Hidden True Crime - Lori LOSES It In Pre-Trial Hearing, Judge Snaps Back | Lori Vallow Daybell

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

Another pre-trial hearing is in the books for Lori and WOW... IT. WAS. WILD! Lauren is here with a full recap to tell you everything you need to know! About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealthfronts. Check. Meet Angela, a wealth front cash account client since 23. I left my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust Welfront is taking care of me. With a Welfront cash account account account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get started at wealthfront.com.

Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base API as of January 30th, 20206, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees, and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.

Hey, everyone. We have a show for you tonight, and I am not the first. one to think for that. You can think Lori Valo-Daybal because what she showed us in court today was certainly, certainly the real Lori Valo-Dabal is the mask coming off. Is she going to be like this for the trial where she is charged with conspiring to murder Brandon Boudreau attempted murder? That's coming up and today was the pretrial hearing for the case against Lori Daybell for conspiracy to commit murder against Brandon Brudrow. And it was held today in the Maricopa County Courthouse. And I was there on the front row. And literally, it was quite a show,

to say the least. A serious plot twist. And we are going to cover everything. So thanks for being with me. So first off, I want to explain that a pretrial hearing can serve more. multiple purposes. They allow the parties to discuss how a case will proceed, resolve preliminary issues, go over motions brought by the state and defense and workout scheduling detail. So they're actually pretty important, which is why I decided to go today. Today's hearing began with Judge Boreski going over a previous notice filed by the state. And the notice stated that their intent to use Lori's other criminal acts to establish conspiracy, premeditated. and or a motive. However, in their pretrial statement, the state indicated that they wish to

withdraw that notice and were no longer asking to use her other convictions to prove their case here. They were able to prove their last case without any of Lori's history being known by the jury. So I'm sure that they're confident in their ability to do it again. The state also requested to preclude the media from showing the face of a particular witness. I briefly spoke about this witness and how the state desires to hide this witness's face in my life before the hearing, referring to the FBI agent Nicholas Ballant, who goes undercover for his job in the FBI. In Chad and Lori's previous trials, his face was hidden to protect his identity as an undercover agent. The judge clarified to Lori that having his face shown could interfere with other investigations,

and she did have questions as to why he was even relevant for this. trial. First off, according to the state, Agent Balance created a PowerPoint presentation regarding cellular and Wi-Fi data that will be pertinent to the trial. And that is true. He took all of the cast data stuff and all of that really detailed cell phone pings and brings it all together in a very, very specific way. And that will be pertinent to the trial. Lori agreed that she has no objection to having his face obscured. Well, the next topic was the state's amended request for a 609 hearing and to add Lori's most recent conviction.

A 609 hearing is a hearing where the court determines whether evidence of a witness's past criminal convictions can be used to impeach their credibility. Lori said that since she wasn't sentenced for the last trial, she was. wasn't sure if the state could legally use that conviction in this case. Judge Boreski said that would really only be relevant if Lori decides to testify. And so they tabled this matter for the time being, because just like in her last trial, Lori still hasn't made up her mind on if she will or will not testify. She likes to keep us hanging, keep us wondering, will she or will she not testify to be determined. Well, the next thing discussed was the state's motion to preclude inamissible

evidence regarding Tammy Leichick, who is an evidence technician in the city of Gilbert. She's also referred to as a crime scene investigator in the state's motion. And Lori requested for the state to provide her and Lori's whole team with all of the information about Leichick. Her request included Leichick's work history. Her emails regarding the incident, meaning the Brandon Boudreau attempted murder, or body cam footage. Judge Voreski said that he did not think Lori was necessarily entitled to have all of those things, but that he would make his decision after she filed an official written response requesting those things. Make sense.

Up next, everything's pretty normal so far, right? Okay, up next. Judge Breske went over Lori's motion. The first was Lori asking for no restraints during trial, which I got to love, she had a rack belt last trial. She really didn't want that rack belt. RACC. It's a shock belt, like, zapper if she's out of hand. And she does not want this rack belt.

And in her motion, she stated that the sheriff's office recommended that she have no restraints at all. But the judge clarified and told her that wasn't the case, that this was not. this was not the recommendation. He said that the sheriff's office recommends that she at minimum wear a rack belt, sometimes referred to, again, as a stun belt like she did during her last trial. Well, Lori had some arguments about this, which, in my opinion, were pretty amusing. So let's take a listen to that. You have motion.

I don't know where you get the idea that the sheriff's office recommendations. ever was that you have no restraints at all. Their minimum recommendation was that you wear a rack belt. Well, I have it right here and I copied it verbatim. Yeah, you said what it said was my recommended minimum requirements as listed above and those were to wear a rack built. It said or the recommendation of MCSO was that they could have an unarmed detention officer and an armed deputy sheriff if I was to not have any restraints.

Right, but that wasn't their recommendation. I received the defense motion. I've received non-party Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan's response. On the MCSO security justifications, I was, my understanding is that is, was his recommendation. Your Honor, Joseph V Hill for the sheriff's office. Oh, okay. Well, I'm, I'll deny the motion from the defense. And the same conditions will be set that we had in the first trial, that being you'd wear the rack belt, no leg brace. There was one incident during the trial where you asked to take a break because a strap was hanging down behind your jacket.

We did that. We rectified the situation. There's been no indication whatsoever that the jury noticed the rack belt or anything like that. So I think those conditions are appropriate and will remain for the second trial. You know, I just find it humorous how Lori always interprets things in her own favor. She thought that the sheriff's office giving a list of possible options meant that their recommendation was for her to be completely unrestrained. And as the judge said, the last trial went smoothly with her having the rack belt. So there's really no point in changing the protocol for the

next trial and by her next trial her third trial i mean she really is racking up the trial to use a pun that i didn't even mean but uh dad humor so i also have to point out that it's interesting that she said that they fixed her rack belt at one point during the trial or the judge let us know that none of us knew that none of us knew that until today and the jury did conclude that they really never knew about her racked belt. At least the jurors that hit into crime has interviewed, we asked, did you know? No, they had no idea, even though Lori is suspicious that they might know, which somehow might make or break her case if they know that she's wearing a rack belt.

Up next was Lori's motion for the option to meet with advisory counsel during the trial. She clarified that during trial she wants to be held somewhere where she can meet with her team during lunch and recess breaks. This is a great thing to request. She deserves that. But logistical issue is that there needs to be an officer to monitor her while she's alone with her team. But Judge Boreske stated that they will accommodate that request. Next, Judge Boreski moved on to discussing trial and witness scheduling. In the state's pretrial statement, they indicated that there are some scheduling issues with a few witnesses. And if the jury is seated by May 30th, and opening statements begin by June 2nd, the state said they may run out of witnesses available

to testify that week by Wednesday or Thursday. The other witnesses wouldn't even be available until the next week. To rectify this, there will be no trial on Friday. Trial will resume on the 9th, and the remaining three witnesses will testify. Prosecutor Trina Kay said it is possible. she may even finish with her witness list that day. So this is really the opposite of last trial. They were concerned about not having enough time. And the trial went really fast. Now they're saying that they are just going to get this one done.

They're like, we're done. All I need is this day. We got this. And when asked if she believed that they would need to have the jury scheduled out for the following week, Trina said she didn't know because Lori just submitted a list with their own expert witnesses. So, you know, I don't know. However, Trina K clarified that Lori hasn't given her any information about those two expert witnesses yet, even though her expert witness report is, according to Boreski, way past due. Everything is way past due with Lori. Everything. It's an

ongoing issue. And I actually have some empathy. Lori is behind bars. She only has so much she can do. she's representing herself at the same time, she will not waive her right to a speedy trial. Everything is past due for Lori, way past due, according to Judge Breske. And all Lori could say was that she would try to get the reports in as soon as possible.

But due to them being so late, Breske said that those witnesses may be precluded from trial. The first one is named Lonnie Dworkin. Sound familiar? Sound familiar? Lori's been bringing Lonnie Dworkin up for months now. And he is a computer forensics expert who also happens to be the expert in the Jodi Arias trial. The second expert witness is Weaver Barkman, who is a ballistics specialist.

In Lori's list, she also added Detective Nathan Moffitt, who's on the state's expert witness list, and her investigator, Jeffrey White, and then her friends, Melanie Gibb and her sister-in-law, slash friend Zulamma Pestanis. Judge Verreski then asked Lori. what capacity her investigator, Jeffrey White, might be called for during trial. So we're getting into relevancy. How is your investigator, besides being your investigator named Jeffrey White,

how is he relevant? Why does he need to be called for this trial? And it's clear that Lori got confused here because then she actually began talking about her ballistics expert, Weaver Barkman. And she said that they requested that the car door, so Brandon's car door, and window that the bullet passed through, the bullet that missed Brandon Boudreau by inches and went through his Tesla's window,

through the window, through the car. She requested the car door and window that the bullet passed through that they were going to have Weaver inspect it. However, Lori was recently made aware that the car no longer exists, and she seemed pretty upset by this. So that's not an option anymore.

And due to this, Lori was just wanting Barkman to look over and rebut any ballistic evidence that the state puts forth. The judge asked her again. Well, okay, thank you for clarifying that, Lori. But what would Jeffrey White be testifying about? And she said that, well, he's been interviewing the defense witnesses as well and could help with an extrinsic impeachment. So, extrinsic impeachment refers to using evidence outside of the witnesses' crimes. cross-examination to undermine their credibility. It involves introducing evidence that contradicts

the witness's testimony or reveals inconsistencies in their statements. This can include prior statements, documents, or testimony from other witnesses. And Boreski, Judge Breske, also wanted to know what relevance Melanie Gibb could provide. Lorry stated that both Melanie and Zulema were both initially noticed in the state's witness list, but they both have relevant information to the case. Great. Okay, so Lori says they have relevant information to the case. Then there was a little bit of a heated back and forth after this between Boreski and Lori regarding their relevance. So let's listen to a bit of that here. This was made for you to take a listen. What relevant information would they have? They have relevant information to Brandon Boudreau.

Okay. What is the nature of that relevant information? It will come up if they have to get up and testify, Your Honor. I will only call them if I need them. Well, they're going to be precluded if you can't give me some minimal what relevant information they have. Just saying that they're relevant doesn't make them relevant. Okay. Yes, and is this procedure? that I have to say what each of my witnesses are relevant ahead of time and give my whole case and chief over to the state. It is. That's how it works. That's the rules of law. Stop interrupting me. Yes. That is the rule of law. That's just what the state does. They tell you what relevant information each witness has. So my answer is yes. So if you can't tell me what relevant

information they have, they'll be precluded. They both have had dealings with Bram and Burj, and Alex Cox. Okay, so does someone, you know, that was a server for them at a restaurant? It doesn't make them have relevant information as to this case. Anyone who came into contact with Mr. Bedrow or Mr. Cox had some interaction with them at some point in their lifetime does not make them a relevant witness. So what is their relevance? The state had them in their witness list and they're saying they're not relevant? Apparently not.

Are you calling them? No, they're not on my police interview. However many people they interview because they're working on the case, they don't know who has relevant information, who doesn't have relevant information. All the people that they interview don't end up being relevant. So because they're listed in a police report somewhere doesn't necessarily make them relevant. Okay, the relevance lies in this, that have to rebut something that the state puts on in their case in chief. They're just called in case they need them.

They're subpoenaed in case I need them. It sounds like they don't have relevant information. However, I'll include these names on the witness, potential witness list for screening the jurors, if the jurors have any knowledge of any of these witnesses out of an abundance of caution. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched, chiching.

With a wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wealthfront was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust Welfront is taking care of me. Earn more on your uninvested cash with a Wealthfront cash account. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached.

Get started today at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base API as of January 30th, 20206 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boosts for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank.

These and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Y'all, I was rooting for Lori Vallow, Daybell, during that moment. Lori Debel during that moment. Like, I don't know about you guys, but I would love to see Melanie get back on the witness stand in front of Lori, being questioned by her. Same was Ulema Pestanis.

I was like, give them something, Lori. Like, just make them relevant. Like you said they're relevant. I was like, come on. Give them something. Give him something. She could not do it. And I agree.

That moment where he said, you got to give me more than someone serving them at a restaurant, you know, what do they have when it comes to this case. She couldn't do it. She couldn't do it. And I was, I admit, at that moment, I was rooting for her. But alas, it didn't happen. Lori couldn't pull it off in circling back to scheduling. Judge Boreski stated that he is going to put in the juror questionnaire that this trial

is likely going to end by June 13th. But it may go to the 23rd if needed. So they are just really prepping to find these jurors, these 16 jurors that they need. He said that they will send out this jury questionnaire on May 22nd and cut it off by the 27th, and that way they can meet again on the 29th to go over all of the responses. Lorry then had an objection about the court sending out the questionnaire with her name written on it because of alleged jury misconduct in the last trial. So if you remember, J. Carl, we'll call him Carl now. Carl said something shortly after leaving the courthouse that was caught on local news. It wasn't hidden to a crime. People have asked us that where a lot of people

critiqued it. And Carl said that he was driving home the night before. In my opinion, it seemed like he put two thoughts together. But he was driving home the night before and he was feeling sorry for Lori because of the three life sentences she would have. And that made many people skeptical and wondering if Carl perhaps knew about Lori's sentence, Lori's other convictions, which is also ironic, though, because Carl was also the holdout and almost the reason there might have been a hung jury. The reason she might not have, the Charles Valet might not have seen justice. Carl came on hidden true crime and we did an interview with him.

And in the state's response to Lori's issues of jury misconduct, the state said on hidden true crime as well as directly after court, Carl has always maintained that he did not know about Lori's other convictions until the verdict was read and the judge recommended they all Google before leaving the courthouse. And right after he walked out, it's what he stated before that statement. that everyone took issue with as well as after and that he has remained consistent. That is what Trina Kay wrote in her response. So Lori is now bringing it up and she's referring to it as jury misconduct. And now she is saying and bringing up Carl once again saying that the court should not send out a questionnaire with her name written on it because of this alleged jury misconduct. So listen to this exchange. I think it shows that even though Judge Boreski is usually.

extremely patient with Lori. I really, in my opinion, believe that he is. He referees this case. He was a little at the end of his rope with her today. And the second trial hasn't even started yet. Take a listen. Do you not think that was a problem? What personal information? The state versus the day bell. That's the name of the case. Yeah, you don't put that on anyone else's questionnaire or one other person that's ever had that questionnaire ever put out with their name. on it. They just don't do it. Do it in every trial I've done. Then the people are just going to Google it. And then we're going to have the same exact problem we had getting a jury for that case. We don't have the same exact problem.

Are you done? Are you just going to keep... Okay. How do we screen for if people have heard about you if we don't include your name? Do you have a response to that? I'm just saying you gave it in your name and they're just going to Google it. They're instructed not to Google it. All right.

And if you'll recall, when we had all the jurors come in in person, one of the first questions I asked them in the afternoon was, who has looked up this case since you filled out the questionnaire and we had two or three people raised their hand and those people were excused. So I have to include your name to screen out for the people that know about your case. And we released about 100 jurors last time because of their answers to that. If we don't include your name, that's 100 extra jurors we have to go through in person and ask if they know you. And in fact, that increases the risk of tainting the rest of the jury pool. If we have someone stand up and say, yeah, I know about her case in Idaho where blah, blah, blah, in front of the rest of the jurors, that'll burn the whole panel.

We'll have to start over. So I'm going to include your name in the questionnaire. I don't think there was any other personal information or background information about you in that questionnaire. than your name. So was there any other issues you had with the question here? No, Your Honor. You know, in our comments, some of the comments you left on our live stream earlier, today someone wrote, quote, Judge B broke Lori's brain when he asked how they can screen if people have heard about her

if they don't use her name. You can just see the hamsters fell off a little wheel in her head, end quote. And thanks for your great comments, guys. We do read them. And then, you know, Judge Breske, asking if she was done yet was a gold court moment. So after going over the initial questionnaire responses, Breske said that on the morning of May 30th, they will have more walken jurors who can fill out the questionnaires as well. The people who survived the screening process will come in later that afternoon. and he expects the official jury to have them seated by the end of the day. So at the end of the hearing was what was just the most shockingly hilarious. To many of you, hilarious, like being in the courtroom, it was almost like stressful because

we couldn't believe it was happening. But everyone watching from home was like dying. Like, this is hilarious. I think for those of it sitting in the courtroom was a little bit more stressful. So like this is intense, but like I can't believe this is happening. There's really not much I can say other than you just have to hear this on your own. No comment needed for me. Let's just listen to this.

Yes. I'd have to ask that you would recuse yourself from the obvious personal bias that you have against me and send us to master calendar for this scheduling of a trial. And what personal bias is that? A lot, obviously the personal bias that you're showing right now and that you've shown on the FTR several times during the trial. Okay, well, I don't have any personal bias. All right. I've over accommodated you on when you have to disclose things.

In fact, your expert should be summarily precluded today, and I haven't done that. All right. So. You can add every single one of my motions. since for a year and a half that I've been here. Every single one of our motions has been denied. And have any of those motions not have merit? You've denied every single motion.

I think I was here this morning about 15 minutes ago when I granted your motion to meet with your attorneys over the lunch hour. I have granted other motions for yours. Okay. That's the first motion that you've ever granted in my behalf. Well, file motions that have a legal basis and I might grant them. So you're saying none of my motions have had merit. Not many, no.

And none of the motions that my first team, you denied everyone in my first team's motions. You denied everyone in my second team's motions. And now you denied everyone in my motions until today. I haven't denied everyone in your motions. Every single one of their motions was denied. Every single one of the second teams of motions were denied and all mine. So you didn't come into this with any bias against me in the first place? Again, file a motion that has legal merit.

Okay. And none of my attorneys ever filed a motion in any of any of it? than that? They filed a motion on your behalf, the first team to preclude media coverage and I issued my rolling according to the law. All right. They filed a motion to have you dressed out, not in jail closed during hearings like this. Okay.

That was not based in law. I denied that motion. So I've ruled on the motions as required by law. Without any kind of conclusion of law in them, just denied, denied, denied, denied. Does that not show a bias and a prejudice against one single person? All right. Are you done? Are you not going to recuse yourself?

No, I'm denying your motion. Zing, mic drop, Judge Boreski, anything else? No, I'm denying your motion. Are you done? Let me take you into the courtroom during that moment. This is a very small courtroom. This is where Judge Boreski typically has all. of his hearings. It's not the main courtroom where they moved it for the trial, for that it was a little

bit bigger. This is a very small, very intimate courtroom. And I was on the front row. In fact, I was the seat closest to Lori Kitty corner. So I could actually see her face as this was happening. And again, while your comments make me laugh and I can watch this now and laugh and say, this is hilarious. It didn't feel that way in the courtroom. It was super stressful. You like, you know when you're seeing something like and you feel like you shouldn't be watching it, but you are and you like want to hide. It was such an intimate setting. And there were so few people. Justin Lum was right there too. Justin Lum was right there next to Lori. I was there. My producer Grayson was there. Some people in the back like this is small. And we were watching this sort of like

this. It was just like when you are a child and you're watching. one of your siblings get disciplined by your parents. I was like, this is not happening. And I can tell you, I have never seen a defendant start by saying, hey, by the way, judge, are you going to recuse yourself from this case? I mean, that, what a way, what a way. And up until this point, Lori has had little moments of defiance like this. She has had some.

She absolutely has shown sass and defiance here and there, but nothing like that. that outburst. That was bordering on Daryl Brooks DeLulu if she really thinks that he's a biased judge. Judges have to maintain order and procedure. They have to follow the law. He has been more than lenient with her. I have watched him. I feel very, very evenly handle this. In fact, I have felt in many ways he has sided with Lori and been lenient and tried to help her. Like he said, he definitely has granted some of her motions, but it is not his fault that most of her motions don't have any legal merit. He really does, in my opinion, have the patience of a saint. And I don't know about you, but in that clip, it kind of looked like he didn't know whether to

laugh. Like, I don't know. Was he trying to laugh? Was he about to laugh? Was he upset? I think he was honestly probably trying to process how to move forward. Like in those moments where you're like, is this really happening? How do I maneuver this? I don't know. I don't know. I hope that he is home laughing tonight, whatever he was doing in the courtroom and shaking his head and, you know, maybe having a drink. But just because of the ridiculousness of all of this, you know, it was a wild, wild moment. And I'm surprised she didn't stomp her foot about her motions being denied, but maybe she tried and she shackled. So she couldn't. It was like a little tantrum. And then once again, quote, motion denied. Sorry Lori. And so that was it for the pretrial hearing. It had some pretty

interesting moments. Again, that was that was quite the plot twist, asking the judge to recuse himself, the probably one person that you should keep on your side. We'll have to. We'll have to see if this new tone from Lori continues on to the next trial, which begins in just a few short weeks. Hidden True Crime will be there. We plan on attending every day. This will be her third trial and may justice be served for Brandon Boudreau, for his family. I, again, Brandon is lucky to be alive, very lucky. And Lori is lucky that her judge is Judge Breske, who has been quite patient and good to her because I don't know how other judges would have handled that situation. Before I take off, I'm actually going to take off here. I'm in Boise, Idaho. I was in Phoenix this

morning and I am sitting here on a floor of where I am going to crash tonight in Boise, Idaho, in this makeshift studio that we've put up to go over this recap of this pre-trial. trial hearing and I am heading tomorrow morning to Brian Koverger's pretrial hearing because that is also another trial coming up that we will be following. So hit subscribe, hit notification because we're just so grateful that you guys are journeying with us traveling, traveling with us through all of this. And while I literally travel, thank you for your support. Thank you for your encouragement. Thank you for us as we have upped our travel schedule and up the cases we cover. Couldn't your crime is so tremendously grateful for all of you and this incredible community.

All right. May justice be served. And may Lori keep giving us some courtroom showdowns because I hope that people find out and see who she really, really is. We'll see you. Bye-bye. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wellfronts. Chiching. Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. I left my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust Welfront is taking care of me. With a wealthfront cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash.

No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base APII as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase.

Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees, and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealthfront. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000.

Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, Not a Bank.