Not sure if this will be one episode or not. Not sure if there will be any new info that those of us here don't already know. Just throwing it out there for any that might be interested.

Monday, May 30 at 9 p.m. ET/PT only on the HLN television network.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yUaj8VbUeI

I saw on the local news that her dang trial has been bumped further into the future - I think they said January. I'm pissed that they find excuse after excuse to delay this case.

IDK who U meant by “they”, but It’s the defense that can waive their speedy trial right(s), not the prosecution. This is somewhat common in murder / capitol punishment cases, btw

The downside of this is when the defendant is in jail, not a place an innocent person wishes to be…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2022 10:55AM by GNPE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiD8IK0Cheo

The sound starts badly, but is better for the actual arguments.

And here is the judge's ruling:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/052622%20Memorandum%20Decision%20and%20Order%20Granting%20States%20Motion%20to%20Continue%20Trial.pdf

From the ruling (pgs10-11)":

"In summary, this is a death penalty case. The discovery volume is extraordinary.
Defendant’s defense team has only recently been fully assembled and has expressed concerns with
the ability to be fully prepared to defend their client in October. The trial itself has been set for a
duration of 10 weeks—which further confirms that scope of evidence the State intends to
introduce. The Court is concerned that the defense may be impaired by being required to
commence trial in October, where they are relatively recently appointed to the case. On the other
hand, the State has had far more time to prepare its case—nearly three years since Defendant was
initially charged in Case CR22-20-838. Defendant has advanced no argument that the delay sought
by the State will impair her defense of the case. Finally, the Court has previously determined that
her case is to be tried together with Daybell’s case in a single trial, and advancing Daybell’s trial
to October may prejudice his defense.
On balance of all of these factors, and in full consideration of the record before the Court,
it is determined that the State has met its burden by demonstrating substantial and competent
evidence that good cause exists under I.C. § 19-3501 requiring this Court to extend the six-month
time for trial as prescribed by statute.
Further, this Court determines, based on this same rationale,that Defendant’s concurrent constitutional rights are not violated by extending the time for her trial
an additional 82 days, to commence on January 9, 2023.

Thanks, good snip. Just the info I was looking for :)

Watch YouTube crime talk with Scott reisch. He is a experienced attorney. His opinion is Lori Vallow can be free on appeal due to moving the trial. After hearing the reasoning, I think her attorney set this up.

According to Reisch Vallow never waived speedy trial to date. If her attorney brings this up at every hearing, if she is found guilty, she can win on appeal that speedy trial was dismissed and she goes free. If her attorney doesn’t bring it up and she is found guilty, she can appeal ineffective counsel for not bringing it up..she goes free. So it seems like if this is true Vallow just got a get out of free card, but not her hubby.

Hope Arizona gets their murder charges ready to grab her.

Different states have slightly different rules about the speedy trial application, but if challenged, the feds can decide - rule on whether or not those rules meet the basis of the U.S. Constitution

The court had to have gotten a sign-off from Lori and her attorney to move the trial date to January. I can't imagine that being a basis for an appeal.

I'm surprised she and Chad agreed to be tried together. I would have thought there would be an advantage to separate trials. If either were not found guilty, the other could use that as a basis to appeal their conviction. Plus whoever goes second will know exactly what witnesses testified to in the first trial, so they can mount a defense accordingly.

Ah yes, but remember the Prisoner's Dilemma!

Game theory would tell us that if tried separately, both would negotiate plea deals that under the circumstances would be life sentences. From where I stand, they should be aiming for a better Nash equilibrium, which would only be available if they cooperated.

I demonstrated the Prisoners' Dilemma game in my Victim Awareness class and reminded the group, "Your copartner is the very best witness--AGAINST YOU !"

I'm wagering Chad "rolls over" on Lori.

Thinking logically, he has strong reason to flip.

But perhaps he is not thinking logically. If he cares about her, opting for a joint trial may be the best option. Alternatively, maybe he wants to go down with the ship.

Are you sure they agreed to be tried together? Chad's defense tried to sever the cases. The judge ruled no.

Just going by what I hear.

I don't know if they agreed to be tried together, or if that was imposed. I am sure that either she agreed to waive her right to a speedy trial, which is where the original October date came from, or the prosecution may have found a loophole in the law that gave them some wiggle room on the date. I suspect she waived her right.
ETA: I just read the case transcript posted above. Looks like the court did find some wiggle room on moving the date.

No judge would be so dumb as to not realize that her right to a speedy trial took precedence over moving the trial to a later date. This has been a well-known issue in the negotiations all along. If we all know about it, I guarantee the judge knows about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 12:14AM by Brother Of Jerry.

The judge has to bend over backwards for the defendants in a case like this so there are no grounds for appeal. So yes, s/he would only offer a continuance if s/he knew it was constitutional and it worked to the advantage of Lori and Chad.

Yes, if you read the whole decision I posted above, the judge discusses in some detail both sides of the issue and his rational for his decision.

Read. Thanks.

It would be interesting to see what happened if Daybell appealed thedecision to try them jointly.

I gotta say how much I appreciate your reliance on actual information and sources. It's as refreshing as it is occasionally embarrassing!

"So it seems like if this is true Vallow just got a get out of free card, but not her hubby."

Isn't she Mormon? She'll be remarried within a month.

The show was a nothing burger. Too bad.

Why if the prosecution had years to investigate & prepare would they ask for a delay?

The wording doesn’t make sense.

The prosecution is asking for a delay because they want to try Chad and Lori together. Chad already asked for and obtained a delay so that his attorneys have time to prepare. The prosecution has had years, the defense wants more time to prepare. If you read Bowen the lines of the recent hearing, Lori's attorneys would like to have more time to prepare as well.

If the trial for Lori is held in October, the either Chad would have his trial moved back to October (which his attorneys would object to), or they would have to be retried separately. The prosecution is arguing that particularly because of the conspiracy charges they should be tried together. If you read the judge's decision, he is agreeing with that argument.

I believe legally each can either Insist on a speedy trial
( subject to Idaho rules) or waive it; having a trial together as a conspiracy is a somewhat separate matter I think.

I hope the procedural items are done correctly to reduce the chance of a successful appeal