LIVE! Real Lawyer Reacts: Will Lori Vallow Get A New Trial Based On The Juror Interview? 

YESSSS! This was my thought EXACTLY!!! Not to mention, the juror was very intentional when they spoke, saying that they knew the judges direction, they knew they law, & they DID NOT consider all of that evidence during deliberations! This poor juror must feel absolutely awful about those 2-3 sentences, now having the defense attorneys for this awful women use this interview to attempt to prolong anything with this case & with her sentencing. Lastly, i find it completely disgusting that her counsel thinks it’s in the best interest of justice to even attempt to put another group of ppl through that awful trauma again is just appalling. Lori had already hurt/ KILLED enough ppl. I can’t begin to understand why any sane person would think it’s appropriate to put anyone else through what Lori did! It’s fu*king ridiculous to think that now at this point after this trial that they would be able to find another jury with no prior knowledge of her evil actions. I have felt badly for her lawyers throughout most of this saga, but this Hail Mary they are taking is so gross & really has infuriated me!

​@@MissAmanda616 Jurors consider what evidence they will consider & what they won't.

@@MissAmanda616 omolokoold ok p I’m o m I’m ok p I’m l

I don't see any violations here from the juror or Nate. I do think the judge made a bad call by allowing any mention of Arizona. That's another case. Let her get another LS when a new jury gets the actual evidence from that actual case. The state biased the jury with the Arizona rumors imo. It's like they used the Arizona rumors like double jeopardy. I mean, the state is using it twice. Something that gets into the jurors' heads in this first case, possibly affecting the first case,then doing another trial to find out if there really is a crime there. I think the state had enough without that, like Peter said. The thing that makes me wonder if the Arizona stuff did affect the juror was his statement about connecting Charles to tylee. It sounded like he said if she could M Charles, then it would be more believable, that she could have done it to Tylee??? Somehow, he was wanting the MO information to help him with the evidence information imo.This is why MO information is so sticky and should rarely be used imo.😊It's too hard for most people to truly separate the two imo.

Sorry , but the legalese is doing my head in . Too complicated for my brain .

And who wouldn’t consume stuff after the fact!!

I agree.

How was that experience for you, if you don't mind my asking?

@@katieshort8162 It was a strong armed robbery that went wrong, trial lasted just over 2 weeks, we deliberated for 4 days before convicting. I went back 6 weeks later to watch the verdict. That was my first time I was chosen as a juror and was a good experience.

Exactly! The defense lawyer objected to every damn thing, maybe he could have put on an actual defense at the trial.

Because it's all they can do, seeing as Lori wouldn't let them argue anything.

True.

So true.

Yes!

of course he says that after there was trouble. True or not idk but he`s not gonna say oh yeah I considered stuff that was said in a documentary

​@@stephjovis3469 no, he said it during the interview and was answering a question regarding police handling of the case. Lori vallow will not get a new trial and the juror said nothing that would warrant a mistrial.

She BETTER NOT!! She’s STILL GUILTY!

The Defense DID NOT DO their job, during the original trial, GIVE IT UP! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

My thoughts 1st this juror should've stayed quiet for A little while after the trial. 2nd Nate just wanted the Interview Nate is a good guy But he should've just waited 3rd you do a great job but You take to long time to get The point out and just drawing this out...

Great idea. Although we all want to understand what went into a verdict, this would offer some protection to the jurors and to their verdict.

Yes. I like Nate but he's relentlessly all over interviews of jurors.Pressure on. I think its best to wait. Or the risk of something like this.

Same. I had no issue understanding this points

I did that once, spoke with the attorneys after a civil trial. We went with the defense, and the petitioner's lawyer was NOT happy with us. I don't recommend meeting the lawyers after.

@@disabledveteran1419 I could see how meeting with counsel for either side could go sideways a bit. I hope something positive came from your experience though.

@@DubFit12 It was a bit embarrassing, to be honest. The petitioner's counsel acted very emotionally, as if he took it personally. Sidebar: it was a male underwear model suing a major department store. Every ounce of evidence involved sexy pictures. It was a weird, weird case.

@@disabledveteran1419 that’s too bad.

I think they should also consider other people that may twist their words. In this case, it makes most sense for the defense to do it. However, in different cases, your words may be twisted by the prosecution if they lost the trial. It could be the media if it doesn't match the narrative they want to push. It could just be the public because there was a collective opinion that varied from the verdict.

@@amandamacabre and then there's the so-called news media they love to make a headline that's half-true

⁠@@amandamacabre it’s a whole helluva a lot less likely that the prosecution would push the narrative - mostly because there’s little benefit in them doing so, the prosecution cannot call for a new trial - once a verdict has been reached in a criminal case this would fall into the realm of double jeopardy. Now, it’s very possible that you may see it in civil litigation (but it’s usually called plaintiff and defense in the US)… but it’s also pretty common in civil law or there to be a countersuit in play, so both parties are plaintiffs and defendants (ex. Depp v. Heard). Most of the time I’ve heard juror misconduct coming up by prosecution teams in typically been in the event of a mistrial/expressing concerns about the new trial.

@@molecularmicro For sure. I didn't list my examples in order of likelihood. I more meant that any time you speak publicly on a hot topic, you should expect ANYONE to twist/manipulate them as they see fit.

Did you not hear the part at the end of the trial where the jurers were informed about wether or not they should talk about the case ?

So would I.

I have jury duty on August 1st in AZ but will likely be a civil case because it is in Scottsdale. Thank you for your service as a juror. 💗

Also the juror didn’t mention the body cam. He simply NODDED. The reporter brought up the body cam footage. The juror mentioned things before and after Charles was shot (ie Charles’ reports to LEOs and Lori’s interviews). Both of which he was given AT TRIAL.

I was hoping it was a sign that there were more people were going to be held accountable!!! 🙏🤞