Graphic images shown in Lori Vallow trial; TikTok influencer acquitted of murder – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Kelly Hyman joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the reveal of crime scene photos in Lori Vallow’s murder trial, a TikTok star’s acquittal following a deadly conflict with his neighbors, and the role of Scientology evidence in Danny Masterson’s retrial.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to the sidebar presented by True Crime Daily, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I am your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County Prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me at Joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Friday, April 14th, 2023.
And in this week's episode, we have breaking news in the shocking verdict for a man accused in a fatal stabbing following a series of confrontations that escalated on social media. As well as the judge's ruling in the retrial of actor Danny Masterson, allowing evidence related to the Church of Scientology as the actor will once again be tried for three counts of rape. But first, graphic evidence presented in the murder trial of alleged doomsday killer Lori Vallow.
Today, we are honored to be joined by Kelly Hyman, a civil attorney, entrepreneur and legal analyst you can catch on Court TV and other outlets. Kelly, welcome.
Kelly Hyman:
[00:01:11]
Thank you so much for having me on your show. It's so nice to see you, Josh.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:15]
Absolutely. We've been looking forward to this. And before we begin, Kelly, you have some exciting news that I was honored to be a part of. But please tell us about the premiere of your new podcast, Once Upon a Crime in Hollywood.
Kelly Hyman:
[00:01:28]
Well, thank you so much, Josh, and you played a key role in it. The podcast is called Once Upon a Crime in Hollywood, The Ronni Chasen Story. And for some of you, Ronni Chasen was a PR person, well known, and she was killed in Beverly Hills, California. And so we discussed this case.
We have her family members appear with us. We have some legal analysts. You can catch it on iHeart and other places where podcasts are streaming. And I hope that you will join it and listen in and tell us, do you think the case should be reopened or should it remain closed?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:05]
And I got to tell you, I remember this when it took place because it really did kind of make local news, even national news. But certainly, here in Hollywood, people were just -- there was so much intrigue surrounding it. But I had no idea to the kind of scandal and conspiracy that really surrounded her killing until having done the podcast. And I have not heard the finished product and I'm really looking forward to it. So thank you again for that and we look forward to hearing that podcast premiering this weekend.
But let's jump right into these stories. Kelly, we're really curious to hear your opinion. I know you've been following these cases closely. So first we go to Boise, Idaho, where the murder trial for alleged doomsday killer Lori Vallow is underway, where jurors were shown graphic images from the crime scene where her two young children were discovered.
Vallow and her fifth husband, Chad Daybell, are charged with the murder for the deaths of Vallow's son JJ and daughter Tylee, along with the death of Chad's late wife, Tammy Daybell. In vivid testimony, a Idaho homicide detective took the stand to describe the gruesome scene where the children were found.
According to police, Lori's seven-year-old son, JJ, was found in his pajamas. This was heartbreaking to me, the way it was described. He said that he saw a small child in red pajamas with duct tape covering his mouth and binding his hands and feet. His body was partially decomposed when it was discovered and his remains had been placed in a black plastic bag before they were buried near a tree on Chad Daybell's property.
The remains of Lori's 17 year old daughter, Tylee, were found dismembered and burned in melted green bucket that was buried in a different location on that same property. Vallow's defense objected to the photos, even asking if Vallow could be excused from the day's testimony. However, a judge rejected the request, citing the need for Vallow's presence to ensure a fair trial.
Chad and Lori allegedly shared extremist religious views and reportedly feared that dark spirits could possess the living, turning them into "zombies" and the only way to free the possessed was by killing their earthly bodies. Vallow has undergone multiple mental health evaluations and was hospitalized in an attempt to restore her competency before trial. Vallow and Daybell have both pled not guilty that to the charges and are being tried separately with a judge recently ruling last month that Lori would not face the possibility of the death penalty if convicted.
All right, Kelly. Let's first talk about this bizarre request made by Vallow's attorney that she be excused from being present during the trial for this graphic testimony. Are you, first of all, surprised by the request? Are you surprised by the judge's ruling? Do you think he made the right decision?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:04:58]
Well, first off, my thoughts and prayers go to the family members to lose such young kids. It's absolutely heartbreaking. In regards to the judge's ruling, I believe the judge is on solid ground based on the state court law. I don't practice in that state and I'm not an attorney in that state. From what I understand, there are certain procedures in place in that state where a person, when they're charged with a crime, they need to be at all of the proceedings in regard to the trial itself, that it is a requirement. And so therefore, based on that, the judge ruled that she could not.
Now, there's some speculation as to why, in fact, her attorney wanted her to ask the courts for her to leave the trial. Some say, well, I wasn't in the courtroom, that she wasn't very emotional for part of the day, a part of the mourning. And so to help with that, to ask for her to leave, but also the fact that maybe it was very emotional for her and upsetting and people handle emotion differently. It's that old saying goes that sometimes people get at funerals, they start to laugh because of just the nervousness or upsetness towards it.
But yes, to answer your question, I do believe the judge is on solid ground. And because of the pitchers being so gruesome, I'm not surprised by the fact that her attorney asked for her not to be in the courtroom potentially to distance herself from it or also because of the emotional distress it was causing to her.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:37]
Yeah, I want to get into those theories that have kind of been circulating a little bit more. But first, I completely agree with you. I think the judge made the right call here. And it's important to understand for listeners, too, that this is about her due process rights.
The judge is actually protecting her rights by not allowing her to leave the courtroom. And the reason for that is no one wants to go through this again. Right. No one wants to go through this kind of a trial again. And I think he wants to make sure that everything that happens here, if that ends up in a conviction, that that will be something that's preserved.
And the last thing he wants is to allow something like her to not be present for certain very important pieces of testimony and then that become an appellate issue later on that she somehow was denied her due process rights by not being present through all of the proceedings. So I think he absolutely made the right call.
But to get to your point about these kind of conspiracy theories surrounding it, that was my other thought in why maybe the judge made that decision is the courtroom is not a theater. And so if you're trying to play to an audience, whether that audience be the jurors or the courtroom or the media at large, and you feel like it's not been presenting well, that your client has been acting kind of stoic during this testimony that even spectators are breaking down, crying. And so somehow, you're going to put on a performance to have her be absent because she's too emotional. I don't think the judge was buying it. Is that where you think he was going?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:08:09]
Well, I think that's a good point as well. But I do believe based on the law that the judge made a determination, as you point out, about the due process, that based on the law in that state, that she is required to be at the trial. And so that's not something where she could waive that right.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:29]
Yeah. Yeah. What do you think about the prosecution? There's all sorts of different strategies and how to present a case. Sometimes prosecutors just want to go completely linear. They want to start from as close to the beginning of the story, as it were, as they can, and then progress along and allow the jurors to kind of have the case unravel to them that way.
Other times they choose different tactics here. And I'm wondering if you think it was strategic. They started out with incredibly graphic testimony. I mean, the recovery of the bodies is probably as emotional and graphic as it's going to get for those jurors to see those pictures and hear about the way in which these children were killed and then dismembered or buried.
Do you think that was strategic? And then my other part of that question is, do you think they risk desensitizing the jurors by bringing this stuff up too early?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:09:25]
Well, I definitely, definitely think it was a strategy. So there's some school of thought to say you start with your strongest argument and then you also end with your strongest argument. So that that way, somewhere in between in the middle, things can get lost. But I definitely, definitely think from a strategy standpoint that it was very smart to start strong.
Now, you bring up a really good point. If they're going to constantly show, you know, images, then that's a potential of desensitizing the jury from that. I don't see that happening. But from the standpoint of a strategy, absolutely everything, you know, is a strategy from that, from defendant's opening remarks as well, where the defendant's counsel, you know, stood up and said, look, we know a lot of information about you as the jurors. So let me tell you about myself, let me tell you about the defendant and kind of to build some kind of relationship or which I think was very, very smart from that standpoint so that they become a a human being.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:38]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, with this type of graphic, horrific testimony and evidence, you're probably right. I don't know if anyone can get desensitized to that kind of stuff. But I have seen in cases where it is a concern that the prosecutor should at least maintain in their minds.
I know from personal experience, I had a trial where when I was a prosecutor, there was a videotape of a very brutal beating of an elderly woman. And I played it but then the defense played it again and again and chopped it down piece by piece and second by second and again and again and again. And I felt that that may have affected the jurors, that they just seen it so many times that it didn't have that same impact that it once did. But you're probably right in this case, if they're careful about it, I doubt anyone can get desensitized to that type of stuff.
Vallow's attorneys, and this is my last question on this, have twice now declared a doubt as to her competency before trial even began. Do you think that this latest request and again, this is just speculating, but do you think this latest request for her to not be present because of her fragile emotions, if you want to characterize it that way, is a precursor to them calling into question her mental fitness again to stand trial?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:12:02]
I think that's potentially possible as well, you know. Absolutely. As a, you know, defense counsel, obligation is to defend their client. As you know, as a former prosecutor, that the prosecution has the burden, so they need to prove each element of the alleged crime and the prosecutor.
That's what their job is to do, to lay it out for the jury, to prove the evidence and defense counsel is to poke holes at that or to show some other plausible way, whether it's someone else did it or someone else was at fault. And you can see the defense counsel's poking holes. Well, she wasn't there when this happened or that kind of thing. That's something typical the defense counsel will do. But yes, Josh, you bring up a really good point.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:50]
Yeah. And recently they had to stop court early. And I know those rumors began to swirl again as to whether or not she would in fact, they would declare a doubt as to her fitness and halt proceedings. So this case is scheduled to go on for ten weeks. We will continue to keep watching it and updating everyone.
For now, let's move to Vineland, New Jersey, where Zachary Latham, a now 20-year-old TikTok influencer, was found not guilty in the stabbing death of his 51-year-old neighbor, William Timmy Durham Sr.
Latham, who lived with his wife and grandparents at the time of the alleged incident, amassed millions of views on TikTok for his videos featuring exotic and expensive vehicles. He could regularly be seen in the videos revving the engines of the cars and speeding through the streets to the chagrin of his neighbors. Specifically the Durham family.
In one video, Timmy Durham's wife, Tiffany, is seen in an argument with Latham over his alleged speeding in the neighborhood. The video quickly went viral, escalating the conflicts between Latham and the Durham's. We have a clip of that video that was shown in court that we can show to you now. So we'll go ahead and show that.
Kelly Hyman:
[00:14:09]
I promise you, you better back up because you're not going to like coming out. I promise you. No, No. You guys back out. Back up. Go back. Get off of my property. Are you going to get off my property? You got me, bro. Get off the property. Go, get off the property.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:40]
All it does is appear as though the tensions between these two folks, you know, warring factions here in that neighborhood was just continuing to rise. This culminated in a confrontation in which the entire Durham family, allegedly unarmed, went to Latham's house, leading to an altercation that left Timmy Durham dead from multiple stab wounds.
Latham claimed self-defense in the incidents, alleging that he armed himself with a four-inch knife and a stun gun out of fear that he was going to be attacked by the family. After officers responded to the scene, Latham was taken to a hospital for a concussion and abrasions that he received in the altercation before he was charged with second degree murder.
Members of the Durham family were also initially charged with trespassing and assault, though the charges were later dismissed by prosecutors. Since the time of his arrest, Latham has remained active on social media, even making a new account in which he posted updates about the case as it was going on. Kelly, I know you've been following this closely. Did this verdict surprise you?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:15:46]
It did not surprise me. You had a very, very tough case because of the fact that self-defense was his defense. Right. That these people came on to his property. In the video, you hear the wife saying, get off our property, get off our property. And because of that -- now, each state law is different in regard to the fact of whether you have an obligation to retreat, to go away and go inside, or you have the opportunity to stand your ground.
The jury listened to the evidence and the law of the law of that state and made a determination based on that, that it was in fact, he was found not guilty. But no matter what, it's a sad case that the situation rose so much where someone had to die. It's sad, especially hearing the wife testifying and just the, you know, losing her husband over this, that it's sad that it had to get to such a level where someone had to die.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:58]
Yeah. That can easily be lost in these types of cases that there's someone -- there's a family that's grieving still. There's an empty seat at the dinner table for these folks. And it's something that's important to keep in mind. You pointed out, which I think is really the crux of this whole case, was the idea that it took place on Latham's property.
And I want to kind of throw at you some scenarios to change the facts a bit. And you tell me, having watched the case, if you think things may have turned out differently, I know this is just hypotheticals, but still, first question is, if it didn't take place on his property, would it be differently?
And the other point that I thought was so important to the defense was it was one against many. I mean, there were several people who approached him and they all kind of ganged up on him and he was fighting for, according to his own defense attorney, fighting for his life. Had those facts been different, had it taken place somewhere else or had it taken place with just one-on-one, do you think it would have been a different outcome?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:18:03]
I think it would have definitely played a part because I think that's something that the jury definitely considered. But ultimately, what that verdict would be, I couldn't speculate on that.
But I found it very interesting from the standpoint if he was at his house, this is, you know, hindsight 20-20, why is he in the garage or wherever he was close? Why not just go inside the house and call the police or call the police and have them come and do that? Why? You know, that's why have, you know, the blade ready and the taser ready. Just retreat and go inside your house.
Now, some people would argue, what this is my house, my property. I have a right to defend it. And so I don't, you know, have that -- I don't have to do that. And as we talked about before, it depends on where you live, and the state, and what those laws are in someone's particular state.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:05]
Yeah. Yeah. You know, I can understand from a legal perspective the concept of stand your ground. And I think it makes sense. And I think it's important to have laws like that because we don't want to put the onus on the person who's being attacked to somehow prove their innocence. If you're being attacked, you should be able to kind of defend yourself. I get that.
But it does seem as though in some situations that we've seen, this one being, I think, an example of pushing the boundaries of that. And like you said, he easily could have de-escalated this, it seems to me, had he done what you suggested, gone inside, called 911.
But it almost seems as though, and you know him being with all his TikTok followers, as if he welcomes this kind of a confrontation or something because it might have made for interesting TikTok videos or he was just trying to goat these people into really reaching the end of their wits which eventually happened and ended in tragedy. I wonder, do you think there was anything the prosecution could have done differently here or is the facts were the facts and that's the way it ended up?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:20:17]
You know, I think the facts are the facts. And I think that the prosecution did an excellent job. You know, it's interesting when you hear him calling the 911 police, you know, after the fact that on the recorded, it says that these people had guns. When I watched the video, I did not see any guns on them. It didn't mean they didn't, you know, potentially have it but I didn't see any types of guns.
And so it kind of goes to your point was he waiting for this or, you know, doing this. We can all guess and speculate, you know, hindsight 20-20, but we just unfortunately, as I said before, they lost someone's life and the jury came back.
And I'm a firm advocate of the jury system. I believe we live in a great country. And that's the jury system of our peers is what is important. And they came back and said not guilty. Well, you know, have to see what happens with that if there is some kind of appeal or not.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:28]
Yeah. Yeah. I agree with you. The jury system, we have to respect it, stand by the decisions. I think the case, there doesn't appear to have been anything that was inappropriate in the way the case was presented. So we should respect it. But if we don't have a chance to second guess it, what else are we going to talk about? Right.
Finally, let's turn to Los Angeles, California, where actor Danny Masterson is set to face a retrial on the accusations of rape set to take place on April 17th. The judge, who also presided over the first trial recently ruled that Masterson's alleged victims will be able to speak about their involvement in the Church of Scientology and the alleged effects on their decisions to come forward.
Masterson, who is a prolific member of the church, allegedly met the three victims through the Church of Scientology. And two of his accusers claimed that members of the church intimidated them into keeping their allegations against the actor silent. While Masterson's defense has argued to keep anything related to Scientology out of the trial, a judge ruled that, and this is a quote, "The admission of Scientology evidence provides an important context for the victims delayed reporting of the crimes which took place back in 2000 and 2003."
So we talk about a long delay here before they actually came forward to authorities. And the judge felt that that was important to understand the context. After a hung jury in November of 2022, prosecutors opted to retry Masterson on the three counts of rape, which could carry a maximum sentence of 45 years in prison if convicted of all three counts.
According to some reports, the prosecution may also be adding another alleged victim to their witness list. The jury in the first case favored acquittal for Masterson with votes of, now get this, 10 to 2, 8 to 4, and 7 to 5 on the three counts, all favoring acquittal.
Kelly, are you surprised that prosecutors are going to retry this case, given how kind of heavily tilted towards acquittal the jurors seem to have been the first time around?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:23:33]
I am not. I'm not the prosecutor or know what exactly the prosecutors think, but I can speculate the fact that the prosecution does believe that they can prove all elements of the crime. And since, it turned out the way it did, that they have an opportunity to retry this case and they want to move forward and retry the case again.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:00]
What do you think about the celebrity angle of all of this and the Me Too angle of all of it? And do you think that that played a role in, you know, we're talking about LA County here. They're under kind of a microscope when it comes to celebrity cases. Do you think that played a role in the DA's decision to retry this, that they were not going to take another loss here on a celebrity case?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:24:27]
Well, I hope that it's the fact that the prosecutor wants to do justice and wants to do the right thing for the alleged victims and because of that, that they want to do the right thing and bring the case again. But since it is a high profile case, absolutely, people are watching on that.
And in regard to the MeToo movement, you know, absolutely, that's a factor because of here it is of the people that it's affecting. And so we're going to have to see what this jury, based on the facts and evidence decides to do. Will it be mistrial? Will it be a defense verdict? Will it be for the plaintiffs? We're going to just have to see how it plays out in the court of law.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:25:18]
Yeah, I imagine, too. And this is just me speculating, but I imagine that there was no chance of settling this thing in between either. Because you would feel that with those types of votes, the first time around with that kind of tilted towards the defense, hung jury, that they felt very emboldened.
And they probably were coming to the prosecution with the idea of we're not accepting anything, or if it was, it was going to be some very low crime that wouldn't affect his career. And they probably were at an impasse. The prosecution almost was forced into this. That's my speculation. I don't have any inside knowledge. I'm just kind of going off of what I think took place.
But let's talk about retrials for a little bit. I don't know if you have experience in this. I have a little bit of experience. And I'm curious to see who you think this might favor. And I'll kind of shade you with my thoughts a little bit initially, is that now you've got victims and witnesses who have testified several times.
So they've got their police report. They've got their preliminary hearing from the first trial. They've got the first trial transcript. Now they're going to have a preliminary hearing in this trial. And then by the time they go to trial, there are so many prior instances of them giving testimony that if you're a smart defense attorney, there's going to be a lot of opportunity for impeaching them in prior inconsistent statements. So in my view, it probably helps the defense a little bit, but I don't know. What do you think?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:26:48]
So I have to disagree with you.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:51]
Yeah, please.
Kelly Hyman:
[00:26:51]
I think that it helps the prosecution because the prosecution brought the case, they can. And if they potentially talk to the jurors after their case, you know, about it, whether that's allowed and procedurally to do that or the juror spoke to them, they can get a sense of what they missed or what they did incorrectly.
And so, some would say the second time's the charm, right? At first you don't succeed, try and try again. So I think that definitely it's going to help the prosecution to lay out their case and make sure that they cross every T and dot every I.
From your standpoint about the defense. Absolutely. I see that point of them being very conscious about potentially impeaching the people. But I'm sure the prosecution will realize that and make sure that they have all the testimony and make sure that everything is correct and accurate and really make sure when they bring this case that they have everything they need.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:59]
Yeah. No, you make a really good point. And for people who are listening who may not have experience ever having sat on a jury, that happens quite routinely, that after a verdict, the attorneys will come out and chat with the jurors because they don't have an opportunity to speak with them during the trial, obviously. But afterwards they'll go out there.
I did it several times and pick their brains where especially on, like you said, a hung jury. Where did we go wrong? What would you have wanted to hear? And I got to tell you, sometimes it's shocking the stuff that you hear people say that you never had thought about that being an issue. And it was something that occupied a lot of their time in the deliberation room.
So you're right. They have that opportunity to kind of fine tune this again. And not to mention, it sounds like the judge kind of gave them some rulings that may have been beneficial to them this second time around. So we'll continue to keep an eye on that case as well.
But in the meantime, Kelly, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you and where can they find your podcast?
Kelly Hyman:
[00:29:00]
Well, thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to see you and enjoy being on your show and welcome the opportunity to come back again. If you want to, you can go to iHeart. It's going to be on iHeart, Apple Plus, you can also go to www.onceuponacrime.hollywood. But you can also check me on Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, all those different social media platforms.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:26]
Fantastic. It's exciting stuff. I'm looking forward to it. I hope it does well, I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ. And you can find me at Joshuaritter.com. And you can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at The True Crime Daily Sidebar.
