Hidden True Crime - LORI DAYBELL TRIAL: Jury Selection Day 1 Full Recap

Episode Date: April 1, 2025

Lauren is here to break down Day 1 of the Lori Daybell Trial in Maricopa County, Arizona. #JusticeForCharles 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, ui and c e.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Hello, hidden gems. I have officially set up my Phoenix studio. So this is going to be my studio for the next month, if not longer or shorter or whatever happens in this trial. And I'm going to say this. It is going to be very unpredictable because I was in court all day today. And it was wild. And this is going to be

a good show because we're going to play some of the clips from Lori Daybell, the woman formerly known as Lori Valo. Today is jury selection day one. Like this is a pretty usually typically Monday. mundane part of trial for many people. You show up. Do you go to jury selection? Do you not? You can toss it up. You know, I don't know.

Oh, I went. And oh, it was wild. In fact, let me tell you some of the texts I got from people that were able to watch. The way she spoke to the judge so inappropriate. He was trying to rehash. She was trying to rehash her own opinions about confidential jail lines. It was so crazy. give me a break someone else wrote me a text and said let's hope she's not even held in contempt

before her trial even begins we are going to play many of those moments for you it was a wild day so here we go here we go so first off i just want to explain that the courtroom uh here in the Maricopa County Courthouse is across the hall from the Jody Arias courtroom, where the Jody Arias trial was held. And there are more connections there actually. So really quickly, let me explain to you how Lori looks like. She came in actually looking, really actually put together. She had street clothes on for the first time in a while. I heard that that wasn't going to start actually until Voidier, meaning jurors that were appearing in person, but she was wearing street clothes. She was wearing a black fitted suit. She was wearing shoes that looked like they had heels.

The pants went over them. And she was wearing a mock turtleneck sweater underneath the black blazer. It looked like a black and white type of a sweater. She had a peppiner step. She came in smiling. Her hair is certainly highlighted. So it's gone from, sort of the mousy, non-colored color that typically blondes are to highlights. It looks like she has natural curls and she had minimal makeup on. And honestly, she looked more like Lori Vallow than she's ever looked, I thought. And minus aging. She certainly has aged.

We all age. So she came in with quite the pep in her step. And from there, something else actually important. note, the jurors can actually be reimbursed income from the juror fund plus mileage and other reimbursements up to $300, I think. That's what they said today in court, but you must provide a pay stub to support the loss of income and that's very difficult for people to do that are self-employed. 52 jurors are returning for further questions, but let me give you a free, a few interesting statistics about the juror numbers. Final numbers, 52 made it

past the first round and are coming back for further questioning. 72 people were dismissed today. This is just from the questionnaires. And the reasons why they were next, they knew of her case, her previous case, this case, or they were released, and then 39 were released for other reasons. More people, in other words, were released for knowing her than other circumstances. I thought that was interesting because fewer people knew her in voice.

see Idaho, but today, 72 people knew her. More people knew her and were dismissed for that than people kept from the questionnaire. So this afternoon got interesting. We concluded the jurors who's going to come tomorrow or the next day and appear in person. And this afternoon, this is where things got, I'm going to say, a feisty, interesting, all of the above. And it even started with getting interesting. The first thing that happened once we were back from lunch is a voice comes over the intercom and says something about Dr. Sexy. It was a male talking. And Judge Boreski pretty much says, tell that person that everyone in the courtroom can hear them talking about Dr. Sexy. And everybody laughed. It was an odd moment. But after lunch,

Lori comes back out smiling with her red glasses. Her red glasses after lunch are on top of her head. They're like reading glasses. And it kind of makes it so her hair is swept back and you can really see her face. Again, she has makeup on and she is carrying a brief folder and she is passing a note to her advisory council, Pamela Hicks. Lori comes into at 135 p.m. And the judge says that if he says 130, he wants it to start at 1.30, especially when the jury is there. So noted. Then he says that 40 to 60 people, again, are coming tomorrow for more in-person questioning.

and mentions that there may not be room for the public tomorrow. So we'll see if I can get in tomorrow. Every day is a mystery when it comes to covering these trials. Judge Breskes starts by talking about the defendant's notice of objection to the jury questionnaire. Lori was objecting to phrasing of the allegations in the jury questionnaire that the state made, the allegations that the state made against Lori. And in fact, she wanted to deny this allegation and she bolded an undefiations. underlined it in the questionnaire.

But the judge says that he overruled that and the questionnaires were still sent out despite Lori Daybell's objection to the allegations made against her. This begs a question, why would there be a trial if these allegations are not part of it? Like you are denying the allegations, the allegations which are the reason for your trial. So he denied that. Motion in limine to preclude expert testimony of detective. Daniel Coons, Chandler PD, was next. Detective Daniel Coons did testify at the Idaho trial, and the state has always, has him noted, though, is not just a witness, but an expert witness in

terms of his background and his training and did so out of an abundance of caution. They made him an expert witness, according to the state, in an abundance of caution, dotting their eyes, crossing their he's really making sure that he was an extra expert witness. And he gave his background to be an expert witness to the defense more than 30 days out. And the defense, Lori's defense, has since interviewed him. Well, Lori Daybill's argument is this. So for five years, she says, five years, he has been on the witness list as a regular detective, like just a regular detective, a regular witness. And now Lori Deabel says, he's all of a sudden being put down as an expert witness so that he can give opinion and not just state the facts. And that is my concern, Lori Deabel says, and that is

what I don't understand. Well, the state says that he has done this before as an expert and it is relevant for Lori's self-defense claim. Now we know what Lori's claim is going to be. She has always stated that Charles Vallow, her husband, this man who was concerned about her, loved her, doted on her, married her, raised her children, had a child with Lori where, you know, there has been no, nothing to show that he was ever violent. Lori is going to claim self-defense. That is what she told police the day that Charles Vallow was murdered. And like, you know, there are charges of murder.

And it's what I guess she is still claiming. She is stating that her claim is self-defense. And so the state is saying that Detective Daniel Coons being an expert witness for this trial is relevant because Lori's defense is that she shot Charles Valo in self-defense. But he does not have a CV, which is interesting to me because every expert witness does have to have a CV that they go over via CV is the deed. detailed document that outlines a person's professional and academic history, including their education, their work experiences, their publications, research and achievement, often used in academic and research settings or applying for major positions. So the judge asks Lori then, so are you saying that that Detective Coons is not an expert or just that the disclosure came

in late and that you don't think his opinion is relevant? And Lori, she gets feisty, really feisty. In fact, we're going to watch this in just a second. Watch this. And she says, one, I don't think his opinion is relevant. He's named as a firearm expert. And I don't know if he took a weekend class or what made him an expert. The judge asks him in an interview.

The judge asks if Lori asked him these things in an interview. And she says that her investigator did enter. interview, Detective Coons, but she has not been able to listen to the interview yet. But her main objection, going back to it, is that he has always been a regular witness until 30 days before trial. And now he is an expert to give his opinion. Let's take a listen to this. So Ms. Daybell, what's the objection? So for five years, of course, he's been on the witness list for to be a regular. detective and now he's being put on as an expert, I feel like to give his opinion instead of just

stating the facts. So that was my main concern. He, I don't understand how the trajectory has anything to do with conspiracy. So I have, I objected in that way as well. All right. Has he testified in that regard in the past? Yes, I believe so, Your Honor. He has been trained in that area and taught in that area. And his relevance, Your Honor, would be because the defense has claimed a self-defense claim as well, it's relevant for that. Can the state provide me what his opinion is

and does he have a CV? He does not have a CV. We did actually put the opinion in the supplemental 15.1 that I filed along with his, I believe, background and training in that as well. So arguing right now over detect-fishing. Let me ask the defendant. Are you, you've said a couple different things.

Are you saying he's not qualified or as an expert or just that the disclosure came in late and you don't think his opinion is relevant? Well, one, I don't think his opinion is relevant, but also the fact that he's named as a fire arms expert. So I don't know if he took a weekend class and that made him a firearms expert. I don't know what his experience was with that. In his CV, it just says firearms expert.

So did you ask him those questions? Was it you that interviewed him or your investigator? My investigator interviewed him. Do you know if he asked questions regarding his background training or expertise? So I haven't listened to that yet. so I'm not quite sure. My concern was that he was a regular detective on the witness list for five years

and then 30 days before trial, he's now an expert so that he can give his opinion. And I just thought that was my objection. Well, if that was your basis of the objection, the timeliness of it, the state did comply with the rules as far as notice prior to trial and giving some sort of summary of what his opinion, testimony would be. I'll take a look at it. It doesn't sound like we need any sort of

daubbert hearing, but I'll take a look at it. So let's table that for now. All right. So that was a interesting moment. There's more. There's more guys. We're going to go over it all. So in other words, you know, I do think she had some relevant points too, you know, saying that all of a sudden he's an expert witness, but he's a firearms expert. He's been firearm and firearm expert. And I think the biggest issue, and we're going to see this moving forward as we go through everything else that happened later this afternoon is her complaint, her constant complaint is she doesn't have enough time and that she has limitations because she's an incarcerated person. And that is fair. But the judge has continually asked her if she wants a continuance. Does she?

want to push her trial back to have longer to prepare. And the bottom line is Lori refuses to waive her speedy trial rights, which I can't blame her. The fact that she refused to waive her speedy trial rights in Idaho is actually the reason that she is not on death row, that she does not have the death penalty and her co-defendant Chad Deval does because he waived his speedy trial right. She did not waive hers. So she is refusing to waive her speedy trial rights, but her complaint is kind of always like,

I don't have time to do this or, you know, the investigator has my investigator, Jeff White, has interviewed detective Daniel Coons, who's now an expert witness, but I don't, I haven't had time to listen to the interview. But I do see her point right. If he has always been labeled as an expert and all of a sudden he is an expert witness, I see her point. But I also see that if her defense is self-defense, then. a firearms expert witness is probably really important because we know that Charles

Valo was shot once while he was on the floor. And as a firearm expert, he might be able to say according to the bullet hole in the floor, this probably wasn't self-defense. So, you know, it's interesting. She's certainly trying. She's certainly trying. Let's keep going for the rest of the afternoon. I'm learning finally how to use this mouse. All right. So the next is the bottom line is the judge pretty much responded to this and said that he'll take a look and let's table this. Oh, and by the way, something about Judge Boreski, Justin Breske, he is a graduate of a University of Idaho law school, which is in Moscow, Idaho. So he is, he went to University of Idaho, just like the Moscow, Idaho four victims. and now he is in front of dealing with Lori Deva.

So the next up is defendant's motion to disclose 404B evidence. Lori filed this on March 14th, and the state responded March 23rd. So Lori jumped out of the gate very sassy, like very sassy. Lori was asking disclosure of the 404B, and then she said, And all I have is another theory of this case. The judge says he kind of agrees, but asks if she understands more now, since she now does have the evidence. And Lori goes from this sort of sassy moment to stating then, well, I guess. The judge asks what specific bad acts do you think should be precluded?

Or were you just asking for disclosure of what they were intending to use at the trial? And I want to show you guys this. 404B bad act per se. But let me hear from the defendant. You got her response? I did. All right. So what specific bad acts do you think should be precluded?

Or were you just asking for disclosure of what they were actually intending on introducing? I was asking for disclosure of 404B that they planned on introducing at trial. and what I got was another theory of the case, so I didn't think that any of it was 404 be relevant. Well, I think I agree with you in so much as what was listed in their response, I wouldn't necessarily characterize as 404 be evidence. But you have received that, and now you're aware of what they plan on introducing. Somewhat? Correct.

I don't think I need to make a ruling on that if there's evidence. evidentiary objections, hearsay, foundation, those types of things will be taken up when the state elicits or attempts to elicit that information. I have next. Next is the defendant's motion to exclude state witnesses. This was filed on March 14th. And the witnesses that Lori Valdebel wants to exclude are, let's talk about them, Nancy Johancock. Christina Atwood and Kay Woodcock. So I think most people know who Kay Woodcock is. Kay Woodcock is the sister of Charles Vallow and Charles Vallow.

And she is also the grandmother of J.J. Vallow. She has had significant loss when it comes to this murderous spree across states. I explain this crime. You know, Lori has already, Lori Davils already been convicted of killing both of her children, for young children, as well as Tammy Dayball, her Chad Daybell, her now husband's wife, as well as Charles Valor, has been charged with killing Charles Valo, her husband, and that's why we're having this trial. She hasn't been convicted.

So she wants to get rid of three witnesses, Kay Woodcock. So again, the sister of Charles Valo, the grandmother of JJ Valo. And then there's Christina Atwood. Christina Atwood is a friend of Lori Daybell. Many do know her. Some don't know her. Christina Atwood was at the casting parties. I call them parties now.

It's like you know, you've got Tupperware parties and, you know, what are those leggings? The leggings that were in the documentary Netflix got those parties and you've got, you know, exorcism parties. And there was this group of women that did these castings or these parties to try to get the zombie. Ned Schneider out of Charles. And Christina Atwood was one of them. I don't know how many she attended. I'm not going to say that. But there's also an interesting interview with Christina Atwood,

where she actually does tell law enforcement that Lori Valo was poisoning Charles with Xanax, that she was like dumping Xanax in Charles's shake. So she has been very forthcoming. We have heard interviews with Christina Atwood. And she was actually in the end kind of pushed out by a lot of the, a lot of the in-croud girls, the Melanie Gibbs, Ulamma, Lori, Melanie Polowski crew. Christina was a little bit on the outs. But at first she was friends with this group, and, you know, she has been very forthcoming.

So, but Lori, Lori doesn't want Christina Atwood as a state's witness. The next one, Nancy Johancock. So Nancy Johancock is a lesser-known witness, and she was the last allegedly person to see and communicate with Charles Vallow before his murder. And let me explain to you. So on our Patreon account, patreon.com slash into crime, we have all of the FOIA docs from Idaho,

like all of the evidence. There was a massive evidence dump. And Chandler and Gilbert back in 2022, just laid it all out, thousands of pages. We have it on our Patreon account. I'm going to read to you, this is from the FOIA documents,

the evidence dump from Chandler, Arizona. They state, the detective states, I spoke to Nancy Joe redacted. We know now it's Hancock. Nancy Joe had gone on a date with Charles Vallow on 710, 2019. That is the night before his murder. The night before he was shot and killed, that is when he and Nancy Joe went out.

Nancy Joe had been given my information by Kay Woodcock, K. Redacted, K. Woodcock. I had briefly spoken to Nancy Joe about a month prior, but at the time she was not sure if she wanted to be involved in this investigation. My interview with Nancy Joe was recorded on my digital voice recorder and will be preserved as evidence in this case. The following is a synopsis of my interview with Nancy Joe for full details refer to the original audio recording. Nancy Joe states that she met Charles at the Keg restaurant near the Santan Mall on 710, 2019. Nancy Joe explains that she met Charles through an LDS or Mormon, Church of Jesus Christ,

the Latterty Saints dating site in early July. And they chatted online until they went out on 710. Nancy said that she and Charles had spoke via telephone and text message after exchanging phone numbers. Nancy said that Charles was a very upbeat person. He was when not being drugged with the annex in a shakes. Nancy Joe said Charles. told her about his split with his wife. And they were, I want you guys to know, separated.

Lori and Charles were separated. He was very concerned about the being called a zombie. And I'll just keep going. Let's just keep reading this. Nancy Charles told her about the split with his wife. And Nancy Jo also said that Charles had told her that Lori had disappeared for a few months. Also true. canceled his flights, true, taken his truck, true, changed his door locks, true, and also drained

his bank account. That's true. Nancy Jo seems pretty accurate. And what Charles is saying is true. So that is who Nancy Joe Hancock is, and now we know that she is, she too, is a alleged witness by the state in this trial, but not if Lori can have her way. So these witnesses will go towards an element of premeditation or motive for the murder, which let's just stop for a second. I have to smile. That is what a witness is supposed to do, sort of help set a motive, right? But the judge asks, what is your objection specifically?

And Lori says that after their defense interviews, it came to light that, so after the interviews were done with the defense, like these three witnesses, it came to light that they got all of their info from Dateline. And that all three of these witnesses, Kay Woodcock, Christine Atwood and Nancy Johancock, they were all calling each other with information and that the info came from one another, not their own experiences. So Judge Boreski then asks, what information are you referring to? And she says, well, whatever they're, I don't know, whatever they're going to testify about. They have no personal knowledge of this crime, Lori States. They go into, they get into the state. The state then is saying, well, they do have personal knowledge. And Christina Atwood, they explain, is a person.

who was present when Lori was speaking about Charles being possessed, and that goes into motive and premeditation. Those statements were made months in advance of the actual murder, Lori argues. It is an omission by a party in its personal knowledge. Nancy Johancock, the last person that saw Charles alive prior to the murder. What she knew about this was hearsay,

but her statements to the victim of what he should do from her understanding of expression to the victim that he should tell Lori that he had changed the life insurance policy to stop all of this from going on. So now we're learning what Nancy is going to claim that there's something to do with life insurance. She sees him the night before and she is aware of everything going on and tells him what he should do and he dies the next day. Kay Woodcock, the person who obtained the life insurance policy, which the state is alleging was part of the motive. She has info related to the victim. There are allegations of self-defense with use of a baseball bat that she can provide info with as well.

Well, let's play this clip two and you can see it. Lori then sighs and she responds. Let's take a listen. Here we go. Do you want to have further argument? Just the fact that this information that is supposed to be coming forward is not, all these witnesses are getting together and talking about all this and comparing all their notes and all these things beforehand.

And then they're telling us that in these interviews. Well, I talk to her a hundred times. Well, I talk to her every day. Well, she told me this. Well, she told me that. So their information is not firsthand. These witnesses are all coming together. They're all watching everything that goes on on TV regarding this.

And they're, I would like them all precluded. Okay. Well, you're always allowed to cross-examine a witness about any biases they may have about those things that you've just talked about, colluding with other witnesses. Those are all areas of ripe for cross-examination, but they're not bases to preclude a witness. The court finds that based on the states of all that those three specific witnesses do have some minimal, although very limited, relevant information to provide and could be helpful to the jury in understanding the case. So the court will deny the motion to exclude the states.

witnesses, again, this really doesn't preclude you from any objections you may have to, if they're testifying the hearsay or something like that. Next, I have. All right. We're moving on, but I have to, I have to giggle at Shelby's, uh, Shelby's comment. Bundy actually was smart. Many know that Ted Bundy, a serial killer, a convicted serial killer, represented himself. And there is a vast difference in the two.

But I will say that I think Ted Bundy representing himself is one reason he is so memorable. Horrible, horrible man and convicted of horrible things. But people do not stop talking about him. And to those people that say that we think that, you know, you think Lori just this is her moment. She wants to be memorable. I do wonder the same thing. This is a lot of attention. It does certainly make her memorable.

Not in the best ways. Not in the best ways. Denied, denied, denied, boom. All right, moving on. And this is where we jump into Nate Eaton with East Idaho News. Nate Eaton has come up, even before this trial's begun, because Lori Valo DeBell wants to call reporter Nate Eaton as a witness in this trial. Nate doesn't think that's fair because he is a reporter covering this case.

So this is how it went down. The judge pretty much says Nate Eaton with a question mark. He stands up. He says, yes, I'm here. Matthew Kelly is representing him. By the way, he is also court TV's attorney because court TV's attorney, Matt Kelly, when I was in a hearing a few weeks ago, Matt Kelly was there again representing court TV because they are going to be pool camera for this trial.

They are going to be covering this and have a camera in the courtroom. And Lori didn't want that either. She's not a fan of court TV. So the court TV's Matt Kelly is now representing Nadine. The judge says apparently this Nadine guy, he's a reporter in Idaho and based on filings, Eaton believes that he does not have any relevant information and he should not be listed as a witness. The judge asks Lori, what relevant information does he have? And Lori then says, well, I just got this filing last night.

So I have not had time to read all of these things that Nate Eaton is claiming. And there are several things off the top of my head, Lori claims, uh, that make Nate Eaton relevant to be a witness in this case. Number one, she says, because he has had off record conversations with the prosecutor Trina K. That's her big reason. And he has made himself a witness.

And then she kind of says, and if this is not prosecutorial misconduct, then one of them is going to have to have to. testify and we need to question them. So the judge then says, and I love just Breskes. Someone pointed out that Judge Breske almost like gray rocks, Lori. And I don't know what it is, but he's just maybe there's a little bit of that if you don't know what gray rocking. If you don't know what gray rocking is, just sort of being unemotional and even and calm. He kind of just is like that perfect gatekeeper, in my opinion, for, for Lori. He's just very

mundane, like a gray rock. But in all the best ways, a very, you know. So, so the judge kind of says, let's step back. How does he have relevant information? Lori basically says initially, she explains that when she put Nate on the witness list, it was to use Nate for impeachment of other witnesses, Lane Foundation for interviews, rebuttal and the reason that she wants him for all of these things is because Nate has interviewed almost every witness on the witness list. And so if the witness says something contrary, she essentially wants Nate Eaton to be there to use as a foundation for rebuttals or impeachment. Honestly, that did not cross my mind. I was like, oh, interesting. Then Lori

continues and she says, and I have to say, I find it very funny that when Nate claimed in his filing that my goal was to just keep him out of the courtroom, I had to laugh because that didn't even occur to me that he would not be able to be in the courtroom as it relates to 615. And it is not my intent at all. I just needed him since he has interviewed so many witnesses on this case. Take a listen. Initially, when I put him on my witness, list. My intent is because I do not know what the state is going to put on in their case in chief. And so I was calling him as a witness for the purpose of impeachment, laying foundation for interviews, rebuttal to whatever that the state might put forth because he has interviewed almost every

single witness on their witness list. And if they were to say something contrary to what they said to him on a public thing, then I would use him to lay a foundation. for interviews and for impeachment. So I wasn't, that was my initial in calling him. I found it funny when I read the beginning of this. He says that it seems to be clear, tempt by Mrs. Daybill to use the rules of criminal procedure as a pretext simply to keep me out of the courtroom

and interfere with my ability to report. So I had to laugh at that because it hadn't even occurred to me that he wouldn't be able to be in the courtroom if he was a witness according to 615. So that wasn't my. intention it was never my intention to do that it was just to have him on hand if we needed if we needed to do that all right as judge brosky says all right so there you go that's that's the

nate eatin uh thing so so the judge in theory states that it sounds like if a witness said something different than they reported to mr eaton then i guess in theory lorry is right but that is only allowed after the person, the witness, the other witness, is confronted with something that they said contrary to Nate Eaton and that witness denies it. Then maybe Nate Eaton would matter. And that hasn't happened yet. Like we can't even cross that bridge yet is what the judge is explaining. And Matthew Kelly then gets up and gives his argument on behalf of Nate Eden and says, excluding him from the courtroom because he is a journalist under 615 would be a violation of his first amendment right to attend this large trial.

That is true. If he were called a 12, 22, 14 and be subpoenaed and compelling testimony of a journalist about info that a journalist has obtained, we don't believe there is any way that that is okay and that Mrs. Ms. Davell could meet those requirements, but I would suggest that if Ms. Davell wants to call him, she would have to follow the requirements of a subpoena. law and then we would have to challenge that. But we don't believe there's any reason that Nate Eton has to be excluded from the courtroom.

So then again, Judge Breskes says, if Lori knows about all of these interviews, he has with witnesses and they are on TV. Like if, you know, so Nate Eton, he's interviewed a bunch of people, a bunch of witnesses, a bunch of law enforcement. And if he has these interviews and they're on YouTube or on the East Idaho news website, then Lori could just play them to sort of contradict what the witnesses in court are saying, she doesn't really need Nate Eaton to do that, like to hang out as like a rebuttal witness. She could just simply play this in court, these interviews that are public in court, does not need Nadine to even be there.

Lori responds, well, then, and I wouldn't need him to lay that. foundation for the interview, she asks. The judge says, look, I'm really not trying to give you any legal advice because you are acting as your own attorney. But if the witness admits to them that this is on an interview, that's foundation. Like you, you can use that as foundation, that interview. Lori argues again, so she goes back to her original argument. that Nadine has interviewed almost everyone, including law enforcement.

Pause really quickly, though. While it is true that Nadine has interviewed almost anyone, including law enforcement, I would like to know if Nadine has enjoyed barbecue with everyone, with all law enforcement. I will like to ask Nate that. But whether he's enjoyed barbecue with all of the law enforcement or not, he has certainly interviewed them. And the judge sees that it is the only, the narrowest of circumstances where Nate could be called as a witness.

But while the judge is inclined to strike Nate as a witness and allow him to be in the courtroom for trial, Lori argues still that this is why she wants him to be a witness just in case. How can she call him as a witness if he's not a witness now? And actually, that's a solid question. The judge tells Lori, well, she would need to subpoena him if he needed to be a witness and then says, we'll cross that bridge when it comes. And then Lori says,

so I can just call him from the back up. If there's an interview that contradicts a witness on the stand, I can just call him up. The judge responds, we will cross that bridge if and when it comes. And then Nate's attorney asks to be notified and have the time to respond if that bridge is ever crossed. Next up,

the state's motion to prohibit disclosing phone numbers and emails for witnesses and victims. This was interesting. This was sort of some things that needed to be covered before the case is televised or the trial. Excuse me. The trial is televised. So Trina Kay, she is the prosecutor for the state. And Trina says it would be both emails and phone numbers. That would be part of evidence and they don't want these phone numbers and emails to be.

leaked or put out publicly. Some people have to testify with their phone numbers or emails to establish foundations of their communication. In other words, you have a witness that stands up. They've texted Lori a bunch of times. They're going to need to confirm for foundation that this communication actually happened by stating their phone number to compare it to cell records. Or if somebody emailed Lori, like we know that or somebody emailed Charles like Adam Cox, Adam and Charles had a lot of exchanges and emails. Adam is going to have to relay his email address, right? So look, they're going to come up. They're going to come up. In other words, for safety concerns and given the high profile nature for witnesses, several have, he is concerned that victim's info could

be displayed and several have attempted to, uh, to share this personal stuff and they don't want anything live streamed to the world. So the judge actually says, well, up it is not being live streamed. There's going to be a 30 minute delay, which, by the way, we're going to be live streaming the trial here with our trial emojis. We're having our trial emojis made, justice for Charles. And we're going to be streaming the trial. And it is going to be a 30 minute delay. We're going to figure that out together as a community of hidden gems. We can figure this out. We'll probably start it when court starts each day, but there's going to be that 30 minute delay. And then we're going to try to decide when I do my lunch

lives, I might be doing my lunch live at the same time that the trial is being streamed. So heads up, we're going to work on that as it comes. But because it's going to be 30 minute delay, the judge wants to know if he can order the feed to not film someone's phone number or email or if it can be bleeped and he doesn't know the answer to that. He asks the media if the media has the ability to bleep out or silence those things and we'll find that out before the start of trial. And then he looks at us in the gallery and he says, look, that will be believed for video.

But if you are doing print as a print reporter, if you are a podcaster, you are prohibited from reciting an entire phone number or an entire email address. You can use the area code or a couple of digits. But he does not want emails or numbers broadcasted or printed. And I did appreciate the way that he also re-interacted with. the podcasters and the print journalists and all the journalists in that room, realizing that there is now a broad array of outlets for reporting on this trial. I appreciated that unlike John Pryor, he didn't call me a podcast people right out of the gate. He was very respectful and just said, look, I trust all of you in here.

You are prohibited from sharing this personal information. And then the state had a motion. So this is the state's motion, meaning the prosecutors, to preclude, Lonnie Dworkin from being a witness, an expert witness in this trial. So who is Lonnie Dworkin? Many might remember him as the expert from the Jody Arias trial. Well, Lonnie Dworkin is a, Lori Deba wants to use Lonnie Dworkin as her witness in this trial, upcoming trial. The judge asks Lori, well, did he ever get a report prepared? I mean, like, we're in jury selection now, Lori has Lonnie Dworkin, does he have his report prepared?

Trina K responds. She's the prosecutor for the state. And she says, no, he hasn't. Not that the state can see that he has any report prepared. And we are like literally in jury selection day one now. Boy dear. Lori says the report is coming tonight. He has found a discrepancy in information that he downloaded.

And information has been turned over by the state. and if we get it tonight, we will forward it to the state tonight. He is working on a bunch of cases, but he is working on ours as fast as Lonnie Dworkin can. The judge then says, well, at this time, I am inclined to preclude him. Granted something extraordinary happens. He explains to Lori once again that she was offered a continuance in her trial. She could have not, like she could have waived her right to a speedy, trial. She could have chosen to have her trial at a later date if she needed more time. And she

declined that opportunity. Any disclosure is late at this moment, the judge tells Lori. Then he says, but, but I love this. Then he says, Judge Bruske says, but I'm not going to slam the door on it now, because he may not have anything that is even actually useful. So we can talk when needed, depending on what you have, but for now, I am precluding Lonnie Dorkin or any information that he has. I also want to talk about what I think Lonnie Dworkin might have to, because we know a couple of things that Lori Vallow has really wanted. I attended her previous hearing here in Phoenix. And Lori pretty much said that she wants one thing, and that is Charles Vallow's cell phone. The defense, or excuse me, not the defense, the prosecution or the state, or they have done their own cell bright

of Charles Vallow's phone, meaning a complete overhaul of everything that is on Charles Vallow's phone. And Lori Vallow or the defense or new defense can then do their own investigation into Charles Vallow's phone, but she hasn't been able to do that yet. And it's a little late. This is actually when he said, do you want a continuance? And she's like, no, I just want my, you know, late husband, deceased murdered husband's phone. She called him her husband. I think she forgot. She's married to someone else, Chad Devo. He's on death row. But she, you know, she's going to call Charles her husband in this. He did die her husband, but her murdered husband. And she said, no, I just want his phone. And this was a really interesting moment to me because I think that we really are seeing that her defense is going to be. what has always been. This is my guess.

This is speculation. This is Lauren speculating with evidence. I think she's going to stick to what she has always said, that he was cheating on me, that, you know, his phone doesn't say what you think it says, that this was self-defense, and his phone proves it. And Lonnie Dworkin is going to show you that the state is corrupt and the prosecution's corrupt. And this is all a big conspiracy theory. And that they can't prove the most.

of justice for Charles. That's my guess. So then he says, let's talk about the rest of the witnesses. Lonnie Dworkin, Donzo, we're going to not completely slam the door on it, but for right now he's precluded. Judge is like, let's talk about the rest of the witnesses. So look, if a witness hasn't been served, they do not have to show up. If they haven't served and they need to submit to an interview with the state and have something relevant to testify about, then they'll show up right now.

Nate Eaton, as of now, is not a witness. Visea. Visea is Tiley's friend. Many know her. She spoke out early on in the case along with her mother, Echo. She was very close to Tiley. And she was close to Lori. My heart breaks for her.

I can imagine what this would be like for a young girl at 16 whose best friend. This happens to your best friend. But they say Vizia's friend, Tiley, she was a witness that was allegedly the defense tried to call. Or no, excuse me, the state. The state was not able to get a hold of her. The state has called and left multiple voicemails. Jeff White, the defense investigator, has also been able to get a hold of Vycia. Another witness that they've had a hard time getting a hold of.

Gabriel Bonilla is. actually how I used to say it, but I think it's Bonilla. Who is he? He's, he's Lory's a bishop. He's important. I'm doing a backstory of this entire case right now, and I am pulling a bunch of sound from Bishop Bonilla. He, Charles sought help from his Bishop game and said that Lori is trying to destroy me. I need help. And he spoke to police, and he pretty much said, I'm not too worried. Lori's off for Lori's bonkers. She's off of a rocker, but there's no threat. Don't worry about it, police. Charles is flying. What happened to Charles? He was murdered. Bishop didn't do that great of a job. There's a lot of people that are upset with him. Well, the defense investigator,

Jeff White, Lori's defense investigator, has not been able to get a hold of the bishop. And then the state called and the state has left a message. And on Saturday, Attorney Matthew Ballard, who represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, called on behalf of Gabe, and said that Gabe had not been served. And then the judge asked the state or the prosecution, is there anyone on this list that you have talked to that you don't object to being called?

Well, Trina Kay responds, Summer Schifflett, Janice Cox, Adam Cox, Cox, actually, that is on the state's witness list. so they do not object. And Zachary Cox, they're not aware of any relevance as to the case. But the state did speak to him. Everyone that Lori says that the subpoenas should have been issued currently, and then she gets feisty.

We're going to listen to this. She states that the state is claiming trial by ambush by the defense. And how are they claiming that? They have interviewed every single person and they have written interviews and transcripts. Take a listen to this. You know, the state talks about in their response, like the state is claiming trial by ambush from the defense. Trial by ambush. How is the defense trial by ambush when they have interviewed every single one of these witnesses before in the last five years since this case started?

They've interviewed every single person that has been on there. They have written transcripted interviews and video interviews of all of these people. And so how they are relevant, these witnesses will testify if and when they are needed to add additional facts or fill in the blanks that the state will no doubt leave out in their case in chief. And they'll be called accordingly. I need them to lay perhaps foundations for evidence presented by the state. The same with Lonnie Dorkin. I need him. His testimony will be required if and when it's necessary to rebut digital.

information that the state will bring forward during trial. I feel like the state is trying to say, okay, if you want your speedy trial, guess what? We're not going to let you defend yourself. Guess what? You can't have any experts. And guess what else? You can't have any witnesses. You can't have anybody speak in your behalf.

So good luck. Have a nice day. All right. Well, that's why attorneys sometimes take a long time to prepare for a trial because they need to give notice of what all the testimony, their witnesses are going to give. they need their experts to prepare reports. That's why your prior attorneys and your current attorneys, we're asking for more time to prepare the case.

So you can't really have it both ways that you want your speedy trial rights, but you don't want to give notice to the other side of what your evidence is. I don't not want to give notice to the other side, with the limitations at the incarcerated state where I am and the limitations with OPDS of getting Lonnie Dworkin late in the game that they did, I've done everything in my power as a defendant to prepare and prepare the state and to give over everything that I could do within my power with the limitations that I am an incarcerated person at this maximum security prison jail. So when you say. And I shouldn't be able to represent myself because of that fact that that negates my constitutional right?

I didn't say that. All right. I said that sometimes there are reasons to not go. forward to trial as fast as you want. All right. So what when you say things like they're going to fill in the blanks, that makes it really hard to assess what their relevant information is. They have relevant information to a lot of factors that I got in the 404B information. For example, the life insurance. I have my father as a life insurance salesman. He worked with Charles on getting both life insurance policies, my $2 million policy and Charles $1 million policy. He also tried to sell my insurance policy

after Charles passed away. He also told me to go to call the insurance policy and said, how to do that, how to call them when you're the beneficiary. I didn't know how to do any of those things. He has relevant information to that. My sister has relevant information to my brother Alex Cox and the whole situation of what happened on July 11th. These people have relevant information to the state's case. they're accusing me of. There's very relevant information from a lot of these witnesses. So what I'm struggling with is you just saying that it's relevant doesn't actually make it relevant. It may be relevant. I'm trying to find out the relevancy. What you said about your father, being an insurance salesman and selling policies, that sounds relevant. It could be relevant to me.

Who's your father? I don't know who your father is. Barry Cox. All right, Barry Cox. It sounds like even from what you're saying, though, you're not, depending on what the state produces at trial, you're not sure that these witnesses would have relevant information. It just depends, is what it sounds like. Whatever they put up in their case in chief, am I not allowed to try to defend myself against that? You're absolutely allowed. I'm just trying to figure out I'm sort of a gatekeeper and I need to make sure witnesses have relevant information. And just like you have the right to interview all of the states' witnesses excluding victims' rights, people that can deny having an interview, they have the right to interview all your witnesses prior to trial

so they can have an idea of what those witnesses might say on the witness stand. I understand that, Your Honor. They also have already interviewed all of them. I'm not talking about police interviews or interviews that may have been, done years ago, the prosecutor has the right to interview any witness prior to them taking the stand just as you do. So I'm not sure the best way to handle this other than maybe we should take it up as we progress through the case, but some of these people may or may not be even served.

Yeah, my concern is obviously I have attempted to reach these people. I've made my good faith effort. I've been told both by myself and attempting to contact them as well as the defense investigator that they've been unable to reach them. So it seems to not be following the rules of procedure or evidence to then bring up later on if they perhaps find these people at some point, then the state can try to at that point preclude them.

When the state talks about a trial by ambush, It is in fact that when the defense investigator themselves cannot find these people and are still looking for them in trial when they've had at least, we'll say, four months to try to find them, I think that at this point, precluding them is proper. Well, I would preclude anyone that doesn't submit to an interview with the state.

I kind of want to punt this a little bit just because if there's people that don't end up getting served, don't end up showing up a court, they can't find, then we don't need to waste our time talking about whether or not those people have relevant information because they're not going to be here and they're not going to testify. So I'm putting the defendant on notice that if these witnesses aren't served,

if they don't submit to interviews, they're going to be precluded. Even if they submit to interviews, I may have to make a determination whether there are testimonies relevant or not. So again, we're gonna, I think, have to cross that bridge when it comes. The state did say that they concede

that some of the witnesses, Adam Cox, Janice Cox, Summer Schifflett may have some minimally relevant information. The rest of these, I think we're going to have to take up maybe on a piecemeal basis, but I don't want to, it's not going to be a situation where you're ready to call them in as a witness the morning of, and then the state hasn't been, they haven't been presented to the state for an interview prior to that. So keep that in mind when coordinating with your investigator. if he gets them served and they're actually going to be called at trial. They need to submit to an interview in advance of their testimony.

Your Honor, I understand that. And I am limited in what I can do. If I could call these people myself, they would answer my call probably. And I could have this discussion with them. But I'm going through the limitations that I have at the jail through my paralegal, who's working overtime and my investigator who's working overtime to try to do everything to help me prepare for trial, as they have other clients as well, that they have to do things. in a timely manner for. So we are doing the best that we can. Okay. All right. We next have

defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of confidential communication and the Sixth Amendment dated March 18 of 2025 in the state's response. And that takes us to the sixth amendment. To those that say you can't believe how we don't like crack up in court, you know what? When you're in the courtroom is actually a lot more just like shocking. You're just like, oh my gosh, you know, it's just shocking. Yeah, and I want to bring up Barry Cox. I love that. He's like, who's your dad? I found it very interesting that she claims that Barry Cox sells life insurance and sold life insurance to her and was helping her with her life insurance. Look, like, Barry Cox isn't like the most noble of guys. He's been in prison himself for practice.

law without a law license, odd, not paying taxes and declaring that she was a sovereign citizen, he didn't need to pay taxes. He went to prison for not paying his taxes. And then what did he do when he was released from prison? He did not show remorse. He did the opposite. He actually wrote a book about why he shouldn't have to pay taxes after spending time in prison. So to hear, I have to be honest, to hear that he is giving his daughter life insurance advice I don't know about you guys, but that was kind of a woe moment for me. Like, wait a minute. Because not all of the evidence looks great.

I'm going to be honest, for the Cox family when it comes to Arizona. There are texts that are in the FOIA documents that are not, they don't paint every Cox member in the best light. Like a lot of them were pro-Lory instead of Charles. And to hear, again, I'm just going to say that Barry Cox is helping. Lori with life insurance? It's interesting. It's all I'm going to say. What do you guys think?

What do you guys think? So, back to violation of Sixth Amendment, filed March 18th. This goes into Lori having an attorney in Idaho that is working on her appeal in Idaho. And she is trying to work the legal line of jail to be able to talk to her. So she's trying to work, in other words, a line from that jail to work on her appeal. this attorney to be able to talk to her and to have, to have attorney-client privilege so that not everyone is listening to this line of communication. Well, the judge says that the communication between the two was put on a public chat system that the jail uses. He says, you know, Lori, it is not confidential

on this public chat, and you are told that it is not confidential. But if I look at the substance, it's just trying, luckily all you're doing with your attorney in this non confidential, non confidential public chat is trying to set up the call. And then Lori states, who's telling me it's not confidential? The judge responds, your own attorney, it looks like, and gives two other examples. One, the attorney sends a message that he is working on getting a. confidential call set up. And then the other example that he gives is, well, and your attorney sends a second message saying that he's still working on getting a legal line set up so that you can talk in a confidential way. In other words, that would imply, Lori, that your line is not

confidential if your attorney is trying to set up that confidential line. It made sense to me in the courtroom. But then Lori says, well, he received a letter from me. He received a letter from Maricopa County Sheriff's Office saying that his phone number, her attorney's phone number, is now confidential. So from my perspective, Lori explains that when I call or text someone on the tablet that she has, it goes to their phone number. And so all of the communication after that date should be confidential. If his phone number has been made confidential, then doesn't that mean that if I write someone on my tablet is confidential? So that's fair. I'm like, okay, I see where she's going. Um, the judge

then states, Judge Breskes then states, well, after that, when the attorney's line was approved, there were no other disclosures of messages from him or you. Is that correct? Lorry says, no, there are. They go through January 24th. The judge says, no, I saw that the last message goes through late December, December of 23. I don't know, honestly, if he meant December of 23 or December 23rd. But either way, that would stop before January 24th. You guys got to hear this one. You got to hear this one. We're going to play it for you right now. The prosecutor who obtained these, her protocol would not be to stop and ask the court for some guidance on this, maybe do an in-camera review. If she's subjecting herself to client privilege,

communications instead of reading them and finding out and assessing for herself if these are, if there are anything in there that's confidential information between me and my appeals attorney. I have no other way to communicate with him when I'm in this incarcerated situation because I was brought here to Arizona to deal with these charges. So it is a problem. It's a problem that she took them. It's a problem that she got them from MCSO. It's a problem that she read through them.

It's a huge problem that she put some of them into her motion. And now his IP address is exposed to the public, which is a federal offense. There's a lot of things wrong with what has happened here. Well, you reminded me that when his number was approved, he then sent messages from different IP addresses instead of that phone number that was privileged. So he disclosed, he's the one that disclosed or violated the confidential nature. I don't see that any of these, I'm going to call them inadvertently intercepted messages

between you and your appeal attorney. I don't see that they're being used in any way by the state. Just the state reading them as a violation of the client attorney privilege. Well, not if they're not done through a privileged setup the way that they were supposed to, which he even acknowledged. My understanding from my perspective was that that phone number was now privileged. The way it comes to me on the tablet is I text that phone number or I text, I call that phone number. Correct. If you're communicating through the phone number, but if he has it set up where the messages aren't being sent and received actually through the phone number,

but through different IP addresses, they wouldn't, the system doesn't know that they're privileged because they're not being sent and received through that privileged number. But I didn't know that. There's no way for me to know that from where I am in myself. There's no understanding for that. I assumed he was just getting them on his same phone that we were having client-privileged, client attorney-privileged communications. And is the state giving these to Idaho?

Do these get dispersed out? I would like to know that. Where are these going? They're getting them from MCSO. Is there a subpoena to get these from MCSO? Is there a warrant to get these from MCSO? I didn't see anything that warrants them getting them from MCSO in the first place. All right.

Let me hear from the state. I think that the state's motion really covers the law under this. The defendant and her attorney were provided with information. Whether or not she understood it or her or not, her attorney understood that it was phone calls that were covered. So it's not just the defendant who is not complying with following the correct procedure to utilize the set up attorney-client privilege means to communicate. In this case, the state, obviously, I disclose those before I even look at them.

I understand that they are statements by a defendant, and I believe that they are to be disclosed under Rule 15. And so before I even look at them, I send them to the defendant because I don't have the option of not providing them to her since they have been obtained. I think if you apply the case law in this, the defendant cannot meet her burden to show that there's any legal advice in these messages. There's no privilege in them. The messages are asking to set up times to call and to speak. Are the three, I think it's three messages that you included in your response. Are those all the messages?

No, Your Honor. There are other messages, and we do say that tablet messages between Ms. Daybell and Mr. Jerm do not end on December 28. They continue. And there is privilege information on them going forward. And the state is basically testifying for my attorney now. She just testified for my attorney that he understood that these were not privileged communications. Where does she understand that he, where is she testifying from my attorney? Well, I think because of the context of the messages, say, I'm trying to schedule a time and I'm trying to set up a confidential line, meaning this is not confidential. That's right. He said it wasn't confidential before MCSO gave him a letter saying your phone number is now confidential. Your phone number now has.

Okay. I'm not going to keep rehashing this with you. The fact that he's using different IP addresses and not messaging through the actual phone number that's protected, I think is part of the. of the problem. So if he's not using the program correctly, that's an issue you need to take up with your attorney. How is he using it incorrectly? I just told you. He's not messaging through the phone number. He's using different IP. How can you message other than the phone number? I don't understand that. I don't understand that either. But if it was from the phone number and for his cell phone, for example, it would be the same IP address for each communication. There's like four or five IP addresses.

Where are the IP addresses coming from? They're given to you by the state? They're right there listed on the messages. I'm just saying. Where are they obtaining those from? From your attorney's messages to you. From MCSO? Yeah. Did they get IP addresses for every single person of every single message communication on the text from MCSO?

Well, it's listed on the messages, so I assume so. It says Craig Durham, and then under is the IP address from the device that's being used. Okay, and then Ms. Kay is reading all of these messages and they're not privileged. Is that what you're coming to you? They're not privileged if you're not using the program or your attorney's not using the program correctly. Okay, they're still not going to be allowed to use any of these messages. What I'm saying is they're inadvertent disclosure by MCSO because someone's not using the program correctly doesn't mean that they had bad faith in how they got them.

How is he using it in? Correctly. I don't know how else to explain it to you. I've told you five different times now. So he's not messaging with the phone number. He's messaging from different IP addresses. Okay. Can I ask if these messages are being disseminated anywhere to Idaho, to the prosecutors in Idaho?

Because it's definitely affecting my appeal if that's case. I don't know. I've not been sent to anyone other than the defendant, Your Honor. All right. So there was some communication. Communications, I find that were intercepted between Ms. Daybell and her attorney. The state's not to use those communications. They're not to disseminate those communications, but I do find that they weren't purposely sought out by the state.

And that dismissal isn't the appropriate sanction if there is an appropriate sanction. So we're denying the motion to dismiss for violation of confidential communication. I mean, this is day one, guys. This is day one, day one of jury selection. So this judge is being patient. I think he almost lost it. I think this is the moment where he was clearly frustrated. You could hear him audibly sigh.

Day one. Day one. Let's move on now. Two. Motion. for prosecutorial misconduct. This is a motion that Lori recently filed last week, that she wants to remove state prosecutor Trina K from the case

because of prosecutorial misconduct. That's a really big deal, like to say that there has been misconduct by a prosecutor. So the judge asks, did you get the response from the state? Lori states I did, Your Honor. The judge says, well, the state filed a motion back in September 2024, asking the court to preclude your defense team for making public record requests from Gilbert or Chandler Police Department. I denied saying the defense is allowed to make requests through appropriate means. Part of your complaint is that they didn't provide this, which is sort of a civil issue, but let me hear your argument. Lori explains that this is not her argument.

The judge says, well, that's your first. first paragraph. This was a moment. September of 2024, asking the court to preclude your defense team at the time from making public records requests through Gilbert and or Chandler police departments. I denied the state's request

saying that the defense is free to do their investigation and make public records requests through appropriate means. So that's part of your complaint that they didn't provide those public documents to the defense. That's sort of a civil issue, I guess, but let me hear your argument on that. That isn't really the complaint itself. That's your first paragraph. I know, but the complaint is that...

I'd like to take each allegation and deal with them one at a time. I understand that. My complaint is the interference by the state, Ms. Kay in particular, in stopping that and interfering with us trying to investigate and do our own investigation. It is a violation of the constitutional right and due process. And she did do it and she did do it purposefully. And then after she did it, and we weren't allowed to have anything from either of the police department. then she filed her motion and then later the day that I was ruled 11 rule 11 that is the day after when you said that you denied that motion so I don't know what she did or what she said to Chandler and Gilbert to stop them from giving us any information but as soon as we put in a request we were cut off no information you can't have anything that's when I was trying to the big video that we're trying to get in Gilbert that's what I was trying to request I tried to request that myself because I would have my investigator to go and explain what that was and why we didn't have it.

And so we were precluded from doing all those things by the state. They should not be interfering with that. That's one of the reasons why everything has taken so long. We haven't been given things we've asked the state for. We haven't been given them. We tried to get them from Chandler and Gilbert. We can't get them from them. She's stopping us from getting from them.

How are you supposed to put together a defense? So when your prior defense counsel put in that request back in September, the state says that they obtained those information and gave it to your attorneys on October 1. So why are we waiting until March to address this if you had an issue with that? I have had an issue with it the whole time. But why didn't you file a motion back in after, you know, December, November, January, February, saying they had an issue with this? I did. These are in my motions to you for specific discovery. I discussed this exact problem.

Okay. Well, now you're saying it arises to prosecutorial misconduct. It is. This is the first I've been made aware of that, as far as I know, that the police department never honored the public records request. If they don't honor a public records request, there's a process to go through. regarding that. Which is what? I'm not going to give you legal advice. All right. Your second allegation, the prosecutorial misconduct,

we've already kind of dealt with that she distributed attorney, the state distributed attorney-client privileged communication. We've discussed that. The next one is legal advice to defense witness, Nate Eaton. We've somewhat discussed that, but I think their motion, the state says that, they simply notified him that he would need to be served with a subpoena to have to appear in court. So how is that improper?

It's taking it's taking her word for that that's what happened. She's not under oath saying that that's what happened. Nate Eaton's not here to testify that that's what happened. They're the only two parties that are there to say that that is what happened. So that is my problem with it. I would like for one of them to get on the stand and say exactly what happened in that conversation. and that she wasn't giving him legal advice. How do we know that she wasn't?

It's a very curious situation that he called her, and then he writes in his motion this statement that obviously comes from Ms. Kay. She seems to be a clear attempt by Ms. Daybill to use the rules of criminal procedure as a pretext simply to keep me out of the courtroom and interfere with my billage report. We also don't know if he told her,

don't come to the March 18th hearing because that's when they're going to serve you with your subpoena. So all these things come, from there and we don't know who's saying it. And you're just taking her word for it, like you took her word for, oh, there's only six emails and there's no other emails. You're just taking her word for it as an officer of the court. And I think that she should have to be sworn in.

Well, you want me to just take your word for, he must have gotten these things from Ms. Kay, okay? Just because his motion says, he thinks that you're noticing him as a witness to keep him out of the courtroom? I don't know why you take the jump. to that is coming from Ms. Kay as opposed to his own volition. He also hired an attorney that said the same thing. Even if she had said you need to be served

with a subpoena to have to show up in court, that is not an ethical violation. Giving legal advice is an ethical violation. Is that correct? Stating what the law is, is not an ethical violation. If she said, I don't think you should show up at court, even if you're subpoena, or something like that, that could be an ethical violation, but we don't have that.

How do we know we don't have that? That's my question. How do we know what went on in that conversation if it wasn't recorded? Aren't witness? You can interview him. You can interview Mr. Eden. Your investigator can interview Mr. Eden. So let's just go over what she's implying. She's implying things, essentially conspiracy theories that she hasn't proved. She's pretty much saying that she has decided that that Trina Kay, the prosecutor and Nate Eaton are discussing his plan to not show up with the last hearing, which I want to point out too that Nate Eaton lives in Idaho. He's from Idaho. He's thousands of miles away. You know, it took him two days to just drive here. So he didn't show up for the last hearing. And because of that, she has speculated or had decided that Trina Kay, the prosecutor for the state, told him to not show up so that she couldn't give him a subpoena. You know, hand him that. And I want you to know that online today, Nate Eaton did say that that did not happen. He said that the only thing that Trina K did say to Nate Eaton, and I did see them talking today. I did see them communicating. But the only thing she has ever said is, well, if you are a witness in this trial, you cannot be in the courtroom. And so according to Nate Eden, that's all he and Trina Kay have talked about, which wouldn't make sense if he's being called as a witness. witness that she would communicate that to him. Guys, like, again, this is, this is, um, some wild stuff.

And as the judge pointed out, find out. If that conversation did find it, you know, happened interview Nate Eaton, find out. Uh, it is, it is bizarre. It's, it's bizarre. So then we, we've, move to the 609 motion. It says that there are seven felony convictions in the state of Idaho, and the judge is limiting the number of convictions and nature disclosed to the jury to be appropriate so that they are not overly prejudicial to Lori's previous convictions. And as far as there being

seven convictions, felony convictions in the state of Idaho, remember that she's not just charged with three murders. She also has financial crimes. And so there are a total of seven convictions in Idaho. So they have to talk about not disclosing all of these during this trial so that, again, the jury is not too prejudicial and they judge her, in other words, right off the bat, you know. So he is limiting what can be disclosed to two felonies. But the judge, the state argues that the court should allow at least three, that there are multiple dates, multiple victims, distinct incidents that they need to talk about in this trial when talking, about the credibility of the defendant, they should be allowed three felony convictions that they

can discuss. The judge looked at date ranges and counts, and some of those counts, the laws are titled different in Idaho than they are in Arizona, but a couple of the counts have dishonesty in the name of the convictions, that first-degree murder, that grand theft by deception. And these only become relevant if Lori chooses to testify. on the stand because then can they then share that she has this been convicted of theft

by deception if she is testifying let the jury decide how honest Lori is how valid her statements are. She has been convicted of deception. These only become relevant though again if she chooses to testify and he

has read the defendant's response asking them all to be precluded meaning she doesn't want any of in trial. I get it. I get it. He asks if Lori has read the document and Lori responds, Your Honor, I haven't had time. I wasn't planning on talking about my 609 today. So I will just refer to my reply. And then the judge does say, well, we can table this later in trial because it does not become relevant unless you testify in trial. And then there was some housekeeping before closing. The defense then says we need to discuss how the division would, how the

excuse me, how the media would, how we should give out the media exhibits. I wanted to say, we are not in Delphi, Indiana anymore. I was like, thank you. Oh, my gosh. The fact that there would be housekeeping on the last, on the first day of jury selection, and we're discussing how would the media like to see the exhibits and how do we, how do we give them to everyone to make sure the public can see these exhibits? I was just like, thank you.

do they want an individual flash drive for each of the exhibits? The judge says it depends on how you're going to present them, but I would say yes. And then the Lori tells the judge in his minute entry for the motion to remove restraints. He rules that Lori will be wearing what is called a rack belt, a rack belt, capital R, capital A capital A, capital A, capital C. I'll tell you what a rack belt stands for. a remote-activated custody control belt. Let's call it a shock belt, stun belt, shock belt. That's what it is.

It's an electric belt. So Lori actually tells the judge in his minute entry for the motion that to remove restraints that she ruled, that he ruled that Lori would be wearing the rack belt. But Lori is sort of arguing and saying, like, come on, do I really have to wear this? I was told that I didn't have to wear this as long as there's some like, you know, armed guards at the back of the door. And there are those and you're going to make me wear this. And he said, no, no, no, I said that you don't need to wear the leg restraints. And in my lunch today, which I'm going to be going live every day at lunch. And in my lunch live, I did say

that I thought she might be wearing these sort of leg restraints that kept keep her from running, even though I couldn't see him. And she quite, like I said, and she had a pep in her step. She's not wearing it. She's not. What she is wearing is the rack belt. And so the judge said, well, you know, I've decided you're going to wear the rack belt. This was an interesting moment and it ended on this. Because if you didn't think, you know, if you thought Lori was done arguing to the very last minute, she is arguing with the judge, even about her rack belt, like, look, she's in street clothes.

She doesn't have shackles. She's in heels. She can move around. She doesn't have the leg restraints. And I'm like, like, pick your battles, Lori. Pick your battles. but she is going to battle the judge with the racked belt. Take a listen to this.

One more thing, Your Honor. I wanted a clarification in your minute entry dated the 25th regarding the defendant's motion to remove restraints. So my understanding when I read what was from MCSO, and then you put in here, however, at the sheriff's discretion, one or more armed sheriff deputies may be positioned. near the exits. So what their recommendation was was the minimal amount of restraints, meaning if there was going to be an armed guard, then they would not have to do the belt. So I was confused by and wanted a clarification on what you were actually ordering because the DOs had a question about it with me this morning. So I ordered that you don't have to wear the leg restraint, but that you do have to wear the rack belt because that is not going to be

visible to the jury. The leg restraints a little more cumbersome and visible. And since you're representing yourself and you're going to need to approach the podium and those sorts of things, I ordered the removal of the leg restraint. You will, though, wear the rack belt. And then I said it's up to the sheriff's office. If they want to, they can position a couple deputies in the back if they want additional deputies. Well, their recommendation was that you wouldn't have to use the belt at all if they had the armed guard? I read their response and their recommendation, and that's my order. So what is it exactly?

That you have to wear the rack belt, but not the leg restraint. And that they will or will not have armed guard? It's up to them. Okay. All right. He's like, why are we here? Why are we here? Court concluded after that, and then again tomorrow, a jury selection in person.

to the people that were not dismissed. We'll go into court tomorrow. They said that there may or may not be room for public. And again, I hope to be in the courtroom while that is going on, but there may or may not be room with all of the jurors. So if I'm not able to get in, I'm going to be here going live, also working on this major backstory that I have coming very soon. I have written it.

I have edited through 50 minutes. of it. I was up until 2 a.m. editing it. And it is coming very soon, the entire backstory. So you can share it with all of your friends. If you want them to be able to follow this case, I've got it for you. And then I will be putting all of our playlist out there and organizing our last five years of research on this case. So you can get up to date. Hit subscribe, hit notifications, because we do not know when we go live. I know that you guys want a schedule. But I mean, that's just not how I roll. I have improved. Some things, I have a setup and a studio that I will be able to go live every night from.

And I have microphones to improve my lunch lives on my cell phone that worked out today. Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. But one thing I haven't yet solidified is a solid schedule. So please, again, feel free to hit subscribe and hit notifications because we are going to be with you every step of the way. Consider this your trial headquarters. I am so grateful to see all of you here tonight and stick with us.

Mostly, most important, may justice be served. We're here for you and for Charles Vallow. He should still be with us today. Let's not forget Charles throughout this whole thing. Thanks, everyone. Thanks for being here. We'll see you. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet,

and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN,

anti-virus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.