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

[Niner]

Thursday, Novemer 14th:
*Rule 11 Hearing (both cases) (@ 8:30am MST) - AZ – Charles Vallow (62) shot & killed on July 11, 2019 in Chandler, AZ. *Lori Norene Vallow (46/now 51) indicted (6/24/21), charged & arraigned (12/8/23) with 1 count of 1st degree murder. Plead not guilty. Held without bond. Maricopa County
AZ – Brandon Boudreaux (34/now 39) attempted murder on Oct. 2, 2019 in Gilbert, AZ. *Lori Norene Vallow (46/now 51) indicted (2/24/22), charged & arraigned (12/7/23) with 1 count of 1st degree murder premeditated. Plead not guilty. Held without bond. Maricopa County
Trial was set to begin on 2/24/25 was vacated no further dates. [Waiting for competency report [10/22/24],
Judge Justin Beresky presiding. State’s attorney Ryan Green. DA Treena Jeanelle Kay. Defense attorneys Gerald Bradley & Denae Suchy.
For Rule 11 Evaluation: Judge Travis Marderosian & public defenders Sherri McGuire Lawson, Robert Abernathy & Meagan Swart. These attorneys withdrew on 10/29/24. New public defender Pamela Hicks & no name for the other one.
Case info from 2/24/22 thru 10/29/24 reference post #539 here:
[URL unfurl=”false"]https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...allow-chandler-maricopa-county.679193/page-27[/URL]
11/1/24 Update: The 2 appointed doctors for Rule 11 process are Dr. Michael McGady & Dr. Camille Hernandez. 11/6/24 Docket update: Status Conference Set filed by Judge Beresky. Status conference hearing on 11/6/24 @ 10am. Rule 11 Hearing on 11/14/24 @ 9am.
11/6/24 Update: New public defender Pamela Hicks. Hicks wants more time to go thru discovery. Judge Beresky asks how much time is needed to determine if Rule 11 is needed. The defense does not think there is a competency issue after having a lengthy discussion with Vallow. Judge suggests moving status conference to 11/20/24 @ 10am & that works for all parties. Judge & defense went back & forth about Rule 11. Judge Beresky says he will probably refer Vallow to Rule 11 evaluation at some point since he realizes she wants to represent herself. Judge now says Rule 11 process won't be suspended. He tells defense to get the reports from the doctors & they will keep the 11/14/24 Rule 11 hearing on the books & to get set for 11/20/24 status conference. Reports from two court-appointed doctors are expected to be received as soon as November 7, and the judge will keep Vallow’s Rule 11 hearing on the schedule for 11/14/24 @ 8:30am. Afterwards, a status conference is set for 11/20/24 to determine more on the status of the case.
11/12/24 Docket update: Order of the Court. Court received a request from Court TV to have a camera in courtroom durig the initial Rule 11 hearing on 11/14/24. Granting request for camera but denies request for live stream by Judge Travis Marderosian.
ID – Vallow found guilty of all charges & sentenced to 3 consecutive life sentences without parole on 7/31/23.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857081354812338558

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857082741533086183

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857084495591043365

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857086814294589832

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857087460892664309

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857088190479249783

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857088595799978304

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857089905723105736

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857099296023183677

 

[nodamselindistress]

What kind of games is she playing now???

 

[nodamselindistress]

Duplicate - DBM

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857108597534331047

Lori Vallow Rule 11 hearing

A hearing was held on Nov. 14 to determine if Lori Vallow, the so-called "Doomsday Mom," is mentally fit to stand trial in her Arizona case. Vallow was not in court after refusing transport from jail. Another Rule 11 hearing is scheduled for next month.

www.fox10phoenix.com

 

[Niner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857108597534331047

Lori Vallow Rule 11 hearing

A hearing was held on Nov. 14 to determine if Lori Vallow, the so-called "Doomsday Mom," is mentally fit to stand trial in her Arizona case. Vallow was not in court after refusing transport from jail. Another Rule 11 hearing is scheduled for next month.

www.fox10phoenix.com

Rule 11 hearing in on 12/5/24 @ 8:30am with this Judge - and Judge Beresky next hearing for vallow is on 11/20 @ 10am.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857231261485408705

 

[Tortoise]

It could be she sees a conflict between being declared competent and then standing up at her trial and spouting stuff about no one being murdered etc.

 

[Niner]

Docket Date
Filing Party
11/13/2024
027 - ME: Pretrial Conference - Party (001)
11/13/2024


Case Calendar
Date Time Event
11/14/2024 8:30 Rule 11 Hearing

11/20/2024 10:00 Status Conference

12/5/2024 8:30 Rule 11 Hearing

2/10/2025 8:30 Pre-Trial Conference

2/24/2025 9:00 Trial


link: Criminal Court Case Information - Case History

 

[Kemug]

OMG! Well the sooner she rises to defend herself, the sooner the whole world will see just how totally crazy she is. In fact, they'd better have a van and men in white coats at the ready outside.

 

[nodamselindistress]

It pisses me off that she gets to dictate court hearings by her aberrant behavior. If I recall, she refused meds in Idaho years ago when she was declared incompetent. I think they had to forcibly administer meds to her.

 

[lightofmine99]

I saw somewhere she was a no-show?

 

[Campizi67]

This whole “Lori Vallow wants to represent herself” thing is really bothering me. I understand the law and that a defendant has the constitutional right to represent themselves in a criminal trial, as the Supreme Court affirmed in Faretta v. California (1975). The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to "assistance of counsel," but a defendant can choose to waive that right and proceed pro se—without an attorney. Courts still usually appoint a standby or advisory counsel to help guide them through the trial, though, and that’s where I see a major issue.

The reasoning behind appointing advisory counsel is that representing yourself in a criminal trial is incredibly complex. Courts want to make sure the trial is fair, and that the defendant’s rights aren’t violated just because they don’t have legal expertise. The court-appointed lawyer doesn’t actively represent the defendant in court, but they’re available to offer advice and step in if the defendant needs help or can’t adequately defend themselves. In theory, this respects the defendant’s right to represent themselves while still ensuring the trial process is fair.

But here’s the problem: If a defendant has an attorney available to advise them, are they really "representing themselves"? It seems like a huge loophole, especially when someone like Lori Vallow is allowed to do this. She’s technically representing herself, but she still gets free legal advice from the state. To me, that feels like an unfair advantage. If you want to represent yourself, fine—but then you should be on your own. If you want legal counsel, then let the attorney fully represent you. It shouldn’t be both.

What frustrates me even more is that taxpayers are footing the bill for this advisory counsel. The taxpayer didn’t choose to be part of this case, so why should they pay for Vallow to play the system like this? It seems like a manipulation of the legal process, and it doesn’t sit right with me. If the system allows this kind of exploitation, then it raises questions about whether it's truly
protecting everyone's rights or just opening the door for defendants to game the system.

There needs to be checks and balances in place to determine what’s really at play here. We can’t just let defendants use the system however they want without ensuring that it’s being used fairly, for both the defendant and the public. If we don’t have those safeguards, it undermines the integrity of the entire process.

Long opinionated rant over.

 

[indicolite22]

Wouldn't her representing herself (with an advisory counsel) still be cheaper for the taxpayer than having a set public defenders? In order to let her do that, they must assess her competence. It seems like she wants to go to trial to spout her "truth" ASAP, but without a competency or mental evaluation. What is she afraid of? Getting sent to a mental hospital again? She doesn't think she belongs there. (All JMO)

ETA: Her latest no-show in court might be due to her not being camera-ready or due to a fear of doctors. I wonder if she is on any medication now.

 

[cujenn81]

How does one not show for court when they are jailed? Serious question.

 

[Campizi67]

Wouldn't her representing herself (with an advisory counsel) still be cheaper for the taxpayer than having a set public defenders? In order to let her do that, they must assess her competence. It seems like she wants to go to trial to spout her "truth" ASAP, but without a competency or mental evaluation. What is she afraid of? Getting sent to a mental hospital again? She doesn't think she belongs there. (All JMO)

ETA: Her latest no-show in court might be due to her not being camera-ready or due to a fear of doctors. I wonder if she is on any medication now.

While it might seem cheaper for taxpayers to allow her to represent herself with advisory counsel, there are significant risks that could actually end up increasing the cost of the case. Self-representation, especially with underlying mental health issues, could lead to delays, mistakes, or procedural hurdles that ultimately require more time and resources from the court. While advisory counsel is less expensive than a full public defender, it’s not guaranteed to save money in the long run if the case becomes more complicated.

As for her motivations, she may be trying to maintain control over her case and avoid being labeled 'incompetent,' fearing a mental health evaluation could lead to her being institutionalized again. She might also feel that agreeing to Rule 11 would force her into a plea deal or an admission of guilt, which she’s not willing to accept. The decision to represent herself could stem from a combination of control, fear of stigma, and a distrust of her legal counsel.

Ultimately, my concern is that, even though she has counsel advising her, she's still complicating the process by insisting on representing herself. Regardless of their advice, her decision to take on self-representation could be a strategy to delay the trial or avoid accountability—and it’s only making the case more difficult and costly for taxpayers. In the end, her choice isn’t just about saving money; it’s about creating procedural hurdles that waste time and resources, which is unfair to everyone involved.
Imo

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not sure she wants delay. She never agrees to waive her rights to speedy trial, and her counsel want more time to go through discovery but she doesn't agree to it.

 

[Campizi67]

She certainly pushes for moving forward....in some cases, a defendant’s desire for a speedy trial can conflict with the attorney’s need for more time to build a case. Ultimately its up to her though the attorneys can still argue for more time in court if necessary.