Hidden True Crime - Lori Claims Her Civil Rights Were Violated, & Wants ANOTHER Trial

Episode Date: June 26, 2025

In her latest motion, convicted killer Lori Vallow says Arizona violated her constitutional rights by forcing her to represent herself while she was too ill to function. Now, she’s demanding a new trial. Is this a desperate legal Hail Mary—or could it actually work? Lauren is here to break down her claims, the courtroom drama, and what happens next. OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code HIDDEN at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Episode on Lori's filing on Tammy Lachcik: Spotify Apple 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. 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. Hello, Hidden Jens. I don't know all about all of you, but I am so done with Lori Valo Debel. So done. going to have to probably figure out what to stop covering her consistent emotions.

But not today. Not today. Because I want to go through this with all of you. We need to go through it. Because just when you thought Lori Daybell might finally be waving a white flag, and did any of us really think that? But, you know, we always keep hope, right? Maybe.

Just maybe she's waving this. white flag, maybe settling into her life sentences, her multiple life sentences, wanting to go back to Idaho, right, because she hates Arizona so much. Maybe finally, she's going to be quiet. She pops back up with emotion that screams not so fast. Oh, don't forget about me. Yes, we went just under a full two weeks, two weeks, guys, without. out a single court filing from her after her latest guilty verdict, her last most recent guilty verdict. And honestly, that might be a personal best. But as she reminds us, don't get too comfortable because the so-called doomsday mom is back in action. And she is demanding a brand new trial.

And why? Why is she demanding a brand new trial? Well, one reason, according to Lori, was she was too sick to stand trial. Surprise. Predict. Yep. Now she is claiming she was forced to be in court while allegedly battling from nausea, everything from nausea to headaches. And while she didn't mention it yet, probably spiritual distress. And that's just the beginning. We may or may not know about the spiritual distress, you know, because of HIPAA. But despite this predictable move, we could have guessed that as soon as Wadir was happening and she claimed she was too sick and she wanted to delay her trial. But in this episode, we are going to go line by line through her latest motion.

What is she arguing? And does any of it hold up? Because, you know, there were a couple lines. We'll talk that got my attention. I don't know. And we're about to see the next wave of Lori's courtroom chaos possible. We'll see. And if history tells us anything, though, this isn't going to be the last filing we see,

not by a long shot. And so, like I said, I'm going to have to wonder when I'm done or when all of you are done and when we decide to be done because this tells me she might never be done. And so, let's begin, though. The motion reads, quote, Lori Daybell requests that the court grant her a new trial. This motion is filed pursuant to the protections provided by Rule 24-1 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article 24 and 24 of Arizona State Constitution.

This motion is accompanied by the following memorandum of points and authorities, end quote. So under Memorandum of Points and If Thorenton, Arguement one is titled Fourth Amendment Violation Medical Evaluation. And it reads, quote, On Friday, May 30th, the defendant became ill, vomiting at the lunch break during jury selection. So we were out during the lunch break, but allegedly she was vomiting. And after lunch break, the defendant informed the judge and state of her sickness and that her investigator had been out sick since the prior day with the same symptoms. Again, I just want to reiterate this. I want to stop for a second and say, we never heard she was vomiting. I'm not saying she wasn't.

Again, I wasn't there. But we were told that she wanted to vomit, that she felt nauseous, but no one was ever told she was vomiting. But let's go on. The court asked the defendant to stay for 10 minutes while he informs jurors and releases people with scheduling conflicts. Defendant was reluctant and did not want to vomit in front of the jury. That part I remember. She said she was going to throw up on the television. However, the judge refused to dismiss her. The 10 minutes turned into one and one half hours. Before being dismissed by the court, he advised defendant to let the court know through her team before Monday if she was still sick. And on Sunday, June 1st, defendant was still sick and had her advisory counsel email the court to inform,

them that she was still too sick with a virus and could not proceed on Monday, June 2nd. Monday, June 2nd, 2025 defendant was very sick and had advised the court in a timely manner. However, the court sent an order to the jail on June 2nd, 2025, to have defendant brought to court by any means necessary. Defendant could not walk from being weak and dehydrated, having vomited all weekend. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office brought defendant to court in a wheelchair. We all remember the wheelchair. Defendant then explained to the court that she was too sick to represent herself and would not go forward. The court again asked the defendant to stay while he brought in potential jurors to explain and ordered her out of the wheelchair and into a regular chair. Also,

I will put out, he didn't order, he requested that she get into a regular chair for, to stop, you know, biases and but I'll continue I just I guess there's a part of it just wants to point all these things that aren't true that I did see because again the boy who cries wolf I'm going to doubt some of the things I can't see too admittedly but let's keep reading they say that she was ordered out of her wheelchair and into a regular chair the defendant argued the last time he said 10 minutes which took over one and a half hours so he dismissed her prior to dismissing the jury The defendant was then left in the wheelchair, because again, she didn't get out of that wheelchair, in a holding cell with no blanket, medicine, or hydration for six hours waiting for transport back to the jail.

I will point out, I didn't see what happened in the holding cell. If she was denied water, I am concerned. That's the problem. On Monday, June 2, 2025, the court sent an order to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office requesting they medically about. defendant, which is a violation of this defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in Arizona Constitution Article 2, Section 8. June 3rd, 2025, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office called defendant out of bed again to walk down to medical. We did see the orders saying that she was forced to come to court. That is true. This is Lori's side of the story. It's sort of like

there's two sides of every story. Here's Lori's story. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ordered CHS, that is the health services, correctional health services, CHS, to evaluate the defendant's health without her knowledge. I'm pretty sure she understood it when they came and said that we're here to assess your health. But Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ordered CHS, the health services, correctional health services, to evaluate defendant's help without her knowledge in CHS, then provided their evaluation to the court through Maricopa County Civil Attorney Joseph Fijil, which was a HIPAA violation, according to Lori, and the notice filed on June 3, 2025, initially, not under seal. So I guess this wasn't under seal, thus that violates her HIPAA.

On Wednesday, June 4, 2025, this court ordered again, defendant to court by any means necessary order by Miracopa County Sheriff's Office. True again. And any means necessary order means guards show up at your cell and pull you out of bed and take you to court against your will. That happens. Once in court, defendant again informs the judge that she cannot proceed because she is too ill. Judge Breskes orders her not only to stay, but to defend herself while too sick to do so. Defendant was then forced by the court and to Wadir, the jury, and to select a jury. Thursday, June 5th, 2025. Again, now this is the first day of trial. Thursday, June 5th, 2025, although defendant was still suffering from a viral illness, she was expected by

Judge Boreske to give her opening statement and begin cross-examining witnesses. Friday, June 6th, 2025, Judge Boreski ordered defendant by any means necessary to again defend herself sick in a full day of court from 8.30 a.m. until 4.30 p.m. June 8th, 2025, defendant's advisory council again emailed the court that defendant is still still. sick and that she had been notified by the correctional health services of the results of the testing performed. And it came back with an infection in need of antibiotics for treatment. Also, that's interesting because it didn't come back for viral. Or is that a viral infection, I guess, we're learning, needing antibiotics. So we don't know anything else? Okay. Yet again,

by any means necessary order was entered by the court for Monday, June 9th. Monday, June 9th, 2025, Judge Breskes cleared the courtroom and sealed the hearing. Now, that's there was actual evidence that the defendant had really been sick the whole time without treatment. And in the end, Judge Breske still ordered the defendant to defend herself at trial, knowing she was too ill to proceed. The by any means necessary order continued from Judge Breske, and it continued every day, through the trial from May 30th until June 12th the day the verdict was given. So that's interesting. We know now that this order was likely given every day of trial and she didn't want to go. I also want to point out there was this one day where Lori, you know,

in front of the jury, she stands, she acts the part and then when the jury leaves, she pretends, or not, excuse me, I shouldn't say pretends, but she says she is too sick. And the judge pointed that out and had that on record. But let's continue. This is a violation of the defendants do process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 4 of the Arizona Constitution. This alone constitutes a new trial, end quote. Before I switched to Wellfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to-ching. With the Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust. Wellfront 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. Howcomes vary. 3.3%. Base APY as of January 30. 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. 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 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. So again, I will say that Lori's statement here, I'll quote it again, the defendant was then left in a wheelchair in a holding cell with no blanket medicine or hydration for six hours waiting for transport back to the jail end quote that does concern me specifically the lack of hydration waiting for transport understandable no blanket or medicine or water

something she should likely have but i don't know again what happened in the holding cell and just what lorry tells us what is true and what is isn't true because I've already read a lot of things so far that I saw with my own eyes that simply aren't true. But, okay, I don't know what happened in the holding cell. Fair enough. Maybe she didn't have those two bottles of water she always had on her desk, her defendant's desk, her defense desk. I'm also curious about the infection she had that she needed antibiotics for. What was it? Was it a urinary tract infection? Was it something more severe? Unfortunately, the public doesn't know. these things, probably because of HIPAA. But yet, she's saying there was a HIPAA violation,

but none of us know what it was. Anyway, Lori's next argument for a new trial is the court's lack of impartiality. So if you remember from her filing to get a retrial on the case for Charles, she had the same lead argument. She had cited the judge saying, quote, I guess to the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures, I will allow it, end quote, in that motion. Well, this time, here is what she is saying. Quote, the court precluded this defendant from presenting her case by not allowing defendant to argue objections, regularly denying sidebars and not allowing her time to consult with her investigator and obtain documents from him prior to cross-examining witnesses.

To begin, this defendant in attempting to cross-examine the case agent regarding the investigation done of the scene by initial responding officers was denied that opportunity, end quote. And then Lori cites a specific timestamp in the court footage, which we can take a listen to here. So she cites this, take a listen. And so did you learn from Officer Rob that the neighbor that she had got contact with said that the Jeep had a tire on the back? Can I object to your side?

Sustain. sustained. Your Honor, I wasn't asking for the truth of the matter asserted. I was asking for the effect on the listener. Officer Rob. Sustained. Can I have a sidebar? No, it's sustained. Next question. Lori goes on to say, quote, the initial responding officer spoke with a witness who provided a different description of the jeep she saw during the incident. defendant attempted to cross-examine the case agent when the state objected to the answer based on hearsay. The objection by the state was sustained. Defendant, even though not having been asked for a response from the judge, argued the statement was not being used for the truth of the matter rather to show effect on listen. Defendant requested a sidebar and was denied.

This same interaction occurred with another scene agent, Detective David Freer, and when defendant attempted cross-examine him regarding what other neighbors told police they heard during the police investigation, a hearsay objection was sustained without allowing defendant an opportunity to respond. Lastly, defendant put on the record early in the case that her investigator, Jeff White, had been out ill. The court requested defendant's advisory counsel work with Investigator White to obtain documents and exhibits that she would need to cross-examine witnesses. Photos were received by advisory council and were not able to be printed in time to use during cross of detective fare. Those exhibits are attached as Exhibit 1.

Defendant also was unable to admit exhibits 192, 193, and 194 as a state, and the court continued to state she would be opening the door to her prior convictions. That's true. They did always warn her that she'd be opening the door to her prior convictions. convictions because she was. Additionally, I'll continue, quote, additionally, the state continuously stated defendant's line of questioning relating to Melanie Boudreau constituted a third-party defense, yet defendant never attempted to blame Melanie Boudreau for the crimes.

Defendant was simply attempting to cross-examine the victim, Brandon Boudreau, as to why he blamed defendant. Exhibits 192, 193, and 194 are attached as exhibit, end quote. Okay. So now of this, I can speak because I was there and I saw and I heard what Lori was saying. And in my opinion, as someone just sitting in the courtroom, she absolutely was blaming her niece, Melanie Boudrelle Pulaski. I don't know what else that is. She might claim she wasn't. She might be saying that she was trying to point out that Branden shouldn't be blaming her because she's the one that would have the financial motive. Oh, wait. Okay.

So then she just blamed Melanie. Do you see what I did there? All Lori is trying to say is that she wouldn't have the financial motive. Melanie would. That is putting the blame on somebody else. That's a third party defense. Okay. Let's keep going.

So she can say what she wants to say and that she wasn't blaming her niece. But, okay, she, I mean, I think she was blaming her niece. I think that's a third party defense right there. Anyway, and that's what they were warning her about. This is what this is. And she's like, yeah, I'm going forward with this. Her third main argument, though, in this motion for a retrial, is abuse of discretion. She lists three separate reasons under this argument.

The first one is the. denial of Rule 13-5 hearing. Quote, on May 29, 2025, after reviewing juror electronic questionnaire, defendant requested a probable cause hearing on aggravated circumstances pursuant to Arizona rules of criminal procedure, 13.5A. The court denied the request stating the defendant was not entitled to a probable cause hearing, end quote. Second reason, not releasing the jury from the admonition on the record. I wasn't expecting this one. She says, second reason, not releasing the jury from the

admonition on the record. Quote, after the verdict was read, on June 12th, 2025, the court dismissed the jury so that the parties could discuss whether an aggravation phase would be presented. I remember this. They dismissed the jury. Let's talk. Aggravation phase or not. Well, after the discussion relating to the denial of the rule 13.5 hearing, the court

set a sentencing date and dismissed the parties without bringing the jury back into the courtroom to officially lift the admonition and dismiss the jury, end quote. I did not see that one coming. So she's saying that they didn't officially lift the admonition and dismiss the jury. I'm looking forward to the court's response of that. I didn't know about that. Wasn't expecting that one. Never noticed. So I'll wait for the court's response to that one. Or by that, I mean the state. The problem. The problem. The prosecution. Third reason. Allowing GSR and DNA evidence without sufficient foundation. DSR, by the way, is gunshot residue. So allowing GSR and DNA evidence without sufficient foundation and denial of right to confront witnesses.

Quote, on May 3, 2025, the state filed a motion to preclude Brady material relating to the crime scene tech, Tammy Leitchik, from Gilbert Police Department, who collected material evidence from the alleged crime scene. Brady material showing that the witness latchick was implicated in an incident that resulted in her resignation was disclosed by the state on May 1st, 2025, even though the report was concluded on March 6, 2025. Because of the late disclosure, defendant requested the court order the state to disclose the witness laychick's employee file so the defendant could thoroughly investigate any issues

that might be relevant to this witness testifying at trial set to begin May 29, 2025. The court denied this request. May 25, 2025, the state notified, defended that two pages of this witness Laechick's notes, which other forensic scientists would have needed to rely upon or had relied upon, but were now missing and could not be provided to defense. On June 3, 2025, in the middle of trial, the state disclosed a letter from the witness Laechecks, indicating that she would not be testifying. And the defendant has offered exhibit 203 marked for appellate purposes.

Defendant objected prior to each forensic scientist, two from Mesa Crime Lab and one from the Phoenix Crime Lab, to the witnesses testifying about analysis they completed based on the work conducted by Witness Leachek. The first witness was Emmeline Saponoso, who created a profile from the blood blots collected by this witness at the autopsy of Alex Cox. The second analyst was Vanessa Milkey, who testified that the blood clot profile of Alex Cox matched DNA swabs taken by witness, Lechick. From the Jeep Rangler, finally, analyst Kyle Mueller, who testified about GSR gunshot residue particles found inside the Jeep that were collected by witness Leich. Those objections were denied.

End quote. So Tammy Leichick, you can watch our entire episode on Tatech. Tammy. There was a concern from Lori. She filed a motion explaining why she felt that Tammy Leachick was not an okay witness for the state to bring due to incidents that happened with Tammy when she was found in a hotel room where she was dismissed from Gilbert Police. There was an incident. It had nothing to do with back in 2019, but years later. So I actually think it's wise in the end that the state did not call her. I was always wondering how this was going to go. And I even thought that was wise of the state to not call Tammy because there could be an appeal. There is going to be something

from Lori about this witness. Well, I guess that didn't keep Lori from having issues with this still. You don't have to call the witness for her to complain. So, you know, she didn't even, she didn't even testify in the end. So after a few pages of bullet points and what all I'll politely call Lori's greatest hits of grievances when it comes to the trial for Brandon Boudreau. We finally get to the real meat of the motion, the part where she puts on her law school cap and starts citing statutes like she's clerking for the Arizona Supreme Court. Yes, welcome to the section I like to call lawyer Lori. And this is where things get really interesting, really interesting. suddenly we're knee-deep in legal citations, references to precedent constitutional claims,

and of course accusations that her rights were trampled on because she was allegedly sick and she didn't get her way. Now, the question is, is any of it persuasive? Is any of it even accurate? We're about to find out because in just a moment, we're going to break down her legal arguments line by line, statute by statute, and unpack whether Lori's latest motion is this legitimate Hail Mary or just another episode of her courtroom theater, aka Groundhogs Day. Let's dive into the case law. But before we do that, a quick word from today's sponsor. As the weather heats up, it's time to rethink your skin care, especially if you're using retinal. Why? Because retinal can make your skin more sensitive to the sun. And that's why our house has made the switch to one skin's OS-01-5.

face moisturizer, and we are not looking back. In lab studies, OS01 boosted collagen just like retinal, but without the sun sensitivity. Even better, it strengthens your skin barrier instead of breaking it down, helping protect against heat pollution and everything else the world throws at your skin. Dr. John and I both use it. We love it. No irritation, no stickiness, just smooth, healthy skin that looks and feels youthful. One skin is the world's first skin longevity company, and by focusing on the cellular aspects of aging one skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code hidden at one skin.com.

That's 15% off at one skin, O-N-E-S-K-I-N dot CO with code hidden. After you purchase, they will ask where you heard about them. Please support hidden true crime. Tell them we sent you. Give your skin the scientifically proven gentle care it deserves with one skin. skin. All right, let's dive into the case law. She starts by writing, quote, the Arizona rules of criminal procedure provide that a court may grant a new trial for any other reason not due to the defendant's own fault the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial, end quote. And she quotes

case law Arizona as for her first point of Fourth Amendment violation medical evaluation. Lori writes, quote, a new trial is a appropriate if for any other reason not due to the defendant's own fault, the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial. And then she cites Arizona Constitution. By forcing defendant to proceed with trial as her own counsel deprived her of the right to effective assistance of counsel. There is no honor in forcing this defendant to defend herself sick. There is no honor in ordering by any means necessary to ensure that you will be the judge to preside over this high. profile case. There is no honor and threatening defendant over and over that you will inform the jury that she was convicted of prior murders. Where is the honor in this court system? Okay, I just have to say that is such a strange choice of words honor. Okay, moral police, sit down. This isn't, it's illegal or it's against the constitution. This is, there is no honor. I mean, this is, like chastising a child. It's sort of like saying the evidence will show, the evidence will show,

the evidence will show. There is no honor in threatening a defendant over and over that you will inform the jury that she was convicted of prior murders. Actually, it's the right thing to do when you continue to say that your character is fabulous and that you're such a good person and that the jury needs to know this. Actually, there is honor in telling you that if you continue down this route, they will be able to bring in your prior convictions. That would be the honorable thing to do is to give you a chance to say, hold up. You might not want to keep talking about how great your character is, Lori, if you don't want us to bring up these past convictions. There is honor to actually warning the defendant of what might happen. And there's honor of the state and not moving forward to

do that so quickly, but to slowly continue to warn her. There is no honor, Lori, in once an objection is made to things that can bring in your prior convictions for you to continue to repeat them over and over and over again. This just reeks. This is like the very reason that Lori gets under my skin. It just reeks of this moral superiority. There is no honor. I want to say sit back down in your wheelchair and take a breath. Because actually there is honor in this court system whether you like it or not. But, you know, I told you, I'll give her some things. I'm not giving her this one.

I will continue, though. So for lack of impartiality, Lori writes, quote, a defendant may move for a new trial based on the court's lack of impartiality. State versus Medina, 193, and then she cites. some additional case law, while under the law, a trial court is presumed to be impartial and free from bias. This defendant can rebut this by the preponderance of the evidence by showing the court required her to present her defense strategy to the state before calling any witnesses. By denying defendant, a thorough opportunity to present her case by preventing defendant from arguing objections,

regularly denying sidebars, and not allowing her time to consult with her investigator, and obtained documents from him prior to cross-examining witnesses, this court established a lack of impartiality. During cross-examination, defendant was not allowed opportunities or even asked for responses to state's objections. Defendant was continually and continuously admonished, not to speak over the court. Yes, she was.

Yet, when courts generally request a response from defense regarding objections, this defendant was not afforded that opportunity. When defendant attempted to explain why a statement was not hearsay, because it established how the police investigated the case, the court spoke over defendant telling her the objection was sustained. When defendant requested a sidebar, it was denied. By not allowing defendant to question witnesses relating to Melanie Boudreau and how that could have impacted victim Brandon Boudreau,

thoughts on why he blamed defendant, this court showed a lack of impartial any attempt to present defendant's case was met with threats of informing the jury about defendant's prior convictions, end quote. Okay, I'll have to take a deep breath after that. Let's just pause here for a second because this part is wild. Lori is acting like she was forced to reveal some top secret foolproof defense strategy in open court when in reality she's never had to show a defense. And let's be honest, she's never really had one to begin with. In both of her Arizona cases, she rested before she even put on a single witness. And what the court did ask her to do and what any defendant is asked to do is simply prove that her witnesses were relevant. That's it. It's not

groundbreaking. It's not unconstitutional. It's honestly, this is standard trial procedure. Because here's the thing, if I were on trial, I couldn't just call my neighbor's ex-boyfriend's mailman to take the stand to talk about, you know, the other witness and say, I heard that they were, you know, weren't a good person and expect the court to roll with this. I'd actually have to show that they had some kind of knowledge about the case. And that's not oppression. That's just how trials work. and there's honor Lori to that system. But in Lori's world, being asked to show basic relevance

is apparently a civil rights violation. So let's talk about another one of Lori's courtroom complaints. This idea that she was somehow denied her voice every time an objection was made. Now, I've sat through a good amount of trials now, and I can tell you, defendants don't usually jump into objection battles.

That's not how court works. When an attorney objects, judge rules sustained or overruled. Maybe a quick explanation. Then it moves on. That's it. There's no dramatic back and forth, no open mic moment for the accused. This isn't Judge Judy. And that sidebar, Lori is so upset about, it was denied after multiple sustained objections during a cross-examination. Judges are allowed to do that. In fact, a quick Google search or even just a glance at courtroom procedure will tell you that judges are not required to grant sidebars. Sure, they're common, especially for sensitive legal issues. But at the end of the day,

it's completely at the judge's discretion. They can choose to hear the issue in open court or just tell the attorney to move it along. That's not unconstitutional. That's not unfair. That's just the courtroom doing its job. And I also want to point out that once an objection is made and sustained, Lori would defy that objection. And she would continue on. saying the very thing that they objected to. Hey, Lori, for example, don't bring up Tiley as a witness. This is Charles's trial. What happens?

That objection is sustained. You can't bring up Tiley. What would Lori do? Bring up Tiley right after. It was the objection is that objected, sustained. She brings up Tiley again. This is what Lori does. You know, sometimes I wish Judge Judy was in that courtroom.

Judge Breske, I thought, did a fine job. But, you know, where's Judge Judy when you need her? Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to chitching, 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. 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. 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%. As 8% ASEPIi-A PY as of January 30th, 20266%% new client boosts 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. So once again, Lori is spinning the standard trial procedure into some grand injustice, and it's exhausting. I'm exhausted with her. But also, weirdly, it's on brand.

Back to the legal battle, though. Okay, so argument three, abuse of discretion. Lori writes, quote, the court abused, it's discreet. by denying a probable cause hearing under Rule 13.5 on the aggravating factors alleged by the state. There is only one sentence allowed for the crime of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and therefore the state should not have been allowed to argue aggravating factors. The court abused its discretion by denying defendant a Rule 13.5 hearing. The court abused its discretion by failing to inform the jury on the record and in front of the parties that they were released from the admonition.

Finally, by allowing the state to present evidence without a sufficient foundation, this court abused its discretion. Further, this defendant was denied her Sixth Amendment right to confront all witnesses. A clearly material witness was not allowed to be called, and then other analysts were allowed to testify to her work product in violation of Smith v. Arizona

and the United States Confrontation Clause. I'll pause. That's interesting. So in other words, before trial began, Lori's issue was that the state was going to call Tammy Lachick and that she didn't feel, you know, that she had character issues. So they didn't call her. And now Lori is saying that that violates her rights because now she can't question this witness. In other words, this is a lose-lose for the state. Lori is going to file an appeal on this witness whether the witness is called or it. isn't called. They can't win here. I'll continue. Further, defendant was precluded from

investigating witness latchick's employee file to see if there were other issues that would be allowed to impeach evidence during the trial. The court failed to conduct any evidentiary hearing and only issued a minute entry stating that the events happened after she collected the evidence. By preventing defendant from conducting an independent investigation into witness Lachick and conducting an evidentiary hearing it abused its discretion, end quote. Okay. And now for Lori's grand finale, Lori's big finish, her courtroom, firework moment. So you ready for this? She writes, and I quote, the state of Arizona does not honor the constitution of the United States. The state of Arizona does not honor the constitutional rights of the accused or even the civil rights of the accused.

For this purpose, a new trial is required, end quote. So just to recap, according to Lori, the entire state of Arizona, its courts, its judges, its law, its constitution is basically one big human rights violation. At this moment, forget the multiple guilty version. forget the fact that she was granted an advisory council that basically acted as her attorneys in some ways, which she should have been her own attorney. That's what she requested. Forget the multiple hearings and the ability to file motion after motion from herself. None of it matters because apparently Arizona is just too unconstitutional for Lori Debeau.

And they have no honor. I mean, that's one way to end. the motion, not with a strong legal argument, not with case law, but with this sort of scorched earth statement that would probably make James Madison roll in his grave. It's bold and it's so very Lori and so very on brand. The bottom line is Arizona is just unconstitutional. That was it. That's her motion for a retrial. I think the other thing that just sort of makes me curious, like I said, this motion for retrial is on brand. Like I said, I was wondering for two weeks. Like, why haven't we heard from her?

Whereas the motion demanding a retrial because she was sick. Like, I was waiting for it. I was checking the docket every day. Where is it? Well, it came down today. That's why I thought. I was like, maybe just maybe she really is done. This would be like the greatest summer gift she could give us all.

You know, but like I said, I wanted to cover this because I also, I'm so curious about what this is about. I think does she want or I mean she's saying in this motion she wants a retrial right she wants a retrial for all these reasons but why like why like this is this is for the attempted murder again she's a serial killer she has so many convictions she doesn't want to stay in arizona she wants to get the hell out of Arizona excuse me like she's done with Arizona she wants to go back to Idaho where it's cozy you know where she where she where she where she's she feels better about things. She doesn't want Judge Breske to be her judge or Trina K or the state. So does she want a retrial? So she wants to face Judge Breske again and Trina K again and the state of Arizona again and stay in Arizona. And for what?

Because even if she were to have another retrial and she were to win, like let's say this was even granted. Like best case scenario, I'll give it to you. You know, there was no honor, Lori, you know. you know so so best key scenario they're like okay we'll give you a retrial she faces judge vresky again she faces a new jury again she faces trina k again she hangs out in arizona longer and for what she still has multiple life sentences and so let's say the next jury is like you know what she's she's uh she's she's innocent she didn't attempt to kill brandy and budra you know it's melanie's Melanie Bidreau-Pelowsky, her not-not third-party witness, the not-not third-party witness. Sorry,

Jody Hilderrant joke, but like, come on, that was a third-party witness. You just threw your niece under the bus. Don't tell me did it. But what is the point? What does she want to accomplish? And so I haven't asked Dr. John this yet, but I suspect if we ask Colby, her only surviving child. Or if we ask John, the answer would be attention. Lori just wants attention. That would be so very on brand, which also, you know, she says when she's there, she doesn't want the camera on her face. She doesn't want cameras in the courtroom. It's interesting to me. She doesn't want to stay in Arizona. But again and again and again, she wants a retrial. She wants to fight and argue. And maybe. And maybe.

Maybe it is an attention. Maybe it's control, too. I mean, I guess those are the same thing. Does she want control? I don't know. I'm left with wondering, what is it that you want out of this? Like I said, I'm about ready to throw in the towel with Lori Valo Debel. I've said this before and I'll say it again. But I do feel this was important. It was a part of the trial that I just attended. And this is before the sentencing has even happened and when victims have had their opportunity to share how she has hurt and affected them. That sentencing will be coming up next month. She's already fighting for a retrial before the victims have even had an opportunity to share what they want to share. Justice has been served. Let's hope soon, though, that we can all move on from Lori. See everyone. Bye.

Stitch Fix. Stop shopping. Get styled. A plus on the outfit, Miss Turner. You were about to slay parent-teacher conferences. Oh, these? Just the most perfect fitting jeans. My stylist sent me. Oh, hello. You, who didn't set one foot in a mall and still looks amazing? Just share your size, style, and budget, and your stylist sends personalized looks right to your door. Stitchfix. Get started today at stitchfix.com.

To my stylist. This look is dedicated to you. Thank you. Thank you. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched, chiching... 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 in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust Wellfront is taking care of me. 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 APEWI as of January 30th, 2026, variable, and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boosts 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.