Hidden True Crime - Jury Selection Turns to Chaos- Thanks to Lori Vallow Daybell | Full Day 1 Recap

Episode Date: May 30, 2025

Day one of jury selection kicked off with a jaw-dropper—Lori Vallow tried to oust Judge Beresky behind closed doors, and the media didn’t know until it was over. We break down her wild claims of bias, religious persecution, and a rack belt conspiracy, plus inside-the-courtroom moments you won’t believe. Jury stats, courtroom drama, and Lori’s meltdown over trial procedures—all in this explosive episode from Phoenix. Are You Done Yet Merch: https://www.bonfire.com/store/hidden-true-crime-limited-merch/ Brandon Playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnLc7I2gyWtQ2L4_aCtEOlvmFBxegNf56&si=C7anD6LESd2EqUDB Cornbread Hemp: listeners can save 30% on their first order! Just head to cornbreadhemp.com/hidden and use code HIDDEN at checkout 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

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Let's be honest, buying cannabis shouldn't be complicated, sketchy or low quality. That's why I want to tell you about mood.com. That's M-O-O-D.com. Mood ships federally legal cannabis straight to your door. No medical card, no hassle. And here's the kicker. The quality is better than anything you'll find at your

local dispensary. Yeah, I said it. Whether you're into edibles, concentrates, flour, or just looking to explore, you'll find it all at Mood. And it's not just the variety that makes them stand out. Every product is sourced from small American-owned family farms that care deeply about what they're grow. It's cannabis you can trust, delivered discreetly, and ready to elevate your mood. And because you're a listener, you get 20% off your first order. Just head to mood.com. That's M-O-O-O-D.com to get started. Hello, everyone. If you thought jury selection day one was going to be smooth sailing and everything was going to be nice and calm.

You haven't met Lori Debao, as she likes to be called now. Take a listen to this. We're going to get all into it, but just listen to one part of today. Take a listen to this. You didn't find these specific aggravators. You're in a dangerous offense and these specific aggravators. Can I finish what I said, what I was saying? I didn't interrupt you.

Can I finish? Okay. All right. That's just a preview of what we're going to get into today for day one jury selection recap. And I'm going to bring you the details from inside the courtroom every day right here in Phoenix. So hit subscribe and thank you for supporting. But before we even got into those jury questionnaires in Judge Boreski's courtroom, before we even got into Judge Boreski's courtroom, Lori Valo made a surprise move. While the media focused on her latest motions, I was sitting right here going over those,

Lori was secretly sitting in a closed door hearing with a different judge, trying to get Judge Boreski kicked off the case. And no media had been invited. They had no idea. None of us had any idea it happened until after the 11-minute hearing had concluded. And if you've been following the Lori Valo-David-Elsauga, you will remember the last week she demanded Judge Justin Breske to step down, claiming he's biased against her. You could practically hear her foot stomp. She was so upset that he never grants her motions. And the judge explained he would

if he had any legal merit. He refused to recuse himself. So, of course, what did Lori do? She filed yet another motion. So let's break it all down and see if this judge, judge takes her side. So like I mentioned, after Judge Boreski denied Lori's request for recusal, she filed a motion on May 20th, that stated, quote, the defendant, Lori and Daybill filed with this motion and her affidavit as shown that the Honorable Judge Boreski has a personal bias or prejudice against her. As a result, the defendant cannot receive a fair or impartial hearing or trial before the court, end quote. This was just one of several complaints that Lori has, which again was heard her today by Judge Jennifer Green. Judge Green summarized

Lori's motion by saying that she was requesting that the court removed Breske for cause under Rule 101. Her reasons include denying various motions, facial expressions, the judge's vibe, the rack belt, violating her right to a speedy trial, religious persecution, and personal bias. And Lori was then given the opportunity to address the court for, In regard to this motion, she stated by saying that she believes Boreski displayed very biases and prejudice against her during the last trial and throughout the entire time he's been a judge on her cases. And since he refused to recuse himself the first time again, she, Lori decided again to put it all in writing. And the first complaint she brought up was a comment that Judge Boreski allegedly made during her last trial. Lori explained that while she was cross-examining one of the witnesses, Breske told her that she said,

She was comparing herself to a biblical prophet. She said that she didn't notice that until after the trial, because she was so focused on the questioning, but believes the comment was inappropriate in front of the jury. She also mentioned again that appears as though Judge Breske just denies all of her motions and that he told her that it's because they do not have any legal merit. Lori believes that he even denied all of the motions brought up by her previous defense Deans, but if you recall, Breske granted one of her motions that very same day that she was

originally complaining. But nonetheless, I think we need to hear it from Lori herself. Take a listen to this. Made an oral motion with Judge Breske and asked him to recuse himself because of the bias and prejudice that had seen during our last trial. And throughout the whole entire time that he has been to judge over all of these cases. And he refused to do so. So I thought I needed to put it in writing and put all my points in that I felt like we're causing him to be biased and prejudice against me and that obviously you've read it so you've seen all the different things that I put there was an actual comment during trial when I was cross-examining one of the witnesses where he said to me directly after an objection from this state that I was

comparing myself to biblical prophet. which I absolutely was not doing, and I didn't even realize it until someone showed it to me on the FTR afterwards. He had even said that because I was in the middle of questioning the witness. And so there are several times that he made comments directly to me. I tried to address this with him directly in our last hearing on May 14th, where I asked him why he had denied every single motion that I had ever filed in the last year and a half. and he said that my motions had no merit. I asked him if my prior defense team, that he denied all of their motions,

that they had no merit as well. And then I asked him my prior defense team before that, all the motions they filed were denied and did they have no merit at all either? And I asked him again if he would recuse himself from this case so that I could get a judge that was impartial and fair and have a fair trial. That is my right, my Sixth Amendment right and my 14th. Amendment right to have a fair trial, an impartial trial, and not a judge who has some kind of bias against me. All right. Anything else?

So prosecutor Trina Kay responded to this allegation by saying that the majority of the prior defense motions were requesting to preclude the media. She said that Boreski applied the appropriate law in response to these motions and placed limitations on the media to mitigate any concerns while still granting them access. And other than that, Lori's other motions had no legal basis and were appropriately ruled on. And if they did have a legal basis and he still ruled against them, that would be one thing, but simply denying motions without legal merit does not constitute a bias. So after this comment, Lori argued further, seeing each time one of her motions had been denied, Breskes hasn't given her any finding, a fact, or conclusion of law. And if this feels repetitive, like exhaustingly repetitive, it's because it is like she just, it's like a merry ground.

She doesn't stop. So let's listen to a few of her specific complaints that pertain to this next trial coming up. Take a listen to this. I said, what is the finding effect in conclusion of law? These are just denied, denied, denied, denied. He's also denied several attempts for me to try to ask the state for discovery that he's just denied outright. And then as I keep filing more and more, you know, as I find out what we don't have and I ask for it, I'm continually, even to last week, getting brand new discovery with brand new Bates numbers,

stuff that they realized they never even had before that hadn't been turned over. And I've been asking Judge Boreski for these items for a year and a half. And I'm getting them one week before trial. We start picking our jury today. We're supposed to be doing our strikes today. So by the way, about that missing discovery, we learned today through a motion that there were two pages of Temelakic's report missing. That the state didn't have either.

They went and they found it. And they did hand it over. So this is not discovery that the state had and that they didn't hand over to Lori. This is discovery. This is evidence that they just found. And that was sent over today. We talked about that this morning when I went live here this morning before heading to jury selection. So, of course, since I talked about repetitive Lori, don't worry.

Of course, she had to bring up the rack belt or as we know the stun belt. because she just cannot accept that she has to wear one during the next trial. She also still can't seem to accept that she's a convicted serial killer. So heaven forbid she has to wear a sunbelt. And she still believes that it was the recommendation that the sheriff's office was for her to not wear one, even though we read the sheriff's office recommendation together here. And they said that she does need to wear one. So let's listen to her, argue this once again.

I had this motion about the REC belt that I had asked about since we went through this whole trial. And there was times when the belt didn't fit around me. So it fell out of my clothing. We had to stop trial and I had to go fix it. And that is what MCSO recommended that if that was too burdensome, that they would put an armed guard in the back. And because of the media that Judge Breski has let into every single one of the, the hearings and the trial that they already have an armed guard back there.

So it wasn't going to cost the state any more money. It wasn't going to cost anything if he just had them remove the belt and went over the security that the MCSO actually recommended. We have gone over this before. We have gone over this and over this and over this. Judge Vrusky went over this matter with Lori and clarified that the sheriff's office didn't actually recommend that she'd be without one and that they were just given a general list of options. The sheriff's office came and said they do recommend that she has one.

They've explained that they do not have a guard that is armed that they can have every day in court. But Lori didn't like his answer. So she believes that he is being biased courtser. And the next thing Lori discussed was the juror who she believes learned about her criminal history before sentencing. Lori said that the media sent Breski a clip of the juror saying that he learned about her prior convictions before deliberations. But as we know, that's not true. She also said, in other words, nowhere did Carl ever say that he learned about her prior convictions before deliberations.

He said some things that made people concerned he knew about them. He never said that. But Lori also said that in a hearing, Boreski told her that the juror took back what he said. But that's not true either. There was no takey-backy from Carl. He didn't take back anything he said about not knowing. Before he made this statement, he said that he did not know about her other conviction. After he made this statement in question, he came on our channel, hidden true crime.

During our interview with him, he clarified what he meant in that comment. But Lori thinks that that situation was grounds for a new trial. She also said that Breskes refused to call the juror in to swear under oath that he did not know her previous convictions, to deliberations. But in conclusion, Lori just doesn't believe that she will be able to have a fair trial

unless she has appointed a new judge who doesn't know anything about her or her case. So let's listen to all of this. Zootopia 2 has come home to Disney Plus.

Let's go. Get ready for a new case. We're going to crack this case and prove we're decoranous partners of all time. New friends. You are Gary Destnake. And your last name? Desnake.

Dream team. New Habitance. Zootopia has a secret reptile population. You can watch the record-breaking phenomenon at home. You're clearly, working at. Zootopia, too. Now available on Disney Plus rated PG. The whole thing that I asked for has been denied.

I feel like he does have a personal bias against me. And all I'm asking for, I went through a whole trial with him, even thinking he was biased against me before the trial started. I filed for a new motion because it came to our attention through the media. The media sent Judge Boreski a clip of one of the jurors saying that he found out about my prior convictions beforehand, before his deliberations. And this is the same exact juror who was brought in twice during trial by Judge Boreski, where he had to admonish him for, one, being on his phone,

and two, talking to one of the other jurors about the case. And now he's saying, well, he went on another media thing and said that he took it back. He took back what he said. So I'm not going to give you a new trial and nothing was done about it. He wouldn't, he refused to call them in and have a hearing and put him on the stand under oath and ask him if he found out this information prior to deliberations. It was very confusing and everything is just outright denied. I just want to have, I want to go to trial. I want to have a fair trial as fair as possible.

I don't feel like I can do that with Judge Breske. So up next, Judge Green had several things to say in response to Lori's flurry of complaints. She said that the fact that Lori disagrees with Judge Breske's rulings doesn't constitute a legal basis to grant her a new judge. Judge Green said that just because the rulings didn't go Lori's way doesn't mean that Breske can't be fair and impartial. In regard to Lori's other complaints, Judge Green said that she said that she said that she's, she can take those up on an appeal.

There are other legal remedies for her arguments that do not require her getting a brand new judge. Basically, once again, motion denied. Again, Groundhog's Day. Again, as you can imagine, Lori was not happy that even another judge was going to agree, wasn't going to agree with her, which was demonstrated in her final comment that we can listen to here. Thank you. I've considered the written motion and the response and certainly your comments today from both sides. Ms. DeBelle, I find that the fact that you disagree with Judge Boreski's substantive legal rulings is not a valid basis under Rule 10.1 to grant your motion and give you a new judge.

The standard in 10.1 is, has he demonstrated he can't be fair and impartial? And the fact that his rulings have not gone your way is not a valid basis to suggest that he can't be fair and impartial. Unless there's some other allegation of bias that's been demonstrated, I don't find on this record that it has been demonstrated. I certainly understand your frustration with the way that the rulings have come out. And it sounds like the way that they came out with prior counsel. But the things that you have cycled through at length in your most, to disqualify. I've considered all of them. You know, whether or not he should have ruled differently, for example, the example you gave with the juror, or with making findings of fact

and conclusions of law and writing, some of the issues you have, if you have concerns about his substance of legal rulings, you can file a motion to reconsider, or you can take them up on appeal. You can file a special action. You have a number of legal remedies at your disposal where you can make those arguments, but they're not grounds under a Rule 10.1 to get a new judge. So I am going to deny your motion. Again, as for your concern about his substantive legal rulings, you can address those concerns in a different way,

but it would not be under a 10.1. And on this record, I don't find that he's demonstrated that he can't be fair and that he can't be impartial. I also wanted to address the comment that he made, that you illustrated. That comment alone doesn't demonstrate that he can't be fair and impartial. I'm not exactly sure of the context where he made it, but it sounds like he let you ask a question with regards to religion,

and that was his decision. But again, I don't think even that demonstrates that he can't be fair or impartial in this case. All right. So I'm denying the request by Judge Bresti under Rule 10.1. Is there anything else from the state? No, you're on. Anything else, Ms. Abel? Nope.

Thank you. We are adjourned. Moving on. So what a morning, right? Motions, secret hearing, a new judge, but now moving on to this afternoon, jury selection officially began in Judge Boreski's courtroom. And I was there, again, and most of the afternoon was spent going over jury questionnaires.

They are numbered A2 through A302. meaning, yes, that many jurors. And this was interesting because if you crunch the numbers, which we did for you, so you don't have to, you're welcome. This is where we really get a sense of just how many people here know about Lori Valadeva. That's always a question we have, right? How many people truly know about her or don't know about her? How many people are in the know about this case that has now been going on for six years?

So here are our findings. And for comparison's sake, let's rewind first to her last Arizona trial. That was when she was convicted in the murder of her then-husband Charles Ballow. And over the course of two days of jury selection back then, they screened 211 jurors. So 90 of them already had prior knowledge of Lori and the case. And that average, too. Are you ready for this? 42.65%.

And don't worry, guys, I've let you know my math skills aren't solid. So I gave this job to somebody else who has great math skills. This is what they came up with. The average of 42% last trial earlier this year knew about Lori Valo Deba. Okay. So compare this to today. I believe that the final count, here we go, 294 jurors were screened. So more, 294 just today were screened.

126 of them had already had prior knowledge of Lori and this case. And so that averaged out to 42.85%. So essentially exactly the same amount. Out of those 294, 66 of them are proceeding to further questioning tomorrow. Because when it comes to picking these jurors, it seems like the number one thing they want to find is someone that has never heard. of Lori Debo or Lori Valo. And that's why I use both of her names too. I know people get upset that sometimes I still call her Lori Valo,

but some people know her through that name. But she is Lori Debao, married to Chad Devo now. So 66 of them are proceeding to further questioning tomorrow. And I just want to say that finding out that the percentage is exactly the same as it was just a couple of months ago makes me realize that people are probably telling the truth. And so again, it's interesting. So 66 of them are proceeding to further questioning tomorrow. The other 102 people were released for various reasons. We will go through all of those numbers individually at the end of this video. We took excellent notes. I am

that certain of our note taking that I can say we took excellent notes. And so for those of you who would like the specific breakdown on what the ruling was on each individual, juror and the reasoning behind each one stick with us until the end. Again, this is not, there is no camera in the courtroom during this time to protect potential jurors. Do we have the numbers for you? But again, before we get into that, I know not everyone likes all these lists. So we're going to jump ahead to what happened after we concluded juror questionnaires.

After that moment, Judge Boreski said that he would be going through a number of motions. and outstanding items before Why Dear Tomorrow. And that was when Lori piped in and said that she had three things that she wanted to discuss, but she didn't know if Judge Boreski wanted to at that moment. She was like, when do you want to do this, Judge Breske, who is now her judge, whether she likes it or not. And I also want to throw this out too. Until this point, think about this. Let me set the stage here too.

Lori has now tried to get Judge Boreski kicked off of this case multiple times to his face in writing. She has accused him of multiple things, including what he looks like, his face, how he's not fair. And I would say, you know, I've always said that Judge Breske does a really great job gray rocking, meaning just showing no emotion, a poker face, being calm. I would say he absolutely was this way today through jury selection. He was even. You would never know that Lori had just been in a hearing ripping on him. You would never think that he knew that walking into court.

Lori was in orange, her orange jumpsuit today. She was handcuffed at her wrists. She had shackles on her ankles. She likes to shake her feet a lot. We were also, I was really, really close to her. I said on the first row, I was as close as you could. possibly be to Lori. It's a smaller courtroom in Judge Breskes's courtroom. I was very close to her. I could see her. And again, the judge was even calm. So she says, look, when can I do this?

And Judge Breskes continues to be calm and says, you know what, why don't we do it right now? Why don't you go ahead? And that was when everything changed. It was a pretty explosive hearing. with Lori arguing with Judge Boreski about the need to include a quote, unquote, aggravation phase during this third trial of hers. And so what she's referring to is when aggravating factors or things that increase the severity of the crime are presented before the sentencing phase. So in capital or death penalty cases, which this is not a capital or a death penalty case, the judge made that very clear in this hearing.

And we're going to watch a lot of this. So it was interesting. But in capital or death penalty cases, trials are often broken down into three distinct phases. It's guilt, aggravating, and penalty. The penalty is the sentencing. So the guilt phase essentially is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty. This is the main trial. This is what people are most familiar with.

The main trial is the guilt phase. Then the second phase is the aggravating phase, which we're talking about now. Now, the aggravating phase, which is the penalty, sometimes it can be part of the penalty phase, but the goal, the aggravating phase's goal is to determine if there are aggravating factors that make this crime eligible for a harsher sentence typically, or they can prevent evidence like this crime was especially heinous or cruel, the victim maybe was particularly vulnerable. There was a weapon, a deadly weapon used, whether or not the defendant has a history of violent crimes.

And these factors must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And in some jurisdictions, in some areas, the phase is combined with the penalty phase, like in Arizona. So in Arizona, you have this, well, or it can be with the sentencing phase, excuse me, but in Arizona, they combine it right after, it happens right after the guilt phase. So right after the trial concludes, and the guilty verdict, comes back, then you have the aggravating phase. But for some reason, however, Lori does not want there to be an aggravation phase.

So this was true. Her last trial, too, here in Arizona, the same thing happened. There was the guilt phase. The jury found her guilty. And then after we thought that we were going to hear from victims, and I had mentioned that last time. I was like, you know what? Right after she's found guilty, we're going to go straight into aggravating phase. And we're going to hear about our aggravating factors, like the use of a deadly weapon or all these things that she did that make it particularly heinous.

And the victims will speak. And Jerry Valo was prepared to speak during the aggravating phase. But what happened instead? Well, Lori surprised all of us by stipulating the aggravating phase. She accepted all the aggravating factors and said, yes, I agree with them all. Let's go. Let's be done. And so Jerry Valo, Charles' brother,

Charles's brother did not have an opportunity to share any words. And I always wondered. I always speculated that she stipulated and said she agreed to all those aggravating factors because she did not want to listen to a victim, which is Charles Valo's brother, Jerry. Or Kay Woodcock could have also done it. I think she handed the baton to Jerry. And Susan Ballot, who was in the court, we could have also done it.

But Jerry Valo is going to do that on behalf of Charles. all this family didn't happen because she said, no, we're good. And so I have to wonder, why doesn't she want this aggravating phase? Is it because she doesn't want to hear from victims? It's just one thought in my mind. But her argument for why she doesn't want an aggravating factor is really she's just wanting to go against the standard procedure in Arizona. But let's listen to a little of what she has to say for she completely loses it on Judge Boreski. Take a listen. So with the statute for this charge only being the one statute, what are you getting out of the aggravation phase?

I don't understand. Well, there's, first of all, the jury in the initial phase doesn't determine whether or not it's a dangerous felony, which they need to find. And then the aggravators, I think the state has a right to attempt to prove those to the jury to offset any mitigation or to be weighed against mitigation at your sentence. And wouldn't that be, isn't that normally put together with the guilt phase? Like they would have that on the back page where it says the aggravators and the guilt? No. So are we going to have a whole other aggravator phase in this case?

If the jury finds you guilty of the charge and the state wants to proceed with aggravators, yes. And so we do not have to have a hearing to determine if there's probable cause for these aggravators? No. They're just alleged aggravators. Correct. The grand jury never found probable cause for them. Correct. So you're saying that if the guilt phase goes through and they find you guilty, then you have an aggravator phase added to that. That's what I said. Have you been looking for a natural way to relieve aches and discomfort? The CBD gommies from cornbread hemp are formulated to work with your body, not against it. I struggle with migraines and have been using CBD as a way to help naturally treat them on days they are really bad.

Cornbread hemp's organic CBD gommies are made to help you feel better, whether it's stress discomfort or just needing some relaxation. Not only that, but all products are third-party lab tested and USDA organic to ensure safety and purity so you can take them with peace of mind. Right now, Hidden Shogram listeners can save 30% on their first order. Just head to cornbread hemp.com slash hidden and use code hidden at checkout for that 30% off. That's cornbread hemp, C-O-R-N-B-R-E-A-D, hemp, hem p.com slash hidden and use code hidden. After Judge Boreski stated that the aggravators that the state are alleging to in this case include the infliction or threatening infliction of serious. physical injury, the use or threatened use of a weapon during the commission of the crime,

the presence of an accomplice, that would be Alex Cox, and the offense that caused emotional, physical, or financial distress to the victim and the victim's family. The defendant was previously convicted of a felony also within 10 years immediately preceding the date of the defense. He said that if she's found guilty, these aggravators are pretty inherent in the charges themselves besides the one about prior conviction. So he's not sure which aggravators that Lori finds insufficient. So this is kind of a long clip, but I'm going to play it for you because you can see

the escalation of both Lori and the judge getting more and more frustrated with each other. Take a listen. I'm struggling with what legal sufficiency you think is lacking for a jury to make. those determinations, again, only if the jury found you guilty of the charge that you're charged with. I understand, Your Honor, but in 13.5, right, whether capital or non-capital, the state has the burden to establish probable cause, the legal sufficiency of an amended indictment. This is an amendment. This didn't go to the grand jury. Is that correct? Right.

So now I have the right to ask for a hearing so the probable cause can be found for these aggravators ahead of time. So you're confusing two things. Okay. All right. 13.5 talks about amending the charge or the indictment. Okay. Your charge is conspiracy to commit first degree murder. It's not, your charge is not being amended. The jury, the grand jury did find probable cause for that charge. Correct. An aggravator is not an amendment to the indictment. It's a whole other allegation. It's a whole separate allegation. The difference between an aggravator and changing the charge that you're charged with. If the state were to change the charge that you're charged with, for example, if they changed it from conspiracy to commit first degree murder to conspiracy to commit second degree murder, there'd probably need to be a new probable cause for. Correct. Secondly, as to the allegation that it's a dangerous offense, the grand jury did make that finding because that allegation was included in the indictment that it was a dangerous offense.

So there has been probable cause as to the dangerous factor. Okay, if that is the case, then why isn't that found in the original guilt phase as opposed to having a whole other aggravation phase after that, as if it's a capital offense? Because there's one statute. There's one sentence. There's no arguing the sentence. And if it's already a dangerous crime, then there's no reason to have an aggravator phase. what do you mean there's no arguing and there's one sentence i don't understand what you're saying

for there's one sentence for the charge there's only one sentence for this charge and if it's already classified as a dangerous charge is what you're telling me right because it's conspiracy to commit first-degree murder that's a dangerous charge the jury has already found that it's a dangerous charge then what is the aggravator phase finding if it's already a dangerous charge you're and there's no, there's only one sentence. Does the state want to respond why the state wants to proceed with aggravators? To start with, the jury is not going to make a finding of dangerousness as part of the guilt phase per case law that's not permitted. So the jury has to make a separate independent finding after they find the defendant guilty.

The dangerous finding will include the use of a weapon and or the intentional infliction of or threatened infliction of physical injury. So at the very least, the jury has to make a finding as to dangerousness. I agree about dangerousness. I guess the question is, why does the state want to prove up aggravators if the jury finds the defendant guilty of the charge as a dangerous offense, given the sentence? Your Honor, in all honesty, you could ask me this, you know, 10 years ago before Blakely was put out as case law changes on appeals, I've had to come back before and redo a penalty phase. an aggravation phase and re and panel a jury. So I prefer to, since we're already going to have to have an aggravation phase for the dangerous allegation

to add on the other factors and therefore I don't have to ever worry about this coming back on appeal later. All right. How is it not already found to be dangerous? You just said that if they find me guilty, then it will be dangerous. I did say that. I said if they find you guilty, then they make a determination

whether or not it's dangerous. Now, I think what I'm meant was when a crime involving a weapon is used, whether it's a gun, usually it's sort of a fork on conclusion that if the jury found you guilty of conspiracy to commit first degree murder by someone shooting at another individual, that they're 99.9% likely to find that it was a dangerous offense. But it's something the jury has to do. Right, but usually aren't aggravators for sentencing? What other purpose does it serve in this case with this charge, With one statute, there's, you can't give me less time, you can't give me more time, you can't do anything else, except for, it's one statute. I guess the prosecutor's saying she wants to cover

her bases in case there's some change in the law and what a jury has to find or not find for purposes of sentencing, and they have the right to proceed with aggravators. All right, you're right in that if you're found guilty of this charge at this level, you get one sentence. Um, but who knows what a court of appeals would do in the future of aggravators or things weren't presented. I don't know that what, what would be presented at a sentencing phase from your side or from the state side, but it sounds like the prosecutors wanting to cover her basis.

So then I'm not entitled to a hearing before trial starts to, to find probable cause for these aggravators that were not taken to the grand jury initially. All right. You're. I'm asking. I'm trying to explain it to you. The jury did find probable cause that this was a dangerous offense. It's included in your indictment. So they did find...

They didn't find these specific aggravators, being a dangerous offense and these specific aggravators are... Can I finish what I said? What I was saying, I didn't interrupt you. Can I finish? Okay. The jury did find probable cause on the dangerous allegation. All right.

You're not entitled to a probable cause. hearing on the other aggravators. When is conspiracy to commit murder, not a dangerous crime? When someone says they're going to choke someone to death and they don't actually do it, it's not a dangerous crime. So no dangerous instrument or deadly weapon was used. So because some instrument may or may not have been used in this crime, it's considered a dangerous crime? Right.

And these aggravators that talk about something to, totally different, don't have to have to be found after that it's found a dangerous crime. Correct. And that is supported by case law? Yes. So that what? When you go to appeal, you can't say it was a non-dangerous crime. All right. I don't know what to tell you. All right. There was a case that came out about 15 to 20 years ago now called Blake Lee that said a jury had to determine aggravating factors. Okay, before that a judge determined aggravating factors at sentencing. Now a jury has to determine it. The reason it's not done in the guilt phase is we don't want the jury to confuse the issues. We want the jury to decide first whether someone's guilty or not guilty,

whether the state has proved its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't want them to start thinking about other things like aggravators if they have questions about whether or not the person's even guilty. It tends to confuse the jury and confuse the issues for them. So that's why we do the aggravators in a separate hearing.

First, you wanna make sure the state has proved its burden beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charge. But these specific aggravators that they allege, right, the ones that you just went over, you're saying that now after you found guilty of a dangerous crime, that they're going to go back in. And what is the purpose of that? How does it change anything after that? I don't know how else to explain it to you. So do you have other issues that you want to bring up today? Yes, but I would like to finish this first. So are you denying? my motion to have a hearing on this? I'm denying your motion to have a probable cause

hearing as to the state's alleged aggravators. Okay, so you're denying my motion to have a 13.5 hearing on these alleged aggravators? Correct, because your trial starts. You're not entitled to one. Okay. 13.5 says that you're entitled to a probable cause hearing if they amend or change the indictment. This is not an amendment of the indictment? It's not. There's a It's an extension of the indictment. It's not in the indictment. It's a difference, okay, between an aggravator and changing the charge that you're charged with. Changing the charge that you're charged with is an amendment to the indictment. For example, if you were just charged with conspiracy to commit first degree murder, all right, but the state didn't allege with the grand jury that it was a dangerous offense, you'd be entitled to probable cause hearing as to that dangerous allegation because it's changing the charge and it's changing the sentence that you would be getting. He's aggravated. That's exactly my point. How does after the fact, these aggravators, if they are found, what do they do to change the charge or change the sentence or change anything? Probably nothing in reality. You just said it. They don't change the charge. So you're not entitled to an aggravated, probable cause hearing. Okay, then I don't want to have an aggravation phase either.

Well, you can not. Are you entitled to that? And I'm not entitled to a hearing on probable cause. You're entitled to have an aggravation phase. Well, if you don't want to attend, you don't have to attend. What else? Did you hear her get silent when she said finally, well, if you don't want to attend, you don't have to attend and she essentially calmed out at that moment. Makes me think she's going to ask not to attend. She just wasn't getting it. Or maybe I can say she doesn't want to get it.

I felt like I got a great lesson in there. I was like, okay, like the judge is really explaining things to me. I get it. She didn't want to get it. You know, in other words, it's Arizona law that whether or not this is a death penalty case, the aggravating factor phase happens. Thanks to Blakely, it's case law moving forward. She just wasn't okay with that.

Until though, of course, Judge Bereski said, well, if you don't want to go, you don't have to go. And it was like silence. We'll see if she ends up going to the aggravating phase, which will happen right after the guilt phase or the hopefully guilty verdict. So I have to say I pinned this comment by MH. Can we please get Are You Done merch? Because this moment with the judge certainly reminded me of all of your request. You guys so,

you guys have been requesting this now for a very long time ever since Judge Boreski, you know, asked Lori, are you done? Are you done? Because I think it resonated with a lot of us. It's how a lot of us feel. We're on our third trial, you know. Are you done yet, Lori? Are you done?

So never fear we have, are you done merch? We have a lot of options too, guys. We have several designs. Are you done yet? Are you done yet? We even have tink tops because you guys requested. Oh, these are so good. Are you done yet?

If you're listening to this podcast episode on our podcast, we will have a link to all of our merchandise in the description of this. episode. The second motion that Lori argued after after that moment was about her headsets. The headsets are used during sidebar so that everyone can just stay at their tables because Lori is representing herself and she's a convicted criminal. They don't really want her walking all over the courtroom and going up to the bench, which is oftentimes where sidebars can happen. So this time everyone stays at

their tables and they have headphones. They only have five. total for the room. So Lori gets two of them. The prosecution gets one and the judge gets one and the court reporter gets one. And well, Lori isn't happy because that means she has to choose just one person to have alongside her. Actually, I think it's nice that she has two of them. And, uh, but the judge quickly reminded her that she chose to represent herself. Thus, she really is the only one that needs them. Uh, take a listen to this, but. All right. Something doing. with trial is that I've asked several times for headsets for my advisory council. I know that's been an issue that you said we can only have five headsets. Is there some way we can do that because

it's very difficult for them to advise me on things when they kind of don't know what's going on? If you need a break to consult with your advisory council, we can do that. I can only give so many headsets. You said you were going to check into that. Is that something that you did check into and there are more available headsets? They can't do more than five on that particular particular system or network that they have. I need my court reporter to have one so we can do the sidebars. The state's only getting one. I get one so that leaves two for you. Whoever you want to have beside yourself, you can choose one of your advisory council or your paralegal. But you're forcing me to choose between the people that are helping me.

Sure. Okay. Technically I don't know. I even have to do that. You represent yourself, you're considered your own attorney. You don't even have the right, the right to consult. I shouldn't say that. You have the right to consult with them, but it's not a necessary thing because you are acting as your own attorney. You're expected to proceed as your own attorney. They don't have an affirmative duty to even give you advice under the case law for being an advisory council. The fact that they do is probably helpful to you. Okay, but you chose to represent yourself. It means you are supposed to act as your own lawyer. You appointed them and assigned them to me. I did not ask for them. Okay. Yeah, I did in case you decided not to represent yourself so they could step in at trial. Okay. Well, then it's an alternative that we could do sidebars at the bench so that they could be involved during that time.

I think it depends on the complexity of the question. If it's a simple jury question that, like, for example, can we have a copy of the police report? The answer to that is always no. So I think I'll have to take it on a question. by question and issue by issue basis. So if it's an issue where we need everyone at the bench, yes, we can do that. But if it's a simple, quick response

that we can do with the headsets, we'll do that. Okay. Okay. According to Aunt Vicki, no, it's not okay. The last concern Lori had was about making sure the door would not be opened to her other convictions. Take a listen. I have one more issue. Go ahead.

Okay. Seeing as how things went in the last trial, how my question is, what does the state intend to bring in from Idaho so that I can prepare my questions without being accused of opening the door? How can we avoid that when most of these, almost every witness has testified in my Idaho trial? And I don't want to be responsible for doing that. So how are we going to handle that? Well, I will tell the prosecutor to make sure a caution is given to each witness that no

matter what the question is that that witness should not think it's a question that would require an answer about prior testimony or prior proceedings. State agrees, right? Yes, sure. I guess they can be further advised that if they think you or the state is asking a question that calls for that sort of answer about prior testimony or prior proceeding that maybe we should take a break. Okay.

I knew about investing, but I really didn't know how to go about it. Meet Corey, a Walthfront client. With Wealthfront, it could put money in, and it would automatically distribute it into a diversified portfolio. Then it starts to compound. The compounding compounds on the compounding. Just let it run, and it's great. Over 1 million clients trust Wealthfront.

Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. Investment management and advisory services provided by Wellfront Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. Investing involves risk to principle regardless of the strategy used. Task performance does not guarantee future results. Tomorrow morning, they plan to start at 10 a.m. They will be going through some motions and then they will have approximately 20 to 40 walk-in jurors. So in-person jurors, today wasn't in-person.

Tomorrow will be. that they will need to screen before they begin by the year with the jurors. So let's go through all of the final juror numbers and everything that happened today. I said that I would save that for you guys till the very end. It was interesting. We took excellent notes. So I turned, by the way, to my producer, Grayson, who many of you are starting to get to know to after I said we took excellent notes because

she helped with that process so so let's go through them all we start with a two a two starting a new job june 9th but could participate a three no issues a four has some knowledge about the case and this case in particular a five a non-refundable paid vacation on the on the date range and biased about police. A6 had a procedure yesterday, questionable at how they'll do on recovery and getting to court. A seven child care issues and knowledge on the defendant. A8. Difficulty with English, mental health conditions, and not in Maricopa County.

A9 would miss a lot of shifts at a new job. A10, no issues. A11 has something like a comic con at the convention center. on Thursday and Monday. A 12, no issues. A 13. Difficulty with English didn't complete the rest of the questionnaire. A 14, out of state until October, has heard some info regarding the defendant. All right. A 15, 16, 17, no issues. Three in a row. First time. Boom. A 18. Some knowledge of the defendant. A 19. Some challenges with hearing if there was, is muffled speaking. Has watched. multiple TV shows on Lori.

A-20 has seen media and social media information. 821, no issues. Boom. A-22, prior knowledge and somewhat of a hardship. A-23. Prior knowledge about the case has some news exposure. State would agree for cause, defense agrees for bias. 824 out of town Monday and Tuesday. 825, work hardship if more than three days. 826, some exposure, although not much.

a predisposition regarding police testimony. A.27, no issues. A28 would need court to supply an Uber has some prior knowledge. A.29, watched a TV show and has prior knowledge of Lori DeBow. A30, prior knowledge about the defendant. A31, unavailable for the second week of trial. A32, think they recall seeing this story on the local news. 833, no issues.

834, physical issues, taking prescription drugs and has prior knowledge. 835, no issues. 836, some prior knowledge. 837, pre-existing bias regarding police testimony. A-38, child care issues, kids on summer break, out of town July 5th through 8. 839, no issues. A 40 leaving town June 22nd would like to think the police are always truthful, hence 5th. highest towards police. A41, long-haul truck driver would miss a lot of work. A-42,

hardship starting June 23rd, but has prior knowledge. A-43, defense attorney who has an out-of-state case on June 9th, has some prior knowledge and has reported on the defendant as a legal correspondent on the local news. Probably a problem. A-44, if it's a fairly short trial, they have no issues. But if extended, it would be difficult because they have eight kids at home. Yeah, pretty difficult. Although they might need a break, probably serving as a juror would feel pretty good.

But eight kids at home. 845 reports a traumatic brain injury in 2023 as well as a brain injury. Judge actually wanted to keep this juror on, but the state wanted to strike. The defense agrees with the state. So judge overruled there. 846, prior knowledge.

There is no A-47, A-48, no issues, A-49, financial hardship and knowledge about the defendant. A-50, work issue and had heard about the defendant. A-51, physical condition that could affect their ability, predisposition on police testimony. A-52, out-of-town on a business trip next week, expresses a definite bias in caps against the defendant. A-53 work issues has prior knowledge. 54, no issues. A 55, out of the country, the second week of trial and has prior knowledge. A56 has a college issue and has prior knowledge.

A 57, no issues. A 58, prior knowledge about the defendant, some exposure through social media. A 59, juror compensation fund would not pay them enough. Has knowledge about the defendant. A60, no issues. A61 watched some of the last trial. Yeah, not going to work. A62 work issue has prior knowledge.

A63 would miss part of the second week has prior knowledge. A64 has some prior knowledge. A65, no issues. A66, physical issue depending on how many breaks during trial. Court may be able to accommodate. A67, very thorough on financial hardship. A68 has prior knowledge, has to go to work after court for the diamond backs. A. 69 has prior knowledge. A 70, prior knowledge, child care issue. A 71, no issues. A72, has prior knowledge. A 73, no issues. A 74, detention officer who has transported her before. This was great. A detention officer who has transported Lori before and has read news about the case. Yeah, not going to work. A 75. Out of state trip.

second week of trial a 76 physical issue and prior knowledge a 77 physical issues travel issues and knows about the defendant a 78 no issues always always a good one a 79 definite bias and opinion about the defendant probably not a good opinion either they had yeah nope they didn't make it through a 80 prior knowledge about the defendant a 81 physical condition a 82 no issues A.83, prior knowledge about the case and work hardship. A 84 may know one of the witnesses. Predisposition regarding police testimony. A85, difficulty with English.

A86, out of town next week and also has prior knowledge. A 87, work hardship, but also has knowledge. A88, child care issues and prior knowledge. A89 physical issues. Doctors appointments. Tomorrow, transportation issues. A 90, elderly and does not feel comfortable driving long distances. A91, work issues and has heard Lori's name before.

A92, work, financial hardship, jury fund would not pay enough. A93 out of town on the 23rd. A94, unemployed and looking for a job. A95, no issues, but they will need to follow up and see if they have a bias against police. According to the court, they need to check on this. State says there are definite issues because he has a massive bias and says, he was wrongfully convicted. So, problem.

A96, they are death. A 97, no issues. A 98, prior knowledge, as well as A99 prior knowledge. A100, he has to take care of, or he or she has to take care of their parents. A101, out of town working the second week, but also has prior knowledge. A102, a predisposition or bias regarding police. state agrees for cause. Lori, at this one, this is great, says,

I see no issue to keep them. Wants to question them further in person. The judge says they don't trust the police in general. So that's the problem. And I love it. Lori's like, this person's great. They don't trust the police. The judge is like, yeah, no.

A 103, out of the country starting June 4th. Lori says they need a minute now because they're having technical difficulties during this time. And I'm going to take a minute to call this intermission, a few things that was happening. I want to let you know, Brandon Boudreau, the victim in this trial, which I don't even think we've talked about him yet today.

But he is the victim. He's the reason we're all here in reporting. We want justice for Brandon Boudreau because he was almost killed back in 2019 when Alex Cox, Lori's accomplice allegedly. shot at him while he was driving home. Brandon Bidreau was virtual during this. And at one moment, he popped up on screen.

I think it was an accident because it was just his name. You could see on screen that there were people watching and he was one of them, Brandon Bidreau. And for a moment he popped up on screen. And I saw him and I just want to say it was this moment of realizing like how lucky he was to be alive. But also like we, we haven't had a victim, surviving victim. yet, be able to testify and be able to be at a jury selection hearing.

We have had survivors, family members, but the actual victim that was targeted. And it was interesting to see him. And then at one moment, I noticed his wife, Jenny Boudreau, popped up on the screen. She was also listening from a separate place. And this is his new wife. He divorced Lori's niece shortly after this incident and had found love again and is married. So they were there. today during this. Another thing I want to point out too, and we'll keep going, is that Lori

always disagreed because of bias. So if she had an issue with a juror, she would say dismiss because of bias. The state would sometimes say that, but the state would also say that they were dismissing because of hardship or all of these other things you're hearing, right? You're hearing a lot of reasons why jurors can't serve from being deaf, taking care of elderly parents to some other things we're going to hear, some really difficult hardships. Lori never dismisses because of hardships. And at one point I thought to myself,

like somebody's house could have burned down. They could be homeless and have terminal cancer. And Lori would still say like, oh, they're good. or dismissed because of bias. She would never dismiss someone because of a hardship. And it was just sort of, I want to point out this other really interesting aspect about jury selection with her.

There's only one reason Lori dismisses a juror or says that she doesn't want to have that juror and it's because of bias. And like I said, like, they could have suffered the most horrendous tragedies in the world and she wouldn't dismiss them because of hardship unlike the state. So intermission over, we are on A 104.

A104, no issues. A105, going to be in Idaho for a family reunion and has prior knowledge. Yeah, probably if we're going to a family reunion in Idaho, prior knowledge. A106 has prior knowledge about both cases. A107. No issue. A 108, no issue. A109, prior knowledge.

about the defendant a 110 prior knowledge about the defendant a one one one one being charged with a misdemeanor and d y no to question five which was either they were not 18 or they were not a citizen or not a resident of maricopa county so they can't serve as juror a uh one one two 112 physical issues but no prior and prior knowledge a uh one 13 worked and has prior knowledge. A14, prior knowledge, A115 issue with a child on June 4th, having a procedure and does have knowledge. There was no A116. A117, prior knowledge from the news. A118 has prior knowledge. A119, no issues. A120 in state, in the state of Washington for the entire summer. A121 transportation issues with doctor's appointments, but also has prior knowledge. A122 difficulty

with English a 123 no issues 124 125 no issues a 126 no issues as well it was a good that was a good long grouping no issues a 127 work hardship for summer job at school a 128 no issues a 129 prior knowledge about the defendant a 130 has a physical condition and also has difficulty with English a 131 child care issues with grandchildren also has prior knowledge a 132 no issues a 133 no issues but needs a follow-up to question 21 a 134 prior knowledge about the defendant and this particular case a 135 out of town the entire month of june and has prior knowledge about the case i also just want to point out that a lot of people that live in arizona when it's a hundred and fifteen degrees out it's hit even hotter they do leave town

it's sort of like other place where it's really cold during the winter a lot of people leave town Arizona for the summer if they're able to. So A136, prior knowledge but also has work issues. A137, prior knowledge about the case is a nanny and cannot find replacement care. A138 and 139, no issues. A140 has prior knowledge about the defendant. A14141 prior knowledge. A142 out of country for work next week, has prior knowledge. 143 has prior knowledge. 144 prior knowledge. 145 and 146 both have prior knowledge and 146 also has a work hardship.

A147 prior knowledge as well as summer child care issues. 148 prior knowledge. A 149. In question 17 expresses political view about training police and putting more into social work. The state would move to strike that they are willing to do a follow-up. Lori wants to do a follow-up, of course. Yes. A-150 has a work hardship, but also has a bias, that they would believe a police officer over another witness, since they are a police officer themselves. A-151, hearing issue that can be addressed. 152, prior knowledge about the defendant.

153, prior knowledge about the defendant. 154 takes care of a disabled brother in the morning until parents get home between 2 and 4 p.m. A 155 out of state on June 23rd does seem to recall allegations about the defendant. 156, no issues. 157, difficulty with English, 158, no issues. 159, financial hardships. And they're more likely to believe police if they believe someone's accused,

they're probably guilty. A 160, health issues, prior knowledge. A 161, caregiver for mother. A 162, no issues, 163, mental health and child care, 164, prior knowledge about the defendant. 165, work hardship, prior knowledge about the defendant. A 166, no issues.

167 takes opioids for pain management. A 168, very sad. Stage for cancer. answer. A169 physical issues with walking prior knowledge about the defendant from the news. A170 expresses financial hardship and child care. A171 may have heard about the defendant. Name is familiar. A171, no issues. A173, a vacation scheduled. A174 bias about police officer testimony. And then again, there's a discussion of whether or not they're even being told the full truth. No 175. A176. Prior knowledge about the defendant followed the last trial, watched news reports, and they're out of state, June 6. 177, 178, no issues, 179, some issues that could affect things out of town the next week, and they have some prior knowledge. A 180, they have a procedure scheduled for the fifth and prior knowledge. A181, no issue.

182 needs two to three weeks notice to take off work also has a learning disability 183 prior knowledge 184 out of town in houston working 185 prior knowledge 186 no issues according to the judge trina says that he stopped filling out answers and did not affirm that they were true so trina has issues judge doesn't further questioning 187 problems with their eyes and prior knowledge. 188 no issues, 189, difficulty with English, 190, leaving Arizona for the summer on June 2nd, prior knowledge. 191, father in hospice, prior knowledge. 192, child care issues. 193, prior knowledge, and the husband has a medical issue. 194, difficulty with English, 195 out of town, 196, doctors appoint.

tomorrow as well as June 18th. 197 and 198, no issues, 199, hearing issues. They're from Gilbert, though, and they think they've seen stuff about her. 200, more likely to believe police officers just because. 201, prior knowledge about the defendant. 202, work hardship. 203, no issue, 204, family vacation, prior knowledge about the defendant. 205, no issues.

206, prior knowledge, 207, prior knowledge, 208 physical issues, prior knowledge. 209 English difficulties, 210, no vehicle lives over 30 miles away. 211 may need to follow up for question 17, 212. They live in Oklahoma. Somehow they got a jury questionnaire. 213, no issues.

214 prior knowledge. 215, prior knowledge, physical issues. to 16 no issues, to 17 prior knowledge. And they watched the last pretrial conference, to 18, no issues, to 19 physical issue. And if it went until the 23rd, they would not be available prior knowledge about the defendant. 220 prior knowledge about the defendant,

doing work until June 11th. 221, no issues. 222, 222, leaving June 5th out of state. 223, self-employed. You could miss a few days. but they this could this schedule would be a lot for them 224 and 225 no issues 226 this is financial and a work hardship prior knowledge 227 prior knowledge 228 out-of-state plane tickets June 6th to 14th 229 out of country June 20th through 25th prior knowledge 2 30 prior knowledge and quote has a lot

of stuff and feels like she had this this was good so 2 30 prior knowledge about the defendant but this was a great quote from uh judge breski he says you know they have a lot of stuff and it feels like she's yelling at us in all caps end quote so uh judge breske you don't like the all caps yelling i think you want to say are you done yet 231 mental health issues and transportation issues 232 child care issues no 233 234 primary caretaker for a 95-year-old parent. 235, prior knowledge. 236, prior knowledge. 237, no issues.

238, vacation plan. 239 may have an anxiety attack if they're in an unfamiliar setting, and it would be also an educational hardship. 240, child care issues, mental health issues. 241, no issues. 242. 243 and 2444. both have work hardship and prior knowledge.

245 and health issues. 246, financial hardship, 247, out of state for a procedure June 4th through 8. 248, one car for the entire family. His wife is going through chemo. 249 difficulty with English. 250, no issues. 251, they cannot afford to take that much time off of work. Grandfather was a DPS and if he said you did it, then you did it.

it. Yeah. Next. 252. Difficulty with English. 253, work hardship, physical hardship, and prior knowledge. 254, they're moving. And prior knowledge, 255. Answer, 217 doesn't make sense. They're concerned about that. 256 medication issues and prior knowledge. 257 out of town, the first week of June. Prior knowledge, 258. This was, this was an interesting one. So the judge paused at 258. and said, who knows what a donut operator is? And we're all like, well, that's odd. Probably somebody that makes donuts. But they said that they have a bias in favor of police

from watching donut operator on YouTube. Anybody know? When you finally find your thing, you want the whole world to know about that thing. So you use a thing called Canva to make it an even bigger and better thing. whether you want to create flyers for that thing, make presentations for that thing, or design merch for that thing,

you can do anything. So people can see your thing, feel your thing, love your thing. The next thing you know, it's a thing. Canva, the thing that makes anything a thing.

259. Take your pick on the answers. No 260, 261, physical issues with vision. 262, work issues. prior knowledge about the defendant. 263 memory loss. 264 work hardship, prior knowledge by the defendant.

265, prior knowledge. 266 prior knowledge, 267, prior knowledge. 268, English difficulty. 269, traveling, 270 physical issues and a bias against belief. 271, felon, 272 primary caregiver, 273 primary knowledge about the defendant and medical issues. 274 would miss June 23rd. 275, no issue.

276 out of state and previous knowledge. 277 physical issues. 278, a follow-up about a DUI is needed. They'll figure that out. 279 hearing issues, but they can get an amplifier. 280, no issues. 281, prior knowledge. 282, no issues.

83, prior knowledge. 284, financial work issues, prior knowledge. 285, surgery Friday the 13th. Not a day I don't want to get surgery, but nonetheless, surgery on Friday the 13th. Prior knowledge about the defendant. 286, non-refundable airline ticket for in the trial. 287, prior knowledge.

288, moderate hearing loss and primary caregiver for a 5-year-old. 289, difficulty with English. 290, prior knowledge about the defendant. 291, more than. likely to believe a police officer, but they would go by the fact. They're just being honest. I like that one. 2.92, no issues. 2.93, difficulty with English. 294, no issues. 295. Question 21. It's a completely, um, uh, 221. It's a completely unformed system. psychopath.

They said something about a psychopath. I just looked at Grayson. Oh, remind me of this one. It was weird. Yeah, whether they called her a psychopath or said they were a psychopath, we don't know. But they won't be a juror.

296, difficulty with English. 297, difficulty with English. 298, physical and mental condition. Bias against justice system in general. 299. Cruise in Europe, second week of trying. I'm jealous. 300, no issues.

301, financial hardship, 302, work hardship, some knowledge about the defendant. So some interesting stuff, right? Wow. I can, you know, I wasn't able to see who was here with me sticking around for this while I read those. So I'm back and I see that there are only, that there are over 6,000 people here still in chat with us. I love it. I love how invested we are all in this trial, including jury selection and understanding this process.

So to recap, total moving forward of jurors are 66. That's what we know so far. And the total who know about the case, 126 jurors knew about the case. And then there will be 20 to 40 jurors who are walk-ins tomorrow that we will additionally learn about.

The judge explained that sometimes there are just certain potential jurors who don't fill out the sheet, but they still appear for jury duty. That's me, by the way. When he said that, at first I was like, what? And then I was like, wait, that's what I do? Like, who has time to fill out a sheet? But I will show up for my jury duty. That's what I put on the calendar.

So he said, those people that didn't fill out the questionnaire and send it back in, they're going to show up tomorrow. So, again, we have 20. to 40 walk-ins tomorrow and in 66 moving forward. And what was the percentage again? All right. Okay, I wasn't sure. So 42, we figured this out.

It's really interesting. 42%. 42.65% had last time had previous knowledge of Lori. So this time, number crunching, it was 42.85%. Isn't that wild? If you want to know if people are telling the truth, like I feel like we just did a little bit of a research project there with those numbers that potential jurors, about 42% of them have previous knowledge of Lori Valadevo. I wonder if she knew that she'd be mad and she's like, why don't you all know about me? I think that she doesn't believe them when they say that they have no knowledge of her.

It was an interesting first day. I mean, let's just like go through the whole day one more time. I wake up this morning thinking that I could just be like lazy and go on a run because we don't have to be in court until 1 p.m. So I'm like, this is going to be about the only morning I have next, you know, a few weeks. We wake up to multiple motions that hit the docket, which we covered in our earlier episode this morning. And then we go to court and all of us realize that we miss this super secret hearing where she rips on Judge Voreski and another judge puts her in her place and it's like, yeah, he's going to stay your judge, sit down. Then we go to jury selection, took all those fancy notes.

Thank you, Grayson. It was very interesting. Brandon's there. We think that's good. And then Lori's like, wait a minute. hold my Kleenex because she was holding a really ratty Kleenex the whole time. I mean, she's emotional. So you guys saw that pool camera guy even got a close-up of that dirty Kleenex.

She held the whole time with her handcuffed hands and her shackles. And Lori's like, hold my water. Wait a minute. I've got some things to say. I think I was actually talking to a fellow journalist Mike Waukes today. He's, he's, he's a legend. He was there. Only 11 people in the gallery today listening to jury selection.

And he was one of them. And he, we were chatting. Many of you might know him from his work on. He was a big reporter during Warren Jets. So I said, you know, I think what's going to happen, I think she's mad. I said, I think Lori's acting up because she was being on her best behavior for the first Arizona trial as she was representing herself over Lori Valo. And the best behavior isn't great.

Like, look, we saw some bad behavior from Lori. But her best behavior. I mean, she has her limits, right? Lori Valo, Daybell, excuse me, Lori Daybell, Lori Daybell, Lori Daybell. She's limited. She, you know, and she was probably on her best behavior at that first trial. And we are honestly seeing her sort of acting up and getting angry, wanting to recuse the judge, interrupt the judge, argue these things over and over and over again.

And I honestly think that it's because she is angry. I think that she thought she was going to win that first trial. By when I mean that she thought that the verdict was going to come back, that she was innocent. And when it didn't, she's angry and it's showing. And that's what I think. Of course, I'm not a psychologist. I'm only married to one. So I'm the journalist.

He's a psychologist. Sometimes I pretend to be one. Not really. I'll never pretend to be one. But I like to speculate with all of you. So I am going to ask Dr. John, his thoughts. He is watching everything. And we will have that actually on patreon.com

slash hidden two crime as well as for our Apple subscribers. We'll bring that. And Dr. John, my husband, the criminal psychologist in our little group here, he will also be coming on YouTube as well throughout this trial to give his take because I think we're going to see a Lori

like we've never seen before. Well, I shouldn't say that. Take that back. We're going to see Lori in her most classic Lori form. We've seen a lot of Lori. So we've seen this Lori before, but she's going to show the whole world this Lori is my prediction. I don't know. Maybe she'll behave.

I don't know. All right, everyone. We'll see you tomorrow. I know it's just jury selection, but you never know what each day is going to bring. And I have a feeling, as I've said, it's going to be a very long journey. We're taken together. So buckle up. May justice be certain.

At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfront. to-ching. Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. I lost my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own and I can trust wealth front is taking care of me. With a wealthfront cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant with to eligible accounts. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their

testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base API why as of January 30th, 2026, variable, and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees, and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.