‘Doomsday Mom’ Lori Vallow wants new trial; Lindsay Clancy’s attorneys argue double jeopardy

Hello and welcome to the sidebar presented by True Crime News, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. We are recording this on Wednesday, November 4th, 2026. In this week's episode, this week, the defense began presenting their case in Matthew Farwell's trial, bringing much of the forensic evidence under question. Plus, Lindseay Clancy's attorneys are asking for a dismissal based on double jeopardy. But first, doomsday mom Lorie Valow Debel wants a new trial in Idaho. Today we're joined by Matt Tempanic, a criminal defense attorney and personal injury lure, who has been a legal expert on the Law and CL Crime Network, Sports Map Radio, Conduct Detrimental, and many other outlets. Hi, Matt. How you doing, my friend? >> How are you doing, Josh? >> I'm doing fantastic. I'm so glad that I'm able to talk to you about these cases cuz I know that you even uh grew up in close proximity to where one of these uh trials took place. Uh, so I'm looking forward to hearing some insider insights when we get to that. But let's first move to Rexburg, Idaho, where the 53-year-old woman known as the Doomsday Mom was back in court this week. This time asking for an all-new murder trial.

Lorie Valow Del moved her children to Rexburg, Idaho in August of 2019 after the death of her husband, Charles Valow, the previous month. Del's 17-year-old daughter, Ty Ryan, was last seen on September 8th of 2019 after visiting Yellowstone with her mother and little brother, JJ. 7-year-old JJ Valow, was last seen on September 23rd. That November, Lorie married Chad Del. The two had met the year prior at a religious conference in Utah. Chad Del's wife, much like Lorie's husband, Charles, died shortly before their marriage in October 2019. Both Charles and Tammy Del's deaths would eventually be ruled homicides. On November 26, law enforcement conducted a welfare check for the children based on family members requests. Initially, Lori lied to officers, but it didn't take long for her story to unravel. Lori and Chad Del flew to Hawaii to avoid the questions and family and law enforcement.

They would remain there while authorities served warrants on properties and Lor's storage unit. Then on February 20th, 2020, Lori was arrested in Hawaii and ex extradited back to Idaho, charged with two felony counts of desertion and non-sup support of dependent children after she failed to produce the children in court at the end of January. 4 months after her arrest, the buried remains of Tyle and JJ are found on Chad Del's property. He was arrested that same day. Lorie Valow Deel went to trial for the murders of her children in May of 2023. The state claimed they believed the children were possessed. In order to be saved, they had to kill them. On May 12th of 2023, a jury handed down a guilty verdict on two charges of first-degree murder, three counts of conspiracy to commit murder, and two counts of grand theft. She was sentenced to three life sentences. The legal system wasn't done with her yet, though. In August of 2025, she was put on trial for conspiracy to commit murder in the deaths of Charles Valow and Brandon Budro. She was again found guilty and sentenced to two more life sentences. During all of this, Valow Debo has insisted she did not kill her children, and she was back in court this week with the defense arguing for a new trial. The defense claims that she was prevented from choosing her own attorney. Her original attorney, Mark Means, also represented her husband, Chad Del before he was removed by the

court as a conflict of interest. The defense also argued that the jurors should not have known about her about her at the time alleged crimes in Arizona. As of this recording, the Idaho Supreme Court has not made a ruling on whether to vacate the verdicts and allow a new trial. All right, a lot to unwind here and so that's why I'm glad that we're talking, Matt. But first, explain to us what is the what is the issue here? Because she's got a constitutional right to a lawyer of her choosing, but then the court removed that lawyer because he used to represent her co-defendant. Do you think they got it right or do you think there's issues here? >> So, what's interesting about the constitutional right to counsel? You have a constitutional right to counsel, but not necessarily you get to pick the exact attorney who represents you. You are appointed somebody who is supposed to be conflictfree counsel who is competent to be able to represent you.

That doesn't mean the defendant gets to choose like, well, uh, since the state is paying for it, I don't want the attorney A, I want attorney B. That's not going to fly. The argument that would actually potentially work in front of the court was at the time did her did the attorney who was removed on the case do enough that his actions would be considered not even acting in the premise and the kind of the confounds of being an attorney. That is what actually worked in kind of an ineffective assistance of counsel is like they had a conflict that was so great that anything they do cannot be seen as anything but tainted. Um, what if she waved conflict? Do do you think that would have cured the issue or do you think the judge still got it right and saying, "No, waivers are not. There's just too much overlap here and too much problem for me to allow you to have the same attorney because like you said, you're you're titled to attorney just not necessarily the one you want."

I definitely think that it creates a situation where the judge I believe the judge did the right thing removing the attorney because if you can't have when you conflicts of interest arise when you have somebody whose interests are so adverse to another witness because if you are representing Lorie Del um defense could be partially around throwing the other codefendant under the bus who you've previously represented. So you have knowledge to use for one client that is detrimental to the other. So I definitely think it is we're in kind of ethic like the ethical bounds of the practice of law and c as it relates to criminal law. So the judge got it right removing uh it's just going to be a question of whether that attorney uh did enough to potentially um warrant an overturn of her conviction. uh not easy stuff uh these issues here and that's why I'm glad that you're helping us walk through all of it. Uh the other issue is um she had at the time um allegations of murder in Arizona in another state involving her prior husband and an attempted murder of another family of member that was brought up in the current trial and they're saying that that was a problem that never should have been brought up. H help us understand when

that is allowed, when that's not allowed, did they get it right here? >> So, what we're talking about is evidence of other prior crimes or bad acts, but it can't be introduced to prove propensity. It's like, well, she was arrested for this, she was charged for that. Um, it's being introduced for that. It can't be introduced for propensity. It has to be able to prove like motive, intent, absence of mistake. All things that are kind of not intent. It can't be introduced for propensity. So, it definitely creates a very narrow issue for the appellet court thinking, is a jury going to be able to see that? Is they're going to be able to see that distinction or they're just going to hear all the facts associated with the other cases and be like, well, she had to have done it here because it's very clear the evidence was established in this case. It's always that uh prior bad acts are always ripe appelllet issues. >> The prosecution uh in part argued that it was all part of the same grand scheme. They they were trying to get rid of their prior spouses, get rid of their kids. They I I you know, partially a religious thing, partially to move on to be with each other unencumbered. Uh, is that an acceptable reason if it's all part of this grand scheme? Not necessarily, as you say, to say, "Hey, they're bad people who do bad things."

It's interesting because we're talking actions that cross uh state lines. We're talking about stuff that occurred, I believe, in Arizona as well as Idaho. So, now we have two separate states. And with two separate laws, how could we to argue it? It's to apply the law fairly in Idaho for actions that occurred in Arizona. It also creates a scenario where it might this might state court might not be the best place for this that it could be with multiple jurisdictions. I believe the federal courts would have jurisdiction to charge Lori Del criminally in federal court since we have a scheme that occurs across state lines. So, another possible appellet issue is like uh you're talking about you're saying it's one part of this one big scheme, but then it creates a situation where uh a double jeopardy. It's like convict. If you're saying it's one scheme, then she's convicted in Idaho and Arizona for the exact same crime.

And then it means your right to double jeopardy could extend to 50 states if applied that way. >> Interesting. Well, uh, like I said, this was argued just earlier this week in front of the Idaho Supreme Court. They have not issued a ruling, uh, which is usually how things are done when you go in front of an appellet court, and we expect to hear from them within the coming weeks, and we will keep our eyes on it and keep you all updated. But in the meantime, let's move to Ducksbury, Massachusetts. 36-year-old Lindseay Clancy was back in court for the second time since her mistrial. In the months after her youngest child's birth, May of 2022, Clancy's anxiety increased. By November, her husband Patrick said everything became worse despite medications and therapy. She was no longer social, appetite was gone, and she was often fearful. Over the next several months, physicians and nurses tried to find the right medication to help Clansancy. Adavan Prozac ambient Clonopin Cerakquil. By nove by December, Clancy told her physician she was experiencing horribly intrusive thoughts and wanted it to all be over. That month, she visited the hospital and physicians office four times regarding those these thoughts. Clancy began 2023 in an inatient program at McClean Hospital.

She was released on January 5th. At the time, she was on two prescriptions, Trazadone and Adavan. 18 days later, she checked in with her phys psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Tus. She reported feeling fine. The next day, January 24th, 2023, Clancy sends her husband to get medication and dinner. While Patrick was out of the house, Clancy used an exercise band to strangle all three of their children, 5-year-old Kora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8mon-old Ken. After killing the children, she cut her own wrist and neck and then jumped out of the window. Clancy received treatment before charge being charged on February 7th of 2023, telling doctors she heard a male voice telling her to kill her children. She wouldn't go to trial until this past summer. On July 26, opening statements began. The state argued that Clancy intentionally planned the murders of her children. They claimed she was rational. The defense argued she suffered from postpartum psychosis. Jury the jury began deliberations on August 27th. However, after raising alerts of a standalone juror on September 4th, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial.

Just this week, Clancy's attorneys were back in court arguing that if the judge should have interviewed the hold out juror, Michael Desarrenville, or the for person more extensively. If he had, the juror could have been removed and the jury may have been able to reach a verdict. One of Clancy's attorneys claims to have evidence that the lone juror also researched on his phone during deliberations. They're asking the court to dismiss the case based on double jeopardy. The two sides will return to court on November 16th. Okay. Again, another case with a lot to unwind. And this is one that took place basically in your backyard. So, uh the question here is essentially the defense is saying the judge jumped the gun. there's more the judge should have done before declaring a mistrial and that by not doing that and here's where I failed to see a kind of a where the problem start to arise by failing to do that dot dot dot double jeopardy should apply and they shouldn't be be able to proceed on a a new trial against her what are your thoughts on this so this is uh very similar to the same argument Karen Reed made a couple of years ago including with the same attorney Marty Weinberg who argued this motion. Double jeopardy occurs >> and also lost, by the way.

>> Yes. And that's kind of what I expect to see happen in this case because double jeopardy applies when you have been acquitted of a crime or a mistrial is declared based on a misconduct of the prosecution precluding a retrial. That's two situations where double jeopardy, the one being you've been acquitted, but also one a situation where a mistrial is caused intentionally by the prosecution or uh in that such that they don't get a second bite of the apple. It's one of the um obviously uh Lindsey Clancy's attorney is trying everything in his power to not do another trial again and go into the map for his client. The problem is that this double jeopardy claim has been argued before. He's saying like, well, the the the juror like was researching and stuff like that, but that's not on the prosecution because the juror misconduct is not grounds for um the prosecution from precluded from retrying the defendant.

And here they're claiming not that the judge didn't do anything, but that the judge didn't do enough when it became um known to him that one juror was a hold out. And it wasn't just that the judge is being told, "Hey, we're hung." They did send out notes saying that. It would be interesting to me, just as a total aside, uh, would they have these same arguments had the judge just declared a mistrial after, say, the second note saying that they're hung? But it was this, I think, third or fourth note where they said, "Listen, one juror is not following the law here." And they begin to identify this one juror. and they start to talk about doubt and that's where they're saying things the wheels came off as far as the judge and what he should have done and the judge brought each juror out. I remember this like it was yesterday cuz I was there you were there as well. Brought out every single juror, questioned every single one of them asking them, "Do you understand the law and can you follow the law?" And all 12 said yes. Now, they're saying the judge should not have accepted that as as enough. That the judge should have done more, should have taken this one particular juror aside and asked further questions. My position is what more could the judge have done without starting to really wade into the the deliberation room itself and start to influence unduly one juror to change

his mind. What do you think? >> I think you hit it spot on. The judge couldn't do anything more. When you're doing individually wiring the jurors, you have to rely on their representations of the court because they are under oath. And by doing so, it's like, oh, he's doing this and uh he's researching. It's like, oh, what are you uh what are you expecting me to do? Like if you they should have tried I think they tried to remove that juror, but that would have been something that would have been probably the right thing. Um but in the same time then it creates a situation where all right just because one juror isn't going along with the rest just replace them with another juror who would just kind of rubber stamp the deliberation because juror deliberations are sacred for a reason. There's a reason why they never have to speak if they don't have to because we want them to be able to make their decisions based on the facts and evidence and not with outside influence.

and the judge is constantly asking trying to like, well, why aren't you getting your verdict? And he's essentially uh inserting himself into deliberations. So, there's a ton of eyeballs. And with it being televised, it's not just the attorneys who are being analyzed, it's also the judge and the judge's colleague. Cuz when you go back to chambers after it's over, your colleagues are like, "Why did you do this? Why didn't you do that? Why did you uh rule on this?" There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking that goes on behind the scenes. And I think the judge did enough that he was did his job to try to um investigate this these allegations but not go so far as to insert himself deliberations which is far worse. >> Yeah. Yeah. I agree with you. I I I think the judge is put in a very difficult position here. And the most that you can ask a judge to do and the most the judge would do is say can you follow the law? If you can't follow the law, I can make you go. And if you or do you understand the law? If you don't understand the law, I can kick that juror off. But if somebody's sitting there saying, "I understand and I'm following it and I'm following your instructions, judge."

Then what grounds does that judge have to remove that person? Unless you want to just really drill down on them and then you get the problems like you just laid out for us. So >> it creates this very interesting scenario. It's like what is the bigger picture? If the judges don't insert himself, he knows what's going to happen. He knows based on what talking to the jurors, based on what representations, he knows the case is going to end in a hung jury and the Commonwealth is going to have to retry with all the money associated with this. The district attorney is now put in a position where they either retry the case or they look like they kind of surrendered to all the people in the social media in the courtroom. So, it just creates this there. It's when you're a judge in these types of situations, your options are bad, meaning you would be influencing uh essentially guaranteeing a mistrial or worse where you've just invaded the province of jury deliberations.

>> No. Yeah. No, it is never a situation a judge wants to find themselves in. So, we'll see how he handles it uh on the 16th. Now, finally, we do we move not too far away, just about an hour north to Boston, Massachusetts. We are continuing to cover the case of former police officer Matthew Farwell, who was on trial for killing 23-year-old Sandra Birmore. Farwell claims he is innocent. Prosecutors in this case are trying to prove he killed Birchmer, who was pregnant at the time, in order to protect himself from Sandra revealing other criminal acts. On February 1st, 2021, Burjmer was found deceased in her apartment. Initially, her death was ruled self-inflicted, but an investigation brought much more of Sandra and Farwell's life to light. Soon after her death, rumors of an affair between Farwell and Sandra began to swirl. Some alleged he groomed her since she was 15 years old and in the police explorers program. With so many inter agency issues, it became a federal investigation. Prosecutors claim Farwell strangled Sandra and then staged her home as a death by suicide. Matthew Farwell has admitted to an affair with Sandra Burgemore, but denies killing her. This week, the defense began presenting their case. Their case so far consisted of forensic experts. One DNA expert on the stand confirmed DNA from both Farwell and Jason Pickard, the father of Birmore's unborn child, were found on Sandra's underwear. Farwell's

DNA was also on the DNA on a duffel bag strap. Birchar was found hanging hanged with. The defense's DNA expert raised doubts as to how it may have ended up there. An anthropologist spoke extensively about Birmore's broken hyoid bone. The prosecution has argued that a broken hyoid is usual unusual in death by suicide. Dr. Angie Christensen explained on the stand that it can happen. All right. This one I think is more difficult than it may appear initially and much of the problem with it is that initially forensically it was declared a death by suicide. So already the prosecution is in the position of having to argue against an initial law enforcement investigation. They're saying that the forensics can point to either conclusion that you could say this is a person who took their own life and or you could look at this and say that this was a person involving a death by foul play, but nothing is so conclusive that you that it certainly gets beyond the point of a reasonable doubt. What are your thoughts on how this is going so far?

So, this is one of those situations where we're looking at a true circumstantial tossup. >> Um, the biggest thing for me, uh, evidence-wise for the prosecution, Farewell's DNA was also on the Duffel bag strap. Birch Moore was found hang from hanged with. So, it lends a question, how did that get there? So you're that's what if you're the prosecution that's what you're hammering home because you're thinking it's like okay um the broken hyro hyroid is unusual for suicide but it's also not impossible. So that kind of you're admitting there's reasonable doubt there. your own the initial assessment was that of a suicide and things your a medical examiner made that and now you're in a position that medical examiner had to change that. So what made that change? They're probably going to argue some kind of public outcry and everything. True crime detectives created this to almost put them in a position to actually change it from suicide to homicide. And you and another thing was at first they believed uh Matthew Farwell was the father of Sandra Burmore's unborn child. So it's pretty clear that it was it would have been a much even stronger motive like she he admitted to having an affair with her.

So you have to look as like what evidence is there of guilt. He's the last one there in the case. He's seen on camera being the last one there. He like you said that his DNA is on the duffel bag track. she was found hanged with. That for me is going to be real tough. Like the pro the defense is doing a great all that they can to actually um secure an acquitt cuz it is you argue if there's a change in manner of death. You start there cuz they're already admitting they were wrong at one point. Now is it a far cry to say they're wrong now? So it becomes what evidence who else could have done this? And I haven't heard about um Jason Pequard outside of his DNA being on her underwear or somebody who had a motive to do that. So, they have they've been kind of arguing suicide, but it's possible during closing arguments that they're going to drop the suicide argument, but then also do what we uh what was called a plan B and point the finger at Jason Bard as well to kind of put it in there for a reasonable doubt as well because he is mentioned in there. he would have somebody who potentially have motive, but the Fed knowing handling federal criminal cases, the feds don't very rarely take cases to trial and lose. So, they have to feel that they in those

circumstantial have enough to convince uh a District of Massachusetts jury. >> Yeah, I'll be honest. Uh the DNA does not bother me that much if if I'm representing him. I mean, let let's be clear. I I think they have a convincing case. Uh, and I think that's because there's a mountain of motive evidence and because, like you pointed out, he's the last one to see her alive and her phone essentially any indication that she was alive essentially ends 3 minutes before he's seen leaving that apartment. So, it it does seem as though he's the, you know, all signs point towards him being the the person who committed this murder, but the DNA doesn't really do it for me because he's been there. He's been in her apartment who knows how many different times. His DNA is probably all over that apartment if they were to test different objects and different surfaces inside of that apartment. And we've got him on video. So, it's like the idea that he's there is not a big who done it sort of a situation.

Like, we know he was there. We know he had a relationship with her. I think it more comes down to um the idea, like I said, that he's got a great motivation. His his life was he saw it spiraling out of control. Uh all because of her in his view, and that he's the last person to see her alive. Now, the problem though, you said it's a who else could have done it? Well, the defense says, uh, that's not really the question. The question is, what is it? It's not even a who could have done it. It's a what is it at all? Because they're saying yes, he was the last one to see her alive, but she's the one to have taken her own life. And though that 3inut period really kind of closes the uh the timeline for them, there's a a a substantial amount of evidence that she was a young woman who was very troubled and that she had more than once, more than I think most people talked about taking her own life and talked about, you know, she she wrote out a list of reasons to take her own life or not take her own life. I don't imagine there's a lot of people who've got lists like that in their journals.

Uh but you know, a question I think for a jury where how do you think this all ends up? >> I think I think I think he's ultimately convicted. >> Yeah. >> I I think that um what the what's what's let's let's perview what closing arguments are going to look like. If you're the prosecution, he's the last one there. He has every motive. his DNA is on the actual strap that is used when she hangs herself to do it. There's nobody else who had a stronger motive and everything that you know about him and thinking about it was and if you're the prosecution, you say he did it so methodically as a law enforcement officer that we actually ourselves thought it was suicide until we looked even deeper into it. That goes directly to the malice and the cold calculated nature of it. If you're the defense, you're saying it's like they can't.

They're just throwing anything at the wall and seeing what sticks. It's suicide. It's homicide. It's Matthew Farwell. It could be Jason Pequard. You're talking about, oh, this broken high is not uh it's inconsistent with suicide by death, but Dr. Angie Christensen tells you it's still possible. They're not eliminating reasonable doubt. they're creating it. >> So when you're looking at I it's definitely it's not going to be something that's going to be resolved in a couple hours. It feels like a case that's going to be 2 to 3 days in deliberation if I were to guess. >> Could be could be very difficult case. Uh I I know a lot of people watch this and they kind of think to themselves case closed. But I think there's a lot more I agree with you for jurors to sit there and contemplate and think about and we will continue to keep our eyes on it. But that is our show for this week. As always, we'd like to thank you our listeners and viewers for tuning in. Uh Matt, tell uh all of us where can people find out more about you?

>> All you can find me on all social medias tempaniclaw or at my website www.tempaniclaw.com. >> Thank you so much. And I'm your host Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at Joshua Ritter Eesq. And if you have uh want to hear my thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases, please check out my YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you can, of course, find all of our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we would love to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, please tweet us your questions with the hashtag TCN sidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime News Sidebar.