State Responds To Lori Daybe''s Appeal Part 3: Incompetency and Means Kept Filing Motions

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.

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

Cash App- Prettyliesandalibis

Merch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com

(Weekly lives and private message board)

Recap of the series and picking back up in the State’s response to Lori Vallow’s appeal

State argues Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to

Explanation of the second prong of the Perry test and why the State says Vallow fails it

Why the Idaho Supreme Court’s Bodenbach ruling does not apply here

State argues this was not a complete deprivation of counsel

Why Means’ limited role did not violate Vallow’s Sixth Amendment rights

State explains why Vallow’s arguments are speculative and unsupported

Whether Vallow’s rights were violated while she was deemed incompetent

Idaho law on suspension of proceedings and why it didn’t apply here

Why hearings in Chad Daybell’s case did not violate Vallow’s rights

Court’s duty to protect conflict-free counsel and fairness of proceedings

Why the court acted quickly to disqualify Means

Opportunity Vallow had to revisit issues later

Why due process does not require presence in another defendant’s case

Competency, waiver issues, and harmless error analysis

State argues tactical decisions undermine Vallow’s claims

Why prejudice cannot be presumed

Preview of the next episode and appeal timeline going forward