Was Lori Daybell Ever Competent To Stand Trial?

Is justice possible when the accused might not grasp reality? The Lori Daybell case has ignited fiery debates, shedding light on the intricacies of mental health and its impact on the courtroom. This thorny issue was the focal point of the latest "Hidden Killers" podcast episode, where host Tony Brueski sought insights from seasoned criminal defense lawyer and author Lori Hellis.
 
 Brueski started the conversation with a candid concern, "Many of us had been waving red flags from the beginning, questioning: Is this really right?" Daybell's recent appeal wasn't based on the alleged crime's merits but her mental acuity – her ability to even stand trial. The paramount question: can one truly attain justice if the accused lacks the fundamental comprehension of reality?
 
 Hellis highlighted a peculiarity in Idaho's legal approach to insanity, explaining, "Idaho is a little bit interesting. Doing away with the insanity plea was a bit of a bait and switch." Though the state has ostensibly eliminated the insanity plea, it still provides an avenue for defense attorneys. They can argue that their client didn't possess the necessary mental state to form an intent to commit the crime. "It's a bit like splitting hairs," Hellis observed.
 
 This convoluted definition raises further questions. While it restricts the use of mental health as a traditional affirmative defense, it still permits a defendant to claim they didn't knowingly or intentionally commit a crime. The Daybell defense could have pursued this angle during her trial. However, Hellis pointed out a startling revelation: "It was very clear in court that she had told her attorney she did not want to use that mental defense."
 
 Delving deeper, Hellis elucidated the two critical intersections of mental health in criminal trials. Firstly, was the accused sane at the time of the crime's commission? Secondly, can they aid in their defense? While Daybell's mental state during the crime remained unchallenged due to her wishes, post-trial appeals are challenging her competency to stand trial. "They're really going back and saying, 'Your Honor, she never should have been tried because she wasn't competent,'" Hellis stated.
 
 Brueski further probed the series of events. In September of the previous year, with the trial set for January 2023, Daybell's attorneys made a critical move. They expressed concerns about her competence, leading the judge to vacate the trial date. The court's subsequent evaluations of Daybell's competency were sealed, leaving the public in the dark.
 
 Yet, intriguing snippets emerged. The defense brought in Dr. Michael Wellner, a renowned psychiatrist known for determining the competency of Brian David Mitchell, the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart. Brueski questioned the essence of this choice: "Who's the expert here? And who knows this better than other people?"
 
 One cannot help but question the timing of this strategy, though. Why raise the mental defense now, post-trial, when it was deliberately avoided during proceedings? Hellis offered a rationale: "The attorneys don't feel quite so constrained by what she wants because the trial is over." Essentially, the appeal, anchored in mental health challenges, offers an opportunity to counter the trial's verdict without going against Daybell's wishes.
 
 In sum, the Lori Daybell case illuminates the labyrinthine interplay of mental health, legal tactics, and the quest for justice. As the story unfolds, it prompts us to reflect deeply: In the intricate dance of law and mental well-being, where should the line be drawn?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: