Chad Daybell is charged with the murders of 7-year-old Joshua "JJ" Vallow, Tylee Ryan, last seen when she was 16, and his previous wife Tammy Daybell, who died of asphyxiation the year before. Lori Vallow was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for her role in her children's deaths. She was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the deaths of both children and received an additional 10-year prison sentence on a grand theft charge.
Guest Bio and Links:
Kirk Nurmi became infamous while serving as lead counsel for Jodi Arias. Today, as a former criminal defense attorney, he is thrilled that his legal career is a thing of the past. He has found a new level of joy working as a writer, speaker, and life coach whose new mission is to help others find a new level of joy.
Resources:
In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, talks with former criminal defense attorney, Kirk Nurmi about the unique perspectives of the American criminal justice system; specifically the death penalty. Kirk breaks down the complexities of a death penalty defense using the high-profile case of Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell as a backdrop. They explore the legal and moral dilemmas faced by jurors and public defenders and the enduring challenges of a deeply polarizing topic.
Could you look someone in the eye and say, ‘I think you should die’…?
Show Notes:
- (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum.
- (1:00) Sheryl introduces guest, Kirk Nurmi to Zone 7
- (5:45) Brief background of Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow case
- (9:00) Death penalty considerations
- (13:10) “We can talk about the death penalty, people can listen to it, but you think about that when, if you're in that jury box, And you're looking at that person, and you've kind of seen them for months, and you see their family, their family might be behind them, their kids, their spouse, etc. And you, as a juror, have to look at that person and say, I think you should die…”
- (14:30) Mitigation and psychological profiling
- (22:00) Process of death penalty
- (27:00) Factors that determine the death penalty being on the table
- (30:30) Polarization of the death penalty
- (32:00) The magnitude of a death penalty case
- (35:30) “I was personally opposed to the death penalty. And yet, I think I've probably asked for the death penalty more than most people in the United States.” -Janet Reno
- Thanks for listening to another episode! If you’re loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review!
---
Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students and the criminal justice community together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases.
Social Links:
- Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com
- Twitter: @ColdCaseTips
- Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum
- Instagram: @officialzone7podcast
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Y'all know him as the lead public defender for Jody Arias.
That case catapulted him into the national spotlight, but that
ain't his whole story by a long shot. After Arius,
he fought cancer, he won, and he also made some
big changes in his life and decided he was going
(00:31):
to focus on happiness. That was going to be his goal,
not work, not getting to the top of anything. Just
what makes me happy. That's what I'm going to focus on.
And his wife and his dog are his priority. And
let me tell you something. In this new life of
his He's authored eight books, he speaks around the country,
(00:55):
He's on crime stories with Nancy Grace Court TV, been
on the Today Show. We know him, we love him,
we rely on him because I'm going to tell y'all something,
in the world of death penalty cases, nobody knows that
system and that process better than a public defender. So
(01:16):
tonight we have the legendary Kirk Nurmi. Sir, Welcome to
Zone seven.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Well, thank you, And as my biography indicates, I wouldn't
be here if I wasn't happy to be talking to you.
And it's just a delight to talk to you. Get
some of that verbal butter you churn out every day
and have a great conversation about the death Centain.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Well, I appreciate it so much. And I also just
want to tell you on a personal note, a lot
of people do not know, but I do have a
sister that's fighting cancer right now, and you were so
lovely to reach out and just say, hey, she ever
needs to talk. I've been there. I would love to
just give her what I've got to try to help
her out, And just personally wanted you to know what
(02:00):
that meant to me. So I appreciate you.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Well, I appreciate that, and I appreciate a lot of
what I do, some of the things I do with
my health changes and everything else, because I remember Cheryl
being in that chemo chair and getting that first chemo
and not only not wondering whether I was going to survive,
but what life was going to be like afterwards, because
chemotherapy isn't exactly a kind to kind of the human body, right,
(02:26):
It's poison meant to kill, a more significant poison. And
so when I came out of that, one of the
things that I wanted to do with my health, my transformation,
using happiness as my beacon as you talked about earlier,
is to set an example, be out there and try
to show people what life can be like after chemo.
(02:46):
And and I'm rooting for your sister, and I'm hoping
that she can look at me and say, listen, there's
somebody who's really made some changes in life, and I
can live that kind of life too, beyond cancer.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Amen. And she does. Let me tell you, she knows it,
She sees it, she feels it. Any well, wish, any prayer,
any good thought, and especially when somebody that has been
through it she's watching, she knows. And you know, Ashley
Wilcox has been real supportive and Nancy Grace has been
real supportive, and I mean like from TV and she
(03:20):
gets it. I mean she is just transformed by it
every time. So I do appreciate it. But you know,
one thing I want people to know is you tried
to get away from Arias and the judge said you
couldn't do it. And I think that's another thing. When
you're looking at things that make you literally sick, there's
no question I think that case puts you in the
(03:41):
position you got in.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Well, you know, I don't want to go too far
into areas. You know, we've talked about that before. But
I tell you what though, you're right, Mack, because I knew,
you know, it happened about four months after she was sentenced,
and I knew right away in my heart that it
was the stress of having to deal with everything involved
in areas they brought cancer into my life.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Yep. And that's the last thing I wanted to say
about it. But I just when people are listening and
you're talking about making changes and only want to be
surrounded by things that make you happy, I again want
people to hear if you are in a situation that
is just complete crap and it's just stressing you out
every day, you have got to get away from it,
(04:21):
whatever it is.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
So let's go on to a lighter topic, the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
All right, So from one to the next.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
That's right, one killer to the next. But you know,
I am often told by people and they believe this.
They'll say, oh, man, that guy's in trouble. He only
has a public defender, and I tell him. I said,
let me tell you something, right now, public defenders know
more about trying cases, high profile cases, death penalty cases
than any other attorney because that's all they do.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Well, you're right about that, especially when you talk about
the death penalty, because the death penalty is an extensive
and expensive process, right, and that's why some of the
states have done away with it for various reasons. But
it's very expensive. So if you're the average person and
you've been charge of the death penalty offense, I can
almost guarantee you, unless you're a multi millionaire, you are
(05:19):
not going to be able to afford counsel. And ultimately,
in terms of death penalty trained and qualified attorneys, there
is probably few out there in whatever state has the
death penalty that aren't public defenders or didn't gain that
experience during the public during their work as a public defender,
because that's ultimately who has to take those cases.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Absolutely, So tonight we're going to talk about the process,
and we're going to use Lori Valo and Chad Daybail
to do that. I think that's the case everybody's pretty
familiar with. But just a thumbnail review. Chad day Bail
and Lori Valo, we're married to other people. When they met,
when they got together and their worlds collided. People started
(06:05):
dying and first it was a spouse, then it was
a brother, then it was another spouse, then it was
two children. If you're familiar at all with the case,
Laurie's children, JJ and Tylie were murdered in such a
horrific way that if you had a chance to listen
to the lead detective testify, he was asked, what did
(06:29):
you see in states Exhibit B, What did you see
in states Exhibit eleven C, eleven D eleven E. Y'all,
it was just horrible. Laurie and Chad, separately, were members
of a cult. They thought the world was going to end.
They thought sometimes people went really dark, and when they
(06:51):
went dark, they had to do something about it. But again,
when the detectives started to testify, but what happened to
the two children at the end. It's going to be
a little graphic, but I think it's necessary because when
people talk about, well, there's only certain cases that I
would really even want the death penalty to be talked about.
If you are ever going to use it, this is
(07:13):
the kind of case you would use it for. Period.
So jj His remains were found near the pond on
the property that Chad owned. Tiley's remains were found near
the pet cemetery and the fire pit on the land
that Chad day Bell owned, and these officers and detectives
(07:34):
and crime scene investigators had to dig with their bare
hands to recover evidence such as charred and rotted flesh,
broken pieces of bone, some that were eventually sticking up
from the dirt as they removed one layer after the other.
(07:55):
There were fragments of bones. There was part of a
melted bucket where organs and a skull were put in
this bucket and then placed in the fire pit, and
that was highly JJ was wrapped in plastic and duct
take layers of it, layers of bond layers. He was
(08:18):
found in pajamas. I mean, the case is just horrible.
So again, one thing that I want Kirk and Nermi
to do for us is walk through when you have
facts of a case that are just terrific and graphic
and horrible, and then what you do with that when
you're looking at the process of Okay, the death penalty
(08:38):
is on the table now. Just as a reminder, Lori
Valo's death penalty was taken off the table, but Chad
Davell's is still in full swing. So I'm going to
turn it over to you, Kirk, and you just walk
us through how you would start it, what you're looking for,
what is the process for you.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Let's back up a little bit, because I want to
get some context when people hear all those facts and
they are blatantly horrific. You're absolutely right. I'm not contradicting
any any of that. But let's walk it back to
where a death penalty case really begins. In a couple
places it begins, but starting off in the courtroom is
one of the places, obviously that it begins. And for
(09:22):
most people listening to this podcast, fans of Zone seven,
they are maybe follow criminal law, criminal defense, all that stuff.
They watch court TV, and they might talk about the
death penalty. But when they walk in that courtroom at
the jury summons, hoping that they're going to have a
dui or a one day kind of trial, maybe a
(09:42):
theft something like that, and they find themselves sitting in
using the day Bell example, sitting in a courtroom, looking
at the prosecutors, looking at mister Pryor, and looking at Daybel,
the death penalty takes on a whole new light and
every and the number one job of a criminal defense
attorney is a capital defense attorney is that they are
(10:06):
there to save their client's life. So what each and
every capital defense attorney should be doing is thinking about
how that person who gets stunned into a death penalty case, right,
who has met the legal qualifications And we can talk
about those down the road, But who has met those
(10:28):
legal qualifications? How are they not talking about acquittal, but
how are they what would arm them with the evidence
they need to grant life under the most horrific conditions
that you are talking about, Because it's not about guilt
or innocence, right. Nobody of a right mind he's innocent
(10:52):
until proven guilty is going to think that Chad dabil
is innocent, right in terms of the evidence, in terms
of the trial structure.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
What have you.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
So you keep that mitigation, that sentencing phase in mind
when you look at a case. So you are looking
at trying to get a psychological profile of your client
as quickly as you can after his or her arrest,
(11:20):
because that is going to be the most accurate assessment,
and you start digging into your client's life. Because one
of the things that is true of a death penalty
case when we talk about that sentencing phase, is that
everything about that client's life from conception, and I do
(11:42):
mean conception to the day of sentencing is relevant and
possibly mitigation and could possibly be a reason for one
of those jurors who comes into that box and the
death penalty suddenly takes a whole new meaning to them.
What about that person's life might motivate that juror to
(12:03):
grant life. And you only need, at least in Arizona,
probably in every state, you only need one such person
to do that.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
That is a ton of information already, So I think
that's important that all right, look at it differently. We're
not even talking about guilt or innocence. We won't to
save this person's life. So now the goal is life
without parole.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Yeah, ultimately, because if a state is charging the death penalty,
realistically guilt is presumed. There might be the rare case
where theirs issues and obviously you do as you try
the death penalty case. You are certainly one way to
save a client is to perhaps have a b second
(12:51):
degree murder or manslaughter or something like that. If there's
reasons that somebody might have paused for thought in terms
of first degree murder, that kind of carries over residual
doubt wise to the sentence there, because there's one thing
to say, you know, I think this person's guilty, and
there's another thing to say, I'm sure of it enough
(13:13):
that I would kill them. Because that's the difference. Right.
We can talk about the death penalty, people can listen
to it, but you think about that when if you're
in that jury box and you're looking at that person
and you've kind of seen them for months, and you
see their family, their family might be behind them, their kids,
(13:33):
their spouse, et cetera, and you as a juror have
to look at that person and say I think you
should die. You have to look at that person's wife
or family member and say I think your family member
should die. And conceptually a lot of people listening to
this might say, well, I could do that, but trust me,
(13:55):
it's the number one thing I hear of jurors is
that it takes on a whole new mea when they're
sitting in that courtroom and they have to make that decision.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
A ton of your background is going to come into
play in that courtroom. And maybe your grandparents took you
to church from zero to twelve, but you haven't really
practiced since then. I promise you it's going to come
back to you in that courtroom.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yeah, you're right. I mean there's a lot of moral
quandaries that come up. I mean, one of the religion
can be an impediment a lot of people. Some people
just think shoot them right in the courtroom. You know,
why even have the trial kind of things. So there's
those kind of people obviously that get weeded out. But ultimately,
(14:41):
a legally permissible juror has to be able to look
at the worst killing that they can imagine, for example,
and sentence that person to either life or death.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
When you heard the facts of this case. As a
public defender, what's going through your mind as far as
in the future, what would I want to say to a.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Jury, I'm glad I'm out of this game. Like we
talked about, doing death penalty work was not something that
brought me joy. But you know, like I say, it
goes back to if I was on mister Dave Bell's team,
or if I was you know, somehow appointed or what
have you, I would want to look at his psychological
(15:28):
profile big time, and I would be digging into his
background big time. And I remember, you know, when I
first accepted the capital unit position. I went and I
watched a capital trial and there was a defendant's second
grade teacher up on the stand. That's how far you
go back. And when I say going back to conception
(15:50):
as their fetal alcohol center, did mom smoke? Did mom
use drugs? What is the brain show us? Do they
have brain damage? All those sorts of things. So I'm
really my priority if I'm on that defense team is
all those mitigating factors. It's not the case. Obviously the
case plays a role, but that's not where my focus
(16:12):
is going to be because my charge as a criminal
capital attorney is to save the client's life. And it
just saved. It's a sentencing face. It's not going to
be saved at the guilt face, especially in a case
like Chad Daviels, where you have two dead children, burned bodies,
and you have some of the other factors that are
a part of the case.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You know, I tell people all the time, third grade
teachers know they have seen so many children that if
there is a child that is almost destined to be
in trouble with the law, they can usually pick it
out and there are reasons in their background. Typically and
So do you find it difficult when you're trying to
(16:56):
talk about the psychological profile and you go as far
back as somebody's third grade teacher, or you know, was
mama drinking while she was pregnant? Do you find the
jury is open to that or do you think they're like, oh,
come on, you can't blame mama. He's fifty years old now.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Well, the jurors that are seated in that jury box
to make that decision have promised the court that they
will consider everything about the defendant's background before rendering the verdict.
Whether they make good on that promise, whether that promise
gets wiped out by pictures of charred remains, we don't really.
(17:39):
You're never really going to know. But that is the
vow they take to the court when they say that
they are going to be open to considering everything about
a person's life.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Do you remind them gently about that?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
That becomes part of the sentencing phase opening statement, that
becomes part of the closing statement in that phase. I
mean that sentencing phases like a trial in and of itself,
And yes, you remind them, and you give them that
they are supposed to digest the reality of who the
(18:14):
client is so they can make an individualized sentencing determination.
And I think when you get to that point, you
know a lot studies have shown that jurors and death
penalty cases get PTSD. Some of that emanates from what
they see, right the crime scene, photographs, everything else, because
no matter what murder a death penalty juror is seeing,
(18:39):
it's more than likely going to be the worst thing
that they've ever seen in their life. But at the
same time, the decision is so heavy when it shifts
from the coffee shop or the telephone to the courtroom
and having to ultimately walk into a courtroom and render
that verdict. I think tend to take that very seriously
(19:02):
because you know, there have been people exonerated from death row,
there have been people wrongly executed, and I don't think
jurors in the end want to live with that possibility
that they could be wrong.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Absolutely, And I think in this particular case, we had
things like Laurie and Chad went on a podcast, We
had text messages between the two of them. We had
a lot of in real time their exact wording of
things like when Chad sent his wife a text message
(19:37):
about shooting the raccoon near the fire pit, and then
it turns out that's where Tyley was at, you know,
and he even talks about the pet cemetery, you know,
being all over you know, that's where he put the
raccoon and stuff. I would think any jury that is
going to hear all of this and start putting the
pieces of the puzzle together is going to understand what
(20:00):
you're doing. When you talk about the psychological profile. You
have somebody that is saying the world is going to end,
so clearly they are not okay mentally. You have somebody
that is saying their children have gone dark and they've
got to take care of it. They are not okay.
I don't think that would be a stretch. Then again,
(20:20):
how do you reconcile? Yes, I believe this person is
mentally not well, they are not okay. But again, if
we are ever going to use it, it would be
here after you heard Detective ray Hermicillo break down what
he found on his hands and knees.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
You're not wrong, and I and I am not in
any way. Again, say I think mister Dave Bell will
ultimately be sentenced to death by this jure. I don't
think that penalty will ever be imposed, and we can
talk about the reasons for that later, but I will
say this. You think when you get to that point
of mentally unwell, the question becomes in what the unanswered
(21:05):
questions are, and what would be put forward in a
sentencing phase. Is what motivated Chad day Bell, at the
time a grave digger to write these books? What motivated
him to start this cult? What about his background? What
about his psychological profile, what about his history? How was
(21:28):
he raised? Those questions will be put in front of
the jury.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Now.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
They may very well be dismissed, and I don't think
they're going to overcome what he did. But those are
the kind of unanswered questions that the jury will have
to grapple with when they decide whether or not to
give life or death.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
I agree with you, and I also believe that he
will receive the death penalty, but I don't think we'll
ever see it carried out. I agree with you one
hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
There's so many reasons for that that start with his
counsel and what have you. We go into those if
you like, right now. But sure, I.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Mean, I know there's tons of appeals, but let's just start.
I mean, just devil's advocate. He sentenced to death, what's
going to happen that same day?
Speaker 2 (22:13):
I can tell you the process in Arizona. But in Arizona,
if someone is sentenced to death by a jury, they
are sentenced to death and hauled off to death row
right away. That's it, and then you know, the appeal
process can begin. But let me back up a little
bit and tell you why I don't think the sentence
will ever be imposed. A capital defense team. The American
(22:36):
Bar Association has guidelines that most states that have the
death penalty have adopted. They require that a capital defendant
have two attorneys, a lead council and co council. That
they have a mitigation specialist, someone who is versed in
the social sciences that can help collect information those grade
(22:58):
school records, conception, you know, the investigation into what mom
was doing, any issues there, any issues at the hospital,
all that kind of stuff, and an investigator to investigate
the case anew they're supposed to take a look at
it from top to bottom, make sure the police did
everything correctly. He doesn't have that. I don't know what
(23:23):
he has behind the scenes, but I know he doesn't
have co counsel and I also know that mister Pryor,
while some have suggested he has everything he needs to
be deathbound and qualified, just hasn't taken the step. I
would argue against that because in order to be lead
counsel in a in a capital case under the ABA guidelines,
(23:47):
you have to have second chaired a death penalty case.
You have to have experience trying a death penalty case.
This cannot be your first go round. And what this
seems to be is mister Pryor's first go round at
a case of this nature. So I think what we
(24:08):
have and I don't know why Judge Boyce is, you know,
pushing this. What we have is a man who is
going to be perceived, at least undercurrent statute in law,
as per se ineffective. Additionally, the one thing, but mister
Pryor has done something that I think is very well taken,
(24:29):
at least from saving mister Dabell's life. If you remember,
the State of Idaho did not turn over some discovery,
et cetera, and ultimately Judge Boyce denied their ability to
impose the Definkelly on miss Fallow, his co defendant. And
there's some US Supreme Court case law that says that
(24:51):
it is fundamentally unfair under the due process provisions and
the Eighth Amendment to impose death on one co defendant
and not the other. And what we have in this situation, obviously,
is one co defendant in mister da Bell, who is
(25:12):
probably going to be sentenced to death, and another co
defendant in Miss Valo da Bell, who is not going
to be sentenced to death. So right then and there
you have another layer built into the legal shortcomings of
his defense and of the ability of the state to
impose the death penalty. And that is why I think
(25:35):
if mister Pryor is wise rather than go after Miss
Valo's brother, Alex Cox, he will present a defense at
trial and to some extent at the mitigation phase. That
really Miss Valo bears equal, if not more responsibility, because
(25:56):
there's two ways to save a life in a death
penalty case. The first is a trial level and the
second is at the appellate level, and that's about fifteen
years worth of appeals. Everything a capital defense attorney does
goes all the way up to the US Supreme Court
and has looked at for ineffective assistance the Council. What
have you. We've already talked about why that might be overturned.
(26:18):
But the appellate record, it's not what he suggests. It's
not Miss Vallo's trial record. It's the trial record that
mister Pryor makes, and mister Pryor's record should, if he's smart,
be replete with references to Miss Vallo, the co defendant
who did not get death.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Let me ask your thoughts on this, because when you're
talking about law enforcement and the prosecutor's office and then
ultimately the judge, all of those folks at some point
become politicians. So the sheriff runs, the DA runs, the
judge runs. Do you think that factors in? Do you
(27:02):
think it should factor in? You know where I'm going.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Right, Well, the court of public You're ultimately asking if
the court of public opinion should should sway the decision
to seek the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Because you know it does. If you're in a pro
death penalty state and you're the prosecutor, you got to
ask for the death penalty, whether that's what you believe
or not.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
To some extent, yes, I mean, I think there's a
lot of factors that go into it. You know, when
you know I obviously have not been on that side
of the coin. But when you have a situation where
you say you're in a smaller county, budget comes into play, right,
because it costs a lot more to bring all those
jurors in to have a trial that lasts that long.
(27:46):
All those sort of things factor into it that decision, right,
because you could say, okay, well we want the death penalty,
Well we don't have the reason this. A small county
might not have the resources, or it may blow up
high percentage of the county attorney's budget just trying that
case because they take so long. I mean, the shortest
(28:08):
death penalty case I ever had was between three and
four months, and that was a cold case with no family, nothing,
and you know, not a single person in the gallery,
and it still took that long. So some of these
smaller counties they have to think about budget. They also
rightly should consider the wishes of the family as well.
(28:32):
You can go reference the Idaho four that I understand
some parents want the death penalty, some don't, and so
all those factors can play into it. I hope it's
not just satiating the court of public opinion, because a
prosecutor needs to be more reasonable than that needs to
(28:54):
look at the you know, totality of everything, whether in
death penalty should be sought, because there's a lot of
people that would would say, let's impose the death penny
on every single first degree murder and that's not supposed
to be the way it.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Happens, right, excellent point. So the judge when he ruled
that he wasn't going to take the death penalty off
the table for Chad daybil what they were trying to say,
his attorneys that it was arbitrary, capricious, and disproportionate. So
they were trying to say that, hey, if Laurie Valo
(29:28):
is not going to get it, he shouldn't get it.
But the reality is he's also charged with the murder
of Tammy day Bill and Lourie Valo was never charged
with her murder. So therefore the death penalty can stay
for him.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
It could but in theory yes, but the issue would
be are they conspirators in that regard because they were
talking about Tammy's passing what have you? Right? So, uh, yeah,
there's a law what a complication there? That just isn't
so cut and dry to say, okay, we've got a
(30:05):
different person who is dead. Therefore he can receive the
death penalty. Could a court rule in that manner, you bet.
But if it was part of this overall conspiracy to
eliminate their spouses and their children based on their darkness,
you know, that's a different matter.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Now, Kruger, are you trying to say the death penalty
is not cut and dry?
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Yeah, it's just not as it's just not cut and
dry as those people, those people who want to shoot
him in the courtroom think it is, you know, right right.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Right, well, you know, I mean I hear people say,
because of my religious belief, I cannot put somebody to death,
and then I hear people say, hey, eye for an eye,
like there's no question that should happen, you know, string
them up, get rid of them, you know, fire up
os Barkie. It is a very polarizing topic. I can
tell you that.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
It certainly is. And I've heard all those things. You know,
you hear a lot of religious objections, and you do
hear the you know, basically kill them in the courtroom
kind of thing, and it is polarizing. But and that's
what I wanted to say when we talk about that
polarization is you know, when we talk about that jury
summons and that juror coming in thinking maybe they're getting
(31:24):
a driving under the influence case, and all of a
sudden they're sitting at a death penalty case. It takes
on a different scope. So while you're while people listening
to this may have strong opinions either way, the one
thing I can guarantee them if they're ever unfortunate enough
to be selected on a capital jury or at least
(31:44):
sit through the Vordayer process, things are going to take
on a completely different light. When you're sitting in the courtroom,
you're filling out a thirty page questionnaire and you're maybe
going to be a juror on a death penalty case.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
How many hours do you think the average public defender
is going to put into a death penalty case, not
even high profile one that maybe is not on the
front page of every paper.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
I don't know how to answer that in terms of hours,
but let me tell you what it could involve, and
then you get that and you can kind of get
a sense of the magnitude of it. Probably once you
get a case like that in Arizona, unlikely to go
to trial for let's say two years, and part of
what you're going to do in those two years, if
(32:35):
your capital defense attorney is go back. You're going to
start getting school records. You're going to start traveling to
their hometown. You are going to talk to their teachers,
talk to their parents, talk to all their relatives, go
into their house, probably see the room they lived in,
(32:55):
you know, take a look at every single thing, but
maybe their high school year, whatever it might be. You're
going to consult with experts on the psychological background. You're
going to construct that. You're going to have to have
an understanding enough to ask questions about that psychological background.
(33:15):
You're going to have to build a relationship with the
client that allows them to trust you enough to share
some information about their life. Maybe they'd been a victim
of molestation, they've never told anybody different things of that nature.
So while I couldn't put an hour figure on it,
I can tell you that it's extensive even getting to trial,
(33:38):
and three to four months would be a short death
penalty trial. And in those three to four months, I
can guarantee you you're probably working twelve to sixteen hours
a day. And it's not the kind of thing that
your brain can shut off because one of the most
stressful elements of being a death penalty turny is that
(34:01):
you know, and I personally don't believe in the death penalty,
but ultimately, and some to believe it or not, some
capital defense attorneys do. But ultimately the the ultimate reality
for that attorney is that you're looking at somebody's somebody's kid, right,
and you're looking at their parents, and their parents are
(34:23):
looking at you to save their kid's life. You're looking
at somebody you know, sister, spouse, friend, what have you,
and they are looking at you to save that person's life.
And there's no greater burden in the field of law
or true crime or anything else than looking at someone
(34:46):
having them look at you and know that you're the
barrier between their life and their death.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
What a powerful responsibility. Sir, Well, you appreciate your career
and your life and the way that you have devoted
yourself to saving other people.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
Well, I appreciate you saying that it was an interesting journey,
and like I say, now, I've gone from hopefully saving
people to hopefully inspiring people. And you know, as we
sign off, I want you to know I've been thinking
about your sister, and you and your whole family as
you all endure this.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Battle, I appreciate you more than you know. And I'm
going to end Zone seven the way that I always
do with a quote. I was personally opposed to the
death enerty, and yet I think I've probably asked for
the death enerty more than most people in the United States.
Janet Reno. I'm Cheryl McCollum and this is Zone seven,
(36:00):
W Down
Y'all know him as the lead public defender for Jody Arias.
That case catapulted him into the national spotlight, but that
ain't his whole story by a long shot. After Arius,
he fought cancer, he won, and he also made some
big changes in his life and decided he was going
(00:31):
to focus on happiness. That was going to be his goal,
not work, not getting to the top of anything. Just
what makes me happy. That's what I'm going to focus on.
And his wife and his dog are his priority. And
let me tell you something. In this new life of
his He's authored eight books, he speaks around the country,
(00:55):
He's on crime stories with Nancy Grace Court TV, been
on the Today Show. We know him, we love him,
we rely on him because I'm going to tell y'all something,
in the world of death penalty cases, nobody knows that
system and that process better than a public defender. So
(01:16):
tonight we have the legendary Kirk Nurmi. Sir, Welcome to
Zone seven.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Well, thank you, And as my biography indicates, I wouldn't
be here if I wasn't happy to be talking to you.
And it's just a delight to talk to you. Get
some of that verbal butter you churn out every day
and have a great conversation about the death Centain.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Well, I appreciate it so much. And I also just
want to tell you on a personal note, a lot
of people do not know, but I do have a
sister that's fighting cancer right now, and you were so
lovely to reach out and just say, hey, she ever
needs to talk. I've been there. I would love to
just give her what I've got to try to help
her out, And just personally wanted you to know what
(02:00):
that meant to me. So I appreciate you.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Well, I appreciate that, and I appreciate a lot of
what I do, some of the things I do with
my health changes and everything else, because I remember Cheryl
being in that chemo chair and getting that first chemo
and not only not wondering whether I was going to survive,
but what life was going to be like afterwards, because
chemotherapy isn't exactly a kind to kind of the human body, right,
(02:26):
It's poison meant to kill, a more significant poison. And
so when I came out of that, one of the
things that I wanted to do with my health, my transformation,
using happiness as my beacon as you talked about earlier,
is to set an example, be out there and try
to show people what life can be like after chemo.
(02:46):
And and I'm rooting for your sister, and I'm hoping
that she can look at me and say, listen, there's
somebody who's really made some changes in life, and I
can live that kind of life too, beyond cancer.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Amen. And she does. Let me tell you, she knows it,
She sees it, she feels it. Any well, wish, any prayer,
any good thought, and especially when somebody that has been
through it she's watching, she knows. And you know, Ashley
Wilcox has been real supportive and Nancy Grace has been
real supportive, and I mean like from TV and she
(03:20):
gets it. I mean she is just transformed by it
every time. So I do appreciate it. But you know,
one thing I want people to know is you tried
to get away from Arias and the judge said you
couldn't do it. And I think that's another thing. When
you're looking at things that make you literally sick, there's
no question I think that case puts you in the
(03:41):
position you got in.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Well, you know, I don't want to go too far
into areas. You know, we've talked about that before. But
I tell you what though, you're right, Mack, because I knew,
you know, it happened about four months after she was sentenced,
and I knew right away in my heart that it
was the stress of having to deal with everything involved
in areas they brought cancer into my life.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Yep. And that's the last thing I wanted to say
about it. But I just when people are listening and
you're talking about making changes and only want to be
surrounded by things that make you happy, I again want
people to hear if you are in a situation that
is just complete crap and it's just stressing you out
every day, you have got to get away from it,
(04:21):
whatever it is.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
So let's go on to a lighter topic, the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
All right, So from one to the next.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
That's right, one killer to the next. But you know,
I am often told by people and they believe this.
They'll say, oh, man, that guy's in trouble. He only
has a public defender, and I tell him. I said,
let me tell you something, right now, public defenders know
more about trying cases, high profile cases, death penalty cases
than any other attorney because that's all they do.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Well, you're right about that, especially when you talk about
the death penalty, because the death penalty is an extensive
and expensive process, right, and that's why some of the
states have done away with it for various reasons. But
it's very expensive. So if you're the average person and
you've been charge of the death penalty offense, I can
almost guarantee you, unless you're a multi millionaire, you are
(05:19):
not going to be able to afford counsel. And ultimately,
in terms of death penalty trained and qualified attorneys, there
is probably few out there in whatever state has the
death penalty that aren't public defenders or didn't gain that
experience during the public during their work as a public defender,
because that's ultimately who has to take those cases.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Absolutely, So tonight we're going to talk about the process,
and we're going to use Lori Valo and Chad Daybail
to do that. I think that's the case everybody's pretty
familiar with. But just a thumbnail review. Chad day Bail
and Lori Valo, we're married to other people. When they met,
when they got together and their worlds collided. People started
(06:05):
dying and first it was a spouse, then it was
a brother, then it was another spouse, then it was
two children. If you're familiar at all with the case,
Laurie's children, JJ and Tylie were murdered in such a
horrific way that if you had a chance to listen
to the lead detective testify, he was asked, what did
(06:29):
you see in states Exhibit B, What did you see
in states Exhibit eleven C, eleven D eleven E. Y'all,
it was just horrible. Laurie and Chad, separately, were members
of a cult. They thought the world was going to end.
They thought sometimes people went really dark, and when they
(06:51):
went dark, they had to do something about it. But again,
when the detectives started to testify, but what happened to
the two children at the end. It's going to be
a little graphic, but I think it's necessary because when
people talk about, well, there's only certain cases that I
would really even want the death penalty to be talked about.
If you are ever going to use it, this is
(07:13):
the kind of case you would use it for. Period.
So jj His remains were found near the pond on
the property that Chad owned. Tiley's remains were found near
the pet cemetery and the fire pit on the land
that Chad day Bell owned, and these officers and detectives
(07:34):
and crime scene investigators had to dig with their bare
hands to recover evidence such as charred and rotted flesh,
broken pieces of bone, some that were eventually sticking up
from the dirt as they removed one layer after the other.
(07:55):
There were fragments of bones. There was part of a
melted bucket where organs and a skull were put in
this bucket and then placed in the fire pit, and
that was highly JJ was wrapped in plastic and duct
take layers of it, layers of bond layers. He was
(08:18):
found in pajamas. I mean, the case is just horrible.
So again, one thing that I want Kirk and Nermi
to do for us is walk through when you have
facts of a case that are just terrific and graphic
and horrible, and then what you do with that when
you're looking at the process of Okay, the death penalty
(08:38):
is on the table now. Just as a reminder, Lori
Valo's death penalty was taken off the table, but Chad
Davell's is still in full swing. So I'm going to
turn it over to you, Kirk, and you just walk
us through how you would start it, what you're looking for,
what is the process for you.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Let's back up a little bit, because I want to
get some context when people hear all those facts and
they are blatantly horrific. You're absolutely right. I'm not contradicting
any any of that. But let's walk it back to
where a death penalty case really begins. In a couple
places it begins, but starting off in the courtroom is
one of the places, obviously that it begins. And for
(09:22):
most people listening to this podcast, fans of Zone seven,
they are maybe follow criminal law, criminal defense, all that stuff.
They watch court TV, and they might talk about the
death penalty. But when they walk in that courtroom at
the jury summons, hoping that they're going to have a
dui or a one day kind of trial, maybe a
(09:42):
theft something like that, and they find themselves sitting in
using the day Bell example, sitting in a courtroom, looking
at the prosecutors, looking at mister Pryor, and looking at Daybel,
the death penalty takes on a whole new light and
every and the number one job of a criminal defense
attorney is a capital defense attorney is that they are
(10:06):
there to save their client's life. So what each and
every capital defense attorney should be doing is thinking about
how that person who gets stunned into a death penalty case, right,
who has met the legal qualifications And we can talk
about those down the road, But who has met those
(10:28):
legal qualifications? How are they not talking about acquittal, but
how are they what would arm them with the evidence
they need to grant life under the most horrific conditions
that you are talking about, Because it's not about guilt
or innocence, right. Nobody of a right mind he's innocent
(10:52):
until proven guilty is going to think that Chad dabil
is innocent, right in terms of the evidence, in terms
of the trial structure.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
What have you.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
So you keep that mitigation, that sentencing phase in mind
when you look at a case. So you are looking
at trying to get a psychological profile of your client
as quickly as you can after his or her arrest,
(11:20):
because that is going to be the most accurate assessment,
and you start digging into your client's life. Because one
of the things that is true of a death penalty
case when we talk about that sentencing phase, is that
everything about that client's life from conception, and I do
(11:42):
mean conception to the day of sentencing is relevant and
possibly mitigation and could possibly be a reason for one
of those jurors who comes into that box and the
death penalty suddenly takes a whole new meaning to them.
What about that person's life might motivate that juror to
(12:03):
grant life. And you only need, at least in Arizona,
probably in every state, you only need one such person
to do that.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
That is a ton of information already, So I think
that's important that all right, look at it differently. We're
not even talking about guilt or innocence. We won't to
save this person's life. So now the goal is life
without parole.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Yeah, ultimately, because if a state is charging the death penalty,
realistically guilt is presumed. There might be the rare case
where theirs issues and obviously you do as you try
the death penalty case. You are certainly one way to
save a client is to perhaps have a b second
(12:51):
degree murder or manslaughter or something like that. If there's
reasons that somebody might have paused for thought in terms
of first degree murder, that kind of carries over residual
doubt wise to the sentence there, because there's one thing
to say, you know, I think this person's guilty, and
there's another thing to say, I'm sure of it enough
(13:13):
that I would kill them. Because that's the difference. Right.
We can talk about the death penalty, people can listen
to it, but you think about that when if you're
in that jury box and you're looking at that person
and you've kind of seen them for months, and you
see their family, their family might be behind them, their kids,
(13:33):
their spouse, et cetera, and you as a juror have
to look at that person and say I think you
should die. You have to look at that person's wife
or family member and say I think your family member
should die. And conceptually a lot of people listening to
this might say, well, I could do that, but trust me,
(13:55):
it's the number one thing I hear of jurors is
that it takes on a whole new mea when they're
sitting in that courtroom and they have to make that decision.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
A ton of your background is going to come into
play in that courtroom. And maybe your grandparents took you
to church from zero to twelve, but you haven't really
practiced since then. I promise you it's going to come
back to you in that courtroom.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yeah, you're right. I mean there's a lot of moral
quandaries that come up. I mean, one of the religion
can be an impediment a lot of people. Some people
just think shoot them right in the courtroom. You know,
why even have the trial kind of things. So there's
those kind of people obviously that get weeded out. But ultimately,
(14:41):
a legally permissible juror has to be able to look
at the worst killing that they can imagine, for example,
and sentence that person to either life or death.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
When you heard the facts of this case. As a
public defender, what's going through your mind as far as
in the future, what would I want to say to a.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Jury, I'm glad I'm out of this game. Like we
talked about, doing death penalty work was not something that
brought me joy. But you know, like I say, it
goes back to if I was on mister Dave Bell's team,
or if I was you know, somehow appointed or what
have you, I would want to look at his psychological
(15:28):
profile big time, and I would be digging into his
background big time. And I remember, you know, when I
first accepted the capital unit position. I went and I
watched a capital trial and there was a defendant's second
grade teacher up on the stand. That's how far you
go back. And when I say going back to conception
(15:50):
as their fetal alcohol center, did mom smoke? Did mom
use drugs? What is the brain show us? Do they
have brain damage? All those sorts of things. So I'm
really my priority if I'm on that defense team is
all those mitigating factors. It's not the case. Obviously the
case plays a role, but that's not where my focus
(16:12):
is going to be because my charge as a criminal
capital attorney is to save the client's life. And it
just saved. It's a sentencing face. It's not going to
be saved at the guilt face, especially in a case
like Chad Daviels, where you have two dead children, burned bodies,
and you have some of the other factors that are
a part of the case.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You know, I tell people all the time, third grade
teachers know they have seen so many children that if
there is a child that is almost destined to be
in trouble with the law, they can usually pick it
out and there are reasons in their background. Typically and
So do you find it difficult when you're trying to
(16:56):
talk about the psychological profile and you go as far
back as somebody's third grade teacher, or you know, was
mama drinking while she was pregnant? Do you find the
jury is open to that or do you think they're like, oh,
come on, you can't blame mama. He's fifty years old now.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Well, the jurors that are seated in that jury box
to make that decision have promised the court that they
will consider everything about the defendant's background before rendering the verdict.
Whether they make good on that promise, whether that promise
gets wiped out by pictures of charred remains, we don't really.
(17:39):
You're never really going to know. But that is the
vow they take to the court when they say that
they are going to be open to considering everything about
a person's life.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Do you remind them gently about that?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
That becomes part of the sentencing phase opening statement, that
becomes part of the closing statement in that phase. I
mean that sentencing phases like a trial in and of itself,
And yes, you remind them, and you give them that
they are supposed to digest the reality of who the
(18:14):
client is so they can make an individualized sentencing determination.
And I think when you get to that point, you
know a lot studies have shown that jurors and death
penalty cases get PTSD. Some of that emanates from what
they see, right the crime scene, photographs, everything else, because
no matter what murder a death penalty juror is seeing,
(18:39):
it's more than likely going to be the worst thing
that they've ever seen in their life. But at the
same time, the decision is so heavy when it shifts
from the coffee shop or the telephone to the courtroom
and having to ultimately walk into a courtroom and render
that verdict. I think tend to take that very seriously
(19:02):
because you know, there have been people exonerated from death row,
there have been people wrongly executed, and I don't think
jurors in the end want to live with that possibility
that they could be wrong.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Absolutely, And I think in this particular case, we had
things like Laurie and Chad went on a podcast, We
had text messages between the two of them. We had
a lot of in real time their exact wording of
things like when Chad sent his wife a text message
(19:37):
about shooting the raccoon near the fire pit, and then
it turns out that's where Tyley was at, you know,
and he even talks about the pet cemetery, you know,
being all over you know, that's where he put the
raccoon and stuff. I would think any jury that is
going to hear all of this and start putting the
pieces of the puzzle together is going to understand what
(20:00):
you're doing. When you talk about the psychological profile. You
have somebody that is saying the world is going to end,
so clearly they are not okay mentally. You have somebody
that is saying their children have gone dark and they've
got to take care of it. They are not okay.
I don't think that would be a stretch. Then again,
(20:20):
how do you reconcile? Yes, I believe this person is
mentally not well, they are not okay. But again, if
we are ever going to use it, it would be
here after you heard Detective ray Hermicillo break down what
he found on his hands and knees.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
You're not wrong, and I and I am not in
any way. Again, say I think mister Dave Bell will
ultimately be sentenced to death by this jure. I don't
think that penalty will ever be imposed, and we can
talk about the reasons for that later, but I will
say this. You think when you get to that point
of mentally unwell, the question becomes in what the unanswered
(21:05):
questions are, and what would be put forward in a
sentencing phase. Is what motivated Chad day Bell, at the
time a grave digger to write these books? What motivated
him to start this cult? What about his background? What
about his psychological profile, what about his history? How was
(21:28):
he raised? Those questions will be put in front of
the jury.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Now.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
They may very well be dismissed, and I don't think
they're going to overcome what he did. But those are
the kind of unanswered questions that the jury will have
to grapple with when they decide whether or not to
give life or death.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
I agree with you, and I also believe that he
will receive the death penalty, but I don't think we'll
ever see it carried out. I agree with you one
hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
There's so many reasons for that that start with his
counsel and what have you. We go into those if
you like, right now. But sure, I.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Mean, I know there's tons of appeals, but let's just start.
I mean, just devil's advocate. He sentenced to death, what's
going to happen that same day?
Speaker 2 (22:13):
I can tell you the process in Arizona. But in Arizona,
if someone is sentenced to death by a jury, they
are sentenced to death and hauled off to death row
right away. That's it, and then you know, the appeal
process can begin. But let me back up a little
bit and tell you why I don't think the sentence
will ever be imposed. A capital defense team. The American
(22:36):
Bar Association has guidelines that most states that have the
death penalty have adopted. They require that a capital defendant
have two attorneys, a lead council and co council. That
they have a mitigation specialist, someone who is versed in
the social sciences that can help collect information those grade
(22:58):
school records, conception, you know, the investigation into what mom
was doing, any issues there, any issues at the hospital,
all that kind of stuff, and an investigator to investigate
the case anew they're supposed to take a look at
it from top to bottom, make sure the police did
everything correctly. He doesn't have that. I don't know what
(23:23):
he has behind the scenes, but I know he doesn't
have co counsel and I also know that mister Pryor,
while some have suggested he has everything he needs to
be deathbound and qualified, just hasn't taken the step. I
would argue against that because in order to be lead
counsel in a in a capital case under the ABA guidelines,
(23:47):
you have to have second chaired a death penalty case.
You have to have experience trying a death penalty case.
This cannot be your first go round. And what this
seems to be is mister Pryor's first go round at
a case of this nature. So I think what we
(24:08):
have and I don't know why Judge Boyce is, you know,
pushing this. What we have is a man who is
going to be perceived, at least undercurrent statute in law,
as per se ineffective. Additionally, the one thing, but mister
Pryor has done something that I think is very well taken,
(24:29):
at least from saving mister Dabell's life. If you remember,
the State of Idaho did not turn over some discovery,
et cetera, and ultimately Judge Boyce denied their ability to
impose the Definkelly on miss Fallow, his co defendant. And
there's some US Supreme Court case law that says that
(24:51):
it is fundamentally unfair under the due process provisions and
the Eighth Amendment to impose death on one co defendant
and not the other. And what we have in this situation, obviously,
is one co defendant in mister da Bell, who is
(25:12):
probably going to be sentenced to death, and another co
defendant in Miss Valo da Bell, who is not going
to be sentenced to death. So right then and there
you have another layer built into the legal shortcomings of
his defense and of the ability of the state to
impose the death penalty. And that is why I think
(25:35):
if mister Pryor is wise rather than go after Miss
Valo's brother, Alex Cox, he will present a defense at
trial and to some extent at the mitigation phase. That
really Miss Valo bears equal, if not more responsibility, because
(25:56):
there's two ways to save a life in a death
penalty case. The first is a trial level and the
second is at the appellate level, and that's about fifteen
years worth of appeals. Everything a capital defense attorney does
goes all the way up to the US Supreme Court
and has looked at for ineffective assistance the Council. What
have you. We've already talked about why that might be overturned.
(26:18):
But the appellate record, it's not what he suggests. It's
not Miss Vallo's trial record. It's the trial record that
mister Pryor makes, and mister Pryor's record should, if he's smart,
be replete with references to Miss Vallo, the co defendant
who did not get death.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Let me ask your thoughts on this, because when you're
talking about law enforcement and the prosecutor's office and then
ultimately the judge, all of those folks at some point
become politicians. So the sheriff runs, the DA runs, the
judge runs. Do you think that factors in? Do you
(27:02):
think it should factor in? You know where I'm going.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Right, Well, the court of public You're ultimately asking if
the court of public opinion should should sway the decision
to seek the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Because you know it does. If you're in a pro
death penalty state and you're the prosecutor, you got to
ask for the death penalty, whether that's what you believe
or not.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
To some extent, yes, I mean, I think there's a
lot of factors that go into it. You know, when
you know I obviously have not been on that side
of the coin. But when you have a situation where
you say you're in a smaller county, budget comes into play, right,
because it costs a lot more to bring all those
jurors in to have a trial that lasts that long.
(27:46):
All those sort of things factor into it that decision, right,
because you could say, okay, well we want the death penalty,
Well we don't have the reason this. A small county
might not have the resources, or it may blow up
high percentage of the county attorney's budget just trying that
case because they take so long. I mean, the shortest
(28:08):
death penalty case I ever had was between three and
four months, and that was a cold case with no family, nothing,
and you know, not a single person in the gallery,
and it still took that long. So some of these
smaller counties they have to think about budget. They also
rightly should consider the wishes of the family as well.
(28:32):
You can go reference the Idaho four that I understand
some parents want the death penalty, some don't, and so
all those factors can play into it. I hope it's
not just satiating the court of public opinion, because a
prosecutor needs to be more reasonable than that needs to
(28:54):
look at the you know, totality of everything, whether in
death penalty should be sought, because there's a lot of
people that would would say, let's impose the death penny
on every single first degree murder and that's not supposed
to be the way it.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Happens, right, excellent point. So the judge when he ruled
that he wasn't going to take the death penalty off
the table for Chad daybil what they were trying to say,
his attorneys that it was arbitrary, capricious, and disproportionate. So
they were trying to say that, hey, if Laurie Valo
(29:28):
is not going to get it, he shouldn't get it.
But the reality is he's also charged with the murder
of Tammy day Bill and Lourie Valo was never charged
with her murder. So therefore the death penalty can stay
for him.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
It could but in theory yes, but the issue would
be are they conspirators in that regard because they were
talking about Tammy's passing what have you? Right? So, uh, yeah,
there's a law what a complication there? That just isn't
so cut and dry to say, okay, we've got a
(30:05):
different person who is dead. Therefore he can receive the
death penalty. Could a court rule in that manner, you bet.
But if it was part of this overall conspiracy to
eliminate their spouses and their children based on their darkness,
you know, that's a different matter.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Now, Kruger, are you trying to say the death penalty
is not cut and dry?
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Yeah, it's just not as it's just not cut and
dry as those people, those people who want to shoot
him in the courtroom think it is, you know, right right.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Right, well, you know, I mean I hear people say,
because of my religious belief, I cannot put somebody to death,
and then I hear people say, hey, eye for an eye,
like there's no question that should happen, you know, string
them up, get rid of them, you know, fire up
os Barkie. It is a very polarizing topic. I can
tell you that.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
It certainly is. And I've heard all those things. You know,
you hear a lot of religious objections, and you do
hear the you know, basically kill them in the courtroom
kind of thing, and it is polarizing. But and that's
what I wanted to say when we talk about that
polarization is you know, when we talk about that jury
summons and that juror coming in thinking maybe they're getting
(31:24):
a driving under the influence case, and all of a
sudden they're sitting at a death penalty case. It takes
on a different scope. So while you're while people listening
to this may have strong opinions either way, the one
thing I can guarantee them if they're ever unfortunate enough
to be selected on a capital jury or at least
(31:44):
sit through the Vordayer process, things are going to take
on a completely different light. When you're sitting in the courtroom,
you're filling out a thirty page questionnaire and you're maybe
going to be a juror on a death penalty case.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
How many hours do you think the average public defender
is going to put into a death penalty case, not
even high profile one that maybe is not on the
front page of every paper.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
I don't know how to answer that in terms of hours,
but let me tell you what it could involve, and
then you get that and you can kind of get
a sense of the magnitude of it. Probably once you
get a case like that in Arizona, unlikely to go
to trial for let's say two years, and part of
what you're going to do in those two years, if
(32:35):
your capital defense attorney is go back. You're going to
start getting school records. You're going to start traveling to
their hometown. You are going to talk to their teachers,
talk to their parents, talk to all their relatives, go
into their house, probably see the room they lived in,
(32:55):
you know, take a look at every single thing, but
maybe their high school year, whatever it might be. You're
going to consult with experts on the psychological background. You're
going to construct that. You're going to have to have
an understanding enough to ask questions about that psychological background.
(33:15):
You're going to have to build a relationship with the
client that allows them to trust you enough to share
some information about their life. Maybe they'd been a victim
of molestation, they've never told anybody different things of that nature.
So while I couldn't put an hour figure on it,
I can tell you that it's extensive even getting to trial,
(33:38):
and three to four months would be a short death
penalty trial. And in those three to four months, I
can guarantee you you're probably working twelve to sixteen hours
a day. And it's not the kind of thing that
your brain can shut off because one of the most
stressful elements of being a death penalty turny is that
(34:01):
you know, and I personally don't believe in the death penalty,
but ultimately, and some to believe it or not, some
capital defense attorneys do. But ultimately the the ultimate reality
for that attorney is that you're looking at somebody's somebody's kid, right,
and you're looking at their parents, and their parents are
(34:23):
looking at you to save their kid's life. You're looking
at somebody you know, sister, spouse, friend, what have you,
and they are looking at you to save that person's life.
And there's no greater burden in the field of law
or true crime or anything else than looking at someone
(34:46):
having them look at you and know that you're the
barrier between their life and their death.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
What a powerful responsibility. Sir, Well, you appreciate your career
and your life and the way that you have devoted
yourself to saving other people.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
Well, I appreciate you saying that it was an interesting journey,
and like I say, now, I've gone from hopefully saving
people to hopefully inspiring people. And you know, as we
sign off, I want you to know I've been thinking
about your sister, and you and your whole family as
you all endure this.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Battle, I appreciate you more than you know. And I'm
going to end Zone seven the way that I always
do with a quote. I was personally opposed to the
death enerty, and yet I think I've probably asked for
the death enerty more than most people in the United States.
Janet Reno. I'm Cheryl McCollum and this is Zone seven,
(36:00):
W Down
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.