Daybell Files Appeal Based On Mental Health, Yet Still Believes She Is Not Crazy

In the intricate world of criminal appeals, where does one draw the line between upholding a client's wishes and pursuing a line of defense deemed most potent? This remains the poignant question as the appeal of Lori Vallow Daybell, a name synonymous with intrigue and uncertainty, moves forward. Delving into the matter, the "Hidden Killers" podcast hosted by Tony Brueski brought on author and seasoned criminal defense lawyer Lori Hellis to elucidate the complexities surrounding Daybell's appeal and the pivotal role of mental health.
 
 At the core of the discussion lies Daybell's apparent reluctance to be portrayed as mentally unstable. Brueski poses a pressing question: “If she doesn't want to have an image out there of being crazy, which she's going to have no matter what, why? Can the attorneys file this appeal on their own merit without her even agreeing to it?" Hellis clarifies that while Daybell does indeed have a say in the decision to appeal, it's the attorneys who guide her on the appeal's grounds.
 
 The transition from trial to appeal has led to Daybell being assigned a new appellate attorney, underscoring the differing demands of trial and appellate work. As Hellis points out, this change might provide "a little bit of an opening for the attorneys to get around her desire not to use the mental health defense."
 
 Brueski, reflecting on Daybell's beliefs, inquires, “Why spend the resources? Why are we even doing this?” It's evident that while Daybell firmly believes in her spiritual conversations with her deceased children and anticipates becoming the "queen of Rexburg," her lawyers are grappling with a more tangible reality. “It's one of her better bases of appeal," Hellis articulates, highlighting the tension between a client's wishes and a lawyer's duty to zealously represent their client's interests.
 
 This situation draws an analogy to medical ethics, where a patient might refuse treatment despite its apparent benefits. Brueski draws a parallel to a 'do not resuscitate' order, musing about the challenges of advocating for someone who might not want that advocacy, especially if it paints them in a particular light. "At some point, crazy or not, you do have to kind of go with what the individual wants, no matter how deplorable they may be," Brueski suggests.
 
 Hellis adds another layer of complexity by referencing her experiences representing mentally ill clients, "It's a difficult balancing act to make sure that your client's rights are protected and still deal with someone who is not firmly in reality." She reflects on Daybell's trial lawyers, Jim Archibald and Mark Means, suggesting that they faced significant challenges in defending Daybell the way they believed was right, due to her strong opinions on the mental health defense.
 
 Hellis emphasizes a critical point in legal representation: the final call, especially on aspects as defining as the defense narrative, belongs to the client. Even if the attorneys believe a different path might be more favorable, it's the client's wishes that ultimately direct the proceedings.
 
 As the appeal progresses, the public remains in the shadows, relying on tidbits of information to piece together a narrative that's as convoluted as it's fascinating. Daybell's own statements, including those during her sentencing, paint a picture of someone whose beliefs and views are not anchored in commonly accepted realities. Yet, whether her mental state at the time of the trial, or the crimes she's accused of, is an issue fit for legal contention remains an open question.
 
 So, as the case of Lori Vallow Daybell continues to unfold, one can't help but ask: In the delicate balance of upholding justice, client autonomy, and advocacy, are we treading on solid ground or slipping into an abyss of ethical dilemmas?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it