- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Ogden Today
By the People, for the People
Death Penalty Case Against Utah Man Stretches on for Over 40 Years
Dispute between defense lawyers prompts closed hearing in long-running case against Douglas Lovell for 1985 murder of Joyce Yost
Mar. 13, 2026 at 12:03am
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
A Utah judge has taken the unusual step of barring the public and the news media from a hearing scheduled in the death penalty case against Douglas A. Lovell, who has already been sentenced to death twice for the 1985 murder of Joyce Yost. The move follows a dispute between Lovell's new and former defense lawyers over obtaining records, leading to a series of sealed motions and a request for a private hearing.
Why it matters
The Joyce Yost case has stretched on for over four decades at taxpayer expense, and the public has a strong interest in how justice is administered in their community. While attorney-client privilege is an important right, the public's right to access court proceedings should be balanced against the need for privacy in certain sensitive discussions.
The details
Lovell was appointed new lawyers after the Utah Supreme Court overturned his death sentence for a second time. His new lead attorney, Julie George, told the judge she and her co-counsel were having trouble obtaining records from Lovell's prior lawyer, Colleen Coebergh. This dispute led to a series of sealed motions and a request for a private, ex parte hearing on March 13th. The judge cited attorney-client privilege and Lovell's right to a fair proceeding in barring public and media access to the hearing.
- Lovell was first convicted of rape in 1985.
- Lovell was later charged with capital murder in 1992 and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for prosecutors not seeking the death penalty.
- In 2010, the Utah Supreme Court ruled the judge made a technical error when sentencing Lovell to death, clearing the path for him to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Lovell's case went to trial again in 2015, and the jury voted unanimously to sentence him to death.
- In August 2024, the Utah Supreme Court ruled Lovell's trial lawyers were deficient for not objecting to certain testimony, leading to a new sentencing hearing scheduled for August 2026.
The players
Douglas A. Lovell
A 68-year-old man who has already been sentenced to death twice for the 1985 murder of Joyce Yost.
Joyce Yost
A 39-year-old South Ogden resident who was murdered by Lovell in 1985 to prevent her from testifying against him in a rape trial.
Julie George
Lovell's new lead defense attorney who is having trouble obtaining records from his prior lawyer.
Colleen Coebergh
Lovell's former appellate attorney whose letter to Lovell is at the center of the dispute between the defense lawyers.
Judge Michael DiReda
The Utah 2nd District Court judge presiding over Lovell's case who has barred public and media access to an upcoming hearing.
What they’re saying
“When a person is convicted in a death penalty case, public interest is inherently high. This case has stretched on for more than four decades at taxpayer expense.”
— Sheryl Worsley, Vice President of KSL NewsRadio and KSL Podcasts
What’s next
The judge will decide whether to allow Lovell's current lead attorney, Julie George, to withdraw from the case. If approved, it could cause a years-long setback to the already decades-long case.
The takeaway
This case highlights the complex legal challenges and lengthy appeals process in death penalty cases, as well as the need to balance the public's right to access court proceedings with the protection of sensitive attorney-client communications.

