Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
PHOENIX — A judge on Friday denied a request from Lori Vallow Daybell for a new trial after jurors found her guilty of conspiring to murder her then-husband, Charles Vallow.
She asked for a new trial on May 1, just over a week after she was found guilty, claiming misconduct from jurors and prosecutors and claimed the judge was not impartial. She also argued that statements from Tylee Ryan and Alex Cox — who are both dead — should have been allowed in the trial, that part of a detective's testimony should not have been allowed and that she should have been given the opportunity to use newer download technology on her husband's phone.
Arizona Judge Justin Beresky denied that any of these things caused prejudice against Lori Daybell.
Daybell was given five life sentences in Idaho after being found guilty of murdering her two children, 16-year-old Tylee Ryan and 7-year-old JJ Vallow, and conspiring to murder them and Tammy Daybell, before marrying Chad Daybell.
In an interview immediately after the Arizona trial, a juror seemed to say he knew she had already been given multiple life sentences before the end of the trial. In multiple other comments in media interviews, however, the same juror verified he did not know until after the guilty verdict was delivered.
The judge considered all of the statements that juror made to the media and ruled in Friday's decision that there was not a "clear indication of juror misconduct" or any evidence of prejudice against Daybell from this — which she would have needed to prove.
Beresky maintained his previous ruling, saying out-of-court statements from Tylee and Cox would be considered hearsay because they are dead and could not testify. He said Daybell was invited to bring specific statements from them for him to consider outside the jury's presence during the trial, but she never did.
The judge also determined that Daybell did not offer any evidence that the information she might have found on Vallow's phone could have negated her guilt.
Beresky also found that none of the arguments in her request for a new trial "come close" to establishing misconduct from prosecutors.
Daybell's argument of prosecutorial misconduct included claims that the prosecutor repeatedly brought up her religion throughout the trial, thus violating her rights to religious freedom. The judge determined this was not the case.
"The (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) does not protect someone from committing criminal acts in the name of religion," he said.
Beresky also determined he correctly ruled to strike witnesses from her list because she did not establish they had any relevant information, and did not show prejudice against her. He said she was told she could make the request again if she had new arguments that the witnesses were relevant, but she did not.
The judge did agree that he made a comment that was "not necessary" — when denying an objection from prosecutors while Daybell, acting as her own attorney, was questioning Serena Sharpe, but he said it did not show bias or partiality. That comment was: "To the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures I will allow it."
Bereksy said that although he should not have made the comment, there was no evidence it influenced jurors.
Daybell asked to be sentenced in this case after her next criminal trial. That trial, on charges alleging she conspired to murder Brandon Boudreaux, her niece's then-husband, will begin in June.
