Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Lori Vallow Loses It Ahead of Murder Trial

Episode Date: April 5, 2025

Lori Vallow tested the patience of Judge Justin Beresky at a hearing where several motions were argued during jury selection in her Arizona murder trial. Vallow accused the prosecutor of misconduct and asked that the case be dismissed. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through some of the biggest moments of the hearing in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Get 50% off of confidential background reports at https://www.truthfinder.com/lccrimefix and access information about almost anyone!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5CRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. I feel like the state is trying to say, okay, if you want your speedy trial, guess what? We're not going to let you defend yourself. Guess what? You can't have any experts. And guess what else? You can't have any witnesses. You can't have anybody speak in your behalf. So good luck. Have a nice day. That's Lori Vallow losing her cool before her trial starts for the conspiracy to murder Charles Vallow. I take a look at how the convicted murderer plans to represent herself in her latest trial and how it's going so far. Really, it violates my speedy trial rights if they do not

give me a speedy trial by May 11th. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Ann Janette Levy. Lori Vallow's trial in Arizona is getting underway this week, and she's chosen to represent herself. It kind of reminds me of that old saying about a person who represents themselves has a fool for a client. But Lori has decided that she is her best advocate as she defends herself against charges that she conspired with her late brother, Alex Cox, to murder her estranged husband, Charles Vallow, in July of 2019. Alex Cox claimed that he shot Charles in self-defense. Alex said Charles came at him with a bat.

Alex died months later of natural causes. Prosecutors in Maricopa County believe Lori wanted Charles dead so she could collect a $1 million life insurance policy and marry Chad Daybell. Now, Lori is currently serving three life sentences for the murders of her children, J.J. Vallow, Tylee Ryan, and Tammy Daybell in Idaho. Her current husband, Chad Daybell, was sentenced to death for the crimes. After this trial, she'll also be tried for the attempted murder of her niece's ex, Brandon Boudreau, and then she'll go back to Idaho to serve those life sentences in prison. She arrived in Arizona in late 2023 to face charges for the cases in that state. Now, last week, we got a taste of what it's going to be like to watch Lori defend herself at trial as she argued several motions, including one where she questioned why the state wanted a Chandler police detective to testify about bullet trajectory.

So, Ms. Daybell, what's the objection? So for five years, of course, he's been on the witness list to be a regular detective, and now he's being put on as an expert. I feel like to give his opinion instead of just stating the facts. So that was my main concern. He, I don't understand how the trajectory has anything to do with conspiracy. So I object in that way as well. All right. Has he testified in that regard in the past? Yes, I believe so, Your Honor. He has been trained in that area and taught in that area, and his relevance, Your Honor, would be because the defense has claimed a, what his opinion is and does he have a CV? He does not have a CV. We did actually put the opinion in the supplemental 15.1 that I filed along with his, I believe believe background and training in that as well

so I guess let me flush this out a little bit more. Let me ask the defendant. Are you You've said a couple different things are you saying he's not qualified as an expert or just that The disclosure came in late and you don't think his opinion is relevant Well one I don't think his opinion is relevant, but also the fact that he's named as a firearms expert. So I don't know if he took a weekend class and that made him a firearms expert. I don't know what his experience was with that. In his CV, it just says firearms expert. Did you ask him those questions?

Was it you that interviewed him or your investigator? My investigator interviewed him. Do you know if he asked questions regarding his background, training or expertise? I'm not sure. Okay. So I haven't listened to that yet, so I'm not quite sure. My concern was that he was a regular detective on the witness list for five years and then 30 days before trial he's now an expert so that he can give his opinion. And I just thought that was my objection. So this is just one instance where Lori Vallow

has shown representing yourself can be a challenge, especially when you're in jail. She did not interview this witness. Her investigator did, and she hasn't listened to the recording yet. The judge tabled the motion. Next, V investigator did, and she hasn't listened to the recording yet. The judge tabled the motion. Next, Vallow argued a motion she filed to exclude state's witnesses, Christina Atwood, Kay Woodcock. She is Charles Vallow's sister, of course, and a woman named Nancy Jo Hancock. Lori argued Atwood and Woodcock had nothing but hearsay and speculation to offer. Atwood was her former friend. Lori Vallow has had several last names, Cox, Ryan, Vallow, and of course now Daybell. I searched her in truthfinder.com to see what would come up. Sure enough, she comes up as Lori Ryan and Lori Vallow.

The name Daybell does not appear at all, but the murder case out of Arizona does show up. Truthfinder is really great because it will show you a person's past and current addresses, phone numbers, social media accounts, and of course, criminal and traffic records. If you want to try it out, you can get 50% off of confidential background reports. Just log on to www.truthfinder.com slash lccrimefix, log on and start accessing information about almost anyone. Do you want to have further argument? Just the fact that this information that is supposed to be coming forward is not.

All these witnesses are getting together and talking about all this and comparing all their notes and all these things beforehand, and then they're telling us that in these interviews. Well, I talk to her a hundred times. Well, I talk to her every day. Well, she told me this. Well, she told me that. So their information is not firsthand. These witnesses are all coming together. They're all watching

everything that goes on on TV regarding this, and I would like them all precluded. Okay. Well, you're always allowed to cross-examine a witness about any biases they may have about those things that you've just talked about, colluding with other witnesses. Those are all areas of ripe for cross-examination, but they're not bases to preclude a witness. Judge Bereski denied Lori Vallow's request to bar the testimony of those three women. Next, there was argument over which witnesses of Lori's would be allowed to testify at trial because the state hasn't been able to interview some of them. The state is claiming trial by ambush from the defense. Trial by ambush. How is the defense trial by ambush when they have interviewed every single one of these witnesses before in the last five years since this case started? They've interviewed

every single person that has been on there. They have written transcripted interviews and video interviews of all of these people. And so how they are relevant, these witnesses will testify if and when they are needed to add additional facts or fill in the blanks that the state will no doubt leave out in their case in chief. And they'll be called accordingly. I need them to lay perhaps foundations for evidence presented by the state. The same with Lonnie Dworkin. I need him. His testimony will be required if and when it's necessary to rebut digital information that the state will bring forward during trial. I feel like the state is trying to say, okay, if you want your speedy trial, guess what? We're not going to let you defend yourself. Guess what? You can't have any

experts. And guess what else? You can't have any witnesses. You can't have anybody speak in your behalf. So good luck. Have a nice day. All right. Well, that's why attorneys sometimes take a long time to prepare for a trial because they need to give notice of what all the testimony their witnesses are going to give. They need their experts to prepare reports. That's why your prior attorneys and your current attorneys were asking for more time to prepare the case. So you can't really have it both ways that you want your speedy trial rights, but you don't want to give notice to the other side of what your evidence is. I don't not want to give notice to the other side. With the limitations at the incarcerated

state where I am and the limitations with OPDS of getting Lonnie Dworkin late in the game that they did, I've done everything in my power as a defendant to prepare and prepare the state and to give over everything that I could do within my power with the limitations that I am an incarcerated person at this maximum security prison jail.

So when you say... And I shouldn't be able to represent myself that I am an incarcerated person at this maximum security prison jail. So when you say... And I shouldn't be able to represent myself because of that fact? That negates my constitutional right? I didn't say that. All right. I said that sometimes there are reasons to not go forward to trial as fast as you want. Judge Breski has been pretty patient with Lori Vallow up to this point, but you can tell his patience is starting to wear thin.

He asked Lori to explain why some of her witnesses had any relevant testimony to offer. When you say things like they're going to fill in the blanks, that makes it really hard to assess what their relevant information is. They have relevant information to a lot of factors that I got in the 404B information. For example, the life insurance. I have, my father is a life insurance salesman.

He worked with Charles on getting both life insurance policies, my $2 million policy and Charles' $1 million policy. He also tried to sell my insurance policy after Charles passed away. He also told me to go to call the insurance policy and said how to do that, how to call them when you're the beneficiary. I didn't know how to do any of those things. He has relevant information to that. My sister has relevant information to my brother Alex Cox Cox, and the whole situation of what happened on July 11th. These people have relevant information to the state's case. What they're accusing me of, there's very relevant information from a lot of these witnesses.

So what I'm struggling with is you just saying that it's relevant doesn't actually make it relevant. It may be relevant. I'm trying to find out the relevancy. What you said about your father being an insurance salesman and selling policies, that sounds relevant. It could be relevant to me. Who's your father? I don't know who your father is. Barry Cox.

All right. Barry Cox. It sounds like even from what you're saying, though, you're not, depending on what the state produces at trial, you're not sure that these witnesses would have relevant information. It just depends is what it sounds like. Whatever they put up in their case in chief, am I not allowed to try to defend myself against that? You're absolutely allowed. I'm just trying to figure out. I'm sort of a gatekeeper, and I need to make sure witnesses have relevant information.

And just like you have the right to interview all of the state's witnesses excluding victims' rights, people that can deny having an interview, they have the right to interview all your witnesses prior to trial so they can have an idea of what those witnesses might say on the witness stand. I understand that, Your Honor. So. They also have already interviewed all of them. I'm not talking about police interviews or interviews that may have been done years ago.

The prosecutor has the right to interview any witness prior to them taking the stand, just as you do. Judge Boreski said he wanted to punt on some of these witnesses because they won't testify if they're not subpoenaed and they don't show up. So he said he would handle them one by one. This was Lori's response. Your Honor, I understand that. And I am limited in what I can do. If I could call these people myself, they would answer my call probably. And I could have this discussion with them. But I'm going through the limitations that I have at the jail through my paralegal who's working overtime and my investigator who's working overtime to try to do everything to help me

prepare for trial, as they have other clients as well that they have to do things in a timely manner for. So we are doing the best that we can. Okay. Now, Lori Vallow has put herself in this position. She's in jail, choosing to represent herself, and she's playing the victim. She has counsel advising her who could represent her, but this is the path that she has chosen. Next, Lori Vallow tried to get the prosecutor kicked off the case, accusing her of distributing her communications with her lawyer in Idaho. The prosecutor turned those over to Lori in discovery. Okay, so then he received a letter from MCSO that said, your phone number is now confidential and arranged for privileged, confidential client privilege communications. So from my person, no, it says this phone number is connected to that.

So from my perspective, when I call someone on the tablet or when I text someone on the tablet, it goes to their phone number. So all the communications after the date of the exhibit that we put in our motion, when he got that letter from MCSO that now all of your things will be confidential. Now they will be confidential. So my understanding, and I'm the only one that can waive that privilege, right? And I think after that, when his line was approved, there were no other disclosures of messages between you and him. Correct? No, there are. Now, after a lot of back and forth, the judge determined that Lori's attorney sent messages using another IP address that wasn't registered with the jail system. That would have filtered them out as confidential communications. Well, you reminded me that when his number was approved, he then sent messages from different IP addresses instead of that phone number that was privileged. So he disclosed, he's the one

that disclosed or violated the confidential nature. I don't see that any of these, I'm going to call them inadvertently intercepted messages between you and your appeal attorney. I don't see that they're being used in any way by the state. Just the state reading them as a violation of the client attorney privilege. Well, not if they're not done through a privileged setup the way that they were supposed to, which he even acknowledged. My understanding from my perspective was that that phone number was now privileged. The way it comes to me on the tablet is I text that phone number or I text, I call that phone number. Correct. If you're

communicating through the phone number, but if he has it set up where the messages aren't being sent and received actually through the phone number, but through different IP addresses, the system doesn't know that they're privileged because they're not being sent and received through that privileged number. I think if you apply the case law in this, the defendant cannot meet her burden to show that there's any legal advice in these messages. There's no privilege in them. The messages are asking to set up times to call and to speak um are the three i think it's three messages that you included in your response are those all the messages no your honor there are other messages and we do say

that tablet messages between miss daybell and mr jerem do not end on December 28th. They continue. And there is privilege information on them going forward. And the state is basically testifying for my attorney now. She just testified for my attorney that he understood that they were, that these were not privileged communications. Where does she understand that he, where is she testifying for my attorney? Well, I think because of the context of the messages say, I'm trying to schedule a time and I'm trying to set up a confidential line, meaning that was before confidential. That's right. That was, he said it wasn't confidential before MCSO gave him a letter saying your phone number is now confidential. Your phone number now has...

Okay. I'm not going to keep rehashing this with you. The fact that he's using different IP addresses and not messaging through the actual phone number that's protected, I think, is part of the problem. So if he's not using the program correctly, that's an issue you need to take up with your attorney. How is he using it incorrectly? I just told you. He's not messaging through the phone number. He's using different IP. How can you message other than the phone number? I don't understand that.

I don't understand that either. But if it was from the phone number and for his cell phone, for example, it would be the same IP address for each communication. There's like four or five IP addresses. Now, Lori Vallow lost that motion claiming prosecutorial misconduct. Next, Lori wanted Nate Eaton from East Idaho News to be a witness for her at trial. She claimed the prosecutor committed misconduct by giving him legal advice. The next one is legal advice to the defense witness Nate Eaton. We've somewhat

discussed that, but I think their motion, the state says that they simply notified him that he would need to be served with a subpoena to have to appear in court. So how is that improper? It's taking her word for that that's what happened. She's not under oath saying that that's what happened. Nate Eaton's not here to testify that that's what happened. They're the only two parties that are there to say that that's what happened. Nate Eaton's not here to testify that that's what happened. They're the only two parties that are there to say that that is what happened. So that is my problem with it. I would like for one of them to get on the stand and say exactly what

happened in that conversation and that she wasn't giving him legal advice. How do we know that she wasn't? It's a very curious situation that he called her, and then he writes in his motion this statement that obviously comes from Ms. K. She seems to be a clear attempt by Ms. Daybell to use the rules of criminal procedure as a pretext simply to keep me out of the courtroom and interfere with my ability to report. We also don't know if he told her, don't come to the March 18th hearing because that's when they're going to serve you with your subpoena. So all these things come from there and we don't know who's saying it. And you're just taking her word for it. Like

you took her word for, oh, there's only six emails and there's no other emails. You're just taking her word for it as an officer of the court. And I think that she should have to be sworn in. Well, you want me to just take your word for, he must have gotten these things from Ms. K, okay? Just because his motion says he thinks that you're noticing him as a witness to keep him out of the courtroom? I don't know why you'd take the jump to that is coming from Ms. K as opposed to his own volition. He also hired an attorney that said the same thing. Even if she had said you need to be served with a subpoena to have to show up in court, that is not an ethical violation. Again, Lori lost that motion and Nate Eaton is no longer on the witness list.

And finally, Lori had some questions about the judge's order that she wear a rack belt. That's a belt that allows deputies to shock her using a remote control if she does anything out of line. So what their recommendation was, was the minimal amount of restraints, meaning if there was going to be an armed guard, then they would not have to do the belt. So I was confused by and wanted a clarification on what you were actually ordering because the DO has had a question about it with me this morning. I ordered that you don't have to wear the leg restraint, but that you do have to wear the rack belt because that is not going to be visible to the jury. The leg restraint's a little more cumbersome and visible, and since you're representing yourself and you're going to need

to approach the podium and those sorts of things, I ordered the removal of the leg restraint. You will, though, wear the rack belt. And then I said it's up to the sheriff's office if they want to. They can position a couple deputies in the back if they want additional deputies. Well, their recommendation was that you wouldn't have to use the belt at all if they had the armed guard. I read their response and their recommendation, and that's my order. So what is it exactly? That you have to wear the rack belt, but not the leg restraint. And that they will or will not have armed guards? It's up to them.

Okay. And we are going to have this trial covered for you, gavel to gavel here on Law and Crime, so stay with us every day. I'm Anjanette Levy, and that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. We'll see you back here next time.