State Responds To Lori Daybe''s Appeal - Part 3: Incompetency and Means Kept Filing Motions
23.12.2025
0:00
27:14
In this episode, we continue breaking down the State of Idaho’s response to Lori Vallow Daybell’s appeal, picking up deep into the brief as the State dismantles claims of constitutional violations.
The State argues that Lori Vallow failed all three prongs of the fundamental error test — including claims that her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated and that her due process rights were ignored while she was deemed incompetent.
We walk through why the court says Mark Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to, why this was not a structural error, and why any alleged error would be considered harmless under existing case law.
The episode also dives into the key issue of competency, explaining why hearings held in Chad Daybell’s separate criminal case did not violate Lori Vallow’s rights — including her right not to be prosecuted while incompetent or her right to be physically present.
This section of the appeal gives rare insight into what was happening behind the scenes while much of the case was under seal — and why the State is confident none of these arguments will impact her Idaho conviction.
Recap of the series and picking back up in the State’s response to Lori Vallow’s appeal
00:55 – Mark Means & Alleged Right-to-Counsel Violation
State argues Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to
02:17 – Fundamental Error Test: “Error Plainly Exists”
Explanation of the second prong of the Perry test and why the State says Vallow fails it
04:18 – Misuse of Bodenbach Comparison
Why the Idaho Supreme Court’s Bodenbach ruling does not apply here
06:34 – Harmless Error vs Structural Error
State argues this was not a complete deprivation of counsel
08:52 – Hearings Focused on Chad Daybell, Not Lori Vallow
Why Means’ limited role did not violate Vallow’s Sixth Amendment rights
10:01 – No Showing of Prejudice
State explains why Vallow’s arguments are speculative and unsupported
11:19 – New Argument: Due Process & Competency
Whether Vallow’s rights were violated while she was deemed incompetent
13:04 – Right Not to Be Prosecuted While Incompetent
Idaho law on suspension of proceedings and why it didn’t apply here
16:37 – Separate Criminal Case Explained
Why hearings in Chad Daybell’s case did not violate Vallow’s rights
18:55 – Balancing Competing Constitutional Rights
Court’s duty to protect conflict-free counsel and fairness of proceedings
21:10 – Mark Means’ Actions During Incompetency
Why the court acted quickly to disqualify Means
22:33 – Court Left Door Open After Restoration to Competency
Opportunity Vallow had to revisit issues later
24:01 – Right to Be Present at Hearings
Why due process does not require presence in another defendant’s case
26:24 – Why Vallow’s Presence Would Not Have Changed Anything
Competency, waiver issues, and harmless error analysis
29:39 – Failure to Show Error Plainly Exists (Again)
State argues tactical decisions undermine Vallow’s claims
33:03 – Harmless Error Analysis Applies
Why prejudice cannot be presumed
36:14 – Wrapping Up & What’s Next
Preview of the next episode and appeal timeline going forward
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
The State argues that Lori Vallow failed all three prongs of the fundamental error test — including claims that her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated and that her due process rights were ignored while she was deemed incompetent.
We walk through why the court says Mark Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to, why this was not a structural error, and why any alleged error would be considered harmless under existing case law.
The episode also dives into the key issue of competency, explaining why hearings held in Chad Daybell’s separate criminal case did not violate Lori Vallow’s rights — including her right not to be prosecuted while incompetent or her right to be physically present.
This section of the appeal gives rare insight into what was happening behind the scenes while much of the case was under seal — and why the State is confident none of these arguments will impact her Idaho conviction.
- 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)
Recap of the series and picking back up in the State’s response to Lori Vallow’s appeal
00:55 – Mark Means & Alleged Right-to-Counsel Violation
State argues Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to
02:17 – Fundamental Error Test: “Error Plainly Exists”
Explanation of the second prong of the Perry test and why the State says Vallow fails it
04:18 – Misuse of Bodenbach Comparison
Why the Idaho Supreme Court’s Bodenbach ruling does not apply here
06:34 – Harmless Error vs Structural Error
State argues this was not a complete deprivation of counsel
08:52 – Hearings Focused on Chad Daybell, Not Lori Vallow
Why Means’ limited role did not violate Vallow’s Sixth Amendment rights
10:01 – No Showing of Prejudice
State explains why Vallow’s arguments are speculative and unsupported
11:19 – New Argument: Due Process & Competency
Whether Vallow’s rights were violated while she was deemed incompetent
13:04 – Right Not to Be Prosecuted While Incompetent
Idaho law on suspension of proceedings and why it didn’t apply here
16:37 – Separate Criminal Case Explained
Why hearings in Chad Daybell’s case did not violate Vallow’s rights
18:55 – Balancing Competing Constitutional Rights
Court’s duty to protect conflict-free counsel and fairness of proceedings
21:10 – Mark Means’ Actions During Incompetency
Why the court acted quickly to disqualify Means
22:33 – Court Left Door Open After Restoration to Competency
Opportunity Vallow had to revisit issues later
24:01 – Right to Be Present at Hearings
Why due process does not require presence in another defendant’s case
26:24 – Why Vallow’s Presence Would Not Have Changed Anything
Competency, waiver issues, and harmless error analysis
29:39 – Failure to Show Error Plainly Exists (Again)
State argues tactical decisions undermine Vallow’s claims
33:03 – Harmless Error Analysis Applies
Why prejudice cannot be presumed
36:14 – Wrapping Up & What’s Next
Preview of the next episode and appeal timeline going forward
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
Flere episoder fra "Pretty Lies And Alibis"
Gå ikke glip af nogen episoder af “Pretty Lies And Alibis” - abonnér på podcasten med gratisapp GetPodcast.
