Justice for Joyce Yost | Twice Overturned | Bonus Episode 3

Summary

Cold | Season 2 Bonus Episode 3: Justice for Joyce Yost | Twice Overturned

Date: August 28, 2024
Host: Dave Cawley
Guest: Amy Donaldson

---

Overview

This bonus episode of Cold provides an in-depth analysis of the latest bombshell legal development in the decades-long fight for justice for Joyce Yost, who was murdered in 1985 to prevent her testimony against Douglas Lovell. In July 2024, the Utah Supreme Court overturned Lovell’s death sentence for a second time—an extremely rare occurrence—on grounds of ineffective counsel during the penalty phase of his 2015 retrial. Host Dave Cawley and fellow crime journalist Amy Donaldson unpack the court’s reasoning, discuss its impact on the Yost family, and reflect on the challenges inherent in achieving justice in high-profile capital cases.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background & Recap of the Lovell Case (00:22–03:07)

• Joyce Yost’s 1985 disappearance: Yost vanished days before testifying against Lovell, whom she had accused of abduction and rape.
• Legal rollercoaster: After pleading guilty to capital murder in 1993 and being sentenced to death, Lovell spent decades seeking appeals. His first death sentence was overturned on a technicality. In 2015, he faced another penalty trial—again receiving the death penalty, which was now overturned a second time.

“Joyce’s remains have never been found, but that didn’t keep Lovell out of prison. Police built an airtight case against him… The judge sentenced Lovell to death. Then Lovell had a change of heart and tried to take back his guilty plea. It took almost two decades, but the Utah Supreme Court ended up siding with Lovell over a technical error…”
– Dave Cawley, 00:22

2. Details of the 2024 Utah Supreme Court Ruling (03:07–08:57)

• Ineffective assistance of counsel:
  Lovell’s attorneys failed to object to testimony about his religious experiences and status, especially during cross-examination where church policies and excommunication were discussed.

• Risk of religious bias:
  Concern that these discussions could have improperly influenced a jury in Utah’s religiously-influenced culture. The possibility—even without proof—that a juror could have deferred moral decisions to a “higher power” undermined fairness.

“...if there is even an inkling that it [the error] might have [affected the outcome], the justices ... are going to be very cautious about just waving that away. They want to make absolutely sure. Because, look, the bottom line is you’re talking about whether someone lives or dies.” – Dave Cawley, 11:18

• No dispute over guilt:
  Both defense and prosecution agreed on Lovell’s guilt; the focus was solely on his sentence.

3. The Role of Religion in the Trial and Jury (04:09–10:21)

• Jury composition and religious undertones:
  The defense referenced religious volunteers and bishops, but prosecutors highlighted their positions and church policy, raising questions about redemption and whether Lovell could rejoin the church.

• Potential for prejudicial influence:
  Jurors’ religious backgrounds could color perceptions of testimony regarding Lovell’s spiritual “change.”

“There’s a lot of ways in which our society here in Utah is impacted by somebody who has standing, has authority in the church just by saying they’re a member of the church.”
– Amy Donaldson, 09:04

• Jury selection challenges:
  Both sides subtly tried to determine jurors’ LDS affiliations without asking directly, e.g., by inquiring about the periodicals they read (such as LDS magazine “Ensign”).

4. Emotional Toll and Systemic Realities (12:21–14:49)

• Impact on Joyce Yost’s family:
  The repeated reversals have taken a heavy emotional toll, especially when other Utah death row inmates are executed first despite newer cases.

“The first thing I remember her [Kim Salazar, Joyce's daughter] saying was, I’m sick. I feel sick.”
– Dave Cawley, 12:40

• The slow wheels of justice:
  Frustration with how “justice” in the legal system is often about laws, not what’s emotionally right for victims.

“The cold, hard truth is it’s about applying laws and which laws were broken and what can you prove.”
– Dave Cawley, 14:30

5. Future Legal Process and Possibilities (14:49–17:10)

• Case returns to district court:
  A new penalty phase, with the option to seek the death penalty again—but logistical problems (aging witnesses, transcripts vs. live testimony, new appeals) loom large.

• Resource demands:
  Death penalty cases require immense resources; repeated retrials are costly and emotionally draining for all involved, especially families.

“In a death penalty case, it’s millions.”
– Dave Cawley, 16:31

• Structural issues:
  Amy underscores that funding and parity in legal resources are crucial to avoid costly errors and retrials.

• Religious influence is inescapable:
  The unique religious landscape in Utah pervades even seemingly secular legal proceedings.

“Every conversation we have in Utah ... has some flavor colored in some way by … religious discussion and religious theology and religious doctrine.”
– Amy Donaldson, 16:36

6. Justice for Victims and Ongoing Commitment (17:10–End)

• Legal standards vs. victim care:
  The bar must be “almost to perfection” when a state seeks the death penalty, but there must also be more support for crime victims’ families.

• Moving forward:
  Dave Cawley commits to continuing coverage, emphasizing that the story—and the pursuit of justice for Joyce—remains ongoing.

“Justice for Joyce ... is justice done in this process. Well, it’s ongoing, so we have to commit to be there every step of the way.”
– Dave Cawley, 19:06

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Do not let the sun set on the concept that every criminal defendant is entitled to effective counsel.”
  – Utah Supreme Court Justice, 00:13

• “It is big because it’s so rare to get a death penalty conviction overturned, but to have one overturned twice.”
  – Amy Donaldson, 03:07

• “The problem is how we fix it and how we deal with the human people who are impacted by the mistakes.”
  – Amy Donaldson, 17:31

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |------------|----------------------------------------------| | 00:22 | Episode introduction & Joyce Yost case recap | | 03:07 | Supreme Court overturns Lovell’s death sentence (2nd time) | | 04:09 | Legal reasoning: religious testimony & prejudice | | 06:04 | Courtroom moment: halt over LDS policy discussion | | 09:23 | Jury selection and religious affiliation | | 12:21 | Yost family reaction; emotional impact | | 14:49 | Next steps: new sentencing hearing, challenges| | 16:31 | Resource demands in death penalty cases | | 17:10 | Justice standards, victim care, closing thoughts|

---

Flow & Tone

The episode is thoughtful, measured, and analytical, expertly balancing legal technicalities with human empathy. Both host and guest maintain a respectful, inquisitive tone, often returning to the pain experienced by victims’ families as years of legal uncertainty drag on.

---

Conclusion

This bonus episode shines a light on the complexities and costs of seeking the death penalty in Utah, especially where religious context is tightly interwoven with community and courtroom. As the Lovell case returns to the district court yet again, Cold will remain a crucial voice—documenting each twist in the long campaign for justice for Joyce Yost.

Transcript

[A]

This podcast discusses sensitive topics, including descriptions of physical and sexual violence. We've taken great care to avoid being explicit, but please use discretion when listening.

[B]

Do not let the sun set on the concept that every criminal defendant is entitled to effective counsel.

[A]

From KSL Podcasts, I'm Dave Cawley. This is a bonus episode of Cold Season 2, Twice Overturned. Joyce Yost disappeared in August of 1985, days before she was due to testify at trial about how a man she had never met followed her home one night, kidnapped her, and raped her. That man, Douglas Lovell, came back and murdered Joyce to silence her. He took her somewhere in the mountains of Utah and left her there. Joyce's remains have never been found, but that didn't keep Lovell out of prison. Police built an airtight case against him, and in 1993, Lovell pleaded guilty to capital murder. The judge sentenced Lovell to death. Then Lovell had a change of heart and tried to take back his guilty plea. It took almost two decades, but the Utah Supreme Court ended up siding with Lovell over a technical error undoing his death sentence that set the stage for a trial in 2015, 30 years on from Joyce's murder. We covered this in the main run of the season, but to refresh your memory, Doug Lovell didn't contest his guilt. His trial strategy focused entirely on the penalty phase, where to avoid death, he needed to convince just one juror he didn't deserve to die. It didn't work. The jury chose death. Then the appeals process started all over again. It took nine more years before Lovell's latest appeal reached the chambers of the Utah Supreme Court.

[C]

Good morning. Welcome to the Utah Supreme Court. We are here in the matter of State v. Lovell.

[A]

I attended the oral arguments in February of 2024. I was the only member of the news media there.

[C]

So with that, if I could please ask counsel to place your appearances on the record.

[A]

Lovell's attorney, Colleen Koberg, came with a long list of reasons why she contended the 2015 trial was fatally flawed.

[B]

My brief addresses many, many topics, and I would invite you to ask any questions you have.

[A]

On the other side of the courtroom sat Mark Field from the Utah Attorney General's office. He argued Lovell's second death sentence should stand.

[C]

The aggravating evidence encompassing these crimes was overwhelming at trial.

[A]

In the end, the high court said it would consider the issues and the law, then return with an opinion at a later date.

[C]

Thank you, Ms. Kohberg. Thank you, Mr. Field. We appreciate the arguments today. We'll take this Matter under advisement, and this court will be adjourned.

[A]

The opinion arrived at the end of July, and it's a stunner. Utah's top court once again overturned Doug Lovell's death sentence.

[B]

It is big because it's so rare to get a death penalty conviction overturned, but to have one overturned twice.

[A]

If you have listened to our companion podcast, Talking Cold, or the podcast series the Letter, then you're probably familiar with Amy Donaldson. She's a journalist like myself, and she covered crime and corrections in Utah for a long time. Amy and I got together to dig into the reasoning behind this ruling and what it means for Joyce Yost's family going forward.

[B]

Where were you when you found out that his death penalty conviction had been overturned for a second time?

[A]

I was in southern Utah, on the outskirts of Bryce Canyon national park, basically on vacation, summer vacation. And I'd been out of cell phone contact because in that part of the state, you know, it's canyons and desert and you're far from civilization, and I roll into town and all of a sudden my phone's blowing up. Everybody at ksl, the station where we both work, saying, hey, what are you going to do to cover this? Big breaking news today about Lovell?

[B]

What was the issue? Why did they send this back?

[A]

So, bottom line, what the Utah Supreme Court says went wrong with Lovell's 2015 trial was ineffective assistance of counsel. His lawyers did not object to certain testimony about religious matters coming in before the jury. And the argument is that could have prejudiced the jury against Lovell in this.

[B]

Country, the United States of America. I think this court should reverse on that issue alone. There's no doubt about the fact that he did this crime. So the facts of the crime are undisputed.

[A]

Guilt is uncontested in this 2015 trial. They go to the penalty phase, which is the important part, where he's going to tell the jury that he is changed by all of the experiences he's had with religious leaders and things over time, that he feels remorse for the crime. And that's the presentation of the defense's case in 2015. What happened, though, was some of the people the defense wanted to have come in and talk about their experiences dealing with Doug Lovell in the Utah State Prison during all those years. They're religious leaders. They're members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are bishops. So in the hierarchy of that church, they are the people who would be.

[B]

They would head a congregation the first level up.

[A]

Yeah, right.

[B]

They're over a congregation, kind of like a pastor. Yes. And so the defense talked about these people and talked about Lovell's experiences gaining some spiritual insight and some remorse and his changes without ever mentioning the role these people played in church hierarchy. Right, right. So you just thought these were relig volunteers at the prison who are having these religious experiences with Mr. Lovell. And then when the prosecutors have their chance to cross examine these witnesses, they bring up their roles in the church.

[A]

And it was a big deal at the time. In the middle of the trial, they actually stopped the prosecution cross examination of one of these witnesses in particular because the questioning veered into policy, like church policy, about excommunication. If you've been kicked out of the church, what does it take to be readmitted? Has Lovell gone through that process, the.

[B]

That were brought up? No reasonable attorney could have thought this is a good idea. Let's, let's talk about how he has been excommunicated. Church policy is that if you are convicted of murder and you want to convert to the Mormon Church, this happened in my podcast the latter season two. You cannot technically become a member of the church. You cannot be baptized into the church. You have to actually, like, gain parole. And then you have to go all the way to the first presidency, which is the highest of the high of the church, and get a letter from them that says they give you permission to become an actual member on the rolls. So when this discussion is happening in court, like you say, they stopped and had a lengthy discussion about whether or not it was allowable or it was prejudicial. I sort of saw that as obviously problematic.

[A]

Yeah. The concern on the part of the attorneys and the judge and all the way up to the Utah Supreme Court, as we've now seen, could what is being put in front of this jury cause even one of those jurors to think to themselves, I don't have to make the decision about whether or not Doug Lovell is a reformed person, because that's a question for a higher power. And so I'm going to abdicate that decision to the higher power. We don't know that happened. Nobody knows if that happened except for those jurors. If that happens, though, that would be evidence of the jury being prejudiced. And that came up during the oral arguments.

[C]

If the jury is being asked to decide whether or not Mr. Lovell has really changed, the prosecutor has offered at least some of the jurors a proxy for knowing. We don't. We just don't have the evidence to show that any juror was thinking along the lines that you just mentioned at all.

[A]

So we heard the justices of the Utah Supreme Court really digging in. Can you reasonably say, given the religious makeup of Utah society, that nobody on that jury was influenced by that testimony?

[C]

I don't think jurors, when they hear religious testimony like that, that they somehow give up the oath that they made. Whatever beliefs they may have about what they hear in the courtroom about Doug Lovell, what if it's a little more subtle than that?

[A]

Clearly, what we've seen in the decision overturning Lovell's, you know, second death sentence was Utah Supreme Court says, even the risk of that being the case means you gotta do it over.

[B]

And really what they're saying is that his defense attorneys should have recognized that possible contamination and objected to it.

[A]

Right.

[B]

But the fact that they didn't object, that they just let them talk about things that to a person outside of Utah or who has no affiliation with the L District, not gonna matter. But there's a lot of ways in which our society here in Utah is impacted by somebody who has standing, has authority in the church just by saying they're a member of the church.

[A]

And when this jury was being seated, there were questions that you could tell both sides were trying to suss out. You know, is this person a member? Now? They weren't coming right out and asking, you know, do you have a temple recommend? Do you have good standing in the church?

[B]

Can you do that? Can you ask those kinds of questions?

[A]

They would ask questions like, what types of periodicals do you read? And so if the juror volunteers, well, I read the Ensign, which is an LDS magazine. Ah. That's maybe a cue to yourself that.

[B]

This person is pretty faithful.

[A]

Right.

[B]

The question is, are they an LDS person who is going to care that the bishop at the prison, who's a volunteer, says, this guy's trustworthy, he's changed, he deserves another chance.

[A]

Or that's going to think, well, because he was excommunicated and not readmitted, he's. Lovell is not to be trusted, is not truly rewarded.

[B]

There is no such thing as redemption. Yeah.

[A]

In a death penalty case, it has to be unanimous. If you have one person on that jury who is unsure about death, you don't get death.

[B]

And I do think if you are a person of faith, like, it is easier to say, this is not my responsibility. It's not my decision. I'm making this decision based on my obligation to the greater community. And our greater community says, this is the option. Death is the option. This is between God and him. And it's not really for me to figure out.

[C]

Even assuming that counsel was deficient in not objecting at that point, I don't think there's a reasonable likelihood that there would have been a different outcome.

[A]

But for that, there's something that you often see in appeals cases, which is harmless error. There was an error made, but it didn't change the outcome.

[B]

Or it likely wouldn't have.

[A]

Likely wouldn't have.

[B]

We see that a lot. It likely wouldn't have. Yeah.

[A]

But in a case like this, if there's even an inkling that it might have, the justices on the high court are going to be very cautious about just waving that away. They want to make absolutely sure. Because, look, the bottom line is you're talking about whether someone lives or. Or dies. Amy, you and I can sit here and we can dissect these arguments. We understand them, and we can see the logic in them. Even if we disagree. Right. We might be able to say, ah, I. I get what the justices are saying here. I get why the attorneys feel this way. The judges. Da, da, da, da, da. The hard thing is when you go back now to Joyce Yost's family and you tell them, all right, that death penalty that you fought for, not only did you get death once, you got it twice. We're going back, and we're doing that all over again.

[B]

Have you talked to her family?

[A]

Yeah, Yeah, a little bit. I've had some conversations with her daughter, Kim Salazar, since this came down. She was the first person I reached out to. So I get these messages from my workplace saying, are you going to cover it? I quickly read the decision, and then I reached out to Kim to kind of take her temperature, feel where she was at, ask if she wanted to talk about it. You know, do you want to speak to a reporter? Do you want to speak to me about it? The first thing I remember her saying was, I'm sick. I feel sick. And then, you know, we talked a little bit about the specifics of why, but there was a meta context to this whole conversation, Amy, which was Lovell's death sentence was overturned. At the same time, Utah was preparing to execute somebody else.

[B]

Yeah, and it's just so rare here. We're not like Texas or Florida. There's not people on death row being executed on the regular. This hasn't happened since 2010. So it's a major event. And. And it captures a lot of attention.

[A]

And you can imagine if you are Joyce Yost's family who are still strongly supportive of seeing Lovell executed. This crime was 39 years ago. And you're watching somebody else be executed for a crime that also happened a long time ago, but not nearly that long ago. And your case has just been basically sent back. You're going, well, why are we being forced to wait so long to see the justice that we feel is warranted? Now, I'm not taking a stance on whether it's right or wrong, but you can imagine how they feel.

[B]

Well, and I think that's where the criminal justice system is. Not just you come into it thinking, I'm looking for justice. I'm looking for fairness. I'm looking for something that's going to make this right. We talk about it that way. You know, we're speaking for the victims, we're speaking for the dead. But it's not really about that at the end of the day. I mean, the cold, hard truth is it's about applying laws and which laws were broken and what can you prove.

[A]

Exactly. Right. And so what happens procedurally is this case now goes back to the district court. That's the county level court. A new jury will conceivably be empaneled. They will be asked to again decide this question of should Doug Lovell be sentenced to death?

[B]

What if they decide they don't want to seek the death penalty? What happens there?

[A]

So we don't know at this point. The conversations, I'm sure, are happening behind closed doors about where do we go? Do we go for death again? You've got death twice. Are you gonna get it a third time? And if you do, does everybody on board have the stomach to go through yet another round of appeals? Cause the appeals start all over again if you get death a third time. People are getting older in the process. Witnesses, including some who testified in 2015, one for sure has passed away.

[B]

Are you going to read a whole bunch of witness statements?

[A]

It's going to be a bunch of transcripts. Yeah. And then the defense gets to put on live witnesses. Is that fair? Right.

[B]

Because they're talking about what's happening now. Sure.

[A]

Yeah. So that skews more toward the current. So trying to find that balance on those scales of justice, We've seen that with this decision, the Utah Supreme Court feels like there was an error made. They're gonna send it back. Okay. Does Weber county have the stomach to go for death again? Does Joyce's family?

[B]

I mean, that's really the reason that a lot of defense attorneys argue. If you're Gonna have the death penalty. You have to really put money behind the defense of these cases because you don't wanna have these errors. This is the reason you wanna avoid errors. Not because somebody doesn't want to look bad. It's really torturous for everybody involved, the witnesses. I mean, none of this is anything anybody wants to keep doing. This is why there needs to be, you know, an attorney general's counterpart to the defense work for people in private practice. It's just there's nobody who can just take time and do it. Like, I don't even know what it would cost you to do a case.

[A]

Millions. Millions. In a death penalty case, it's millions.

[B]

Yeah. So you're going to be defended by the government. That's the bottom line. So the government should just invest in making that as equal as possible to avoid these errors. And I'm not sure why. Here's the other thing is every conversation we have in Utah, from, you know, city government to state government to criminal justice issues, has some flavor colored in some way by there's some influence of religious discussion and religious theology and religious doctrine.

[A]

And that's ultimately what this boils down to. If there is any question of bias or impropriety, you got to do it over.

[B]

If the government is going to be in the business of at times taking the lives of its citizens, the bar has to be almost to perfection. On the flip side, we have to do better by these victims families. If there was a mistake, that we got to fix it. The problem is how we fix it and how we deal with the human people who are impacted by the mistakes.

[A]

And the time that's lost in the time that's lost.

[B]

And I think just making people feel a part of it. Kim is on the outside. She's calling a reporter or texting you. Right. It tells me we could still create a better safety net. So where does this go next?

[A]

So what we understand, Amy, is there will be a new sentencing hearing, supposedly at some time. My intention is to be there. I want to continue following this case. Look, when we came off of cold season one, the Susan Powell case, which had millions of listeners, and we decided to follow Joyce's story for season two, I knew, and I think all of us behind the scenes knew this was not going to be a high profile, a flashy case. But we felt strongly about the importance of shining a light on it for a number of reasons. As we've talked about it highlights how so many victims, especially women in the criminal justice system, are treated when they come forward we see the long tail as people like Kim Salazar and Joyce's family deal with the death penalty. So I didn't feel like we could just, you know, wrap the season, clap our hands, clear the dust off and say, we're done. We're moving on forever. Clearly, this is something that's going to linger. It's going to continue. I want to be there and I hope that people come along with us because as we talked about in the season, justice for Joyce, this idea is justice done in this process. Well, it's ongoing, so we have to commit to be there every step of the way. And I just hope that you and anybody else listening will follow along with us.

[B]

It's not over for you until it's over for Joyce and Joyce's family, until the case is really closed.

[A]

Absolutely. Thanks. Amy Kold is a production of KSL Podcasts and Wondery in association with Workhouse Media. Cold is researched, written and hosted by me, Dave Cawley, mixing and mastering by Ben Kiebrick. Michael Bondmiller composed our main theme for Amazon Music and Wondery executive producer Morgan Jones with Workhouse Media executive producers Paul Anderson and Nick Pannella and for KSL Podcasts, executive producer Cheryl Worsley.