Phoenix (AP) The doomsday-believing mother from Idaho voiced her displeasure with the jail system and the legal system just before she was given two further life terms, claiming that the rules of proof do not permit two sides of an issue.
With a sudden interruption, Judge Justin Beresky stated: In fact, they do.
The friction between Lori Vallow Daybell, who represented herself in two murder conspiracy trials in Arizona, and Beresky, who didn’t mince words when it came time for him to speak in court, was further underscored by this incident.
According to Beresky, Vallow Daybell was dishonest when she declared she couldn’t tell her side of the story and couldn’t get a fair trial. Now that her trials are finished, he added, the public spotlight she so desperately wanted will fade into obscurity.
Beresky, who has served as a judge in the Maricopa County Superior Court since 2017 and has presided over several high-profile cases, said, “The amount of thought, calculation, planning, and manipulation that went into these crimes is unparalleled in my career.”
Vallow Daybell, 51, was sentenced on Friday, bringing an end to her legal ordeal. She will probably not be imprisoned in Arizona because she was already serving three life sentences in Idaho for the murders of her two youngest children and plotting the murder of a romantic rival.
She was found guilty in Arizona of plotting the murders of her niece’s ex-husband, Brandon Boudreaux, and her estranged husband, Charles Vallow. Boudreaux survived the shooting, while Charles Vallow was killed.
Vallow Daybell insisted that the series of fatalities were merely misfortunes and that she had done nothing wrong.
She spoke to her personal religious convictions when she stated that she thinks she is one of the servants who Jesus is putting in jail to become warriors and then releasing to serve him.
When Beresky cited a passage about inmates being released, she seemed to be misinterpreting it.
According to that scripture, those who believe in Jesus can be imprisoned and will be released when they die and enter paradise, but the court stated that it will require an act of God for them to be released. To put it briefly, you should never be allowed to leave prison.
Vallow Daybell’s religious convictions, such as the idea that demonic spirits were occupying those in her life, were a part of her struggles in Phoenix. She frequently engaged Beresky in sparring, occasionally bending to confer with her advising counsel.
Kay Woodcock, the sister of Charles Vallow, commended the judge’s conduct outside of court.
She said, “I don’t think we could have had a better judge.” He is a finer man than many who tolerate her the way he did.
Despite Vallow Daybell’s obstructionist tactics, Beresky did a remarkable job of upholding courtroom decorum and displaying great patience, according to Mel McDonald, a retired Maricopa County judge who watched the trials but was not involved in them.
“He allows her flexibility,” McDonald stated. He does not, however, allow her to go amok.
When Beresky clarified that her attempts to present positive evidence about her character could allow jurors to hear about her convictions in Idaho and for Vallow’s death, Vallow Daybell falsely accused him of yelling at her during last month’s trial over the conspiracy to kill Boudreaux.
Vallow Daybell remarked, “You don’t have to speak to me in that manner.”
A security guard carried her out of the courtroom when Beresky said, “Take her out.”
When defending herself, Vallow Daybell found it difficult to handle legal issues that most attorneys take for granted, such scheduling witnesses to testify. Despite complaining that she didn’t have enough time to prepare, she refused the judge’s offer of a later date and insisted on using her right to a fast trial. She also claimed that Beresky was biased against her and attempted to have him removed from the case.
Beresky’s allegation that she was too ill to proceed during jury selection for her second trial in Arizona was another instance of the difficulties between the court and the defendant. The day’s events were put on hold.
However, the trial went forward, and Beresky subsequently stated that her assertions were not supported by any objective evidence.
