Prosecution, defense exchange arguments as Lori Daybell asks for new trial

SALT LAKE CITY — Lori Vallow Daybell was found guilty of killing her two children and conspiring to kill Tammy Daybell following a lengthy trial in 2023.

Now, she is seeking to overturn that verdict and requesting a new trial. Her attorneys argued the appeal on Monday before the Idaho Supreme Court.

Daybell's attorney, Craig Durham, argued that she was deprived of her right to the counsel of her choice when Mark Means was removed from representing her. He called it a "flawed process that led to a flawed result."

He claimed in arguments before the Idaho Supreme Court on Monday that the judge assumed Means' representation of Chad Daybell, her husband who was charged in the same killings, required her attorney to be disqualified, but that the Sixth Amendment requires an "actual conflict of interest" to be found. He said a defendant who can afford it has a right to choose their voice and advocate in court.

Assistant attorney general Jeff Nye argued that the judge's ruling to disqualify the attorney was the right ruling.

The Idaho Supreme Court said it would consider the arguments and issue a ruling at a later date.

Lori Daybell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the deaths of her two children, 7-year-old JJ Vallow and 16-year-old Tylee Ryan. She was also found guilty of conspiring to kill Tammy Daybell, and of grand theft of Social Security benefits.

She was given five sentences of life in prison following that verdict.

In 2025, Lori Daybell received two additional sentences of life in prison after being found guilty of conspiring to kill her husband, Charles Vallow, who was shot and killed in her home, and her niece's husband, who was shot at but not hit, in an Arizona trial. The judge ordered these sentences to run consecutively to the Idaho sentences.

Chad Daybell was also found guilty in a 2024 trial and was given the death penalty.

'Unconstitutional'

Justice Cynthia Meyer asked Durham if reversing Lori Daybell's conviction could put the death penalty back on the table and allow prosecutors to seek it again as they did at the beginning of her case.

Durham said there are "several strong arguments" why that could not happen but that Lori Daybell is "aware of the risks in this case and she is choosing to proceed ... knowing the possibility that you had suggested is out there."

He argued that there was not evidence that Chad Daybell had shared confidential information with Means, and that Means was hired primarily to deal with media. He said Chad Daybell had waived the potential conflict of interest, although Lori Daybell could not at that point because she was determined to be incompetent.

Durham argued that Means representing both of them was "unorthodox and ill-advised," but that the court "overstated" the issue. He also said the "very unorthodox" filings, made by Means while Lori Daybell was determined to be incompetent, would also not create a serious conflict of interest.

It would not be up to a court to determine whether a defendant's chosen attorney was ineffective, given the right to represent oneself — which Lori Daybell exercised in her Arizona trial.

Durham claimed his client did not have a voice in the proceedings where her attorney was removed, which is "a problem," and said the judge could have appointed conflict counsel for her. Durham claimed that the ruling the judge made was not just unorthodox but "unconstitutional."

Lori Daybell's appeal also argued that she was deprived of counsel during certain pretrial hearings, that she was entitled to be at hearings held when she was incompetent, that the judge should not have allowed evidence of uncharged acts in Arizona to be brought up during her jury trial, and that the judge should have granted a motion to dismiss based on her right to a speedy trial. These issues were not discussed in depth on Monday.

'Incredibly difficult' situation

Prosecutors pointed out a tweet from Means saying he represented Chad Daybell, but not Lori Daybell. Means said he was representing Chad Daybell "to really anyone who would listen," according to Nye, and when the warrant was served on Chad Daybell's home (which resulted in finding the bodies of JJ and Tylee), Chad Daybell's first call was to Means.

According to Nye, Durham took one claim that Chad Daybell did not consider Means as his attorney, but did not attempt to dispute the evidence that Means had served in that role.

Nye explained that in the jail call where Chad Daybell said Means was his attorney, he said they consolidated to one attorney "for reasons of confidentiality," which he said indicates that the attorney had confidential information. Nye also said Chad Daybell was paying Lori Daybell's legal fees. He said the record is inconsistent in the nature and scope of Chad Daybell's relationship with Means, arguing that the judge was right to consider it a conflict, and that not being straight about the relationship is a "serious red flag."

Nye said the judge found that Means' representation could be reconsidered when Lori Vallow was found to be competent, but it was not.

The attorney also argued that Means was filing sworn statements from Lori Vallow in her criminal case while she had been determined to be incompetent and the case was put on hold. He said the court was in a difficult position that could have led to an appeal either way, and that the judge had a duty to make sure that the proceedings were ethical.

Nye argued that a more limited approach was tried when a second attorney was assigned, but it didn't work as Means continued filing inappropriate documents.

"The court had an incredibly difficult situation in front of it," he said. "Nothing that happened here is normal, but that doesn't mean there was error in any of it."

Nye argued that the judge, in disqualifying Means, did what they should hope any district court judge in that situation would do.

Related topics