← Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
LORI VALLOW: Not a Lawyer, But Played One in Court Today
00:22:53
Loading summary
Transcript47 lines
- [00:00]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Foreign.
- [00:06]
Ashley Banfield
Hi, everybody, it's Ashley Banfield. Welcome to Drop Dead Serious bonus episode. I told you, I do these crazy bonus episodes, and I've got one on Lori Valo daybell. I like to say this is Lori Valo daybell week. I actually don't like to say it, but I will say it. And the reason I said that is because she walked into court today and she really looked as though this was her show, folks, I think in Lori Valo daybell's mind, this is her show. She is not just on trial for conspiracy to commit murder. She is also her own lawyer in that courtroom. Lori Valo, think about this is hand picking her own jury. She's also arguing motions and she's objecting to the prosecution. And she's referring to herself in the third person. And like, I know it's crazy, because isn't this the same woman who thought that zombies had taken over her children and who was once ruled mentally unfit even to stand trial, let alone adjudicate one as a lawyer? Yes, this is the same Lori Vallow Daybell. And let me be clear. I know she was already tried for three murders and found guilty and sentenced to, you know, life in prison, no parole. But she's got a few more legal issues, right? Like the death of her fourth husband and the attempted murder of the husband that her niece was divorcing. I'll get to that. But jury selection started today in the fourth husband murder trial. Okay. And I'm giving you this podcast bonus episode on March 31st. You should know that the jury selection is not being televised. Right. But the court did go on the record and on camera for a couple motions. Those were discussed in court and those were televised. And oh, my God, it was something. Yep, it was something. It was fiery, it was chaotic, and it was basically Lori in all her glory. And yes, I made a rhyme. So you probably know that recently she filed this big motion to dismiss the actual prosecutor in her case. And that prosecutor's name is Trina K. And Lori alleges prosecutorial misconduct. And if that name, Trina K. Sounds familiar, it should. You may not know this, but Trina K. Is a longtime girlfriend of Juan Martinez. And yes, that name should sound familiar as well. Juan Martinez was the prosecutor in the infamous Jody Arias trial. And since Jody's trial, Juan has had a lot of problems. He was actually disbarred based on some of the antics in Jody's courtroom. But Laurie believes that his girlfriend, Trina K. Is trying to get famous while trying Lori's case. But Laurie does not offer any proof. Listen, I like the next guy. I think it's important to have the right to challenge authority. Just ask my mom. But let's be really clear. If you want to assert prosecutorial misconduct, you better have the goods and those goods better be good, right? Like you can't just sue the government because a trial doesn't go your way. You have to prove a lot. Like the bar is really, really high. In order to accuse the government of prosecutorial misconduct, usually there has to be some malice, right? There has to be some real mens rea there, some real guilty intent. And it is a really, really hard thing to do. So I'm just going to go on the record. Like, she doesn't have a hope in hell on this one, that's for sure. So Lori also wanted. This is great. This is rich. She also wanted to put a reporter on her witness list, somebody who covered this case a lot from the beginning. And Lori alleged that the prosecutor gave the reporter legal advice. But then again, Lori didn't offer up any proof that happened.
- [04:27]
Nate Eaton
Listed as a witness.
- [04:30]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Well, I just got this last night, so I haven't had time to read all the things that he's claiming. He doesn't. But there's several things off the top of my head that he. That is relevant right now. One of the things is, one of it's different now, right, because he's had this off the record conversation with the prosecutor and he's kind of made himself a witness. He's kind of made her a witness.
- [04:58]
Nate Eaton
How so?
- [05:00]
Lori Vallow Daybell
In the sense that it. If this is not prosecutorial misconduct, then one of them is going to have to testify and talk about how it's not.
- [05:09]
Nate Eaton
Let's back up. How is he a witness to this trial? How does he have relevant information? Relevant information means a witness has testimony that makes some fact in the case more or less likely. So how does he have relevant information for what this case is about?
- [05:30]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Okay, so initially when I put him on my witness list, my intent is because I do not know what the state is going to put on in their case in chief. And so I was calling him as a witness for the purpose of impeachment, laying foundation for interviews, rebuttal to whatever that the state might put forth because he has interviewed almost every single witness on their witness list. And if they were to say something contrary to what they said to him on a public thing, that I would use him to lay a foundation for interviews and for impeachment. So I wasn't. That was my initial in calling him, I found it funny when I read the beginning of this. He says that it seems to be clear attempt by Mrs. Daybell to use the rules of criminal procedure as a pretext simply to keep me out of the courtroom and interfere with my ability to report. So I had to laugh at that because it hadn't even occurred to me that he wouldn't be able to be in the courtroom if he was a witness, according to 615. So that wasn't my intention. It was never my intention to do that. It was just to have him on hand if we needed. If we needed to do that.
- [06:40]
Ashley Banfield
Okay, couple things. So the reporter in question here is Nate Eaton, and he's a reporter for East Idaho News. And he's been on this case since the very beginning. He actually went to Hawaii and was like. He's the reporter who's, like, questioning Lori and Chad as they're walking along, like, hey, produce your kids. You're supposed to produce your kids to prove that they're okay. Like, they're the grandparents, want you to produce these children. You're ignoring them. And, you know, he was great. He had the microphone, you know, stuffed in Lori's face, and Lori and Chad ignored him. And we all know what happened after that. They got arrested, or he got. She got arrested. Brought back to, you know, mainland, and here she is. So what's fascinating is that Nate Eaton and the East Idaho News had to actually put in a response last week to this motion to have him on the witness list. Because as you probably know, if you're true crime fans, if you are on a witness list, oftentimes you. You may not be in the courtroom until after your testimony has happened because they don't, you know, they don't want your testimony influenced by things that you're hearing all the way along in the trial. There are some exceptions to that. You know, if you're like the. The, you know, family member or loved one of the accused or family member or loved one of the defendant, a lot of times you can be in the courtroom even if you're a witness. But generally speaking, witnesses can't sit through trials until after they're done. And even when they're done, they can be recalled, so they don't have the automatic right, you know, to sit in court. So Nate Eaton is a reporter on this case, and he can't, like, for his profession be barred from sitting in that courtroom because this is his story. And he, in his response, said, I call bullshit on Lori Valo. I think she's just trying to get me kicked out of the courtroom by putting me on the witness list. I was really interested in her response because either she's a really, really good actress, or that was kind of genuine, like, she's not a lawyer right. By trade. So she said, I didn't even think of that. I think she called it Rule 613. I'm not sure if I got it right, but it was interesting to hear her response when she said, I wasn't even thinking that when I wanted to have him handy in order to be asked, you know, in order to be able to ask him questions. But listen, I'm not going to put it past her, because I think she's scheming and conniving, and she's a murderer. And I say that without risk of, you know, affecting jurisprudence, because she is a murderer thrice over. She's serving life, no parole, for murdering her own children and the wife of the dude that she wanted to marry, which she did a couple weeks after the murder of that wife. So, you know, I think she impugns herself just by showing up, basically. So, okay, let's. Let's move on. Lori expressed some frustrations about something she called her limited ability, quote, unquote, limited ability to defend herself while in jail. And she is insinuating that the state has an unfair advantage over her. Yes. So let's play the clip, and we'll talk about it in a second.
- [09:44]
Judge
Everyone I've spoken with has not been subpoenaed.
- [09:48]
Lori Vallow Daybell
All right, Your honor, our subpoenas are with OPDs right now, and they should be being issued currently. You know, the state talks about in their response, like the state is claiming trial by ambush from the defense. Trial by ambush. How is the defense trial by ambush when they have interviewed every single one of these witnesses before? In the last five years since this case started, they've interviewed every single person that has been on there. They have written, transcripted interviews and video interviews of all of these people. And so how they are relevant, these witnesses will testify if and when they are needed to add additional facts or fill in the blanks that the state will no doubt leave out in their case in chief, and they'll be called accordingly. I need them to lay, perhaps, foundations for evidence presented by the state. The same with Lonnie Dworkin. I need him. His testimony will be required if and when it's necessary to. To rebut digital information that the State will bring forward during trial. I feel like the state is trying to say, okay, if you Want your speedy trial? Guess what? We're not going to let you defend yourself. Guess what? You can't have any experts. And guess what else? You can't have any witnesses. You can't have anybody speak in your behalf. So good luck. Have a nice day.
- [11:04]
Nate Eaton
All right. Well, that's why attorneys sometimes take a long time to prepare for a trial because they need to give notice of what all the testimony their witnesses are going to give. They need their experts to prepare reports. That's why your prior attorneys and your current attorneys were asking for more time to prepare the case. So you can't really have it both ways that you want your speedy trial rights, but you don't want to give notice to the other side of what your evidence is.
- [11:29]
Lori Vallow Daybell
I don't not want to give notice to the other side. With the limitations at the incarcerated state where I am and the limitations with OPDs of getting Lonnie Dworkin late in the game that they did, I've done everything in my power as a defendant to prepare and prepare the. And prepare the state and to give over everything that I could do within my power with the limitations that I am an incarcerated person at this maximum security prison jail.
- [11:58]
Nate Eaton
So when you say, and I shouldn't.
- [12:00]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Be able to represent myself because of that fact, that negates my constitutional right.
- [12:06]
Nate Eaton
I didn't say that. All right? I said that sometimes there are reasons to not go forward to trial as fast as you want.
- [12:17]
Ashley Banfield
Okay, so, so much to unpack there. That was a very patient judge explaining to Ms. Valo Daybell. That's why your prior lawyers were trying to get more time to do lawyer work. Lawyer work is hard and it is arcane. And rules of criminal procedure are not for laypeople to know at the top of their heads. Laurie, you think you're so smart, but you're not. And I'll say why. I mean, you sound like you're doing okay. Honestly, like, for the layperson to watch her says, wow, she sounds like she knows what she's doing. Here's the deal. You can't assert that the state has an unfair advantage over you because they're free, they're not locked up in jail, and they have access to witnesses, and they can do all these things that I can't do because, Lori, you chose to kill people and you got spanked. It's why you're in jail. It's why you're in prison, and prison's hard. And you don't get phone privileges at all times and tablet privileges and interview Privileges and, you know, Internet privileges and research privileges. You're in prison. Your rights have been taken away from you because you killed people, children. So you don't have all of the resources and time and access that people on the outside would, you know, like lawyers. Which is why maybe you shouldn't be representing yourself if you're so smart. How about the 30,000 foot view of what you're doing? You clearly don't get it because you're making these ridiculous arguments to a judge who has to like, teach you basics from the bench. Okay, so it isn't a secret that, that Lori has been super feisty during a lot of these pre trial hearings. But how far is this lady going to go, especially when it comes to addressing the bench? Is she going to push this judge to the edge? Because he's been really patient. Like I said in this next clip, Lori was arguing her motion to dismiss the case because the prosecution requested communications that she had had with her appellate attorney on her prison tablet. Which I will admit that does sound really weird to me. Right. You should be able to have privileged communications with any attorney that you communicate with. I would imagine that unless she was having a three way conversation on that prison tablet, maybe that would break privilege. But listen to the clip, because I.
- [15:13]
Judge
Don'T have the option of not providing them to her since they have been obtained. I think if you apply the case law in this, the defendant cannot meet her burden to show that there's any legal advice in these messages. There's no privilege in them. The messages are asking to set up times to call and to speak.
- [15:43]
Nate Eaton
Are the three, I think it's three messages that you included in your response? Are those all the messages?
- [15:50]
Judge
No, you, Honor, there are other messages. And we do say that tablet messages between Ms. Daybell and Mr. Jerram do not end on December 28th.
- [15:58]
Lori Vallow Daybell
They continue and there is privilege information on them going forward. And the state is basically testifying for my attorney now. She just testified for my attorney that he understood that they were priv. That these were not privileged communications. Where does she understand that he. Where is she testifying for my attorney?
- [16:17]
Nate Eaton
Well, I think because of the context of the messages, say, I'm trying to schedule a time and I'm trying to set up a confidential line.
- [16:25]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Meaning that was before. That's right, that was. He said it wasn't confidential before. Mcso gave him a letter saying, your phone number is now confidential. Your phone number now has.
- [16:37]
Nate Eaton
Okay, I'm not going to keep rehashing this with you. The fact that he's using different IP addresses and not messaging through the actual phone number. That's protected, I think is part of the problem. So if he's not using the program correctly, that's an issue you need to take up with your attorney.
- [16:52]
Lori Vallow Daybell
How is he using it incorrectly?
- [16:54]
Nate Eaton
I just told you. He's not messaging through the phone number. He's using different IPs.
- [16:58]
Lori Vallow Daybell
How can you message other than the phone number? I don't understand that.
- [17:01]
Nate Eaton
I don't understand that either. But if it was from the phone number and it's for his cell phone, for example, it would be the same IP address for each communication. There's like four or five IP addresses.
- [17:11]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Where are the IP addresses coming from? They're given to you by the state.
- [17:17]
Nate Eaton
They're right there listed on the messages.
- [17:20]
Lori Vallow Daybell
I'm just saying. Where are they obtaining those from?
- [17:24]
Nate Eaton
From your attorney's messages, too.
- [17:27]
Lori Vallow Daybell
From mcso?
- [17:28]
Ashley Banfield
Yeah.
- [17:29]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Did they get the IP addresses for every single person of every single message communication on the text from mcso?
- [17:35]
Nate Eaton
It's listed on the messages, so I assume so. It says Craig. Craig Durham. And then under is the IP address from the. From the device that's being used.
- [17:46]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Okay, and then Ms. K is reading all of these messages and they're not privileged, Is that what you're coming to?
- [17:54]
Nate Eaton
They're not privileged if you're not using the program or your attorney's not using the program correctly. Okay. They're still not going to be allowed to use any of these messages. What I'm saying is they're inadvertent disclosure by mcso. Because someone's not using the program correctly doesn't mean that they had bad faith in how they got them. They made it.
- [18:14]
Lori Vallow Daybell
How is he using it incorrectly?
- [18:17]
Nate Eaton
I don't know how else to explain it to you. I've told you five different times now. So he's not messaging with the phone number. He's messaging from different IP addresses.
- [18:25]
Lori Vallow Daybell
Okay. Can I ask if these messages are being disseminated anywhere? To Idaho, to the prosecutors in Idaho. Because it's definitely affecting my appeal. If that's case.
- [18:36]
Nate Eaton
I don't know.
- [18:37]
Judge
Has not been sent to anyone other than the defendant, you, Honor.
- [18:40]
Nate Eaton
All right.
- [18:41]
Ashley Banfield
Ah. Can you hear my exasperation? Okay, so, Lori Valo de Bell.
- [18:55]
Nate Eaton
You.
- [18:55]
Ashley Banfield
Have to follow the rules, right? Lawyers know that, but you're not a lawyer. And the appellate lawyer that you're going to talk to has to follow the rules. And please listen to the judge when he explains something to you, because that judge had to say it three or Four times. And that's just a waste of all our time. Right? And it is not going to endear you to that judge. Inadvertent. The definition is it was unintentional. And had you followed the proper protocols for having privileged conversations with your lawyer, there would have been no inadvertent seeing of your messages by the state. Wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, we have this yammering on and on because you don't know what you're doing. So for those out there who are listening to the clip, it's probably clear to you, if it wasn't to Lori Valo Debel, that the state saw some messages between her and her appellate attorney and they did the right thing. They turned them over to the court, and Lori freaked out because the state saw my privileged communications with my lawyer. Anyway, the state did tell her, no, dear, it was inadvertent. We are not using them. We turned them over to just you, not to the state of Idaho. So don't worry about your precious appeal in Idaho, which you will not win. But that's where we're at, folks, with Lori Daybell trying as she might, to be a lawyer. News flash, Lori Fallow Day Bell. Just because you were a murder defendant does not make you a lawyer. There's an old expression, and it's almost like a palindrome. It can go backwards or forwards, but a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client, you know, and that's the truth, no matter what. Even lawyers who go on trial get lawyers. There's a reason sometimes stuff goes by so quickly. You know, when you're actually at trial, it is hard to catch it, to put it on the record so that you have something in case you want to appeal. You can't appeal something unless you put it on the record. And a great example of that is like hearsay. There should be entire years dedicated in law school to hearsay. It is so hard to catch it, you know, for the. For the layman's ear to catch what real hearsay is when. When testimony is. Is. Is just cooking. I. I worked at Court TV for five years, and I still struggle to catch hearsay in the act. I get it sometimes, but lawyers do what they do because they are practiced at the art. They have the 10,000 hours and they can do it. And if you're preparing for trial, you get one show, right? And when it's show time, you gotta be ready. You gotta know what's ahead. You've got to troubleshoot. And I am just telling you right now, this is going to be a hell of a show because, Lori Valladabel, you are not a lawyer. All right, folks, that is it for this episode of Drop Dead Serious. If you are as hooked on this case as I am, make sure that you're subscribed so that you don't miss an update. And all the bonus episodes, I do those all the time. I drop them all the time. And if you're subscribed, you will get them. We have a lot more of these updates coming as this trial unfolds, so make sure you stick around. Like, subscribe, comment, tell me that you love or hate my ponytail, I don't care. But I do love to hear even the negative. And I want to hear what you think about cases that we're covering and cases you'd like me to cover. I'm Ashley Banfield, everybody, and thank you so much for listening. And please remember this, the truth isn't just serious, it's Drop Dead seriously.