Hidden True Crime - JUDGE RESPONDS to Lori Vallow Daybell's Retrial Motion

Episode Date: May 24, 2025

Lori Vallow Daybell asked for a do-over—Judge Beresky said no! Judge Beresky's ruling is swift, sharp, and final. In this episode, we dive into the courtroom drama, the rejected claims, and what’s next for the convicted killer as her legal walls close in. No retrial. No relief. Just consequences. About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at ⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Happy weekend, everyone, except for actually Lori Daybell, who's likely not having a happy weekend, as her motion for a new trial has officially been denied. Friday at 8 a.m., Judge Boreski filed his motion denial responding to each individual issue Lori raised, and I'm going to take you through it all. And whether or the wise for Lori next time, maybe don't attack the judge in motions when they're the ones who are making these decisions. But anyway, the order starts off by talking about juror misconduct. Most of you know that Carl and this statement he made to a local news station directly after the verdict. Yeah, do you remember your reaction learning that she has been a good day killing her to children?

You know, I feel sorry for her, you know? I mean, driving home yesterday, I'm just like, God, she's spending the rest of the next three lives in prison in a cell, you know? I mean, you got to feel sorry for it. Even though, I mean, she's, that's often a thing to do. I mean, there's something wrong up here, but, um, what do you think? Still, you know, you just feel awful about it. He also did an interview with hidden true crime, with us, with me, where he maintained that he knew nothing about Lori prior to her conviction.

Take a listen. But to clarify, you don't know how you knew that there might have been another sentencing. Everything's a blur. I do understand that. Sometimes I forget what day, you know, it is when I'm attending trial, reporting out of trial. you did not know about any of the other murders until after the verdict. Yeah, I had no idea of anything else that she had been through prior to this trial. And even during the trial, I didn't know that.

Well, prosecutor Trina K cited hidden two crimes interview in her response. And now the court has come back responding to Lori's claims of juror misconduct stating, quote, the defendant alleges there was juror misconduct based on a statement, and juror 15 made two reporters following the verdict where he stated, you know, I feel sorry for her driving home yesterday. I was like, God, she's spending the next three lives in prison in a cell. Well, on a face, this quote from juror 15, the statement would seem to indicate the juror violated the admonition

and research the defendant, acquiring knowledge about her sentence imposed in another matter prior to the lifting of the admonition. However, the state's response included multiple additional media clips of statements juror 15 made both immediately prior to after the statement referenced here in above in every one of which he specifically denies any knowledge of the defendant's other case sentence prior to the court releasing the jurors from the admonition. In other words, at best, the judge continues. Juror 15 gave a single statement which seems to be in conflict with all of his other statements when he specifically denied any misconduct. One, on the limited record of the pleadings before the court,

there being no affidavits or sworn testimony, evidencing any misconduct as contemplated by Rule 24, 1D2, the court does not find a clear indication of juror misconduct, let alone any evidence of prejudice to the defendant. Juror misconduct, the judge continues, requires a new trial only if the defendant shows actual prejudice, or if it can fairly be presumed from the facts. State v. Lair, end quote.

Now, before we continue to the next point the judge makes, there is a really important footnote here as well that I'm going to read about his decision that this is not jury misconduct. And this is what it states in the footnote. Even if there were misconduct, the defendant's own motion undercuts her argument that prejudice exists because she points out the juror 15 stated that he was leaning toward not guilty throughout. deliberations, a distinct indication that if juror 15 did have any extra information at this time, it did not affect his consideration of the evidence. Neither the state nor the defense chose to have an affidavit prepared by juror 15 or any other juror. So the court is left with media clips provided in the pleadings. Well, those media clips provided in the pleadings were from hidden true crime.

I'm glad to say that we help the judge in making the decision that there was no juror misconduct. Well, the second issue Lori raised in her motion for a retrial was the preclusion of Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox's statements and impermissible testimony by Detective Daniel Coons, who is and was an expert witness that testified about ballistics the day of the shooting of Charles Vallow. And in Lori's motion for a retrial, Lori argued, quote, prior to trial, the court precluded this defendant from presenting to the jury any of Tiley Ryan or Alex Cox's statements. Both of these people were present during the shooting of Charles Vallow and thus some of their statements were not hearsay as they show effect on listener pursuant to Arizona rules of evidence. 8033. The state filed a motion in liminey throwing a blanket hearsay objection over the entire statements. court indicated in a pretrial ruling that it would, at least to Alex Cox's statement, take it on a statement by statement basis. Well, during this trial, this defendant, Lori, was

precluded from even discussing that Alex conducted a walkthrough, much less his statements with Chandler police detectives during that walkthrough, end quote. Well, this has been a longstanding issue where Lori wanted to use timely statements. And this was even argued in a pretrial hearing, and Trina K was basically like, you cannot use the statements of someone you are convicted of murdering to your benefit. We can take a listen to that argument here. But I guess is the state intending on introducing any statements of Tiley?

No, Your Honor. Kylie made no statements at the scene other than giving her general biographical information on body cam. Her entire statements were made at the police station again after 10 in the morning. All right. So on your response as it relates to Tiley, you say, again, present sense impression. I don't think it's a present sense impression. You also argue excited utterance. What else?

8033, which is mental, emotional, and physical condition with the same thing, her state of mind, then being scared. And also, 8043 statement against interest. They use that statement in the indictment where Tiley says that Charles says, if you hit me with that bat, you're going to jail. That's the part where she's nervous in her interview saying she's scared to tell the police that she's the one that brought in the bat. So state of mind and the statement against interest both apply to Tiley's police interview. All right. Anything else? Does the state want to be heard further on that?

Your Honor, the only further thing I think that the state will bring in is that obviously the defendant has been found guilty of killing both Tiley. Other individuals, but in this case, the defendant cannot from killing a witness and then later try to bring in their statements for their benefit. So in addition to none of her statements being admissible under the rules of evidence, as any of the exceptions that the defendant has done, we also believe that it would be improper for her to be allowed to bring it in under that theory. As for Boreski's response to this argument, well, he cited that hearing stating, quote, the court issued a preliminary pretrial ruling on March 11, 2025, regarding the inadmissibility of statements made by Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox.

The court's ruling stated that out of court statements made by Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox appeared to be hearsay, and the defendant failed to establish that any specific statement was either non-hearsay or fell within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay. The court went on to give the defendant the opportunity to offer specific statements at trial by stating that the defendant, Lurie, could re-urge this issue outside the presence of the jury. And not only the defendant never take the court up on its offer during trial, the defendant's motion for a new trial and reply only argue in generalities failing to set forth any specific statement that should have been admitted into evidence under either a non-hearsay

exemption or an exception to the hearsay rule. As to Detective Kuhn's testimony, this expert witness, the defendant argues the detective did not have foundation to testify as an expert. Well, sufficient foundation was laid for the detective to give his opinion, and the defendant has offered no information as to what additional foundation should have been required. To the extent the defendant believed the witness was not qualified or his opinion should not be given weight by the jury, she had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness about his qualifications or lack thereof, as well as the basis. for his opinion. The defendant also argues she did not have time to rebut Detective Coons' testimony,

but the record is clear, the judge says, that the defendant was offered more time to prepare for trial and what did she do? She declined. And moreover, the argument that the basis of Detective Coons' testimony was the walkthrough of Alex Cox is not supported by the record. The defendant's reply for the first time raises the additional argument that Tiley Bryan's statements also form the basis for Detective Coons' testimony. And again, there is no evidence of this. And the defendant offers no specific statement by Tiley Ryan or Alex Cox to support her assertion. Even if what Alex Cox and or Tiley Ryan told Detective Coons somehow contributed to his opinion, the defendant never asked the detective those questions, as in this question. Now, the judge is given a specific question.

The defendant, Lori, could have maybe even just asked this question, he said. For example, did anything Alex Cox show you or tell you contribute to your opinion? And this type of question the judge lays out would have been permissible. However, the defendant did not ask it, nor was she ever precluded from asking it. She could have asked it. And the court finds the statements of Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox were properly excluded. And the defendant has failed to raise a single specific statement that should have been permissibly allowed under the rules of evidence. nor does, has the defendant established Detective Coons' testimony was improper.

End quote, from the court. First off, yes, this has brought up so many times the patience of this judge is, in my opinion, saintly. And he couldn't have described it more methodically, once again, right here. Lori wanted to use statements of Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox. They are both deceased. she is convicted of murdering Tiley Ryan, her daughter. So whether or not Tiley was a witness in the shooting of Charles Vallow, you can't use someone

you are convicted of murdering their statements as a way to benefit you in this murder trial. That was laid out in a pre-trial hearing. And Lori has tried again and again to try to bring up Tiley and is always denied. But the judge has also said, look, if there is a statement by Tiley, you can argue and reposition and ask this. If you have concerns about Detective Coons not being an expert in ballistics or you are concerned about Detective Coons being influenced by things that Alex Cox said in his interview and Alex Cox is deceased, then ask him that on the stand, that is your moment when you are cross-examining him to question, whether or not he should even be an expert. And yet the judge says, you didn't do any of this, Lori. But you have the opportunity. You had the opportunity again and again. And you didn't do these things. You didn't cross-examine him and say, as he points out, hey, did anything Alex Cox show you

or tell you contribute to your opinion? This was an example of a question that Lori could have asked. And the judge said, you simply didn't ask those questions. Another thing, Lori will never seem to understand his evidence. The judge repeats over and over again. Again, you are claiming that Detective Coons was influenced by Alex Cox, but there's no evidence of that. You are saying that this is about the walkthrough of the house and he was influenced by the walkthrough. There's no evidence of that. Lori just wants people to believe that what she says is true and what she says, I think she believes is true. But she never gives evidence.

Lori's third argument for a retrial was for a discovery violation where she was claiming the gray key data, that's from the phone, was considered exculpatory evidence because she got it during trial. So full stop, that is the extraction of Charles Vallow's cell phone. She believed that if she was able to get this evidence, it was exculpatory, meaning it was such damning evidence that it would show that she is completely innocent, that she would be exonerated from this. That's how good this evidence was that she claimed that she was going to be able to pull from her late husband's phone, Charles Vallow's phone, the man she is now convicted of murder.

ordering. That if she could get that during trial. So the judge's response, short and strong. I'll say here, quote, although defendant's motion alleges the contents of the hard drive are exculpatory, she never articulates any single item whatsoever that would constitute exculpatory evidence. Thank you. Exactly. This whole evidence thing. Lori never understands evidence. Okay. The judge continues. Quote, again, merely stating that something, is exculpatory does not make it so. The defendant's request for additional discovery related to Charles Valas phone was accommodated.

The state had previously disclosed all evidence it had in its possession at that time. The defendant requested access to the actual phone to run a new examination with software that had been updated since the phone was examined several years ago. The defense has offered no evidence that any additional information was obtained from the phone, let alone it being exculpatory.

The court finds no discovery, violation, end quote. So in other words, Lori just wants us to believe that evidence that might possibly show up in this phone is exculpatory, that it will exonerate her. And the judge has asked, what is that? She never says. Never, ever says why. What is this evidence? Additionally, the judge points out that, hey, the state gave you the entire phone extraction. You have it all, even though they didn't use it all for trial.

The state gave you everything they had. Now, Lori made a point that she deserves her own, to be able to do her own extraction of Charles's cell phone. That is true. And there is updated, there is updated technology that maybe could give her a more detailed extraction six years later. Maybe so, maybe so. But maybe not, too.

We don't even know. And she hasn't even said what that evidence is. Does it really exist? Will it really be pulled in a new extraction? None of this we know. She'll never say what it is, just that it will absolutely exonerate her. And then the judge gives her ample time. The judge gave her through the middle of trial to be able to pull this evidence. They gave her Charles's phone. They said, yes, you deserve to do your own extraction. Yes, you have this expert witness, Lonnie Dworkin. Go for it. And she can never pull it off. And in the end, just because you say that information was that is obtained,

from this phone could be exculpatory doesn't mean that is true. You've got to show us Lori. So moving on to her fourth argument, which was prosecutorial misconduct, Lori claimed many prosecutorial errors in her motion. Specifically, her initial motion states, quote, on April 8th, 2025, the state elicited irrelevant, prejudicial, and improper character evidence when she asked Chandler, fire Captain Keller, if he overheard any conversations with this defendant. Ms. Trina Kay, the prosecutor, asked Captain Keller on direct examination, did you overhear this defendant talking with police? He responded in the affirmative stating he overheard someone stating not getting invited to a pool party because of the commotion at the house or something like that.

The statement caught this defendant off guard, as Captain Keller indicated during his interviews with Chandler Police just after this incident occurred, that he only saw the mail outside on the curb and did not mention even seeing this defendant. Well, during closing arguments while addressing the justification defenses, Ms. Trina K. told the jury that this defendant was not entitled to any of these self-defense instructions. Ms. Trina K also gave false statements by seeing that Alex had no reason to be at this defendant's home and that this defendant told Alex to bring a gun. Ms. Trina K knew from previous testimony interviews and pretrial defense interviews that summer, that summer shiflet, had begged Alex to go over to this defendant's home because

of Summer's concerns for her sister, this defendant's safety, Lori. Finally, Ms. Trina Kay commented several times on this defendant's demeanor during this incident, drive to police station, and on the body camera, and told the jury, you did not see her cry in that interview. That is what she said during closing statements. You did not see her cry in that interview. Yet, knowing there were portions of this defendant's interview that had been cut from the full interview, admitted by the state where she sat in the room and did show emotion and can be seen grabbing a Kleenex,

end quote. She really wanted that Kleenex moment in there, didn't she? Not that she's saying there were tears, but did you see Lori grab that Kleenex? That means she was showing emotion. Kleenex emotion. Same same same. Well, the judge said there is no prosecutorial misconduct at all and wrote, quote, the court finds nothing in the defendant's allegations come close to establishing prosecutorial misconduct. The state is allowed to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. The defense does not have to agree with those inferences and is permitted to argue the evidence should be interpreted differently.

The defendant argues in her reply for the first time that both the state and the court violated the defendant's rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And although new arguments are not to be considered when first raised in the reply, which is true. This was a brand new religious freedom argument she made in her reply. The court, though, will nonetheless address this. The RFRA protects religious freedom and prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion. There is no conduct, but either the state or court that somehow infringed on the defendant's freedom to practice her religion, nor is there anything about the trial that impacts the defendant's freedom to believe whatever it is she

chooses to believe. Moreover, the RFRA does not protect someone from committing criminal acts in the name of religion, nor does the RFRA prevent any person from disagreeing with another's belief system. Here, different witnesses may have had different interpretations regarding who Nephi was or the significance of his story. The defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses regarding the same, none of this infringes on the defendant's religious freedom. For these reasons, the court finds no prosecutorial misconduct. Boom. And that is what I said when we dropped our last episode on this. I'm sorry, Lori, but you, your religious freedom does not mean you have the freedom to murder someone. You do you if you want to believe that you were married to chat in a

past life and if exorcisms are your jam. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you can commit a crime in the name of religion. So the judge laid it out quite nicely. And finally, her last reason was for the court's lack of impartiality. Lori was clearly mad, very mad about her motions being denied and thought the judge was unfair when he said his famous line, which was, quote, I guess to the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures, I will allow it, end quote. And remember last week, Lori even asked the judge to recuse himself based on bias. Well, while the judge acknowledged that that comment should not have been made, although almost all of us thought it was great, including me, the judge did admit, you know what? I probably shouldn't have said that. But Judge Boreski does not think it raises to the level of a new trial.

stating, quote, the defendant alleges the court was not impartial because the court struck two of the defendant's witnesses from the defendant's witness list. Three, contrary to the defendant's assertion that no rule or law or evidence requires her to establish a witness has relevant information. Arizona rules of evidence 601 and 602 require just that. Prior to trial, the defendant was given an opportunity to make a general offer of proof as to what relevant information the witnesses would provide, which the defendant was unable to provide. And I was there. Judge Breske, why are they relevant, Lori? Why are they relevant? Why are they relevant? Lori could not provide an answer. And when the court precluded the witnesses,

the defendant was also advised by the court that during the course of the trial, if she believed these witnesses had relevant information, the court would revisit the issue. Thereafter, the defendant did not again offer any witness, even though she was specifically told she could re-erge the issue. In addition, in her motion for a new trial, the defendant offers no further information on what testimony the witnesses would have given if they were permitted to be called as witnesses. The defendant also argues the court demonstrated a bias based on the court's comment made while overruling the state's objection during the defendant's questioning of Serena Sharp. The state was objecting to the relevance of the question and the court thought the question had some minimal

relevance based on the context of the defendant's line of questioning. The court notes the defendant's argument as to why the question was relevant was not in line with why the court surmised it was relevant. While the court's comment was not necessary, the judge Boreski does acknowledge that. He shouldn't have necessarily made this comment. It does not evidence bias, nor does it mean the court was demonstrating any partiality. Nonetheless, the court acknowledges the court's comment was unnecessary and the court should have simply overruled the state's objection without comment. Moreover, the court has been presented no evidence whatsoever that this comment influenced the jurors, having carefully considered defendant's arguments. All of the briefing and the record,

the court finds the defendant received a fair and impartial jury trial and the defendant has failed to establish any ground for a new trial. End quote. And there it is straight from the judge himself, straight from the court. There is no reason for a retrial. This was a fair and impartial jury trial. So Lori, enjoy your weekend. Anyway, I am going to be at the next trial next week for Brandon Boudreau. It'll be Lori's third trial where she continues, continues to represent. end herself. And as I always say, because Brandon Boudreau and his family has been waiting for so very long for justice six years, may justice be served.