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.
