. Granted you posters are all stating the correct things and I can leave it at that. I am angrier at Lori and Chad and Alex than I could ever be at a juror who caused a mistrial. That didn’t make me the enemy.

I would like that same wrath you all feel toward the juror to go toward the Chandler police department for never filing charges against Alex and Lori six years ago. Think of the lives that could have been saved.

With all that said, please know your points are well stated and I appreciate them and cannot disagree.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Watching interview of Tass on Hidden True Crime - Tass should get a medal for reading aloud the “love messages” between Chad and Lori to the other 11 jurors without vomiting or laughing uproariously. SOME REPORTER is going to want that reenacted.

She was so funny and thankful there weren't cameras in the deliberations room.
Amazing that she's a full time student, criminal justice.
She'll be in the gallery for Brandon's trial and wants to see how it feels being on the other side.

 

[lonetraveler]

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

imo

I totally agree. This juror broke every rule the judge instructed the jurors not to do. I feel that the judge will have to throw out the verdict and retry the case.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I'm surprised that LVD's timeline wasn't spoken about by any of these 3 jurors which was proven to be a lie according to forensics on the 3 phone she had with her and her locations before returning to her house..

Also the 2 phone calls between LVD and AC during the 43 minutes before he called 911.

 

[Diddian]

Hidden True Crime interview of Charles’ brother, Gerry Vallow.

There are two times this case has brought me to tears - the day investigators started digging up Chad’s backyard and watching this interview. Such a strong, quiet man sharing the full measure of his loss.

 

[lonetraveler]

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.

You posted everything I was thinking and I totally agree with everything you said and I can't see how on earth the judge isn't going to void the verdict and retry this case.

 

[Megnut]

I totally agree. This juror broke every rule the judge instructed the jurors not to do. I feel that the judge will have to throw out the verdict and retry the case.

The jury deliberated for 17 minutes before retiring for the day.

Is it possible that this juror thought he could do his own research because both sides had rested? He did say he was on the fence until the State's closing argument, which presumably answered whatever questions he might still have had.

Now, I know that jurors aren't supposed to do any independent research until they're released by the judge, but just because i know that doesn't means this juror does. He sure wasn't shy about saying what he did (assuming he did what we think he did).

The judge will have to sort this out to make sure it was a fair trial and a legitimate verdict, but for me, I just want to understand what happened and how grievous it might be.

Hadn't heard about the case.

Followed the trial, remained impartial.

Listened to the closing arguments. Needle was moved by the State's.

Intended to vote guilty. Retired after 17 minutes.

Looked up some things. Learned she was already serving multiple life sentences which affirmed his decision.

Kept that to himself when he returned for deliberation in the morning.

I can see how a person might get there by willful misconduct. I can see how they might get be there by limited intellect. I can see how they might get there by flawed logic. Like a kid who finishes his math test and then peers across to his neighbor's test and checks his work. Thinks it's not cheating, it's just checking. (It's both.)

I don't think he would have boasted it so boldly if he thought he was skirting the rules. It doesn't change the legality of it, but it might explain how he decided he could do what he did and why he'd broadcast it to reporters.

He didn't say his research changed his vote or that he shared his research with other jurors or that it impacted the remaining deliberations in any way.

Really unfortunate lapse or absence of judgment if it's what happened.

But also not necessarily automatically a thrown jury.

JMO

 

[lonetraveler]

The jury deliberated for 17 minutes before retiring for the day.

Is it possible that this juror thought he could do his own research because both sides had rested? He did say he was on the fence until the State's closing argument, which presumably answered whatever questions he might still have had.

Now, I know that jurors aren't supposed to do any independent research until they're released by the judge, but just because i know that doesn't means this juror does. He sure wasn't shy about saying what he did (assuming he did what we think he did).

The judge will have to sort this out to make sure it was a fair trial and a legitimate verdict, but for me, I just want to understand what happened and how grievous it might be.

Hadn't heard about the case.

Followed the trial, remained impartial.

Listened to the closing arguments. Needle was moved by the State's.

Intended to vote guilty. Retired after 17 minutes.

Looked up some things. Learned she was already serving multiple life sentences which affirmed his decision.

Kept that to himself when he returned for deliberation in the morning.

I can see how a person might get there by willful misconduct. I can see how they might get be there by limited intellect. I can see how they might get there by flawed logic. Like a kid who finishes his math test and then peers across to his neighbor's test and checks his work. Thinks it's not cheating, it's just checking. (It's both.)

I don't think he would have boasted it so boldly if he thought he was skirting the rules. It doesn't change the legality of it, but it might explain how he decided he could do what he did and why he'd broadcast it to reporters.

He didn't say his research changed his vote or that he shared his research with other jurors or that it impacted the remaining deliberations in any way.

Really unfortunate lapse or absence of judgment if it's what happened.

But also not necessarily automatically a thrown jury.

JMO

I've served on a jury on a triple murder and rape trial and the judge repeats the rules to the jurors each time before dismissing the jurors for the day. This man cannot plead ignorance. I would not be surprised if the judge did not call for him to appear before him.

 

[Love Never Fails]

The jury deliberated for 17 minutes before retiring for the day.

Is it possible that this juror thought he could do his own research because both sides had rested? He did say he was on the fence until the State's closing argument, which presumably answered whatever questions he might still have had.

Now, I know that jurors aren't supposed to do any independent research until they're released by the judge, but just because i know that doesn't means this juror does. He sure wasn't shy about saying what he did (assuming he did what we think he did).

The judge will have to sort this out to make sure it was a fair trial and a legitimate verdict, but for me, I just want to understand what happened and how grievous it might be.

Hadn't heard about the case.

Followed the trial, remained impartial.

Listened to the closing arguments. Needle was moved by the State's.

Intended to vote guilty. Retired after 17 minutes.

Looked up some things. Learned she was already serving multiple life sentences which affirmed his decision.

Kept that to himself when he returned for deliberation in the morning.

I can see how a person might get there by willful misconduct. I can see how they might get be there by limited intellect. I can see how they might get there by flawed logic. Like a kid who finishes his math test and then peers across to his neighbor's test and checks his work. Thinks it's not cheating, it's just checking. (It's both.)

I don't think he would have boasted it so boldly if he thought he was skirting the rules. It doesn't change the legality of it, but it might explain how he decided he could do what he did and why he'd broadcast it to reporters.

He didn't say his research changed his vote or that he shared his research with other jurors or that it impacted the remaining deliberations in any way.

Really unfortunate lapse or absence of judgment if it's what happened.

But also not necessarily automatically a thrown jury.

JMO

Thank you Megnut. I follow you on so many cases and you can state things so well. It’s what i am thinking but i say it all wrong.

For those who watched Tass, the juror in an interview with Lauren this afternoon, Tass stated that when the jurors were walking out in the hallway, they heard people wondering out loud if the jurors know JJ and Tylee are dead. Granted this was at the end of the day. But my thought was that it was possible that Karl may have overheard something in the hallways the evening before. Tass also said the jurors had already agreed that night that she was guilty but one of them wanted to sleep on it. Could have been Karl. We will know in the end.

Meanwhile, thanks for your thoughtful post. Edited because I did not post any angry faces. Don’t know where it came from.

 

[lonetraveler]

I appreciate so much of what you write, but on the above, I think it's WAY WAY WAY off base legally - and the legality is what matters here. To be specific:

1 "the judge might or could change his rules for this trial due to ..." -- No, the judge has rules regarding evidence because THE LAW says those are the rules -- they are not arbitrary. If he allows otherwise, the cases get tossed out BY LAW when appealed and they have to be tried again, doubling the workload. The question to be determined is whether this violated the law (which it appears it did) and the proper penalty.
2 "I think everyone is done with this." -- The fact this has been a long process and onlookers or participants may be ready to have it over with has no LEGAL bearing whatsoever on where they go from here. Also keep in mind that each crime is a separate issue, with guilt or innocence for that charge to be determined separately.
3 "She was declared guilty in Idaho." -- While that's proof she did those crimes later in her life, it's completely irrelevant LEGALLY to this trial.
4 "We knew this was coming" - Our past expectations are irrelevant to the legal process.
5 "We know Brandon’s trial is coming." - Irrelevant to this case. But if this verdict is in jeopardy, or vacated, it will almost certainly impact the ability to use any of it as allowable evidence in a BB trial.
6 "It sounds as if everyone wants a do-over ..." -- I don't think ANYONE wants this verdict tossed, but the question is "What does the presumption of innocence and the need for an unbiased jury require in this situation."
7 "...the judge hasn’t even spoken to the guy yet." -- 100% true. It's certainly VERY necessary for the court to investigate what occurred, and we should expect that to follow at some point before any decision might be made. As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting any rush to judgment on the issue. Investigate, see what's true, then go from there - but also gotta recognize that where it takes us may not be what we would prefer.
8 "A do over will change nothing." -- While that's likely true, the law tries to avoid making guesses and assumptions, and instead demands proper process and proof. How they deal with this impacts how they administer justice elsewhere as well ('we just figured we didn't need to do a trial because we all know how it will go' is not gonna fly legally).

Very well stated.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Hidden True Crime interview of Charles’ brother, Gerry Vallow.

There are two times this case has brought me to tears - the day investigators started digging up Chad’s backyard and watching this interview. Such a strong, quiet man sharing the full measure of his loss.

Amen.

 

[Megnut]

I've served on a jury on a triple murder and rape trial and the judge repeats the rules to the jurors each time before dismissing the jurors for the day. This man cannot plead ignorance. I would not be surprised if the judge did not call for him to appear before him.

I certainly don't condone it.

Absolutely he should be called before the judge. Not for speaking to reporters but for what he may have done before being released from jury duty.

I've listened to some judges drill those points home every time the jury is excused to the jury room, even if for only a few minute recess. Other judges, super casual. I myself can't imagine a juror NOT already knowing not to do discuss or do research, but we live in a big country with adults from entering wall of life and IQ point. What one person (say, a judge) says and another person (say, a juror) hears can be very different things. What one says and another decides to do, well, in some ways, it's remarkable that the jury system endures, for all the ways individuals decide how or whether to apply/abide by the rules.

JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

I certainly don't condone it.

Absolutely he should be called before the judge. Not for speaking to reporters but for what he may have done before being released from jury duty.

I've listened to some judges drill those points home every time the jury is excused to the jury room, even if for only a few minute recess. Other judges, super casual. I myself can't imagine a juror NOT already knowing not to do discuss or do research, but we live in a big country with adults from entering wall of life and IQ point. What one person (say, a judge) says and another person (say, a juror) hears can be very different things. What one says and another decides to do, well, in some ways, it's remarkable that the jury system endures, for all the ways individuals decide how or whether to apply/abide by the rules.

JMO

What could go wrong, eh?

This jury was permitted to have their phones on them and also mingle with reporters and people from the gallery during lunch and breaks.
They should have been sequestered during the day and their phones taken away when they entered the courthouse and retrieve them when exiting for the day.

imo

 

[Miss Poovy]

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.

I agree. I don’t see what different strategy LVD would use to be found not guilty.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

What could go wrong, eh?

This jury was permitted to have their phones on them and also mingle with reporters and people from the gallery during lunch and breaks.
They should have been sequestered during the day and their phones taken away when they entered the courthouse and retrieve them when exiting for the day.

imo

I was on jury duty over 20 years ago and we all went out and had lunch wherever we wanted to. We were just told we weren’t allowed to talk to anyone, including each other, about what we heard in court. The only time we were given lunch was when we were deliberating.