Lori Vallow Daybell found guilty in 3rd trial
Lori Vallow Daybell was found guilty on Thursday in her second murder conspiracy trial in Arizona.
The jury concluded Vallow Daybell conspired to kill Brandon Boudreaux, her niece's ex-husband.
Vallow Daybell, who represented herself, pleaded not guilty.
This marks her third trial in recent years. Earlier in spring, she was found guilty of conspiring to murder her estranged husband, Charles Vallow, in Arizona. She awaits sentencing for this trial.
Vallow Daybell was also convicted in Idaho for killing her children — Tylee and JJ — and Tammy Daybell, her husband Chad Daybell's first wife in Idaho. She is serving several life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Despite a shaky start to the trial last Friday, when Vallow Daybell appeared in court in a wheelchair and asked the judge for more time, the proceedings ended this week.
She ran into a confrontation with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Justin Beresky in court on Friday.
Vallow Daybell wanted the judge to allow the inclusion of character evidence but the judge told her that could leave the door open for the prosecution to include evidence of her prior convictions.
The judge advised her to consult her advisory council during the lunch break.
'You don't need to yell at me,' Vallow Daybell responded. After a brief back and forth, where the judge stressed he didn't raise his voice, he ordered Vallow Daybell to be escorted out of the courtroom.
She argued she'd been 'very courteous' to Beresky. The judge didn't take to her remark too kindly, saying, 'No, you have been nothing near courteous to me during the course of these proceedings.'
She apologized to Beresky 15 minutes later. The judge offered her a warning: another slip up and he could revoke her right to represent herself.
In addition to juggling the Arizona trial, Vallow Daybell is also attempting to file an appeal in Idaho, where she is serving several life sentences.
'Lori Daybell respectfully asks this Court to reverse her judgment of conviction and remand for an order dismissing all charges against her based on a violation of her statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial,' the brief, filed May 30, states, according to KTVB 7.
Her attorney argued the court disqualified her chosen attorney, violating her Sixth Amendment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kent Mawhinney, charged in Jennifer Farber Dulos case, to appear in court
STAMFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — Kent Mawhinney, charged in the death and disappearance of Jennifer Farber Dulos, is expected to appear in state Superior Court in Stamford on Friday. Mawhinney was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in January 2020. He has pleaded not guilty to the charge. RELATED >> THE DULOS CASE Jennifer Farber Dulos, 50, a mother of five from New Canaan, disappeared on May 24, 2019, after dropping off her children at school. Authorities believe Farber Dulos was killed by her estranged husband, Fotis Dulos. He was charged with her murder in January 2020 and died by suicide a few weeks later. Mawhinney once served as Dulos' attorney and was a friend of Dulos and Troconis. Mawhinney's license to practice law in Connecticut was suspended in January 2020 by the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. Michelle Troconis was found guilty in March 2024 of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence, two counts of tampering with physical evidence and one count of hindering prosecution in the second degree. Jennifer Farber Dulos: The Untold Story | News 8 Special Presentation She was sentenced in May 2024 to 20 years in prison, suspended after 14.5 years, for her role in helping Fotis Dulos kill and cover up his wife's death. Although Farber Dulos' body has never been found, a judge declared her dead in January 2024. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Boston Globe
What makes a good closing argument? Jurors in the Karen Read retrial are about to find out.
Write to us at . To subscribe, . TODAY'S STARTING POINT When prosecutors wrapped up the first trial of Karen Read last year, they declared that 'all of the testimony' indicated she had caused the death of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, during a blizzard in Canton in 2022. That closing argument, for at least some jurors, wasn't convincing; after the jury deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict, the judge declared a mistrial. Now, as Read's second trial 'It's equal parts art and science,' said Chris Dearborn, a professor at Suffolk Law School. 'It's about persuasion, trying to tell a better story than the other side. And some of those basic principles of persuasion are really fundamentally no different, whether it's a barroom argument, a closing argument, or a toast or speech.' Advertisement Several attorneys and legal professionals who spoke to the Globe were unanimous: one of the worst things that attorneys can do in their closing arguments is appear underhanded or insincere. 'If you do something that loses you credibility, it really can hurt you,' Dearborn said. 'On close cases, on the margins, being the side that the jury trusts or likes the most can make a difference.' Advertisement Losing credibility can happen easily by failing to mention what Dearborn referred to as 'bad facts' — ignoring evidence or threads that are detrimental to your case. Some of those facts 'In his opening statement, Hank Brennan never talked about Trooper Proctor,' Dearborn said. 'I think it'll be a mistake if he doesn't own that issue in his closing. Because it can look like he's trying to hide something.' Even if the facts of the case are fully and accurately addressed, attorneys still run the risk of appearing to be insincere. 'If you are not a person who raises your voice, then don't do that in the closing,' said Boston-based attorney J.W. Carney, Jr. 'Or if you are a person who's sometimes a little insecure, it's okay, you can show that. The jurors have gotten to know who you are through the trial. You don't want to change that personality.' Good lawyers balance their own personality, whether flashy or more methodological, with a measure of accessibility when speaking to jurors. 'You have to be very mindful of the jury's intelligence and be very careful not to potentially insult them or suggest that they don't have the ability to be, both individually and collectively, discerning,' said attorney Brad Bailey. Advertisement At the end of the day, that means delivering the argument like a regular person, clearly and articulately without being overly wordy or extravagant. 'You should talk like you are at Thanksgiving dinner, talking to your grandmother,' said Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge and lecturer at Boston College Law School. 'Zero legalese, zero police language, and zero lawyer language.' That's not to say there's no room for emotion, he added. 'If there is not blood on the floor, meaning rhetorically, at the end of the closing argument, you have not used raw emotion,' Lu said. Throughout the trial, attorneys from both teams have been making note of what testimony or threads of evidence resonate with jurors, Bailey said. 'You can bet there's a lot of conversation behind closed doors about what seemed to work,' he said. 'You may see direct eye contact being made with particular jurors that could have reacted to certain things.' Carney, who worked alongside Brennan while representing James 'Whitey' Bulger more than a decade ago, said the lead prosecutor in the Read case would address the jurors directly. 'Some lawyers act as if they're giving a closing argument as an orator in the Roman Coliseum,' Carney said. 'Hank talks to individuals in the jury. What he's doing is speaking to a single juror at a time. And that juror during the deliberations will remember the point that Hank gave.' The defense, meanwhile, will seek to convince the jury that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof in establishing Read's guilt. 'They not only have to lay out why they believe that the crimes have not been proven and why they think the jury ought to have multiple reasonable doubts, but they also anticipate upfront and try to rebut in advance what they believe the prosecution is going to say [in the rebuttal],' he said. Advertisement Carney pointed to one recent case — 'When it was done, I spoke to my two partners and said, 'Here is the website on which you can watch [the attorney's] closing argument, it's brilliant,'' he said. Dearborn said the closing arguments from Read's first trial 'were a little too long, a little bit too scattershot.' But there were a few key phrases — particularly from the defense — that he said probably resonated with the jury. 'Those are the things that sometimes jurors talk about because there's only so much attention span out there,' he said. 'So if you're not aware of that when you're talking to a jury, you can lose the jury.' Related story: Revisit 🧩 7 Across: 76° POINTS OF INTEREST A flight swerved onto a grassy area at Logan yesterday. WCVB Boston and Massachusetts Mishap: The FAA is investigating after a JetBlue flight landing at Logan Airport Judge me not: Testifying at her civil disciplinary hearing, Judge Shelley Joseph Baker-off: Two Republicans who worked for former Governor Charlie Baker Back home: BJ's will Trump administration Takebacks: House Republicans voted to rescind federal funding for public media, USAID, and a program that fights global HIV. The measure now heads to the Senate. ( Parades and protests: Soldiers and tanks will parade through Washington D.C. tomorrow to mark the Army's 250th birthday — on the same day as Trump's 79th. Activists are planning nationwide anti-Trump protests. ( Kseniia Petrova: Federal officials Poor conditions: Detainees at a Burlington ICE facility say they've been RFK Jr.: Experts say Climate change: Excise tax: Senate Republicans confirmed Billy Long, who as a congressman sought to abolish the IRS, to lead the agency. ( The Nation and the World SCOTUS: The justices ruled unanimously for a girl with epilepsy in a case that could make it easier to sue schools for better disability accommodations. ( Harvey Weinstein retrial: The judge declared a mistrial after the jury foreman refused to deliberate over a rape charge. ( Israel-Hamas war: A Gaza aid group said Hamas gunmen had killed eight of its personnel and might have taken others hostage. ( Air India crash: A British national was the only survivor after a plane VIEWPOINTS Living in fear: In Globe Opinion, an undocumented Milford High student and classmate of Marcelo Gomes da Silva asks Americans for empathy — and Advertisement Modest proposal: Boston's two NPR-affiliated radio stations, GBH and WBUR, are both facing financial and political pressure. Send us your viewpoint: Massachusetts lawmakers are debating BESIDE THE POINT 📚 Reader recommendations: Check out ❤️ Dinner with Cupid: For this pair, pearls of conversation 🔵 Egyptian blue: The color, found on ancient artwork, is the oldest known synthetic pigment. Scientist have now recreated it. ( 🎥 Da-dum: In honor of its 50th anniversary, 🍽️ Old school: A Madrid tavern that dates to 1725 says it's the world's oldest continuously operating restaurant. The owners of a nearby establishment are trying to prove theirs is. ( 🌅 Sunup to sundown: Have the 🐠 Fishy situation: Someone converted a car outside a Yalta hotel into a koi-filled aquarium. ( Thanks for reading Starting Point. This newsletter was edited by Advertisement ❓ Have a question for the team? Email us at ✍🏼 If someone sent you this newsletter, you can 📬 Delivered Monday through Friday. Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Turtleboy Sr. Editor Aidan Kearney Found 'Not Guilty'
Aidan Kearney, the blogger also known as @DoctorTurtleboy, was found not guilty of violating a restraining order, he shared on X. The verdict was given in a bench trial in front of Judge Michael J. Pomarole, which Kearney said he agreed to have instead of a jury trial. Mark Bederow, a New York City defense attorney who represents Kearney, shared more details in his own post on X. "Aidan Kearney @DoctorTurtleboy has been found NOT GUILTY in connection with an alleged violation of a restraining order in favor of Lindsey Gaetani. Another great job by co-counsel Tim Bradl," Bederow wrote. However, Kearney is still facing other charges. Bederow noted that he has "3 more to go in Superior Court." In the course of reporting on the Karen Read trial for the murder of a Boston Police officer, Kearney was accused of violating a restraining order when Kearney's ex-girlfriend showed up to the Karen Read trial hearing, which Kearney was attending. According to his attorney Tim Bradl, Kearney 'followed police directions and left the Courthouse to a location approved by the police, and took all good faith effort to comply with the order.' Bradl wrote in a court filing, reported on by 'It is clear from the affidavits that the complainant engineered the entire encounter and had to resort to lying to police when Mr. Kearney acted appropriately and did not violate the order.' Bradl continued, writing, 'She showed up to the Karen Read Court proceedings for the first time, and used the order to flush Mr. Kearney out of the Courtroom.' Today's acquittal is only the the first step for Kearney, who faces several felony charges in Superior Court. Kearney has faced legal battles before. His speech on his blog was famously defended by the ACLU in 2019 in a separate case. Turtleboy Sr. Editor Aidan Kearney Found 'Not Guilty' first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 12, 2025
