Hidden True Crime - LORI DAYBELL TRIAL | Lori Questions Jurors on Day 2

Episode Date: April 2, 2025

Journalist Lauren Matthias is here to break down day 2 in the Lori Daybell trial... From how we came to a jury so quickly, to all of Lori's questions for the jury, and how the jurors answered the questions they were asked. 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 of returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Hello, hidden gems. Day two. Day two recap of Jury selection, voir dire, today in the Maricopa County Courthouse, Lori Daybill trial. She has been charged with murdering her late husband, Charles Vallow, not yet convicted, not convicted, and innocent until proven guilty. And that was made very clear today during voir dire,

that she is innocent until proven guilty. That was a major theme. I'm going to go through the entire day with you, but I am not going to bury the lead. We have a jury. 16 jurors have been seated, 12 jurors and four alternate. We don't know who is going to be an alternate that will happen at the very end before deliberations

where they will draw and it'll be random. who is going to be an alternate, who is going to be an actual juror to decide the fate of Lori Debel, guilty or innocent. This is interesting about the jury, three females out of 16th, a little interesting. But a good juror, jury, from what we saw and heard today, they seem to really understand their job. and what they have been tasked to do, which is assume that Lori Daybell is innocent unless evidence shows them that she is guilty of murdering her husband.

I am, we're going to go through everything starting at the beginning. What I'm going to do is I'm going to explain the beginning of court today and everything that happened. Then we're going to jump to Lori questioning the jurors herself because to me that was that was a moment we all you know everybody in the courtroom after lunch when lorry uh stood up to question the jurors uh even she seemed nervous i'll tell you that we're going to go over everything she said so let me go through what happened this morning then i'm going to get into lory questioning and talking to the jurors and then we're going to go

back and do what i did yesterday which is go through all of the details of the questions that were asked of the jurors, the jurors that were excused, some of the, some of the things that happened with, with voir dire today. But I'm going to save that until the very end. So let's get to it.

When court started this morning, again, the judge explained that we'd be going through the new questionnaires, that, so there were 48 new potential jurors from the questionnaire. We went through them and here's the background. And I explained this during my lunch live on YouTube earlier today as well. 18 were struck for knowing Lori and the case. 20 were struck for other reasons, dismissed for other reasons.

And 10 of those jurors were deemed good to move forward. So it was announced that these 62 possible jurors would be moving forward to Voidier in the afternoon and that when they come up, they would be given, new numbers, 1 through 62. So we referenced some of the numbers yesterday. Now we're just 1 through 62. And the judge actually talks about explaining to the jurors the burden of proof, credibility of witnesses, their willingness to follow law under, follow the law for the verdict, their ability to deliberate, all of those sort of rules and guidelines. The judge says that he will read instructions on self-represented defense.

defendants to the jurors because that is a whole other set of instructions, I guess, is when a defendant represents themselves. That's a whole other bag of instructions we learned today. The judge asks, is there anything we need to change here? And Lori actually says, well, the sheet says that the defendant will be representing himself. The judge makes note of that and says that he will make that change so that it doesn't say representing himself. The judge then announced that he is optimistic. There would be a jury sat this afternoon and ready to go for opening statements this Monday. And Judge Boreski was right.

Didn't bury the lead. He is right. He has in two days sat a jury of 16 of Lori's peers from Maricopa County. And opening statements start Monday. The judge before lunch explains how sidebars will happen. Again, typically a sidebar, you go up to meet the judge and everyone kind of walks up and we hear the white noise machine going so we can't hear anything. Well, this time, everyone is going to stay where they are at their tables, put headsets on

and talk while the court plays the noise overhead, again, that white noise machine, rather than go all the way to the stand. And trust me, we listen to a lot of white noise today, a lot of white noise during certain private conversations that they needed to have for Wadir. And after this, they did do that mic and headphones set. Everything looked good to go again for Monday. I think they're really prepping to make sure it all works, although the judge did have a little bit of a hard time with his headset.

So that took a while. They called in a tech person. Then we jumped into, again, talking about Wadir that's going to happen after lunch. This is this morning. Wadir happened after lunch. The judge reminds that media that is there, that there will be no broadcasting of in-person jurors, and we get it, we get it. And that's why I'm going to relate everything to you as much as I can,

but keeping personal information, personal, what anybody looks like or anything like that that might identify them. Not going to do that here. So Lori's advisory council then brings up the fact that she had a settlement conference on Wednesday, April 9th at 1.30, which will be 30 minutes to an hour, and then ask the judge for a workaround on the schedule, because that's obviously during this trial, the judge says to remind him of that on Monday, which again is opening statements and that he would speak to that other judge

about that kind of being problematic since he's going to be in the middle of a murder trial. And then actually the judge jumps into the Brandon Boudreau case. It has said that the Brandon Boudreau case opening statements will be held on June 2nd. So we have a date for that. Now, to remind everyone with this case, there were three murduechings. in Idaho that Lori has been convicted of. And then we are now in the midst of a trial, or soon to be in the midst of a trial

for the murder of Charles Vallow, her late husband. And then Brandon Boudreau was an attempted murder that happened on October 2, 2019. The children, Charles had been murdered, the children had been murdered. That happened in Idaho. And then in Arizona, Brandon Boudreaux is driving home in his Tesla

after dropping his kids off at daycare and a bullet right through his Tesla's window and misses him by inches. He pulls in, he calls police, we've all seen the body cam footage of that. He missed death by inches. Well, that was like nearly six years ago and there has been,

we really haven't heard very much more about that. But that is not, originally we thought that they'd be combined. that she would go to trial for both and defend herself at the same time for the murder of Charles Vallow and Brandon Boudreau, but they are completely separate trials. Brandons will start shortly after this one for Charles ends on June 2nd, June 2nd. Three trials, guys, it'll be her third trial. So then we explain the schedule a little bit after that. So most of the trial coming up will, we will not have.

court on Friday. So on Fridays, we're actually trying to figure out what we want to do interviews. So we're going to continue to keep things coming for you Monday through Friday. Then we were all released for lunch. And again, those of you that saw my lunch live outside the courthouse, that is on our hidden true crime YouTube channel. So court started a little bit late this afternoon. We were all pulled to be back by 115. I'm not surprised since we're dealing with 62 potential jurors. we all rose for the jury and then the judge came out and the clerk administered an oath to prospective jurors and then the judge then gave the jurors instructions for questioning for the voir dire. He explains that if they answer yes to a question, they need to raise their juror number.

And when he calls on them, they need to start by stating their juror number. The judge says that a number of them had indicated that they had hearing loss and he asks if anyone cannot hear him. There were no issues. The judge then explained that to be a juror, you must be 18 years old, a U.S. citizen and a resident of Maricopa County. And he asked if anyone in the room is not,

you know, has an issue with any of those three things. And no one raises their numbers. The judge then introduces himself as Justin Boreski and he introduces his staff. Drea Castillo is a courtroom assistant. She may be in and out of the courtroom from time to time and she may lead to perform other duties of her job. Izzy Contreras, judicial assistant, Aalia Farrell, court clerk.

Jolie Matluck, also not present today, but also a clerk. And then Lori Heelman, court reporter for that day. The judge asks the jurors to raise their number if they know any of his staff and nobody raises their numbers. Then the state introduces themselves. Trina K. introduces herself as the prosecutor. or for Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Tiffany Martinez, paralegal, and Nathan Duncan with a Chandler, a Chandler police detective. Now I'm going to stop there. I want to remind all of you

who Nathan Duncan is with Chandler PD. And actually earlier today, I saw him. I said, oh, I know you. I saw you testify at the trials of Lori and Chad Daybell. He was actually a very informative witness during the Chad Daybill trial, which you can go back and you can view his testimony where he actually grew up LDS or Mormon. So he was a big part of explaining a lot of LDS beliefs, including what the patriarchal blessing was that Chad Daybell had given to Alex Cox, as well as other information. He is Catholic now.

I learned that's how he identifies. But he grew up LDS. And so he explained. And John Pryor back at Chad Daybill's trial, sort of used that against him. He's like, well, you grew up in it, but you don't know it now. You don't know these things. So he let me know that he's going to be in there every day.

So he is there seated. So Nathan Duncan, Chandler, police detective. And then again, the jurors are asked if they know any of these people I just mentioned. And they don't. But juror 44 does explain that he has a close family member who worked for the attorney general's office at one point. I mean, these were very honest. honest jurors. That wasn't an issue, but he relate that. Next, Lori introduced herself, and this is what she stated. She said, my name is Lori Daybell. I am representing myself in this cause. She introduces

the people with her on her team, on her counsel. Onalina Ramirez is the paralegal. Pamela Hicks is her fellow attorney, Robert Abernaffi, Advisory Council. And then the judge explains how they are going to ask the jurors questions. It was interesting. And I want to relate all of that here. But we are going to come back to this because we do not, once again, want to bury the lead or the meat of what we need to talk about, which is, again, the jury has been seated, we have 16 jurors in Lori questioned them herself. So we're going to dive in once the

jurors were seated and then we're going to come back to how the jury was chosen and what happened during voir dire. So we'll get back to that in just a minute. First, there was a sidebar and 14 jurors were excused. So we'll actually, let me explain really quickly. So we were on the left side. So typically we're on the right. The right side of the gallery is where the state where people, you know, the Charles Valo family, anyone on the prosecution side or media reserved, there's 15 reserved seats for media where they are. And then on the left side is safe for defense. I think the public can maybe sit on either side a little bit, but today they had all of the potential jurors on the right side. So when we came back in for lunch,

we were actually moved to the opposite side where we typically are not. And then to the entire right side, which has the most seats, completely full of potential jurors. In addition to that, the jury box that had 16 seats was also full. So we had 14 jurors were excused. Oh, actually, there were even additional. All of the ones on the right side were excused, which means that they already had some potential jurors picked out that were in the jury box because the majority of the jurors that were picked in the end were in the jury box to begin with. So once they were all released,

we took a quick break and then everybody returned and each jurors stood up then to share their occupations, a bit of their family life, their relationship status, and other personal information that I'm not going to share here to protect any of their identities. But each one did stand up and introduced himself, explain what they did for a living, explained whether they were married or divorced, explained how many children they had. So everyone could really understand. And then Trina K, that's the prosecution, Trina K for the state is ready to question. She's the lead prosecutor. Trina explains that Lori is representing herself and that she has the right to do so. but they are told that she must comply with the rules of law,

rules of criminal procedure and rules of evidence. She asks if any of the jurors think that they may give Lori more leeway or benefit of the doubt because she is not aware of the law. And nobody raises their juror cards. Trina then asks if anyone there might hold it against the state if they object to things that Lori says and does because she does not know the law and no one raises their cards. Trina then asks if there is anyone that will hold the state to a higher burden than usual because Lori is representing herself. No one raises their cards. Trina explains what Lori is charged with

and asks if there is anyone that thinks since Lori is not the shooter too bad, she's not guilty, and no one raises their cards. I want to point out, this is a bit of a conspiracy to murder case. Not a bit, it is a conspiracy to murder trial or case. Lori has not been convicted of ever actually doing, well, she's been convicted of a first-degree murder, but nobody has said that she did the actual killing. It's always been a bit of a plotting and planning. No one raises their cards. 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's 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, antivirus, password-man, 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. Orra 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. Trina asks if there will be anyone that will not be willing to consider all of the evidence in trying to determine whether or not conspiracy exists. No one raises their cards. And Trina asks if there is no video of Lori admitting that she did this crime, is there anyone who wouldn't convict her because of that? No one raises their cards. Trina talks about the media in this case and asks if there is anyone who won't be able

to stop themselves if something pops up and like pops up on their phone. And she sees an article about Lori Daybell, will you be able to stop yourself? Well, number 38 raises her card. And number 38 says that they could stop themselves from looking further into something. But what if they have already seen things? Trina says that they will talk to them separately. And the judge says, no, no, no, no, no. I need to clarify if you have already seen something.

or if you are talking about coming upon something. And the juror says that they have already seen something. And the judge again says, well, we'll talk to them separately. So 38 will be talked to separately. Trina then asks if everyone feels comfortable not talking specifics and telling people that they cannot talk about the case. As in when your family asks you to talk about this case or a neighbor asks you to talk about this case, can you not talk about it in other words and then this is interesting trina asks if anyone there

are gun owners and 10 of the jurors say yes juror 1 12 20 24 29 33 33 34 36 40 and 41 Trina asks for those of you who are not gun owners is there anyone who will have difficulty sitting in a jury where guns are discussed no one raises their cards so trina asks the gun owners then if they have any specialized training no juror raises cards trina brings up then the lDS church she said it's also referred to as the mormon church or the church of jesus christ latter day saints and she asked if if anyone has any strong views on the lDS church that would make it difficult to sit through this trial and no one raises their cards and she said good and she said in other words a lot of this trial is going to have beliefs and things that are about the Church of Jesus Christ,

a lot of day saints, and explains that sometimes people have beliefs to not judge at all. But, you know, again, their job is to determine guilty or not guilty. And then again, she asks if everybody understands this and asks if any of these potential jurors would rather not make that decision, no one raises their cards. last question from Trina K. She asks if there is anything any jurors think they should know about them, like the juror, like is there anything we haven't asked that we should maybe know about you? You know, like here's your chance, jurors.

No cards are raised. So then Lori gets up. Here's the moment. Here's the moment. And truly, every, all eyes and the, you know, after all the white noise and after all the questioning, Lori stands up and we're all paying attention. She goes up to the stand in front of these jurors and says, my name is Lori Daybell. And as you know, I was charged with a crime and I am representing myself in this cause.

So she keeps saying that, representing myself in this cause. I am a 51 year old woman. The judge stops her at this moment and says, you are just asking questions. Lori says that she was just introducing herself, but. says she understands and continues. So she stopped with the facts about her age and who she is. She says that her questions are the difference between innocence and guilt. And before she went through this, meaning went through these charges in everything that's

going on in this judicial system, before she went through this, she didn't know the difference between really being innocent and guilty. And what she's learned is that it is the state's burden. 100% the state's burden to prove that she is guilty of her charges. And Lori asks, would anyone have a problem if the state is at the end of their case and Lori doesn't tell her side of the story? Is there anyone who can't prove her guilty until she tells her side? And if that sounded a little confusing, just, you know, that's kind of exactly what she

said. It sounds a little bit confusing. It's a little bit like, okay, what you're saying is, so if she doesn't tell her side, is there anyone who can't prove her guilty until she tells her side? No one raises their cards. And I just want to say, this is like the first instance of us kind of learning. Maybe she is not planning to testify, because that's really what she's kind of saying with, if I don't tell my side, are we good? And I'd also like to remind everyone that at her Idaho trial, there really wasn't much of a defense. Not a single defense witness was called. It actually shocked everyone. Chad Daybell's trial, tons of defense witnesses, tons and tons. Lori's defense attorneys actually kind of got a hard time for it that they're like, no witness. We're not calling any

witnesses. People were shocked. But, but, you know, I think in many ways, Lori thinks less is more. And she also did not testify at her Idaho trial. Sure, she had attorneys that, were recommending things that she do. But let's be honest, like Lori does what Lori wants to do. And if she wanted to testify, she would have testified. And so I think this is maybe a hint that she might not testify. Let's keep going. Then Lori says, quote, because it is human nature that we want to hear all sides, but that's not the side, end quote.

Isn't that interesting? It's human nature. You want to hear all the sides, but that's not the side. I think it might have been, she didn't really say what she meant to say, but that's what she said. And then she goes on to ask this. This was kind of honestly, I'm going to say this was a little bit of an awkward moment for me. And she was having kind of a hard time articulating her questions. And she says, some of you said, and she's speaking directly to the jurors in the box. Some of you said who actually end up being the jurors. But, you know, she has to question them to kind of confirm. this group, right? So we know that these are the jurors, but she's sort of just doing this final question. And she states, some of you said that you have children and stepchildren. There are a lot of family dynamics that you'll be introduced to with evidence presented in this trial. And I didn't know if anyone will have a problem with dot, dot, dot, dot. And then she like stops. And then she explains that she's nervous. And then she says, like she's trying to like try to figure out how to say it. And it is, it is awkward because we know that she's been convicted of murdering her two children. And one of them is an adopted, you know, little boy, sweet seven-year-old JJ.

And then we know that there are step siblings. And we know that Tiley was 16 and JJ's half sister. It was like this sort of moment of like, oh, my God. gosh, where she going with this? Like this is, and she says, she like stops and kind of says she's nervous. And I'm like, what are you trying to imply here? And so she restarts. And then she says, would anybody have a difficult understanding of difficult family dynamics? And no cards were raised.

Take that for what she, for what it is, what she means. I don't know. It was odd. Then she says, if the state cannot prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt, and you thought that I was innocent, she says to these jurors, could you be strong enough if the other 11 of your jurors thought I was guilty? Would you be able to stand your ground if you were the only one that thought I was innocent? And the jurors look at her.

And again, these are potential jurors because they're being questioned by her, but they end up being the 16 jurors. So they're here. And they just kind of look at her and blankly stare because really, if they have an issue, they're just supposed to raise their juror number. And so they're not. They're just kind of blankly staring at her and not reacting like, no, they wouldn't have an issue.

And then when nobody said anything, she says, Well, okay, well, that's hard, she would say that. And then she goes, and that would be, that would be hard for me. I thought that was like a really interesting moment, almost like this sort of tell, as my husband would say, about Lori DeBal, like implying that peer pressure gets to her, that if she was the lone one standing, it would be difficult for her to stand her ground. Oh, it was interesting. So she just wanted to make sure that if one juror there thought that she was innocent that they would stick true to their gut, every juror seems to think that was just fine.

And then she said, yeah, that would be hard for me. Then she says, you were brought here as judges to judge this crime. You were brought here. This is interesting. You were brought here to protect me from the state. She said that. You have been brought here to protect me from the state. The prosecution is the state.

The judge is the state. And law enforcement. They are all the state. And your job is to protect me from them. And basically, she's pretty much now saying that they are all against her. Trina objects. Trina K objects. And rather than make, it was really an interesting wording that their job is to protect her from

the state in. And I see what she's kind of trying to say. And maybe this is where the judge, I think Judge Breski sort of helped you here. Trina Key objects in the judge clarifies that their job, the juror's job, is to make the state prove their case.

The juror's job is not to protect Lori. The juror's job is to make the state prove their case. And then Lori then moves on in states, so does anybody believe that I am not innocent right now at this moment? No jurors raise their cards. And then next, Lori asks, does anybody feel that if the state does not meet their burden to prove that I committed the crime? Is there anyone that could not say

that I am not still innocent? I get what she's saying. I get it. But it's like how, like she's asking this question in so many different ways. Like, it's like, okay, no one raises their juror card. Next, Lori asks, is there anyone that has, here we go, this, this becomes awkward again. This becomes awkward again. Again, she asks, is there anyone that has a blended family with children and stepchildren? And we already know that some of them do because they all stood up and they introduced themselves and they introduced their family backgrounds.

And some of the jurors, like most Americans, have blended families. multiple jurors raise their cards. But then she chooses one juror specifically and starts talking to just one juror. And she asks this juror, juror 29 at this moment, is there anything about that family dynamic that would make you more partial to somebody that has a similar dynamic? Trina objects. And then the judge steps in and asks, he actually first clarifies, are you speaking to all of the people to raise their cards?

They're just this juror. And Lori's like, yeah, just this juror. I'm just this juror. And the judge steps in and asks if juror 29 would show favoritism or no favor because they may also have a blended family. So again, I feel like Judge Breskes, sort of trying to step in and help Lori in this moment. And the juror actually, I thought, replied articulate in an articulate way and said that they believe in evidence shown to the jurors and that they can analyze the evidence and not be prejudiced with anything that belongs to their personal family.

And then the judge asks, if you identify with one side or the other in any aspect of this case, would you let that affect how you look at this case? And this particular jury that's been singled out by Lori for some reason with the blunt because this one juror has a blended family. The juror says in my profession of law enforcement, I have been in. I have to be balanced. I don't believe that my primary decision will be based on my life more than on my experience in my professional life. And next comes another moment where Lori seems to be struggling. Lori then says that the judge explained conspiracy earlier. Again, this is this case, this trial is about conspiring to murder.

I don't think that there is any proof that Lori pulled the trigger. Maybe she did, but I don't think there is any evidence showing that. So this is a conspiracy to commit murder trial. And so she says the judge explained conspiracy earlier. it's when two or more people agree to commit a crime. And so my question is similar that if you did not see or hear a specific agreement, then would you not be able to make a decision of guilt or innocence? And no juror raises their cards.

And then Lori says, I know the state kind of went over this, but this is a case where some religious beliefs might be discussed. Is that something that would be difficult for anyone? and no juror raised their cards. And then Lori asks, is there anyone that has an understanding that the judicial system works different than the way it has been explained to you today? No jurors raised their cards.

And then she asks, would any of you have any kind of a prejudice if I did not testify on my behalf? So here we go again. This is what we thought. She is asking, if I don't testify, would any of you have any kind of prejudice if I did not testify on my behalf? If the state didn't prove their burden and yet I did not share my side, would anyone say that I am immediately guilty? No jurors raised their cards. And then there was a sidebar. 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's 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,

Antivirus, 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 at aura.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. So after the sidebar, that juror 38, who stated that question that she had about whether or not,

whether or not she could look at something or pretty much she admitted that she kind of saw some things about the case. The one who had prior knowledge, as well as all of the jurors, again, that are remaining in the back of the courtroom, they were all excused, which left us with the official remaining jurors, 16. So pretty much we were kind of getting the idea that they would be the ones in the box, right? And there was just one more that was excused. And then they're all renumbered. They're renumbered one through 16.

And he swears them in. So this is it. The judge reads charging documents. Count one, she was charged conspiracy to commit first degree murder on June 24th, 2021. It was almost a year or two years, excuse me, almost two years after Charles was murdered when the charges came down. The judge then says that the sealing of things is no longer needed. I don't think there's really much sealed. We have thousands of pages of FOIA documents from Chandler and Gilbert on our Patreon account. And then the judge reads the jury instructions.

So, and that was the end of the day with a seated jury. And let me explain some of the jury instructions were a one thing that I noted is that these jurors are going to be able to ask questions after witness testimony. That's always interesting. And just sort of explained to them the protocol of coming in every day. Each day of the trial is going to start at 1030. They're going to try not to have court on Friday. and just sort of gave the basic jury instructions. The jury is excused.

And then there is asked, are there any final questions? And Lori does say that she does have one final question before court is completely done for the day. She says that with my advisory counsel, is there some way they can get a headset when we're having a sidebar for her advisory counsel, for her paralegal? And the judge said that they are limited to five headsets. He has a headset. The state has a headset. The court reporter has one. And she has two.

She may have to make a decision on whether or not her paralegal has one or her advisory counsel has one. So that is that. So what we're going to do now is we're going to go over voir dire. We're going to go over what was said and the questioning that happened. without giving away any of the personal information. I'm going to skip occupations, family, things like that. But this is interesting.

Thank you, everyone, for being here. So here we go. This is how it went down. So back to where I was. The judge is asking the jurors, so this is right after lunch. Let me explain that. I'll take you back right after lunch.

We've been moved to the left side of the courtroom. The right side has full of potential jurors. The jury box is full of potential jurors. The judge asks the jurors to raise their numbers. number if they have looked at anything on websites or talked with anyone since filling out the summons. And three jurors raised their numbers. Juror 22, juror 16, and juror 63. The judge tabled it and says that he may have specific questions later. He then goes on to talk about the financial aspect of serving on the jury. He explains the jurors get paid the following week for the

week prior. They can be paid for the daily loss up to $300 plus dollars plus $300 plus mileage for gas. So if that is their wage loss, up to $300 a day, if they can prove that. And if they are unemployed or retired, they are entitled to the minimum of $40 a day. And if selected, they will work with court staff. They will need to provide info about their lost wages, social security numbers to be paid. And the judge then says, please raise your number. If you still believe serving on a jury would create a financial hardship, even after he explains that. Jury 87 raises their number, says they are employed, but moving out of state soon, they plan to move in June. Jury 78 says they are self-employed and also go to school full-time. They do have deadlines that they, that must be

met every week and there is concern about their financials. Next, the judge goes over the concept of presumption of innocence until guilty. He asks if they understand, asks if they don't agree, and asks if they won't be able to follow the law. Seemingly, no issues. Good there. And then the judge asks if they are able, if anyone is there who believes that Lori, the defendant is guilty simply because she has been charged with a crime.

And is there anyone who does not understand that she has a right to testify or not? Anyone who does not agree with this, pretty much is saying raise your hand or raise your number, a jury number, or forever hold your peace. Anyone who would not be able to follow the law on that. Everybody's good. A test for truthfulness. Does everyone have the ability to see here and no motive, bias? Are they going to be contradicted by anything said or written?

And then he asks, is there any. who would believe a police officer more because they are a police officer. Well, jury, juror, and by the way, when I say juror, I am now talking about potential jurors. I just don't want to say potential each time. So juror 63, who ended up not being a juror. So juror 63, potential juror 63 said, well, I would actually, admittedly, believe a police officer more. I'm not saying that they are always honest, but I am coming from a family of law enforcement, and so I do want to give my fellow officers the benefit of the doubt, understood.

And then the judge asks, please raise your number if you, yourself, spouse, or a close family or friend has training in the law. Well, juror 63, this juror had both a parent and a spouse that retired from working in the prison. and juror 68 explains they are married to a retired police officer. And so the judge asks this juror, juror 68, and I think a retired police officer in Missouri. And so the judge asks, have you yourself had any training in the law? And this juror says, no. The judge asks, well, let's say your partner and you were at some famous barbecue in Missouri. And they told you, the law said A, B, C, and D.

And then at the end of this, I say something different in Arizona. can you follow what I say? This juror said yes. Juror 92 then explained that they have a close family member that worked in local law enforcement. And the judge asks the same question and there are no issues. Juror 85 has a sibling that is a legal assistant and studying for law school. And the judge asks the same question and the juror answers, quote, I'm going to follow what you tell me. End quote.

juror 12. They have a family member who retired from local law enforcement. This juror and their spouse have also worked in corrections. So the judge asks the same question, which the juror says, yes, they will follow what the judge tells them. Juror 24. They have a sibling in the military who was or is was a base officer. Same question. Would you follow judge's orders? Jure 29, graduated in criminal justice worked in law enforcement for about 15 years in a different security position. Judge asked the same question. Would you follow judge's order? Yes. Juror 49. They have a close friend who is a police officer. Is there anything the judge asks about this relationship that would affect the ability to be fair? The juror answers no. The judge asks if they would be scared

to find the defendant not guilty if evidence showed that. The juror says, quote, don't think it would be a problem. The judge mentions that the juror had a little bit of hesitation there. That was a moment. The judge said, are you sure? Are you sure? I sensed your hesitation there. The juror then explained, well, I've never served on a jury, so I am a little nervous. The judge explains the law and the juror says that that would not be an issue. juror 61 has an ex-fiance who was a police officer and they don't think it would be a problem, but they kind of struggle on whether or not they could be impartial because they do want to give police officers the benefit of the doubt.

So there were a few of those today. Jure 86, their spouse's best friend is retired law enforcement. The judge asks if there's anything about that relationship that would affect the ability to be fair, judge says no. And then the judge asks the juror to raise your number if they, their spouse, child, or closer person has ever been arrested or charged with a crime. Juror one, that they had a sibling that was convicted of a crime, a sibling they're not close to, but they've never been told what it was, nor do they have any idea about the case

or how they were treated. Juror 9 explained that they had a parent convicted of a crime years ago, not even sure how long ago, they don't remember it very lightly. Juror 10, parents were convicted on drug charges before they were born. Don't really know much about it. The judge asks that there's anything about the way the parents talked about that that would affect their ability to be fair. And the juror said, no, they haven't been told much about the crime before they were born.

312, they had a relative incarcerated for drugs and firearm violations, but they haven't had a relationship to them in years. The judge asked that they would, if this would affect their ability to be fair, the juror said no. Juror 19. They had a parent convicted on drug charges in Arizona. The judge asked if there's anything about the way the parent talked about this that would affect their ability to be fair. The juror says no. Juror 20.

They had a child convicted of a felony charge in another state. The judge asked if their child told them or if they were intimately involved in the case of the child, the parent, to which the juror responded, no, they weren't. And the judge asks if there is anything about that that would affect their ability to be fair and this juror said no. Jury 34. They have a parent or another relative that has served prison time. They were not alive while their parents served prison time. The judge asked if there's anything that they were told that would affect their ability to be fair. The juror responds, no. Juror 44. They had a parent served time in prison, but they do not know this parent,

and they have never had a relationship with this parent. Juror 37, they had a parent and another relative who have both been convicted of crimes. They were 12 and 13 years old or 13 or 14 or 15-ish when their parent was convicted, but it would not affect their ability to be fair. Juror 48, they had a parent convicted of a crime, but they do not know any details that would not impact them.

And by the way, I just want to say this. They did give more details of these crimes. I am just not relaying those details here. So when I say they had a parent or someone convicted of a crime, there were some follow-up questions. We did get into the nitty-gritty of some of these crimes, but I am skipping those details to make sure there is no identifying information. I just want all of you to know that.

Juror 63 started by saying 63 is a popular number and that they had a sibling who had felony charges and served prison time. At one point, they had a misdemeanor charge. charge, but did not want to talk openly about it. They said that they would be fair. Juror 65, they had a, they had a sibling convicted of numerous crimes. They were close to the sibling, but they never went to court with the sibling, nor did they know anything really about how their sibling was treated, just not talked about. So this would not impact their ability to be fair and impartial. Juror 76, parent-in-law convicted of felony gun and drug charges,

but this was before they were around and it would not impact them. Juror 41, two relatives that have been convicted of murder, actually. Juror 85, they themselves were charged with a misdemeanor, but they believe that they were treated fairly. And so they have no preconceived notion of law enforcement, on law enforcement. The jurors are then told, jurors, potential jurors, are told that they cannot say anything about this case to anyone during the proceedings and cannot put anything on social media.

The judge asks the jurors to raise their number if they know any of the other jurors. This was a funny moment. Like, do any of you jurors know each other? One juror raises their hand, juror 59, explains that he knows juror eight. And he's like, oh, well, how do you two know each other? They explained that they are co-workers. And even though they work on the opposite side of the buildings, they get to regularly see each other. regularly it means every day.

They are asked if knowing each other will affect deliberations and they both say no. Juror 44 also raised their number because they believe they may have worked with juror 24, but juror 24 denied it. They're like, nothing to see here. I don't know you and I never worked at the place you're claiming. I worked. The next question about the judge asked was about schedules for the jurors. He said that the current schedule is,

aiming a little long, but they want to be done by May 15th. But if there is something that any of the jurors haven't told them that they have a problem with regarding their schedule, they should raise their number right now. And then he gave an example. He said, look, after we see an entire jury once, I said, okay, we'll see you guys here tomorrow. And one of the jurors said, well, I can't be here there. I have to work.

And he said, it made him so upset. He said, speak now or forever hold your peace. That's not what he said. He didn't say speak now or forever hold your peace. that's what I said. They weren't getting married. But he pretty much was like, look, if you have an issue with the schedule, tell me right now. And what happened? Jure 18 raised their hand because they are currently expecting a child. And while this baby is not due until after the trial is supposed to be ended, there is always a possibility of giving birth early.

They did think they can move their appointments around. And of course, the baby is going to come when the baby comes. The judge said that if she is on the jury and the baby comes early, they won't make her stay. She was like to give birth. So she said, oh, good. I'm good then. The judge did say that. And it was a moment where everyone kind of laughed.

juror 31 got a revised work schedule and they would miss opening statements. Juror 42, they have a family wedding coming and a trip out of the country. Juror 49 has a parent who has put on hospice heartbreaking into the prognosis. They gave the prognosis of the family member. Juror 45 works six days a week and doesn't know if the court schedule would impact that. Juror 61 traveling for work week, the last scheduled week of trial. They are scheduled to go out of the country for work. They could probably not go, but their employer wouldn't be very happy about that.

Juror 63, if on the jury they would be working Fridays and Saturdays. This was interesting. They said, look, I can be there because I don't have work on those days. When I do work is Fridays and Saturdays. So in other words, I will be having to attend, you know, trial and then continue to work Thursdays, or sorry, Fridays and Saturdays. And not that I couldn't do it, but it would be exhausting and it would be hard. And they value their time with their family, which would also be difficult and be considered a hardship. The judge responds, okay, thank 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's 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. Antivirus, 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 at Aura.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.

juror 76 doesn't remember the start date but on the second tomorrow their whole family has an important thing and they were assured that tomorrow wouldn't be a thing with being on the jury jury uh juror 77 with how long the schedule would be they are concerned that their work would struggle without them because they do a very specific job and they are the only person who does that job juror 87 this is a juror who is moving out of state and they would have to miss trial days to go visit the place that they are moving. Juror 86, they have a very specific job and their company will struggle if they are away and they would have to work nights and to be able to keep things afloat. Jur 70 is the sole provider for six children and, yeah, it would be very, very difficult, concerned about the financial aspect of missing work.

And the judge did once again explain that they could be reimbursed up to $300 a day. And the juror said that that would cover it. So that would be okay. Juror 34 moving to a new place. And also is a manager at work. So it was concerned about missing so much work. Juror 10 has a pre-planned trip for their, are you ready for this? For their honeymoon.

And then the judge asked that the juror knows what time they would be leaving for this said honeymoon. The juror responds, great question. I think the judge asks, it's not a direct frontier flight and then the juror says no unfortunately i only have allegiance miles it was it was a great moment everyone in the gallery laughed juror 43 spouses having surgery on one of the trial dates and they are driving them to them from it would be difficult so there you go that was today we have a jury but i think one of the most interesting things is again 16 jurors were chosen today so in other words

12, 12 jurors and four alternates, three females. What do you guys think about that, by the way? Three females. I feel like it's a good jury. I've just never seen such a strong male jury before. It's interesting. But opening statements start Monday. So the next few days are off of court. But hidden true crime is going to be here. We have some interviews planned. I am staying here in the Phoenix area. we are going to visit some of the important sites. We have interviews planned for the next days. We are going live and I am bringing you that backstory also very tomorrow, I think. So we are going to have daily updates.

So hit subscribe, hit notification while we continue to cover this trial. And again, we're going to have more coming for you. All right, guys, thank you for being here and we'll see you. Bye-bye. 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, on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, 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 at aura.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at ora.com slash remove.