December 19, 2025 • 23 mins
The state has responded to Lori's appeal filing. In the 1st episode we read through a summary of the case pertinent to the arguments in Lori's filing.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
- ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout - NEW STYLES
- Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all)
- PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibis
- Venmo - @prettyliesalibis
- Buy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesr
- Cash App- Prettyliesandalibis
- All links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibis
- Merch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis
- (Weekly lives and private message board)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What you know, alibiers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm Jigi, good to have you here.
It's Friday, December nineteenth. I just got the state's response
to the appeal that Laurie Dabell filed. The state's response
was submitted just a couple of days ago, December seventeenth.
This is going to have to be a few episodes
(00:21):
because it is long. It is sixty eight pages, and
if I try to upload anything past about forty minutes,
it will hang up and I have to start the
process and it can take a while, and it makes
me want to invent new curse words when that happens.
So on this episode, we're essentially going to break down
the first section of the filing, and that is really
(00:42):
the basic facts of the case, covering the crimes and
all of the different motions with attorneys as well as
Lori's competency. So just the backstory before we get into
each section starts out statement of the case and the
nature of the case. Lori norien Valo appeals from her
judgment of conviction after a jury founder guilty of two
(01:03):
counts of conspiracy to commit murder and grand theft, two
counts of murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder,
and one count of grand theft statement of the facts
and course of the proceedings. On February twentieth, twenty twenty,
Lori Valo was arrested in Hawaii and subsequently extraduided to Idaho.
The state charged Valo with two counts of felony desertion
(01:26):
of a child in several misdemeanor charges. The felony charges
were for two of Valo's minor children, Joshua JJ Valo
and Tylee Ryan. Neither JJ nor Tily have been seen
for several months. Attorney Mark Means was retained to represent
Valos sometime in late February or early March twenty twenty.
(01:46):
The representation was arranged and paid for by Valo's husband,
Chad Daybell. Means entered a notice of appearance as Valo's
council on March fourth, twenty twenty. On March twenty first,
twenty twenty, Chad day Bell retained John Pryor to represent him,
though he had not yet been formally charged. Pryor's law
office was in the same building complex as means law office,
(02:09):
but prior and Means did not work for the same
law firm. Dabell also retained Means as his own attorney.
On April twenty eighth, twenty twenty, Means made public representations
that he represented day Bell. Means posted the following on Twitter.
Please note that this office represents mister Chad Daybell. If
(02:29):
any agency, investigative authority, etc. Wishes to contact my client,
please contact my office directly. Means also send a press
release to the media stating, please take notice that this
office represents mister Chad Dabell. Please direct all requests for communications,
slash statements of the like to this office. Means also
(02:50):
emailed the prosecutor on Valo's case, asking him to provide
a press release stating that mister Means represented Chad Daybell
and to direct investigation efforts relating to day Bell or
Valo to him. On the same day, April twenty eighth,
twenty twenty, day Bell expressly stated that Means was his attorney.
In a jail communication with Valo, Dave Bell stated, Mark
(03:12):
Means is my attorney. Day Bell eluded he had shared
confidential information with mister Means that day Bell believed would
be covered by attorney client privilege. Da Bell even suggested
that he believed he would not have to testify against
Valo if mister Means represented them both. Da Bell also
stated he was eventually going with the other guy, referring
(03:34):
to mister Pryor. Two days later, on May second, twenty twenty,
Valo appeared in court for a bail reduction hearing. Means
appeared on Valo's behalf and told the court he represented
both Valo and day Bell. On June ninth, twenty twenty,
law enforcement executed a search warrant on day Bell's property,
searching for Ja Ja and tyly Or evidence of their disappearance.
(03:57):
Day Bell was present and observed the search. In the search,
da Bell called mister Means before calling mister Pryor. Law
enforcement found JJ's body and Tiley's remains on Da Bell's property.
After the execution of the search warrant, the state charged
both Valo and da Bell with the destruction of evidence
and conspiracy to destroy evidence. The state named da Bell
(04:19):
as a co conspirator in Valo's case and Valo as
a co conspirator in Da Bell's case. Valo's initial appearance
in the new case occurred on June thirtieth, twenty twenty,
the court asked Means whether he had ever represented any
co conspirator in the complaint, and, despite his previous public
statements to the contrary, Means told the court he had not.
(04:41):
The prosecutor insisted that Means had a conflict. The court
requested briefing on the issue. The State and Means filed
briefs addressing the conflict issue. The court then held a
sealed hearing on the matter on July twentieth, twenty twenty.
Means now took the position, contrary to what he previously
told the court, that a limited representation had occurred between
(05:04):
him and Daybell, but it did not create a conflict.
He said, our position is that there was limited representation,
that there was not an opportunity for conflict, and that
a conflict had not occurred, and the analysis should end there.
On July thirty first, twenty twenty, the court issued its ruling.
The Court held, a conflict of interest exists in this case,
(05:26):
but it is not an actual conflict that would currently
rise to mister Means disqualification from representing Valo. The court
thus allowed Valo to waive the conflict and continue with
Means as a attorney. The court emphasized, however, that it
would not have allowed the conflict to be waived if
the charges carried a heavier punishment. The court notes that
(05:47):
this decision coincides with the current charges against the defendants.
If the charges carried maximum penalties of life imprisonment and
or the death penalty, the court would be more inclined
to find actual conflict and not honor the waiver. Means
provided the court with a waiver purporting to waive the
conflict created by Means representing both Valo and day Bell
(06:10):
on substantially related matters. The waiver was signed by Valo
and da Bell, dated March thirty first, twenty twenty. On
March second, twenty twenty one, Means filed a request for
Valo to be evaluated for competency to stand trial. Then,
on April thirtieth, twenty twenty one, doctor John E. Landers
(06:31):
issued a report concluding Valo was incompetent to proceed to trial.
Means did not contest the finding that Valo was not competent,
but did seek and obtain an order from the court
declaring Valo indigent such that the county had to pay
for the examination. The state initially challenged the incompetency determination,
(06:52):
but withdrew the challenge. The court found Valo incompetent to
stand trial on June ninth, twenty twenty one. On d
May twenty fourth, twenty twenty one, after doctor LANDERDS issued
his report finding Valo incompetent, a Fremont County grand jury
returned an indictment charging Dabll and Valo as co conspirators
(07:13):
in the deaths of Tylee JJ and Chad's deceased wife,
Tamara Tammy day Bell. Specifically, Ballot was charged with two
counts of first degree murder, two counts of conspiracy to
commit first degree murder and grand theft, and one count
of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The grand jury
indictment spawned two additional criminal cases in the Dabell Valo saga.
(07:38):
Despite the indictment naming and charging Valo and da Bell
as co defendants and co conspirators in the same indictment,
two separate cases were opened, one for day Bell and
a separate case for Valo. The Valo sixteen to twenty
four case is the case from which Valo appeals in
this matter. On May twenty seventh, twenty twenty one, three
(07:59):
days after the grand jury indicted Valo in Dabell, the
District Court entered in order, staying Valo's case because of
the issue of defendant's competency that had arisen. Means file
a notice of appearance that same day, claiming to represent
Valo in the new death penalty eligible case. On June ninth,
twenty twenty one, the District Court entered in order, finding
(08:21):
Valo was not competent to proceed and suspended the case
except as provided in Idaho Code. Because the district Court
treated the single grand jury indictment as the start of
two separate cases, only Valo's case was suspended and Dabll's
case was allowed to proceed. This was true even though
at the time the plan was for the two cases
(08:42):
to go to trial together. To further complicate the matter,
the parties and the District Court continued filing into the
purportedly suspended Valo case while Valo remained incompetent to proceed
to trial. Means, for example, allowed a motion to compel
a declaration in support of his mode to compel reservation
of substantive and procedural rights, a motion to change the
(09:06):
venue of the trial, and more all while his client
was still incompetent and the case was at least purportedly suspended.
In that same timeframe, the State filed on June twenty seventh,
twenty twenty one, emotion to disqualify Means as Valo's attorney.
The state filed the motion in both Valo's case and
Dabell's case. The motion argued that Means had a conflict
(09:27):
from representing both Balot and dabel with the respect to
the facts underlying the alleged murders, that the nature of
the conflict meant that it could not be waived, and
that the District Court should disqualify Means from all future
proceedings relating to the alleged crimes. On August sixth, twenty
twenty one, the District Court entered in order requiring the
(09:48):
appointment of a death penalty qualified public defender to represent
Valo as co council with Means. The District Court explained
that it entered the order in response to the State's
motion to disqualify Means and to protect Valot's constitutional rights.
James Archibald was appointed as co counsel to represent Valo.
(10:10):
Means did not file a response to the state's motion
to disqualify him as Valo's council. Instead, he chose to
put his efforts into trying to intervene in Dabel's case
to fight the state's allegations of a conflict, but the
District Court refused to allow Means to intervene in a
separate criminal case, observing that no rule allowed for such intervention.
(10:31):
The District Court also made clear in all the proceedings
related to the conflict in the Dabel case that the
hearings were limited to the Dabel case and did not
include the Valo case. On December twenty eighth, twenty twenty one,
after still having not received a response to the conflict
allegations in the Valo case from Means, the District Court
(10:51):
entered and ordered disqualifying Means from the case. The District
Court found, as did the Magistrate Court before it, that
an actual conflict existed because Means had represented both Davel
and Valo with respect to a common set of facts.
The District Court also explained, consistent with the Magistrate Court's reasoning,
(11:11):
that the District Court would not allow waiver of the
conflict in this case because of the seriousness of the
charges Valo faced. In addition to the conflict, the District
Court also cited its lack of confidence and means ability
to represent Valo in a death penalty case. Finally, the
District Court explained that it had to act prior to
(11:31):
Valo being restored to competency because of the regularity with
which pleadings continued to be filed by the parties. The
District Court thus ordered that Means was disqualified from representing
Valo in the immediate case and all matters substantially related
there too. The District Court appointed Archibald to represent Valo
(11:52):
as lead council. On April eleventh, twenty twenty two, the
District Court found Valo had been restored to competency and
was fit to proceed to trial. It lifted to stay
in the case and ordered to be brought before the
court for the arraignment. Valo was then arraigned on April nineteenth,
twenty twenty two. The next day, the District Court set
(12:14):
the trial for ten weeks starting on October eleventh, twenty
twenty two. On May fifth, twenty twenty two, the state
moved to continue the trial. The January ninth, twenty twenty three.
The state argued that Value and day Bell should be
tried together, and Dabell's trial had already been set for
January ninth. The district Court granted the continuance. It found
(12:36):
the length of the delay reasonable given the complexity and
seriousness of the case and the short length of the
delay requested in they quote eighty two days beyond the
deadline of October nineteenth, twenty twenty two, were purposes of
evaluating defendant statutory right to a speedy trial end quote.
The district Court also found the reason for the delay
(12:58):
supported the continuance, given the need to avoid improper severance
of the day Bell and Valo trial and to give
both sides time to prepare for trial. It also acknowledged
that Valo had unequivocally asserted her right to a speedy trial,
but that the delay would not prejudice her because it
would give her team additional time to prepare. Thus, the
(13:19):
trial court moved the date of the trial from October eleventh,
twenty twenty two, to January ninth, twenty twenty three. On
September thirtieth, twenty twenty two, prior to the original trial date.
Defense council filed a motion seeking to continue the trial
and stay the case. The motion stated that the defense
wanted to continue the trial date so they could once
(13:39):
again address the defendant's mental health. Attached to the motion
was an affidavit from defense council explaining that three of
their own mental health experts all agreed that Valo was
not competent to stand trial. The motion asked to continue
the trial so that Valo could receive restorative treatment. Attached
to the affidavit was a report from a board's certified
(14:00):
clinical psychologist who had concluded Valot was not competent to
stand trial. On October sixth, twenty twenty two, and in
response to the defense's motion and expert report, the District
Court set a competency hearing pursuant to Idaho Code. The
District Court also stayed the case until such time as
the court renders a final decision regarding the defendant's competency
(14:24):
to stand trial following a contested competency hearing. The District
Court held a competency hearing on November ninth, twenty twenty two,
and then issued a written decision on November fifteenth, twenty
twenty two, finding Valo competent to stand trial. The order
also lifted the stay imposed on October sixth, twenty twenty two.
(14:46):
The January ninth, twenty twenty three trial date was also
vacated due to the defense's motion. In December twenty twenty two,
the district Court held a scheduling conference to discuss a
new date for the trial. Dave Bell's council requested a
trial date no sooner than October twenty twenty four. The
state proposed a late summer twenty twenty three start date,
(15:09):
and Valo's council insisted upon a date no later than
February twenty first, twenty twenty three, however, to give the
parties time to complete discovery and for the court to
arrange for trial in Ada County, where it had been
moved in response to Valo's motion to change venue, The
District Court set the date for April third, twenty twenty three.
(15:31):
After the District Court set the new trial date, Balot
moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the
new trial date violated her rights to a speedy trial.
The District Court denied the motion on January twenty seventh,
twenty twenty three, the state provided notice under Rule four
oh four B of the Idaho Rules of Evidence that
(15:52):
it intended to introduce at trial evidence that fit into
twenty five different categories. The defense objected, arguing the state
had not provided sufficient notice of the facts it intended
to introduce and that it had not provided reasonable notice
prior to trial. At a hearing on February ninth, twenty
twenty three, the district Court requested the state narrow their
(16:15):
scope when looking at four oh four B that's prior
bad acts. On February fourteenth, twenty twenty three, the state
filed an amended notice or the introduction of Evidence pursuant
to Rule or O four B. This time, rather than
list out categories of evidence, the state provided an overview
of proposed evidence in narrative format. The state's notice proffered
(16:38):
the evidence it had to show how day Bell, Balow,
and their group operated. Their group included Zulemma, Melanie, Melanie Gibb,
and Alex Cox, who was Valo's brother. As the group's
de facto leader, day Bell could determine if someone was
light or dark, and if someone had a dark entity.
Once da Bell made the determination, that someone was dark,
(17:01):
he would inform Valo and the others in their group
the person's body was possessed by a dark entity slash spirit,
which would then require their body to be destroyed flash killed.
Another feature of this group was that da Bell had
designated Alex as a protector for Valo. Da Bell had
informed Valo and Alex that Alex was here in this
(17:22):
creation or current probationary period on Earth to protect Ballo.
Multiple witnesses had also established that Alex would do whatever
Da Bell asked him to do. The state proposed four
oh four B evidence showed how this group operated on
two occasions prior to the murders in Idaho. The proposed
(17:42):
evidence first covered the murder of Charles Valo in Arizona.
Charles was Valo's husband at the time he was killed.
Prior to Charles's murderer day Bell had pronounced that Charles
was dark. Ballot had been telling individuals that Charles was
no longer himself, and both Ballot and David were informing
people that Charles's spirit was no longer in his body
(18:04):
and that his body was instead inhabited by an evil
spirit slash entity. On June eleventh, twenty nineteen, Charles arrived
home to find Valo and Alex there. Balo and Alex
claimed there was some sort of a dispute which resulted
in Charles obtaining a bat and Alex shooting him. Balow
provided to law enforcement the outlandish story that she heard
(18:28):
the shot, went back in and saw Charles on the floor,
then left the residence to take her son to school.
She went to Burger King, took her son to school,
went to a CVS, and then returned to her residence,
where law enforcement was already on scene. For his part,
Alex stated after he shot Charles, he washed his hands,
(18:48):
put the gun away, and called nine to one one.
Alex claimed it was self defense, but law enforcement could
show that one of the two bullets that shot Charles
was fired after Charles was on the floor, that Alex
claimed he tried to provide CPR, even though there was
no indication CPR had been attempted, and that Alex had
not called nine to one one for forty three minutes
(19:10):
after the shooting. The state also had evidence that prior
to Charles's murder, Valo had taken thirty five thousand dollars
out of his business account and that Valo believed she
was the recipient of Charles's one million dollar life insurance policy.
The proposed evidence also covered the attempted shooting of Brandon
(19:31):
Boudreau on October second, twenty nineteen. The state had evidence
showing that prior to the shooting, day Bell had determined
Brandon was a dark Spirit slash entity and he requested
that Alex kill him. The investigation into the attempted shooting
led law enforcement straight to Alex, and, like with Charles,
(19:51):
a member of the day Bell Valo group, Melanie stood
to benefit from Brandon's death, as Brandon had a life
insurance policy. The state also had evidence showing Melanie provided
financial resources to both Valo and Alex. The District Court
held to hearing on the state's amended four oh four
BE noticed on February sixteenth, twenty twenty three. The District
(20:14):
Court overruled the defendant's objections to the four h four
BE evidence, with a couple of exceptions. First, the district
Court excluded evidence of Valo taking thirty five thousand dollars
from Charles, finding it would be more prejudicial than probative
because Valo was married to Charles at the time. And
Arizona was a community property state. Second, the district Court
(20:37):
excluded any reference to the past criminal case against Valo
in Madison County because the state had dismissed it with prejudice,
But the district did overrule the objection as to the
allegations underlying the criminal case. A jury convicted Valo on
all counts at trial, and the District Court sentenced her
to a unified sentence of life imprisonment without the posibility
(21:00):
of parole. This appeal followed. So the last part we're
going to talk about before we end this episode are
the issues that we'll be discussed in the state's response.
It says Ballow states the issues on appeal as one,
Lorie da Bell was deprived of her sixth Amendment right
to counsel of her choice when the District Court disqualified
(21:22):
her retained attorney. Two Miss day Bell was deprived of
her sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel during
pre trial hearings on the state's motion to disqualify her
counsel after the District Court denied her attorney's request to
participate in those hearings. Three Miss day Bell was deprived
of her right to do process under the fourteenth Amendment
(21:43):
when the district Court held pre trial hearings that affected
her substantial rights in her absence and while she was incompetent. Four,
the District Court aired in allowing state to introduce evidence
of uncharged bad acts from Arizona into the Idaho criminal
trial under Rule four O four BE of the Idaho
Rules of Evidence. Five, the District Court aired in denying
(22:05):
Miss Dabell's motion to dismiss based on violation of her
statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The state
rephrases the issues as one, as Valo failed to show
the District Court violated her six Amendment right to counsel
of her choice by just qualifying her attorney. Two as
Valo failed to show the district Court committed fundamental error
(22:28):
by violating her six Amendment right to the assistance of council. Three,
as Valo failed to show the District Court committed fundamental
error by violating her due process right not to be
prosecuted or to be physically present at proceedings. Four as
Valo failed to show, the District Court aired by overruling
Valo's pre trial objection to the state's proposed four oh
(22:51):
four be evidence and five as Valo failed to show
the district court aired when it denied her motion to
dismiss on the basis that are bad trial rights were violated.
So those are the things the state is going to
pick apart and make their argument, and we will continue
this in another episode. I do have to get ready.
(23:12):
Around five, my son is having a big Christmas party
at the fire station he works at with all of
his coworkers and their family, so I'm going to head
that way and enjoy the evening with my son and
his coworkers, who are amazing people. So hopefully I can
get one more in today and then I'll put out
some more over the weekend. But that's it for now.
Hope you guys have a good arrest of your afternoon
(23:33):
and we will see you soon
What you know, alibiers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm Jigi, good to have you here.
It's Friday, December nineteenth. I just got the state's response
to the appeal that Laurie Dabell filed. The state's response
was submitted just a couple of days ago, December seventeenth.
This is going to have to be a few episodes
(00:21):
because it is long. It is sixty eight pages, and
if I try to upload anything past about forty minutes,
it will hang up and I have to start the
process and it can take a while, and it makes
me want to invent new curse words when that happens.
So on this episode, we're essentially going to break down
the first section of the filing, and that is really
(00:42):
the basic facts of the case, covering the crimes and
all of the different motions with attorneys as well as
Lori's competency. So just the backstory before we get into
each section starts out statement of the case and the
nature of the case. Lori norien Valo appeals from her
judgment of conviction after a jury founder guilty of two
(01:03):
counts of conspiracy to commit murder and grand theft, two
counts of murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder,
and one count of grand theft statement of the facts
and course of the proceedings. On February twentieth, twenty twenty,
Lori Valo was arrested in Hawaii and subsequently extraduided to Idaho.
The state charged Valo with two counts of felony desertion
(01:26):
of a child in several misdemeanor charges. The felony charges
were for two of Valo's minor children, Joshua JJ Valo
and Tylee Ryan. Neither JJ nor Tily have been seen
for several months. Attorney Mark Means was retained to represent
Valos sometime in late February or early March twenty twenty.
(01:46):
The representation was arranged and paid for by Valo's husband,
Chad Daybell. Means entered a notice of appearance as Valo's
council on March fourth, twenty twenty. On March twenty first,
twenty twenty, Chad day Bell retained John Pryor to represent him,
though he had not yet been formally charged. Pryor's law
office was in the same building complex as means law office,
(02:09):
but prior and Means did not work for the same
law firm. Dabell also retained Means as his own attorney.
On April twenty eighth, twenty twenty, Means made public representations
that he represented day Bell. Means posted the following on Twitter.
Please note that this office represents mister Chad Daybell. If
(02:29):
any agency, investigative authority, etc. Wishes to contact my client,
please contact my office directly. Means also send a press
release to the media stating, please take notice that this
office represents mister Chad Dabell. Please direct all requests for communications,
slash statements of the like to this office. Means also
(02:50):
emailed the prosecutor on Valo's case, asking him to provide
a press release stating that mister Means represented Chad Daybell
and to direct investigation efforts relating to day Bell or
Valo to him. On the same day, April twenty eighth,
twenty twenty, day Bell expressly stated that Means was his attorney.
In a jail communication with Valo, Dave Bell stated, Mark
(03:12):
Means is my attorney. Day Bell eluded he had shared
confidential information with mister Means that day Bell believed would
be covered by attorney client privilege. Da Bell even suggested
that he believed he would not have to testify against
Valo if mister Means represented them both. Da Bell also
stated he was eventually going with the other guy, referring
(03:34):
to mister Pryor. Two days later, on May second, twenty twenty,
Valo appeared in court for a bail reduction hearing. Means
appeared on Valo's behalf and told the court he represented
both Valo and day Bell. On June ninth, twenty twenty,
law enforcement executed a search warrant on day Bell's property,
searching for Ja Ja and tyly Or evidence of their disappearance.
(03:57):
Day Bell was present and observed the search. In the search,
da Bell called mister Means before calling mister Pryor. Law
enforcement found JJ's body and Tiley's remains on Da Bell's property.
After the execution of the search warrant, the state charged
both Valo and da Bell with the destruction of evidence
and conspiracy to destroy evidence. The state named da Bell
(04:19):
as a co conspirator in Valo's case and Valo as
a co conspirator in Da Bell's case. Valo's initial appearance
in the new case occurred on June thirtieth, twenty twenty,
the court asked Means whether he had ever represented any
co conspirator in the complaint, and, despite his previous public
statements to the contrary, Means told the court he had not.
(04:41):
The prosecutor insisted that Means had a conflict. The court
requested briefing on the issue. The State and Means filed
briefs addressing the conflict issue. The court then held a
sealed hearing on the matter on July twentieth, twenty twenty.
Means now took the position, contrary to what he previously
told the court, that a limited representation had occurred between
(05:04):
him and Daybell, but it did not create a conflict.
He said, our position is that there was limited representation,
that there was not an opportunity for conflict, and that
a conflict had not occurred, and the analysis should end there.
On July thirty first, twenty twenty, the court issued its ruling.
The Court held, a conflict of interest exists in this case,
(05:26):
but it is not an actual conflict that would currently
rise to mister Means disqualification from representing Valo. The court
thus allowed Valo to waive the conflict and continue with
Means as a attorney. The court emphasized, however, that it
would not have allowed the conflict to be waived if
the charges carried a heavier punishment. The court notes that
(05:47):
this decision coincides with the current charges against the defendants.
If the charges carried maximum penalties of life imprisonment and
or the death penalty, the court would be more inclined
to find actual conflict and not honor the waiver. Means
provided the court with a waiver purporting to waive the
conflict created by Means representing both Valo and day Bell
(06:10):
on substantially related matters. The waiver was signed by Valo
and da Bell, dated March thirty first, twenty twenty. On
March second, twenty twenty one, Means filed a request for
Valo to be evaluated for competency to stand trial. Then,
on April thirtieth, twenty twenty one, doctor John E. Landers
(06:31):
issued a report concluding Valo was incompetent to proceed to trial.
Means did not contest the finding that Valo was not competent,
but did seek and obtain an order from the court
declaring Valo indigent such that the county had to pay
for the examination. The state initially challenged the incompetency determination,
(06:52):
but withdrew the challenge. The court found Valo incompetent to
stand trial on June ninth, twenty twenty one. On d
May twenty fourth, twenty twenty one, after doctor LANDERDS issued
his report finding Valo incompetent, a Fremont County grand jury
returned an indictment charging Dabll and Valo as co conspirators
(07:13):
in the deaths of Tylee JJ and Chad's deceased wife,
Tamara Tammy day Bell. Specifically, Ballot was charged with two
counts of first degree murder, two counts of conspiracy to
commit first degree murder and grand theft, and one count
of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The grand jury
indictment spawned two additional criminal cases in the Dabell Valo saga.
(07:38):
Despite the indictment naming and charging Valo and da Bell
as co defendants and co conspirators in the same indictment,
two separate cases were opened, one for day Bell and
a separate case for Valo. The Valo sixteen to twenty
four case is the case from which Valo appeals in
this matter. On May twenty seventh, twenty twenty one, three
(07:59):
days after the grand jury indicted Valo in Dabell, the
District Court entered in order, staying Valo's case because of
the issue of defendant's competency that had arisen. Means file
a notice of appearance that same day, claiming to represent
Valo in the new death penalty eligible case. On June ninth,
twenty twenty one, the District Court entered in order, finding
(08:21):
Valo was not competent to proceed and suspended the case
except as provided in Idaho Code. Because the district Court
treated the single grand jury indictment as the start of
two separate cases, only Valo's case was suspended and Dabll's
case was allowed to proceed. This was true even though
at the time the plan was for the two cases
(08:42):
to go to trial together. To further complicate the matter,
the parties and the District Court continued filing into the
purportedly suspended Valo case while Valo remained incompetent to proceed
to trial. Means, for example, allowed a motion to compel
a declaration in support of his mode to compel reservation
of substantive and procedural rights, a motion to change the
(09:06):
venue of the trial, and more all while his client
was still incompetent and the case was at least purportedly suspended.
In that same timeframe, the State filed on June twenty seventh,
twenty twenty one, emotion to disqualify Means as Valo's attorney.
The state filed the motion in both Valo's case and
Dabell's case. The motion argued that Means had a conflict
(09:27):
from representing both Balot and dabel with the respect to
the facts underlying the alleged murders, that the nature of
the conflict meant that it could not be waived, and
that the District Court should disqualify Means from all future
proceedings relating to the alleged crimes. On August sixth, twenty
twenty one, the District Court entered in order requiring the
(09:48):
appointment of a death penalty qualified public defender to represent
Valo as co council with Means. The District Court explained
that it entered the order in response to the State's
motion to disqualify Means and to protect Valot's constitutional rights.
James Archibald was appointed as co counsel to represent Valo.
(10:10):
Means did not file a response to the state's motion
to disqualify him as Valo's council. Instead, he chose to
put his efforts into trying to intervene in Dabel's case
to fight the state's allegations of a conflict, but the
District Court refused to allow Means to intervene in a
separate criminal case, observing that no rule allowed for such intervention.
(10:31):
The District Court also made clear in all the proceedings
related to the conflict in the Dabel case that the
hearings were limited to the Dabel case and did not
include the Valo case. On December twenty eighth, twenty twenty one,
after still having not received a response to the conflict
allegations in the Valo case from Means, the District Court
(10:51):
entered and ordered disqualifying Means from the case. The District
Court found, as did the Magistrate Court before it, that
an actual conflict existed because Means had represented both Davel
and Valo with respect to a common set of facts.
The District Court also explained, consistent with the Magistrate Court's reasoning,
(11:11):
that the District Court would not allow waiver of the
conflict in this case because of the seriousness of the
charges Valo faced. In addition to the conflict, the District
Court also cited its lack of confidence and means ability
to represent Valo in a death penalty case. Finally, the
District Court explained that it had to act prior to
(11:31):
Valo being restored to competency because of the regularity with
which pleadings continued to be filed by the parties. The
District Court thus ordered that Means was disqualified from representing
Valo in the immediate case and all matters substantially related
there too. The District Court appointed Archibald to represent Valo
(11:52):
as lead council. On April eleventh, twenty twenty two, the
District Court found Valo had been restored to competency and
was fit to proceed to trial. It lifted to stay
in the case and ordered to be brought before the
court for the arraignment. Valo was then arraigned on April nineteenth,
twenty twenty two. The next day, the District Court set
(12:14):
the trial for ten weeks starting on October eleventh, twenty
twenty two. On May fifth, twenty twenty two, the state
moved to continue the trial. The January ninth, twenty twenty three.
The state argued that Value and day Bell should be
tried together, and Dabell's trial had already been set for
January ninth. The district Court granted the continuance. It found
(12:36):
the length of the delay reasonable given the complexity and
seriousness of the case and the short length of the
delay requested in they quote eighty two days beyond the
deadline of October nineteenth, twenty twenty two, were purposes of
evaluating defendant statutory right to a speedy trial end quote.
The district Court also found the reason for the delay
(12:58):
supported the continuance, given the need to avoid improper severance
of the day Bell and Valo trial and to give
both sides time to prepare for trial. It also acknowledged
that Valo had unequivocally asserted her right to a speedy trial,
but that the delay would not prejudice her because it
would give her team additional time to prepare. Thus, the
(13:19):
trial court moved the date of the trial from October eleventh,
twenty twenty two, to January ninth, twenty twenty three. On
September thirtieth, twenty twenty two, prior to the original trial date.
Defense council filed a motion seeking to continue the trial
and stay the case. The motion stated that the defense
wanted to continue the trial date so they could once
(13:39):
again address the defendant's mental health. Attached to the motion
was an affidavit from defense council explaining that three of
their own mental health experts all agreed that Valo was
not competent to stand trial. The motion asked to continue
the trial so that Valo could receive restorative treatment. Attached
to the affidavit was a report from a board's certified
(14:00):
clinical psychologist who had concluded Valot was not competent to
stand trial. On October sixth, twenty twenty two, and in
response to the defense's motion and expert report, the District
Court set a competency hearing pursuant to Idaho Code. The
District Court also stayed the case until such time as
the court renders a final decision regarding the defendant's competency
(14:24):
to stand trial following a contested competency hearing. The District
Court held a competency hearing on November ninth, twenty twenty two,
and then issued a written decision on November fifteenth, twenty
twenty two, finding Valo competent to stand trial. The order
also lifted the stay imposed on October sixth, twenty twenty two.
(14:46):
The January ninth, twenty twenty three trial date was also
vacated due to the defense's motion. In December twenty twenty two,
the district Court held a scheduling conference to discuss a
new date for the trial. Dave Bell's council requested a
trial date no sooner than October twenty twenty four. The
state proposed a late summer twenty twenty three start date,
(15:09):
and Valo's council insisted upon a date no later than
February twenty first, twenty twenty three, however, to give the
parties time to complete discovery and for the court to
arrange for trial in Ada County, where it had been
moved in response to Valo's motion to change venue, The
District Court set the date for April third, twenty twenty three.
(15:31):
After the District Court set the new trial date, Balot
moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the
new trial date violated her rights to a speedy trial.
The District Court denied the motion on January twenty seventh,
twenty twenty three, the state provided notice under Rule four
oh four B of the Idaho Rules of Evidence that
(15:52):
it intended to introduce at trial evidence that fit into
twenty five different categories. The defense objected, arguing the state
had not provided sufficient notice of the facts it intended
to introduce and that it had not provided reasonable notice
prior to trial. At a hearing on February ninth, twenty
twenty three, the district Court requested the state narrow their
(16:15):
scope when looking at four oh four B that's prior
bad acts. On February fourteenth, twenty twenty three, the state
filed an amended notice or the introduction of Evidence pursuant
to Rule or O four B. This time, rather than
list out categories of evidence, the state provided an overview
of proposed evidence in narrative format. The state's notice proffered
(16:38):
the evidence it had to show how day Bell, Balow,
and their group operated. Their group included Zulemma, Melanie, Melanie Gibb,
and Alex Cox, who was Valo's brother. As the group's
de facto leader, day Bell could determine if someone was
light or dark, and if someone had a dark entity.
Once da Bell made the determination, that someone was dark,
(17:01):
he would inform Valo and the others in their group
the person's body was possessed by a dark entity slash spirit,
which would then require their body to be destroyed flash killed.
Another feature of this group was that da Bell had
designated Alex as a protector for Valo. Da Bell had
informed Valo and Alex that Alex was here in this
(17:22):
creation or current probationary period on Earth to protect Ballo.
Multiple witnesses had also established that Alex would do whatever
Da Bell asked him to do. The state proposed four
oh four B evidence showed how this group operated on
two occasions prior to the murders in Idaho. The proposed
(17:42):
evidence first covered the murder of Charles Valo in Arizona.
Charles was Valo's husband at the time he was killed.
Prior to Charles's murderer day Bell had pronounced that Charles
was dark. Ballot had been telling individuals that Charles was
no longer himself, and both Ballot and David were informing
people that Charles's spirit was no longer in his body
(18:04):
and that his body was instead inhabited by an evil
spirit slash entity. On June eleventh, twenty nineteen, Charles arrived
home to find Valo and Alex there. Balo and Alex
claimed there was some sort of a dispute which resulted
in Charles obtaining a bat and Alex shooting him. Balow
provided to law enforcement the outlandish story that she heard
(18:28):
the shot, went back in and saw Charles on the floor,
then left the residence to take her son to school.
She went to Burger King, took her son to school,
went to a CVS, and then returned to her residence,
where law enforcement was already on scene. For his part,
Alex stated after he shot Charles, he washed his hands,
(18:48):
put the gun away, and called nine to one one.
Alex claimed it was self defense, but law enforcement could
show that one of the two bullets that shot Charles
was fired after Charles was on the floor, that Alex
claimed he tried to provide CPR, even though there was
no indication CPR had been attempted, and that Alex had
not called nine to one one for forty three minutes
(19:10):
after the shooting. The state also had evidence that prior
to Charles's murder, Valo had taken thirty five thousand dollars
out of his business account and that Valo believed she
was the recipient of Charles's one million dollar life insurance policy.
The proposed evidence also covered the attempted shooting of Brandon
(19:31):
Boudreau on October second, twenty nineteen. The state had evidence
showing that prior to the shooting, day Bell had determined
Brandon was a dark Spirit slash entity and he requested
that Alex kill him. The investigation into the attempted shooting
led law enforcement straight to Alex, and, like with Charles,
(19:51):
a member of the day Bell Valo group, Melanie stood
to benefit from Brandon's death, as Brandon had a life
insurance policy. The state also had evidence showing Melanie provided
financial resources to both Valo and Alex. The District Court
held to hearing on the state's amended four oh four
BE noticed on February sixteenth, twenty twenty three. The District
(20:14):
Court overruled the defendant's objections to the four h four
BE evidence, with a couple of exceptions. First, the district
Court excluded evidence of Valo taking thirty five thousand dollars
from Charles, finding it would be more prejudicial than probative
because Valo was married to Charles at the time. And
Arizona was a community property state. Second, the district Court
(20:37):
excluded any reference to the past criminal case against Valo
in Madison County because the state had dismissed it with prejudice,
But the district did overrule the objection as to the
allegations underlying the criminal case. A jury convicted Valo on
all counts at trial, and the District Court sentenced her
to a unified sentence of life imprisonment without the posibility
(21:00):
of parole. This appeal followed. So the last part we're
going to talk about before we end this episode are
the issues that we'll be discussed in the state's response.
It says Ballow states the issues on appeal as one,
Lorie da Bell was deprived of her sixth Amendment right
to counsel of her choice when the District Court disqualified
(21:22):
her retained attorney. Two Miss day Bell was deprived of
her sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel during
pre trial hearings on the state's motion to disqualify her
counsel after the District Court denied her attorney's request to
participate in those hearings. Three Miss day Bell was deprived
of her right to do process under the fourteenth Amendment
(21:43):
when the district Court held pre trial hearings that affected
her substantial rights in her absence and while she was incompetent. Four,
the District Court aired in allowing state to introduce evidence
of uncharged bad acts from Arizona into the Idaho criminal
trial under Rule four O four BE of the Idaho
Rules of Evidence. Five, the District Court aired in denying
(22:05):
Miss Dabell's motion to dismiss based on violation of her
statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The state
rephrases the issues as one, as Valo failed to show
the District Court violated her six Amendment right to counsel
of her choice by just qualifying her attorney. Two as
Valo failed to show the district Court committed fundamental error
(22:28):
by violating her six Amendment right to the assistance of council. Three,
as Valo failed to show the District Court committed fundamental
error by violating her due process right not to be
prosecuted or to be physically present at proceedings. Four as
Valo failed to show, the District Court aired by overruling
Valo's pre trial objection to the state's proposed four oh
(22:51):
four be evidence and five as Valo failed to show
the district court aired when it denied her motion to
dismiss on the basis that are bad trial rights were violated.
So those are the things the state is going to
pick apart and make their argument, and we will continue
this in another episode. I do have to get ready.
(23:12):
Around five, my son is having a big Christmas party
at the fire station he works at with all of
his coworkers and their family, so I'm going to head
that way and enjoy the evening with my son and
his coworkers, who are amazing people. So hopefully I can
get one more in today and then I'll put out
some more over the weekend. But that's it for now.
Hope you guys have a good arrest of your afternoon
(23:33):
and we will see you soon
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.