Hidden True Crime - Jury’s been seated - Trial Moving Forward! | Lori Vallow Daybell Jury Selection Day 3 Full Recap

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

Speculation was swirling: Would Lori show up? She did—but not by choice. Day 3 brought us a hobbled courtroom entrance, last-ditch delay tactics, a medical mystery, and a judge who’s officially over it. We break down Lori’s dramatic arrival, her limp-that-wasn’t, and how Judge Beresky seized back control. The jury is set, the drama is high, and court is barreling toward opening statements. Buckle up. Brandon Playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnLc7I2gyWtQ2L4_aCtEOlvmFBxegNf56&si=B6BQJgzco69lYoWL Travis Decker full story: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-true-crime/id1521619380?i=1000711132529 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1X8NX7dea3JyOzqrS99Ypj?si=XUft4XpdQyyjxy66jFAjOw 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. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealthfronts. Check. Meet Angela, a wealth front cash account client since 23. I left 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 in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust Welfront 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 withdrawals 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 as of January 30th, 2026 is representative 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. Hello, hidden gems. I always seem to start each nightly recap with this, but

even jury selection is not anything mundane when Lori Daybel is involved. And today was no exception. First, I just want you to know, a jury has been seated. And trial will continue. A couple days ago, we were worried there might be a delay. No, no. Judge Vreske took control of his courtroom and Lori Daybell. He is back in control and she is not.

or maybe she thinks she is, I don't know. Before we get into everything to happen today, we are going to bring you the entire full recap. We have the notes. I am proud to say the Higginshoot crime brings you everything you need to know when it comes to jury selection, and we've got that for you today. Now let's get into what happened today

because we walked into the courthouse this morning to a wave of speculation. Word was spreading fast. Would Lori actually show up today? According to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, she wouldn't be appearing unless there was a signed order forcing her to appear. But hidden true crime got the scoop.

An order had been signed. So yes, Lori Valo was coming to court not by choice, but by force. Judge Boreski was clearly done playing games. He was back in control of his courtroom. Now, we didn't get to see her enter live in person. Media wasn't allowed in yet, but court footage later revealed Lori making her entrance. And let me tell you, she wasn't exactly striding in with confidence. She was hobbling. And I don't use that word lightly. We actually, again, shared that moment as a short on our channel. And let's just say your comments, they made my day.

Thank you. If you haven't checked those out, go head to that short and look at those comments. Judge Voreski kicked things off by addressing the elephant in the room right after court adjourned on Monday. He had said that he had sent an order to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Lori was to be evaluated by medical staff immediately. And sure enough, she was. The evaluation happened the very next afternoon around 12.30 p.m. that's then when a representative from the sheriff's office stood up in court today. He confirmed that Lori had indeed been evaluated. She was treated for one condition. But from a medical standpoint, there was no reason she couldn't be in court.

He even offered to give more details, but Judge Breske didn't bite. He had what he needed. And Lori, her top concern wasn't her mystery illness. It was making sure that Miracopa County Sheriff's Office's medical findings were sealed. That's what she spoke up about, not her symptoms, not her condition, just keeping the report confidential. Judge Boreski agreed to seal it. Then turning to Lori, he asked, do you have anything to add? Any reason you believe you can't proceed? And what happened next? Well, we'll get to that in just a minute. But you can watch this exchange here. Look at this.

All right, I'm going to need you to scoot up to that microphone. We also have present in the courtroom, representative from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Do you want to announce? Yes, Your Honor, Joseph V. Hill on behalf of the Sheriff's Office and Correctional Health Services. All right, after court on Monday, immediately after court, I ordered the Sheriff's Office to provide some sort of medical assessment of the defendant. I received a pleading late yesterday afternoon indicating that correctional health services examined the defendant around 1230 p.m. yesterday. The defendant was treated for one condition, and correctional health services has indicated that from a medical standpoint, we do not find any clinical indications to Ms. Court.

Is that correct, Mr. Veehill? Yes, Your Honor, and we have additional information if you need it, but it's not much. but all right all right let me turn to the defendant this is this is like a violation coming up there your honor first of all can all of this be sealed anything they're having to do with my medical i don't think that's something that all this needs to be sealed including the minute entry and hold on the response from mc so all these things i can seal the response from mc so yeah but um to the extent Well, do you have any other information you want to provide me as to why you're not medically

able to proceed right now? The only objective information I have is that you were assessed and CHS sees no clinical indications of why you need to miss court. It's something you want to discuss on sidebar. We can do that. That would be great. And that is what they did, a brief sidebar. But it wasn't really actually brief.

It lasted quite a while. But when Judge Boreski returned to the bench, he made one thing crystal clear. This trial was moving forward. He announced a jury selection would proceed as planned because Lori had provided no objective reason, none, no reason why she couldn't participate in the trial, her trial. He said he'd decide later whether to move into opening statements today or wait until tomorrow, depending on how things went. But either way, the stall tactics, done. The courtroom raids over. Breski was officially back in the driver's seat.

And now, Lori had insisted again that she had a headache and could not possibly continue, that hobbling. That's what I do when I have a headache, right? I don't know whether it was a headache or a backache, but the judge pointed out the obvious that she had just spent the last several minutes, clearly, calmly, and honestly, quite eloquently, advocating for herself. So yeah, she seemed just fine to him. Translation, if you can talk the talk,

you can sit through jury selection. But Lori was being Lori and she wasn't done just yet. She stood up and said, quote, your honor, I can't stand for the jury, end quote. Judge Boreski didn't miss a beat. He simply told her with a tone that said it all, quote unquote, how you choose to present yourself to the jury is entirely up to you. In other words, you do you, Lori, you do you. And with that, the court took a brief recess while he waited on six potential jurors who still had not arrived. And during the recess, Judge Boreski walked back in for a minute and we could hear him talking to Lori and her advisory attorney Abernathy about ibuprofen. Now, this was interesting to the judge and Abernathy having this exchange, Abernathy is sitting next to Lori.

Abernathy said something about how they couldn't force Lori to take the ibuprofen and Judge Boreski said he was simply offering it. Abernathy seemed to actually have quite a stern tone with Judge Breske from what I could see sitting in the gallery. They continue to go back and forth for a bit longer before Judge Breske, who was seemingly just trying to help and now be a little bit frustrated, walked out, sort of like this, like whatever. and he just sort of sauntered out.

Once the potential jurors were finally brought in, things got rolling. They were sworn in, and Judge Breski jumped right into his portion of Wadir, the part where the judge does the initial screening. He started with the basics. What we've been waiting for now for three days, the judge finally started. This is what he asked, quote, is there anyone who can't hear everything I just said?

anyone who doesn't read or speak English fluently, anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen or a resident of Maricopa County, and not a single hand went up. So far, so good. And next, Judge Breske introduced himself and his courtroom staff, and then asked if any of the jurors knew them personally, and again, no one raised their cards. Their juror numbers are on the cards.

That's what they raise. Then it was Trina Kay's turn, prosecutor Trina Kay. She introduced herself for paralegal Tiffany Martinez and officer Ryan Pilar from the Gilbert Police Department. The judge also asked if anyone recognized Rachel Mitchell, the Maricopa County Attorney, and still crickets. So far so good. But then came the real test, scheduling and money. Judge Boreski explained that court would now be held this Friday. And while he hoped that the trial could wrap up by the end of next week, if it didn't,

jurors would need to return on June 23rd and possibly even June 24th. And as for compensation, jurors in Maricopa County can be reimbursed up to $300 a day plus $12 for transportation, but only if they can prove those lost wages. That's when the cards started going up. Juror 21 was the first. They're flying to France for a wedding on the 24th. And honestly, they've been very vocal about this wedding, like repeatedly, This isn't a side note for them. This is the note. Jura 28 explained that she's currently unemployed and has been picking up freelance work to stay afloat. She's already had to turn down gigs just to be here for the last three days.

Jure 34 had a medical appointment on the books for this Friday, an appointment they've had for three months, actually, and missing it would mean waiting months to get back into this specialist. juror 76 had plans to go to Flagstaff this weekend to look for a new apartment, Friday, Saturday,ish. He wants to check out that Flagstaff apartment. The official appointment is on Saturday, not Friday, but he was hoping to head up on Friday. And then there was Juror 67, a self-employed nanny while her client submitted a letter verifying her income. She does not pay taxes until the end of the year, so technically she wouldn't see reimbursement until the end of the year. financially, that's a strain. So between international travel, doctor's appointments, Flagstaff rentals, and nanny tax logistics, the courtroom quickly turned into a scheduling mess.

And we were just getting started. Next, Judge Voreski asked the jurors to quietly answer a question in their minds. Quote, the state has charged the defendant with a crime, and she has pleaded not guilty. At this point in time, how would you answer as to her guilt? end quote. He presented three possible answers to this question. So now we're talking multiple choice. So A, probably guilty because she was charged. B, you don't know. C, not guilty because no evidence has been presented. The judge then explained that the correct answer legally and constitutionally is C because no evidence has been presented yet. The law presumes the defendant is not guilty. And if the jury were required to vote in this moment, the only proper verdict would be

not guilty. He asked if anyone didn't understand that principle, didn't agree with it, or felt they could not follow it. No jurors raised their cards. He also asked if anyone believed that Lori was guilty simply because she had been charged or if anyone did not understand that Lori has the right to testify or to remain silent without that being held against her, whatever she decides. Again, no card were raised. Judge Voreski then explained how jurors should weigh the credibility of testimony and evidence. He encouraged them to use the same standards of truthfulness that they rely on in daily life. That includes considering a witness's ability to see here or know the facts they testify to. Any potential motives or biases, contradictions in their words or actions, and the overall

reasonableness of their statements. He also made it clear that law enforcement officers are to be held to the same standard as anyone else on the stand. Their uniform doesn't guarantee truth. They must be evaluated just like any other witness. Next, he asked if any jurors had close ties to law enforcement. And here is what they shared. Juror nine. His uncle works for a sheriff's office. They're fairly close, but he felt it wouldn't affect his impartiality. Juror 22. His daughter retired as a detective last year. He doesn't speak with her about cases and didn't believe it would impact his role. Juror 35.

Her husband is currently in the police academy, but she believes she could be fair. Jure 55, her boyfriend is a police officer, but again, she said she could remain unbiased. Jure 84. Her husband is a detention officer

with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and her brother is also a police officer. Still, she stated she could be impartial. Jure 85, his brother-in-law is a retired officer. from Chicago, but he also indicated it would not influence him. Judge Breske also asked if anyone had connections to the legal field and two jurors spoke up. Juror 66.

She worked as an intern at a family law firm, mostly as a receptionist, but has started learning how to do draft legal documents. Juror 62. Her aunt and uncle both work in corporate law and then came a reminder about courtroom conduct. jurors were instructed not to research anything about the case. Again, they're asked this a lot, not to speak about it to anyone, and not to consume any media coverage related to this case. He said they could tell others they were serving on the jury, but nothing more.

Judge Boreski shared an antidote from a past case where a younger juror had asked, wait, you mean to tell me that I can't go on TikTok or Instagram this whole time? And he clarified, no, they're not. not being asked to give up their social media habits entirely, but they absolutely cannot look up anything related to this case or the people involved. And to close out the questioning, the judge gave jurors one last opportunity to raise their cards if they had any other issues that might prevent them from serving, something that they hadn't disclosed in their questionnaire. And he emphasized how important it is to be honest during jury selection. He noted that sometimes people don't

fully answer their questionnaires, only to reveal conflicts after being brought in, delaying the process, and impacting everyone involved. And with that, Judge Breski turned it over to prosecutor Trina K. began her own round of questioning. Study and play. Come together on a Windows 11 PC. And for a limited time, college students get the best of both worlds. Get the unreal college deal, everything you need to study and play with select Windows 11 PCs. Eligible students get a year of Microsoft 365 premium and a year of Xbox GamePass

Ultimate with a custom color Xbox wireless controller. Learn more at Windows.com slash student offer. While supplies last, ends June 30th, turns at AKA.m.m.S. College PC. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke.

I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched, chit-ching. With a wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wellfront was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. 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 Welfront is taking care of me.

Earn more on your uninvested cash with a Wealthfront cash account. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Get started today at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API, as of January. 30th, 2026 is representative 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. These and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. So prosecutor Trina K took over with Baudiere, with a calm but firm tone that is typical of prosecutor Trina K, beginning by reminding the jury of something important. The defendant is representing herself. Yes, Lori Valo has chosen to serve as her own attorney, but she does have support. She has an advisory council, a paralegal, and an investigator assisting her.

Still, Trina made it clear. Quote, even though she is representing herself, she is required to follow the rules, rules of law, rules of criminal procedure, and rules of evidence, end quote. She then asked the jurors, number one, is there anyone who might give Lori more leeway, more benefit of the doubt because she is not a trained lawyer? Is there anyone who might hold the state to a higher burden of proof because she's representing herself? Or anyone who would feel uncomfortable if the state objects to things Lori says or does simply because Lori doesn't know the law. No one raised their cards. then Trina explained the charges Lori is facing and she didn't waste any time getting direct.

Quote, is there anyone here who thinks that since Lori is not the shooter, there's no way they could convict her, end quote. No one raised their card. She then asked, quote, if there is no video of Lori admitting to the crime, is there anyone here who feels they couldn't convict her? And quote. Again, no response. Then she addressed the heart of the conspiracy charge. Quote, you are going to be told the victim, Brandy Boudreau, is not dead, that this conspiracy did not succeed. He lived. Is there anyone here who would say, well, he didn't die, so there couldn't have been a conspiracy to kill him, and quote. Still, no juror raised a card. Trina next brought up the extensive media coverage, surrounding the case, mentioning news outlets, podcasts, bloggers.

She asked if any juror would struggle to avoid media exposure, especially if someone, something popped up on their phone. It happens, right? No hands. No cards. She reminded them, as Judge Breske had, that they could not talk about the case with anyone. And then asked plainly, is there anyone here who believes they wouldn't be able to go home and

keep this case to themselves. No one raised a card. And next, she brought up the LDS Church, also known as the Mormon Church. She brought up both of those names. She asked if any jurors had strong views, positive or negative, that would make it difficult to sit through a trial involving people and that faith. Once again, no hands. And then came a curveball. This was interesting. Here we go. Quote, Brandon Boudreau was driving a Tesla when he was shot at, she said. Given the current political climate, would the fact that he was driving a Tesla impact your ability to fairly judge this case? End quote.

Clearly referring to Elon Musk and the political climate. Still, no hands. Good to go. No bias towards Tesla's. She then moved into final logistics. Trina explained that the testimony in this case would not be presented in chronological order due to the availability of various witnesses, including some flying in. And remember, this jury selection has gone two days longer than anticipated. She had people ready to testify on Monday, and she had to switch flight.

So now she's saying, look, due to various witnesses, including some flying in, she asked if that nonlinear structure would confuse. or frustrate anyone. No juror raised concerns. And finally, she posed a serious and fundamental question. As a juror, your job is to pass judgment to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty. Does anyone here have a background, religious belief, or personal conviction that would make it difficult for them to pass judgment? End quote. No one raised a card. And with that, Trina K. concluded her questioning. And next up. What we've all been waiting for, it was Lori DeBell's turn to ask her questions. Oh, boy. And it was great.

So during jury selection for Charles Vallow's case, Lori had stood up, introduced herself. So this was just a month ago or a couple months ago now. So during that jury selection, for Charles Vallow's case, Lori had stood up, introduced herself, and then eased into her questions, not. this time. This time, she skipped the pleasantries entirely. No introduction. No, I'm Lori Daibel and dove straight in. And her first question, quote, I know that people might not recognize a name on a questionnaire, but now that we're altogether, have any of you seen me? End quote. No juror raised their cards. Next, she asked if any jurors had served on a jury before and three cards went up.

Sure 49, 45, and 46. And at this point, Judge Boreski gently cut in, noting that technically he should have already asked about prior jury service. There's a set of questions printed on the back of every juror's card, and they hadn't gone through those yet. He assured the court he'd circle back to those responses later, which he did, and we will circle back to those responses later as well. They were interesting, and we will save those for the end of this lie.

Lori then moved on. Her next question came with a personal twist. Quote, This is a question I love, she said. And yes, her voice, by the way, was sweet. It was elevated. It was nice. It was not sick, Lori. This was pleasant, Lori. Although she remained seated, she didn't stand for anything, didn't stand for the jury, didn't stand for the judge, didn't stand for these questions. But her voice was pleasant, kind, warm, sweet. We know that she's not those. things I'm just explaining what her voice was and so she says quote this is a question I love is there anything happening or going on right now that might distract you from concentrating on your duties i know we've had that before and quote it hung in the air for a moment but no jurors raise their cards

but let's talk about this did she just essentially admit to having another trial Let me read that one more time. I want to know this. Is there anything happening or going on right now that might distract you from concentrating on your duties? I know we've had that before, end quote. It was an odd moment. You know, I don't know if the jury would take it like that. They could take it as other potential jurors.

I don't know, but it was an interesting moment. she almost just gave away that there was another trial or two because they've had this issue with past juries. Interesting, right? Next question. Is there anyone here that being on a jury is something you've always wanted to do? Like a bucket list thing. No?

That's what she said. Like a bucket list thing. No? No cards were raised. So no one has in their bucket list, you know, you know, taped to their referring. juror serve on a, you know, high profile murder trial. No, no cards were raised. Then she said, the law says I am innocent of this crime until proven guilty.

Is there anyone that doesn't understand or agree with that? No jurors raise a card. Lori then asks anyone that would have difficulty forming their own opinion and then sticking to it. And at this point, Judge Breskes steps in asking if there's anyone who would consider themselves able to be influenced by someone, like maybe if they're having a political argument and they would eventually give up. And he asked, quote,

if you felt the state didn't prove their case, could you stick to that or give in and vote guilty? End quote. No cards were raised. Back to Lori. If all others opposed you, could you stick to your own guns? Like, guys, okay, listen to this.

Quote, if all others opposed you, could you stick to your own guns on what was presented here at trial? end quote. No cards were raised involving, implying that yes, they could all stick to their own guns. But interesting choice of words there, right? Could you stick to your own guns? Well, well played, Lori. Lori then says, quote, raise your hand if you've had any other courtroom experience besides being on a jury, end quote. A few jurors raised their hands. And here is what all of the jurors that raised their hands said. We have the deeds.

Juror 15 got a felony DUI 13 years ago, but he clarified that his juror rights are reinstated. Lori asked him how he thought that experience would affect him being on a jury, and he replied, quote, I was at fault, so it was due process, end quote. Juror 43 went through a custody trial 20 years ago in another country or another county, excuse me. but it's nothing that would affect the ability to be fair or be a juror at all. Juror 79 had a misdemeanor, DUI a few years back.

And Lori asked if there was anything about that experience that would influence his ability to be a juror. And his response was that it felt uncomfortable and he felt rushed through it. So he went along with whatever the sentence was. Judge Breske then stepped in asking if this juror felt like he had gotten taken advantage of. And he said a little bit. So then Judge Boreski continued some questioning because that was an interesting answer and asked, do you think that that would affect your ability to be fair or could you set this aside? And juror 79 replied that actually he was not sure if he could set this aside.

Lori responded very sweetly, Thank you for your honesty. I appreciate it, end quote. juror 82 went through a custody battle but nothing that would affect the ability to serve juror 10 said he had a misdemeanor DUI 10 plus years ago but it would not affect his ability and when Lori asked what his experience was like he responded quote standard process went and did what I was told and got through it and quote so Lori could really take a few pages out of his book if you think about it juror 27 was after

juror 10 and quickly said, quote, same thing, DUI went through that process and got through it, end quote. When Lori followed up by asking if there was anything about that process that would impact his ability to be a juror, he said, quote, not really, it was quick. One woman in the front of the jury box also raised her card and said that she went through a custody battle, but nothing that would impede her to serve on this jury. Lori's next question was, is there anything that would stand in the way of of making you be fair and impartial of me.

No cards were raised. She then said, raise your hand if you think someone charged with a crime is automatically guilty or has at least a percentage of guilt no matter what. No cards were raised. And then she shifted her focus over to guns, back to guns,

saying in this case, we'll be talking a lot about guns. Is there anyone who owns a gun? 14 jurors raised their cards. Jurors 7, 8, 10, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 46, 50, 82, 84, 80, and 88. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealthfront. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest, and I didn't have to do anything.

Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base API as of January 30th, 2026, is representative 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.

She then said, along those lines, can you raise your number if you've ever been to a shooting range? Because I just want to point out that I think this implies that a lot of the evidence will be the fact that Alex Cox, her co-conspirator, went to a shooting range to prepare for the event. Because that is in the FOIA documents that are on our Patreon page, patreon. Patreon.com slash hidden true crime. We have all of the Arizona documents and a big part of the evidence is indeed Alex Cox showing up to shooting ranges. So have any of you ever been to shooting ranges? 31 jurors raised their cards, which I'm sure made Lori quite content because if they go to shooting ranges all the time, why would they think that this was even evidence of Alex Cox planning something? Am I right? I'm sure that's what she's thinking. Well, 31 jurors raised their

cards and the jurors were 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 4, 143, 45, 45, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 69, 80, 82, 85, 888. More than I'd actually expected. Lori then asked any jurors with extensive gun knowledge to raise their hands, and jurors seven raised his hand and said that he grew up with a father who was a professional gunsmith. Lori responded, quote, oh, a gunsmith. What was your experience like growing up like that with him, end quote. And guys, and this is really how sort of sweet she was, all jury selection.

And he explained that he learned a lot about firearms. Lori asked him if he was someone that frequents the shooting range and he said yes. She then asked if he felt like the knowledge he had would be an asset or might distract him. And Trina Kaye objected to this. And Lori was told to rephrase that question. And when she rephrased it, Trina Kay objected, objected once again. And so Judge Boreski jumped in and asked him this potential juror if he could follow the instructions that will be given to him, even if he thinks he knows better. And he responded,

yes, yes, I can. Juror 25 raised her hand and said she was an army veteran and was familiar with a lot of different weapons. Lori asked what years she was in the army. And she said 2000 to 2005 during the Iraqi war, actually. And Lori then asks, were you deployed? And the juror says that she was, indeed, deployed. And Lori finishes off by saying, quote, wow, oh, wow. Thank you. you for your service." I am grateful for that juror's service, but when that comes from Lori Drain, what dear, I have different feelings, especially since she's hobbling and won't even stand for them to do this questioning.

But thank you for your service. I just won't stand for you to respect you enough to do that, but wow, you're wonderful. Jur 82 also raised her card and explained that she was in the army for three months and also sold firearms. said she goes to the shooting range about once every six months. And next question, is there anyone that has a close person in their family that has ever served on a jury? Jure 37's mom served on a jury. Lori asked, how did that affect you with your mom serving on that jury? And jury 37 responded, it has not affected me at all. Jure 47's mom also served on a jury, but they don't remember anything.

Jure 71 said their mother has served twice. Lori asked if she had a good experience. And he said that yeah, she did have a good experience. She then asked if his mom's experience would have any effect on his jury service to which he replied, I want to say it wouldn't, but I wouldn't be able to answer with 100% confidence, end quote. Judge Breske did some follow up because that was an interesting answer and the juror couldn't figure out how it would ever impact his service. Judge Breske made some solid points, I guess, and the juror's like, yeah, I don't really know how it could impact my service. Good point. Lori ended with him. by saying, quote,

Thank you for your honesty. I really appreciate it. End quote. Juror 35's mom served on a jury. Juror 88's mother also served 20 plus years ago. She was probably living at home at the time. Sure, but she did not know her mother was serving during that time. Jure 88 has had two children who have served in the last two years.

And when asked how their experience was, he said that they're young. so he thought it was kind of fun for them and that they enjoyed serving. Lori then asks, is there anything we haven't asked you that you think might affect your jury service? And at this time, juror 72 raised their card and said, quote, I've noticed that you haven't asked the question if anyone has ever been convicted or has served in a trial at all or been convicted or actually been a part of a trial. Judge Boreski explained that was indeed question 20 on the e-questionaire, so they had asked it, but he could absolutely answer it at this time. And this potential juror explained that he was there during the trial of a friend who had a parole violation for having a firearm.

And that because of that, he would have been a little bit biased towards the system because it felt like his friend was trying to reintegrate back into society. but the system pulled him back in, and he did not believe his friend was even guilty of this, that he didn't have the firearm. It wasn't his. He didn't own it. Lori also thanked him for his honesty. And that was the end of her questioning. thanked him for his honesty, and I'm sure thinking to herself,

can we please have this guy on the jury since he doesn't trust the system? I need someone like that. Well, the jurors were then taken out right after that for a quick recess. while some housekeeping was taking care of. Judge Vreske said that juror 83 did not show up. That was one juror that just didn't show up. When they reached out to the juror through text, the juror texted back saying with all the uncertainty the last few days,

they felt they needed to get back to their work schedule. And so then Judge Breske said, well, we're going to refer them back to the jury commissioner for another jury pool. So they probably should have showed up, I guess, note to all of us show up for, jury duty if you don't want to have to do it again. And then we went through the juror strikes, starting with juror 21. And that was the juror who was traveling to France.

And because she had brought it up so often and seemed so worried Judge Breske, thought it would be best to let her go. And everyone agreed. Juror 28, who was unemployed but doing freelance work for income. Juror 34 was the one with a doctor's appointment on Friday. And as for juror 76, that was the apartment hunting juror, one wanting to head to Flagstaff. The judge called his reasoning weak and flimsy

and opted to keep him. Juror 67, the nanny was excused. Juror 79 was the one with the DUI who felt they weren't treated fairly. Trina said they had indicated that on their e-questionaire and during all of these strikes, Judge Breski says, why he would like to release them,

but the state, of course, and Lori have to agree. And this is the one where she stopped talking. It was the guy that said he didn't trust the sister. right? So this guy is saying he doesn't trust the system. And like I said, I'm thinking Lori probably wants to keep this guy. And they're saying, okay, should we release this guy? The judge thinks we probably should let the guy go who doesn't trust the system. Prosecutor Trina Kay agrees. And then the judge turns to Lori because Lori has to agree. Yes, we will excuse this juror. And I'm very interested in what she's going to say because like I said, I'm thinking

to myself, she wants to keep this guy. So they look at. at her and say Lori. You know, they don't say Lori, but, you know, what, how does the defense feel? And Lori just all of a sudden refuses to talk. Like the silence was deafening. It was, it was awkward. I talked about it in my lunch life. Like, it was long.

The judge just sat there. I was even at one woman thinking, am I, can I not hear her? Is it so soft? And maybe it was. Maybe she was hardly speaking in the microphone and we couldn't hear. but I think there was just dead silence. She would not respond. Wait, what?

What is going on? So at this point, Judge Boreski said, quote, you ready for this? I love, like, quote, just very calmly in his gray rocking sort of way, I'd like on record, quote, I would like on record. I'm simply going to observe the defendant, her face and mannerisms appear perfect. strictly normal when the jurors are here. But when they're not here, she can't speak, end quote. So that's on record. Juror 79 was then excused. Juror 72 was also excused that was the friend who had a parole violation. He was excused along with juror 84 who had a spouse that was a Maricopa County Sheriff's Office detention officer. The judge opted to release her just simply out of an

abundance of caution because this case could possibly come up in conversation about Lori in their house. She was excused. So then we had a lunch break before coming back in for the rest of Wadir. And I mentioned earlier that there was a set of questions Judge Breske had forgot to go through with those jurors. These questions included what their occupation is, what their spouse or of significant others occupation is. It's sort of like a get to know you. It's like the questions you answer when you have a new job or it's the first day of school.

Let's get to know one another. And they want to know about family life. If they have a job, if they have children, and if they have ever served on a jury before, I have all of the answers for each juror. But like I said, as usual, I'm going to save that until the end. Because it's interesting. You get a taste of who's. going to serve on this jury. And of course, we'll remove any identifying information, but you get

to know these potential jurors. After going through all of those things, Judge Boreski asked the jurors one more time if they had anything else they needed to inform him of and nobody raised their cards. He then sent the juries out one final time while they concluded any last jury selection issues between the parties. And when they were out, Judge Boreski said, 16 out of the jury. the 18 jurors in that box would be moving forward as the official jurors on this case. And that is what I had expected because if you heard me interviewed Tosh, a former juror on Charles's trial just a couple months ago or a month ago, she had been in the jury box. And I hadn't realized that they had really already narrowed those jurors down.

And those were the jurors that remained, give or take, like a few. Same thing happened this time. the jurors in the box would be moving forward on this case. And after all the jurors were brought back in, the rest of the potential jurors who did not make it on the jury panel were dismissed and the 16 officially chosen were sworn in. Without much warning, it just like happens. Like he says pretty much, hey, these jurors here, all these rows, you can leave.

And then he turns to these jurors. He's like, okay, well, we have a jury now and he swears them in. Like there's not much more to it. And I asked Tosh afterwards, by the way, as we were going down the elevator after court recessed, like what they felt during that moment. And they said that, yeah, it was shock. And so they said that this jury was probably in shock

that they were the 16 chosen. 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. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to ch-ching. With a Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust. Wealthfront is taking care of me.

Make your money earn more. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials, creating a conflict of interest. How comes very. 3.3%. Base API as of January 30th, 2026 is representative 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. Well, this jury is also more diverse than the last jury pool. If you remember, there was actually only one female on the last jury for Charles's trial. One female. Well, this jury consists of. eight men and eight women. 50-50-50-haffees. So eight men, eight women.

And after they were sworn in, and by the way, let me say to that, maybe Lori's realized that even men find her guilty too. Judge Breske, no, she's faking it. And men decide she's guilty. So, you know, we'll even out the score, eight men and eight women. After they were sworn in, we went through all the jury instructions,

which is quite lengthy and very legal. We didn't write all that down. And then the jurors were dismissed for the day, and they were told to come back tomorrow. Because they are going to be coming back every day to court for the next couple of weeks. Lori closed out the day with one final concern that on Friday, the media had zoomed in on her computer,

and the judge reminded the media that they could not zoom in on her computer. And I just want to say, while that makes sense, I'm going to make a prediction. Lori has her computer right in front of her. We already can hardly see her face because camera has to be behind her. Right. And the screen, her computer is right in front of her.

Sometimes it's showing evidence. Sometimes it's not. I suspect she's going to keep that computer now front and center with evidence on there just to make it difficult for court TV. who is cool to get any solid shots. I just don't know how you avoid that computer. It's confusing. It's confusing.

But it makes sense that the media shouldn't be looking at our computer. So the judge reminded the media that they could not zoom in on her computer. And with that, court was in recess. And we were officially on track for opening statements tomorrow. Dun-dun-dum. Tomorrow is going to be a very big day. As for all of the juror's answers to the questions about their current lives and their current situation.

Let's go through them. They're interesting. Get to know your jury. These were potential jurors too. I don't want to identify the 16 jurors and isolate them to what they do. So I'm going to tell you every potential juror sort of so you can kind of know.

And again, any very specific identifying information I've removed. A juror five is a college student home for summer, never been a juror before, currently unemployed, but said they used to work at a donut shop. This was good. To which Judge Breskes said, oh, donuts. And everybody laughed. Six was a pharmacy technician married with two kids, never been on a jury.

Seven, an elected official for a nonprofit, divorced, five children, never been on a jury. Eight. Surgical nurse. married, has served on a jury on a civil case 10 plus years ago in Texas and was the four person on that jury. Nine, self-employed for 27 years, not married, no kids, never been on a jury. 10. A manager at a financial company, single, never been a juror.

13, food delivery person, single, never been a juror. 14, health care worker, five children, never been on a jury. 15. Works for a printing company, one child. Dating, never been on a jury. 22, retired twice, veteran, three children, never been on a jury. 25, account executive, married, but filed for divorce, never been on a jury. 26, electrician married, two kids, never been on a jury.

27, mainline technician, single, no children, never been on a jury. 32, bartender, single, never been on a jury. 35, homemaker, married, six children, never been a juror. 37, night clerk, single, no kids, never sat as a juror. 39, engineering technician, single, never been on a jury. 41, self-employed, married. One kid, never been on a jury. 43, works in insurance, divorce, but dating, sat on a criminal trial 25 years ago for an armed robbery case that they found that person guilty.

44, employed, single, never been on a jury. 45, office manager, five children, has sat on a jury for a criminal case for shoplifting. 46, retired RN, three children has sat on a criminal case in the 90s for drug dealing. 47 works for an airline, three children, divorce never been on a jury. 48 manages a fast food restaurant, not married, no children, never been on a jury. 49, director of design, married, two kids, has sat on a criminal case in 2018, fraud and theft. 50, bartender, engaged, never been on a jury. 51, works at a bank, four kids, never been on a jury.

53, asset management consultant, married, no kids, never been on a jury. 55, nurse, not married, never been on a jury. 52, insurance claims associate, not married, no kids, never been on a jury. 66, college student, intern at a law firm, not married, no kids, never been on a jury. 68, surgical technologist, not married, two kids, never been on a jury. 69 unemployed, married, no children, was on a minor criminal case for a jury. 71, works at a store, single, no kids, never been on a jury. 73, health care worker, married never been a juror.

74, works for college testing, Mary never been a juror. 76, married, no kids, never been a juror. 78, managing director, no children, not married, never been on a jury. 80, nurse, married, five kids, never been a jury. a juror. 82 server one child never been a juror. 85 self-employed insurance broker married seven kids. And as he kept talking, Judge Breskes said, okay, the sales pitch to which the juror said, hey, I'm trying. It says ABC. I did notice though, Judge, that you didn't bring donuts. And everybody laughed. It was a great comeback. 88, project manager, not married, no kids, never been a juror. And

there you go. I will say that this jury that is seated looks diverse. Again, eight women, eight men, a variety of ages. The youngest is quite young. I don't know how young. When you hit middle age, it's hard to know how old somebody is, but she, the youngest looks fairly young. The oldest, from what I can tell a gentleman, looks older. So there's a variety of ages, ethnicity, and, of course, half men, half women, from what we can tell. Of course, from what we can tell where we are seated. That's what it looks like. So the demographics.

I want to share one other thing that's really important. I actually was up until 1 a.m. last night, or I guess the same. morning because even though I am here covering this trial every day, there was another case that came down. It is absolutely heartbreaking. And I wanted to get as many eyes on it as possible. So we stayed up, Grace and I stayed up to get out all the information we could on a story where somebody is wanted for murder. His name is Travis. And he is wanted now. for murdering his three daughters. It is heartbreaking.

And I also upset that an Amber Alert had not been issued. He took the curls after visitation. And this story is, it will be linked. We need all the eyes on it we can get. A manhunt is underway. Many people have speculated if he has done, you know, self-harm after what he did, but he is nowhere to be found, and he is also known to hitchhike, and nobody can find him, and he is considered armed and dangerous, and what he did is beyond comprehension. And while we are

here working for justice for Brandon Boudreau and Lori Val was convicted of doing what she did to her own children, this has got to stop happening. There is nothing I find more despicable than to do this to their children. So anyway, rest in peace, Peyton, Evelyn, and Olivia. And may justice be served for them. And I hope that you'll get your eyes on that show that we also did last night. But thank you for that. All right, everyone, thank you for being here. We're so grateful for our community during this time. You make it possible that I can can travel to these trials. Dr. John also makes it possible he is holding down the fort at home and full-time parenting. So all right, everyone. Thank you. Have a good night. May justice be served,

and we will see you tomorrow. Opening state. See ya. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealthfronts. Chiching. 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 Welfront is taking care of me. With a Welfront cash account account account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals 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, is representative 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. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wallfront. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to

do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% AP. on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base APIE as of January 30th, 2026, is representative 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.