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 - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesr
Cash App- Prettyliesandalibis

All links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibis
Merch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com
Patreon:   / prettyliesandalibis  
(Weekly lives and private message board)

00:00 – Intro & Where We Left Off
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