Lori Vallow Daybell asks Idaho Supreme Court to overturn murder convictions

Lori Vallow Daybell is asking Idaho's highest court to overturn her convictions in the deaths of her two children and a conspiracy to kill her husband's first wife, arguing her constitutional rights were violated.

The hourlong hearing focused heavily on whether Vallow Daybell was denied her Sixth Amendment right to choose her own attorney according to AP and AZFamily reporting. Her original defense counsel, Mark Means, was removed from the case after a lower-court judge determined a potential conflict of interest existed because Means had briefly represented both Vallow Daybell and her co-defendant husband, Chad Daybell, early in the proceedings.

Media additions

Craig Durham, an attorney representing Vallow Daybell, argued that the process used to remove Means was flawed and unconstitutional. He told the justices that the lower court lacked specific factual evidence to establish an actual conflict of interest and made a serious analytical error by equating prior joint representation with an automatic disqualification. Durham further contended that the disqualification decision was made while Vallow Daybell had been declared mentally incompetent to stand trial, while her case was on hold, and without allowing Means or Vallow Daybell to meaningfully participate in that decision.

Representing the state, Assistant Attorney General Jeff Nye countered that the district court faced an extraordinarily difficult situation and did everything possible to address it. Nye pointed out that Means continued submitting court filings even after Vallow Daybell had been formally declared incompetent. According to the state, Means submitted sworn statements from an incompetent client under attorney-client privilege and filed documents in Chad Daybell's case while attempting to make Vallow Daybell a party to it. Nye argued that the judge had a fundamental duty to ensure ethical proceedings and protect the integrity of the trial.

Supreme Court Justice Gregory Moeller noted that the lower-court judge appeared to be acting to protect Vallow Daybell from having an attorney who might damage her case through unorthodox decisions. Moeller suggested that without that intervention, the state supreme court would likely be hearing appeals based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

A significant exchange during Monday's proceedings involved the potential consequences of a retrial as reported by NewsNation and other outlets. A justice asked whether sending the case back for a new trial could put the death penalty back on the table. Durham acknowledged the risks, stating that Vallow Daybell is fully aware of the possibility and nevertheless chose to continue pressing her appeal. Durham maintained there are several strong legal arguments against the state reinstating the death penalty if a new trial is granted.

The defense appeal also challenges other aspects of the case, including alleged violations of Vallow Daybell's right to a speedy trial, hearings conducted while she was deemed incompetent to stand trial, and the admission of evidence concerning two separate shootings in metro Phoenix, Arizona reported the Deseret News. Prosecutors defended the introduction of the Arizona evidence, arguing it was used to demonstrate a pattern of behavior and establish context regarding beliefs about dark spirits and elimination of obstacles.

Vallow Daybell was convicted in May 2023 of murdering her children, seven-year-old Joshua "JJ" Vallow and 16-year-old Tylee Ryan, alongside the conspiracy to murder Tammy Daybell, the former wife of Chad Daybell. The children had been reported missing in 2019 before their remains were discovered buried on Chad Daybell's property in eastern Idaho. Chad Daybell was subsequently convicted in a separate trial and sentenced to death. Vallow Daybell was later tried and convicted in Arizona for conspiracy in connection with the fatal shooting of her former husband, Charles Vallow, and the attempted shooting of Brandon Boudreaux.

The Idaho Supreme Court did not issue an immediate ruling following Monday's arguments. The justices took the matter under advisement and will review the written briefs and oral arguments before issuing a formal written decision at a later date, determining whether to uphold the convictions, overturn them, or remand the case for further proceedings.