Hidden True Crime - Lori Vallow Daybell Demands Trial Redo in EXPLOSIVE New Motion!

Episode Date: May 3, 2025

Well, just when we thought we were getting closer to being done with Lori Daybell, she threw a wrench in that plan. She filed an explosive new motion for a retrial and Lauren is here to break it all down for you. Full Lori Backstory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_JA8-XnTtA Juror 15 Interview: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-true-crime/id1521619380?i=1000705461364 Jes' (Friend of Brandon's) Interview: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beyond-the-veil-friend-of-brandon-boudreaux/id1521619380?i=1000637485752 Chad Daybells Speech: https://youtu.be/8Adxxs-WCd0?si=p8Agm7ycfx7gPe8T 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. Hello, hidden gems. We have a lot to cover today. A lot, a lot. So, I love what not published just said. This chick will never go away.

I assume you're referring to Lori Ballot-Daybell and not me, but you're not going to get rid of either of us. It looks like Lori Daybell is the worst gift that keeps on giving. I would agree. She is not going away. And it took her less than two weeks to have requested a new trial, citing multiple reasons, and we are going to go over the,

filings right now. For those of you new to our channel, hit subscribe, hit notification, because these surprise breaking lives happen more often than not. And what we do here at Hidden True Crime has cover the hidden motives behind unimaginable crimes and criminals. But the first reason the motion cites that Lori Valo-Dabelle wants a new trial. She says, I need a do-over. This is not fair. It's been less than two weeks and I need a new trial. And the first reason she cites for this new trial is jury misconduct. Now, most of you have heard of juror 15 or Carl as we have come to know him. We actually recently interviewed juror 15 or Carl here at Hidden True Crime where he shared with us just how little he knew about Lori Ballot-Daybelt case and how he thought Lori was innocent actually. And he had actually had to be convinced of her conspiracy to commit murder during jury deliberation. We almost had a hung jury because of Carl and how Carl can no longer sleep after learning about JJ and Tiley and Tammy Debel.

Well, shortly after the verdict, Carl walked out of the courthouse surrounded by media. Take a listen. Yeah, I didn't get to meet any of her family. I kind of wanted out of there. I mean, I was walking away, and I hear this real fast pitter pattern, and I turned around and looked, and it was some little short guy running full blast at me. And he asked me if he could ask me a couple of questions.

I said, okay. And the next thing I knew, there's like 15 people surrounding me with mics in my face, you know, so that wasn't my actual intention. I just wanted to get on the shuttle and leave. So he wanted to get on the shuttle and leave. Well, Carl wasn't able to jump on that show. shuttle and leave. And while being surrounded by the media and cell phones and cameras, Carl made a statement to the media that many have pointed out. Take a listen to what he said that has been

making its rounds. Do you, do you remember your reaction learning that she has been a good day killing her to children? You know, I feel sorry for it. I mean, I'm driving home yesterday. like, God, she's spending the rest of the next three lives in prison in a cell, you know? I mean, you got to feel sorry for it. Even though, I mean, she's, that's often thing to do. I mean, there's something wrong up here, but, um, but he's saying still, you know, you just feel awful about it. Wow.

And Lori's request for a new trial, it states, quote, on April 28th, 2025, it came to the attention of this defendant's advisory council. and later the court, the juror 15 made a steam indicating he had knowledge of this defendant's prior conviction. Can we also note out, note that while Lori allegedly wrote this motion, she's referring to herself in the motion as the defendant. It's kind of confusing to read because she separates herself, I guess, when she's in attorney mode, to calling herself the defendant and Lori in like separating herself. So know, though, that this is coming from Lori herself right here. But I'm reading what she is saying. The court.

So it came to the defendant's advisory council and later the court, the jury 15 made a statement indicating he had knowledge of this defendant's prior conviction. He also stated he was leaning towards a not guilty vote up until yesterday. And through deliberation, this prior conviction involved the homicide of her children in Idaho in 2023. This defendant did not testify in this trial and this conviction was not presented by the state as Rule 404B, other act evidence. Thus, juror 15 should not have learned about this information. Because this case was a high profile matter, once the jury was released from its admonition, jurors were free to speak with the media.

And during an interview, juror 15 was asked about his reaction upon learning about this defendant's prior convictions. He stated the following, quote, you know, I feel sorry for her. Driving home yesterday, I was like, God, she's spending the next three lives in prison, in a cell, end quote. Well, in that long form interview, I did again with Coral earlier this week. Again, he repeatedly makes it clear that he did not know anything about Lori prior to or during the trial. And he continues to state he only learned about the murders of JJ and Tiley as well as Tammy DeBell only after he was dismissed from jury duty and Googled Lori's name in the jury room before walking out of the courthouse in which media came up to him. I also want to point out that again, he was also the biggest

holdout on a guilty verdict. And this fact has been backed up by his fellow jurors in their interviews with hidden true crime. Fellow jurors who were in the deliberation room with Coral said he wasn't convinced of her guilt. So if you'd like to watch his interview in full with us, we will have it linked in the description of this episode. But all of this to say, I don't think any of us are truly shocked that Lori is using this in a motion for a new trial. But nonetheless, here we are.

Oh, and the reason Lori would know about juror 15 statements, because she's sitting in her little cell that Justin Lump has shown us, shown us. The reason that you would know about juror 15 statements is because someone chose to write an email to the court on April 24th about the clip. On the court then ordered that the clip needed to be provided to Lori in jail at her little desk before 10 a.m. on April 29th. Thus, here we are three days later, seeing it. in her filing. The second reason Lori is arguing for a new trial

is based on the, quote, preclusion of Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox's statements and impermissible expert testimony by Detective Daniel Coons, end quote. So when it comes to the statements made by Alex and Tiley, the motion states that, quote, prior to trial, the court precluded this defendant from presenting to the jury any

of Tiley Ryan are Alex Cox's statements. Both of these people were present during the shooting of Charles Vallow, and thus some of their statements were not hearsay as they show effect on listener pursuant to Arizona rules of evidence 8033. The state filed a motion in liminey, throwing a blanket hearsay objection over the entire statements. The court indicated in a pre-trial ruling that it would, at least to Alex Cox's statement, take it on a statement by statement basis. And during the trial, This defendant was precluded from even discussing that Alex conducted a walkthrough, much less the statements with Chandler police detectives during that walkthrough. End quote. Well, I was in court when this was argued prior to the trial.

We're talking pre-trial hearings. I was there in court when this was argued prior to the trial, and I think we should play a clip of that here. Take a listen to Trina Kay's argument as to why statements. especially related to Tiley should not be used in trial. I guess is the state intending on introducing any statements of Tiley? No, Your Honor. Tiley made no statements at the scene other than giving her general biographical information on body cam. Her entire statements were made at the police station again after 10 in the morning.

All right. So on your response as it relates to Tiley, you say, again, present sense impression. I don't think it's a present sense impression. You also argue excited utterance. What else? 8033, which is mental, emotional, and physical condition with the same thing, her state of mind, then being scared. And also 8043 statement against interest. they use that statement in the indictment where Tiley says that Charles says, if you hit me with that bat, you're going to jail. That's the part where she's nervous in her interview saying she's scared to tell the police that she's the one that brought in the bat. So state of mind and the statement against interest both apply to Tiley's police interview. All right.

Anything else? The state want to be heard further on that? Your Honor, the only further thing I think that the state will bring in is that obviously the defendant has been found guilty of killing both highly, other individuals, but in this case, the defendant cannot benefit from killing a witness and then later try to bring in their statements for their benefit. So in addition to non of her statements being admissible under the rules of evidence, as any of the exceptions that the defendant has done, we also believe that it would be improper for her to be allowed to bring it in under that theory.

I think she, Trina Kay just nailed it. You can't bring in somebody as a witness when then you are convicted of killing them afterwards. You simply can't do that. Think about it. Everybody has pointed out that we couldn't even use Charles Ballow's body cam footage, the victim himself saying, I'm afraid for my life telling police this. And she's going to destroy me and she's going to murder me. And they dismiss them.

It's a maddening body cam footage to watch. watch. But we can't even use that in trial because that's hearsay, which to me is difficult to process. So to have a convicted murderer try to use the child she murdered as a witness is hearsay, Lori. That is hearsay. It's upsetting that she is still arguing this. The judge agreed with Trina Kay. Absolutely. And when it comes to Daniel Coons and the connection to Daniel Coons, The motion stated, quote, then in a state's case in chief, it elicited expert testimony from the scene agent, Detective Daniel Coons. This defendant objected to his testimony as an expert witness based on lack of foundation and her not having had time to rebut his professional opinion. Again, this defendant was precluded from discussing Alex Cox's, the shooters.

That's what she puts in parentheses in this motion, discussing Alex Cox, the shooter, walk through that was controlled. conducted with several Chandler police detectives, including Detective Coons. This walkthrough was precluded as inadmissible hearsay. However, it formed the basis for Detective Coons questioning with the medical examiner and how he then investigated his case, as Alex Cox indicated he shot the victim in self-defense. End quote. I also want to point out that during the trial and in the pretrial hearing, Lori really fought to not have Detective Coons as an expert witness.

It made her upset. he shouldn't be an expert witness, according to Lori, because then he can express opinion, and now she is complaining and upset by his testimony. But next, the third reason, which Lori claims is a discovery violation. The motion states, quote, on April 14, 2025, during trial, Ms. Trina Kay produced a hard drive containing the gray key information on Charles Vallow's cell phone. And by the way, gray key extraction, cell phone extraction. So the contents of the hard drive are exculpatory evidence.

Defense has been requesting this evidence so that she could provide it to her independent expert. That's Lonnie Dworkin, aka from the Jodi Aries case, Lonnie Dworkin is her independent expert. He was the cell tech guy, Jody Arias's trial. So Lori wants to get her own extraction of Charles Valles' phone so she could provide it to her independent expert, Lonnie, for his review. The discovery disclosure occurred in the middle of trial, end quote. And that is true, by the way. That Judge Breske said, you didn't get it in time, Lori. We've given you time. You are the one that doesn't want to continuance. You're the one that doesn't want to waive your right to a speedy trial. And we're allowing you to get this cell phone and get the extraction. But if you don't do it in time,

you don't do it in time. And in the middle of trial, it is true. the judge said I gave you all the time in the world, but maybe you can get this and use it for Brandon's trial. We'll see. Well, the fourth reason that Lori Valadeba believes that she deserves a new trial is prosecutorial misconduct. The motion states on April 8, 2025, the state elicited irrelevant, prejudicial,

and improper character evidence when she asked Chandler Fire, Captain Keller, if he overheard any conversations with this defense, defendant, a.k.a. Lori Valo. Ms. Trina K, prosecutor, asked Captain Keller on direct examination. Did you ever overhear this defendant talking with police? And he responded in the affirmative, stating he overheard someone stating, quote, not getting invited to a pool party because of the commotion at the house or something, end quote. Well, this statement caught this defendant off guard, as Captain Keller indicated. during his interviews with Chandler Police just after the incident occurred that he only saw the mail outside on the curb and did not mention even seeing this defendant. During closed arguments, while addressing the justification defenses, Ms. Trina Kay told the jury that this defendant was not entitled to any of these self-defense instructions.

Ms. Trina Kay also gave false statements by saying Alex had no reason to be at this defendant's home and that this defendant told Alex to bring a gun. Ms. Trina K. knew from previous testimony interviews and pretrial defense interviews that Summer, that's Lori or the defendant's sister, had begged Alex to go over to this defendant's home because of summer's concerns for this defendant's safety. Finally, Ms. Trina K. commented several times on this defendant's demeanor during this incident, drive to police station on the body cameras and told the jury, quote, you did not see her cry in that interview, end quote. yet knowing that there were portions of this defendant's interview that had been cut from the full interview admitted by the state where she sat in the room and did show emotion and can be seen grabbing a Kleenex. Okay. End quote. 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, 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. That was directly from Lori's request for a do-over. I don't even know what to start, where to start.

I am so mind-blown rear. If you want to know why Judge Boyce said that there are some narcissistic tendencies in Lori and some twisty stuff going on here, this is it. So first off, Trina Kay absolutely allowed Lori to argue self-defense. That was Lori's entire defense. She did explain with the jury that in jury instructions, certain things could be taken out. But the jury absolutely got self-defense instructions. Trina Kay, everything else, Trina Kay said, did actually happen.

And she did point out that she was nonchalant. And she did point out, rightfully so in her closing arguments. It was a great moment that Lori Valo was crying in her opening statements. But she did not cry when her husband, Charles, was killed. Well, Lori is trying to say, that's not true because I can be seen grabbing a Kleenex in the interrogation video afterwards. So she's lying. Did we see tears? No. Tiley cried in her interview. It's very sad. Push back her emotions. Lori, no. Alex, nothing. The summer thing is interesting to me, claiming that summer is the one that

sent Alex to the house because Lori could have called summer as a witness and shared that. Lori could have said, I want to call Summer Schiflett, Shislet, as Judge Breskes called her, Summer Shiflet as a witness for the defense who says that actually it was, it was Summer that asked and begged Alex to come over. Because what we see in the discovery, and we have the discovery on patreon.com slash shouldn't your crime, we have it. We have the text where Lori herself is inviting Alex over. come be with me you're going to you know i will be like nephi we have a mission i need you with me

tonight so if lorry wanted to argue that she could have called summer she didn't i just let's let's keep going with lorry's fifth and final reason as to why she believes that she deserves a redo of her trial for the fifth and final reason at least for right now lorry is citing the courts lack of impartiality stating, quote, the court precluded this defendant from presenting a defense by striking her witnesses, including but not limited to Nate Eaton and Brandon Boudreau, before they were even called to the stance. Specifically before testimony began, the court required this defendant to establish on the record what relevancy her witnesses would present. This required this defendant to state in front of the prosecutor,

her defense strategy. This is not required under the law or any rule of evidence, end quote. So first off, she didn't have to give her defense strategy at all. She just had to prove relevancy for her defense strategy. She had to prove relevancy to have the witnesses, Nate Eaton and Brandon Boudreau, to have them as witnesses. She did not have to give her defense strategy at all for them to be witnesses. She did have to prove relevancy, nexus, whatever you want to call it. Why? And her reason

for needing Nate Eaton was a just in case because he's interviewed a lot of these witnesses. And just in case they say something, I need to pull him. And the judge said, well, we'll cross that bridge when it happens. As far as Brandon Boudrego's, you know, he has his trial coming up. and she didn't prove relevancy. And this was argued in court. And really, she didn't prove relevancy. And Judge Breske, honestly, was very lenient and very understanding, I think, and very patient of Lori Ballow throughout all of this as she represented herself. The motion goes on to state, quote, during cross-examination of a civilian witness, Serena Sharp.

Remember Serena? Serena Sharp, Lori's once friend, during cross-examination of civilian witness, Serena Sharp, in relation to testimony regarding religious beliefs, the court commented during the prosecutor's objection to relevancy stating, quote, I guess to the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures, I will allow it, end quote. That was, by the way, when Lori was cross-examining, there was an objection and actually Judge Breske sided with Lori and said, look, you could talk about this to the extent that you're comparing yourself to these biblical figures. I will allow it. And then Lori's motion continues. Part of the state's case was to establish that this defendant had stepped outside of the Mormon religion by claiming she was a translated being, specifically in text messages, she would be like Nephi, and that these messages were nothing more

than part of the conspiracy to kill Charles Valo. This defendant attempted to establish that being translated was a regular part of the Mormon religion and thus a relevant line of questioning, end quote, straight from Lori's motion. Well, after citing all these reasons, the last half of this document, right here, it's based on the argument and authority,

of each specific argument when it comes to the juror in her motion. Laurie cited multiple things. This is what she stated in her argument. Quote, once a defendant shows the jury received and consulted extraneous information and prejudice must be presumed. And a new trial must be granted unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt the information did not taint the verdict, end quote. And then the motion continues. Quote, in state v. Poland, the court held that, quote,

since the federal convictions were based on the same series of acts as were at issue in the state prosecution, evidence of the prior convictions is inherently prejudicial, end quote. And then, after citing that case law, Lori's motion continues, quote, when a juror does not base his verdict on evidence developed a trial, he violates the fundamental integrity of all that is embraced. in the constitutional concept of trial by jury, which comes from state v. Glover. Such misconduct by jury members denies criminal defendants their rights under the 6th and 14th amendment to confront and cross-examine his accusers about that extrinsic evidence, end quote.

And then the motion continues, quote, this defendant's advisory counsel and the court both received evidence that the jury's verdict was tainted when juror 15 spoke during his interview with Fox 10 news disclosing that he had learned of her prior conviction seemingly one day prior to the admonition being lifted. And because it is clear, juror 15 had information he was not entitled to. Now, prior to conducting deliberations, the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this information did not taint the verdict. The state will not be able to meet this burden, and this defendant is entitled to a new trial, even if an offending juror may not have influenced the other jurors. It is required to convict a criminal defendant, and the juror's

conclusion may have been different had the juror not consulted extraneous sources, which is from State v. Cornell. In Cornell, the motion cites case law, Cornell, in Cornell, a juror looked up definitions that were neither admitted into evidence nor included in the trial court's instructions. The jur testified that he was confused and undecided about the allegations, and his reference to outside sources made his decision that the defendant was guilty. Reference to dictionary definitions by jurors is usually considered a harmless error. However, the appellate court found that this was not a harmless error and that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. Similar to the juror in Cornell, juror 15 stated he had information neither admitted into evidence nor included in the trial

court's instructions. Even more egregious than in Cornell was that this information learned was that the defendant had prior homicide convictions. As in Poland, this information is inherently prejudicial as these prior convictions directly related to the prosecution. At the time of this writing, the writing of this motion, it is not known if juror 15 shared this information with other jurors. However, what is clear is that juror 15 did not follow the admonition and notify the court of him having learned of this information. So an inquiry could have conducted been prior to deliberations. These actions directly violated the court's instructions and could have factored into Juror 15's verdict, if not multiple jurors' verdicts. In fact, juror 15 noted that up until the day

of closing arguments, he would have voted not guilty. Given this, the state is unable to prove that juror 15's misconduct did not taint his and potentially other jury members' verdicts. The state will not be able to overcome the overwhelming evidence of juror 15's misconduct in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that juror 15's misconduct did not taint the jury. Accordingly, this defendant is entitled to a new trial. When it comes to the preclusion of Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox's statements and impermissible expert testimony by Detective Daniel Coons, Lori essentially, just a judge. just recapped what she had previously written.

And for the third argument, which was the discovery violation, Lori stated that she had been requesting the evidence so she could provide it into her independent counsel. And she went on to state, quote, the state's discovery violation is one, the importance of the evidence, which the defendant was deprived cross-examination, the right to confrontation and proper investigation and examination for defense. And two, the state manifested the surprise and prejudice to the opposing parties. and three, the violation was motivated by bad faith, which neither the court nor the state

corrected, and four, the many other relevant factors that the state saw fit to depriving the defendant of her constitutional and statutory rights. As for the argument of prosecutorial misconduct, let's dig in, because this is good. This is showing Lori on full display. 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, 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 ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. The motion basically recaps everything she said in the first paragraph. about prosecutorial misconduct, about misconduct. But then it says, quote, it is improper for a prosecutor to misstate the law or evidence during closing arguments. Ms. Trina Kay stated this defendant was not entitled to self-defense instructions, yet

they were clearly provided to the jury. Here is part of Trina Key's closing that talked about justification. Finally, let's talk about the justification defenses. What we know is that Lori Valde, thought she was like Nephi, that she was justified in killing Charles, that her brother, who was supposed to be like her, was also justified in killing Charles. But Lori Valo is not justified under Arizona law, nor is Alex. So let's go through the different justification defenses.

first thing that you have to consider for every one of these self-defense, defense of a third person or crime prevention, is the non-justification for use of deadly physical force. You are told if a person is not justified in using or threatening physical force or deadly physical force against another in response to verbal provocation alone. so Charles yelling and screaming at her to give his phone back does not justify you shooting him or a person is not justified in using or threatening deadly physical force if the defendant or co-conspirator provoked the others use or attempted use of unlawful physical force so we know here Lori provoked Charles by taking his phone using to give it back so again when we look at at every one of these defenses, you'll see not only do they not apply, but none of them is the defendant entitled to. This is not self-defense. In self-defense, you're told that a person, a reasonable person, can use deadly physical force if they believe that deadly physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another's use or apparent attempted or threatened use of unlawful, deadly physical. force and the person used or threatened no more deadly physical force than would have appeared

necessary to a reasonable person in this situation. We know that Lori Valo used Charles' phone to get him to come back inside and she used his phone to keep him inside and give her brother time to come out and shoot and kill Charles. We know from the physical scene itself that Charles did not use a bat. We know from the physical evidence of Alex's one inch cut to his head and the lack of blood or concussion, the lack of damage to the mirrors, the walls, the location of the bat in relation to Charles, they all tell us that Charles did not use a bat. We know that Charles was a semi-professional baseball player.

This would not have ended that way if he had had a bat. But even if you somehow think that he did have a bat, And he was swinging it at Alex, the defendant, whoever. He still was not justified in shooting him when he was on the ground. It has to be immediately necessary to protect against another's use. When Charles is on the ground and he has shot that second time, there is no threat to anyone. And so that is not self-defense.

When we look at the physical evidence, again, we know that Charles was on the ground, shot, and so this is not self-defense. And we know from the physical evidence at the scene, projectile into the floorboard, this is not self-defense. Third party, you're told that a person is justified in using or threatening deadly physical force in defense of a third party. you're told that a person is justified in using or threatening deadly physical force in defense of a third person, I presume here, Lori Valo. If a reasonable person in this situation would have believed that deadly physical force was necessary to protect against another's use again of unlawful deadly physical force against a third person, and they used only what was necessary. or a reasonable person under the situation. What do we know? Lori Ballo told Detective N-Klan that she wasn't even in the room

when she heard the shot, that she had gone around into the kitchen. Who's he protecting at that point? What third person that's no longer there is he protecting? You can't protect against a future, what might happen, or what already occurred. It has to be now. And Lori Ballo herself, what herself,

outside the room when her brother shot Charles. So there is no third party defense. But again, the same thing applies even if you thought so. That second shot removes any possibility of being justified. Crime prevention. So it's the exact same thing, only in a slightly different stated way. But like self-defense, it allows a person to use deadly physical force against another, to the extent a reasonable person would have

would have believed that deadly physical force was immediately necessary to prevent Charles from committing aggravated assault against Laurie Valo. We know she's not in the room. Even if he had that bat and had been coming at her, and then she left the room, that crime is over. And again, even if you believe he had the bat, you cannot shoot him while he's on the ground.

That is not what. crime prevention permits you to execute a person. Finally, there's mere presence. You're told that guilt cannot be established by a defendant's near presence at the crime scene, near association with another person at the crime scene, or near knowledge that crime is being committed. Cory Vala wasn't just present at this crime scene. She brought her brother to the crime scene. She ensured that he brought a gun with him. She ensured that he brought a gun with him. She that JJ was outside and she ensured that Charles stayed inside. She was not merely present.

She was a person who was actively participating in this crime. Before I continue with the motion, I first want to address Carl, a few things that actually Lori wrote in her motion that just simply aren't true. Carl has always stood by the fact that he did not know about Lori's other murders until after he was released. he was released from his jury duties. While he did say yesterday driving home, he thought about three life sentences, that still doesn't mean that he knew about other murders. And I just think that we need to take it for what it is and not jump to conclusions.

Carl has always stated in his media interviews outside the courthouse, as well as with hidden true crime, that he did not know. And I think it's, I actually agree that this would be as simple as him sharing what he knew and didn't know in front of a judge and not us and not the internet courtroom. So I just, I just want to point that out in no place, as Carl ever stated, he knew about any murders. He has also stated that while making the decision,

he was, he was influenced by a text, a specific text, was that was when she wrote Chad and said, or Chad wrote Lori and said, this must have been Ned, the insurance change before we got rid of him. That's what influenced Carl,

according to his own words, not anything about knowing any previous convictions. Let's now talk about what Trina Cage just said. What Trina Cage just said, she never said that the jury couldn't consider self-defense. In fact, going back to Carl, Carl said that he did consider self-defense. In fact, Carl was a really tough cell. When I was interviewing him, I said, what about the second bullet hitting the floor? Did that affect you? And he said, well, if it happened right after he fell, maybe it was still self-defense. Carl was clearly considering

self-defense. So nowhere did Trina Kay say you cannot consider self-defense. She was pointing out, though, that there might not be justification for self-defense, that she saw no justification for self-defense and wanted to drive her argument home. But the jury, according to Carl, certainly considered self-defense. And for Lori's final argument of lack of impartiality, the motion stated, quote, while under the law, the trial court is presumed to be impartial and free from bias. This defendant can rebut this by the preponderance of the evidence by showing the court, required her to present her defense strategy to the state before calling any witnesses. Rule 15.2 of the Arizona rule of criminal procedure requires a defendant to disclose for each listed defense other

than the defendant that the defendant intends to call as a witness at trial in support of the defense. Rule 15.2 C1 requires a defendant to list the name and address of each person other than the defendant the defendant intends to call as a witness at trial and any written or recorded statement of the witness. There is nothing in Rule 15.2 that requires this defendant to present her defense strategy in order to call witnesses. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides this defendant the right to subpoena power. This preclusion of witnesses and requirement of this defendant to inform the state of her defense prior to calling any properly noticed witness shows a specific claim of partiality, end quote. Now, every time this was brought up,

all the judge said was that she needed to prove relevance, that Lori, Lori needed to prove relevance. How is this defendant relevant? Do they have knowledge of the specific event? Or excuse me, how is this witness relevant? Do they have knowledge of the specific event? How do they connect to the evidence at hand in this trial? And Judge Boreski was never asking Lori for her defense strategy to prove relevancy of the witnesses. Let's be honest. Buying cannabis shouldn't be complicated, sketchy or low quality. That's why I want to tell you about mood.com. That's M-O-O-D.com.

Mood ships federally legal cannabis straight to your door. No medical card, no hassle. And here's the kicker. The quality is better than anything you'll find at your local dispensation. Yeah, I said it. Whether you're into edibles, concentrates, flour, or just looking to explore, you'll find it all at mood. And it's not just the variety that makes them stand out. Every product is sourced from small American-owned family farms that care deeply about what they grow. It's cannabis you can trust, delivered discreetly, and ready to elevate your mood. And because you're a listener,

you get 20% off your first order. Just head to mood.com. That's M-O-O-O-D-com to get started. Anyway, the motion went on to further state, quote, second for the record, established that the court commented while responding to the state's relevant objection. And that comment showed a specific claim of partiality by casting doubt onto this defendant's credibility on this religious issue. And in general, showing she cannot be trusted. That was a stretch to say, by the way, with this religious issue. and in general showing that Lori cannot be trusted. That was quite an A to Z jump there. But the court commenting to a relevancy objection, quote,

I guess to the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures, I will allow it, end quote. That can be seen, according to Lori's motion, as injecting his own opinion as to this defendant's reliability during her cross-examination. This comment is even more important when taken into consideration. that juror 15 in the Fox News 10 clip indicated he ultimately made a decision to vote guilty based on two text messages, including the one describing, quote, I will be like Nephi, end quote. Court inserted his own improper comment when a simple, overruled or sustained was warranted.

This in and of itself shows a lack of impartiality and requires a new trial, end quote. that was quite the leap. And I think it shows a lot of who Lori is. In her Idaho trial, when there were certain arguments being presented by her own defense that she didn't like, which is that Chad Dable was to blame, it was closing arguments. And her attorney Archibald decided to get up and say, you know what? Chad Dabell and his storm are to blame for this whole thing. Like he was able to say that in his closing statements to defend his client, Lori Dabal. She was angry at him.

She was very, very angry because according to Lori, that made her look stupid. Like that is a jump. And so that's what I'm pointing out with this is for her to say that Judge Boreski suggested that, hey, this religious stuff, as long as you're comparing yourself to religious leaders and Lori taking the jump to you're implying, I don't follow my religion or you're putting in these opinions about what I believe or don't believe. Now I'm not trusted. You're saying to the entire jury in courtroom that I can't be trusted.

That's sort of one of those extreme leaps, like that I'm not following A to Z. I also think that it is very important to note just how calm Judge Boreski was during this entire trial. Personally, I actually think he allowed Lori to get away with far more than most judges would. And he was really patient. And even in some ways, Judge Boreski seemed like he was helping Lori every so often. say, I can't give you legal advice, dot, dot, dot, but let me give you legal advice. He did that several times. What do I think overall about this? My thoughts, after going over this motion, I think that this is very Lori Valo-Dabelle-esque. Would we expect anything else? She had to be shown Carl's interview

clip. She is sitting in her cell, according to Justin Lump's report, 23 hours a day, teeny tiny cell, little itty-bitty cell and a little itty-bitty desk. And she is sitting there. And she was given this clip because somebody again emailed Judge Boreski and then it was ordered that Lori Valo had to see this clip from Juror 15. And so Lori's running with it. I don't think a lot of this motion holds weight. I don't think that. that these are promising arguments that she's making that are going to get her a new trial, but I'm not an attorney. I'm just playing one on YouTube right now, I guess.

No, I'm not. I'm not an attorney. These are my opinions from a journalist who followed the trial and has followed this case for six years, but I am not an attorney. A few things that people are saying. Let's talk about it. Troublemaker Baker, I just want to read this. She says, I think that the court can just ask Carl if whatever knowledge he has,

had impacted the verdict. If he says it did not impact the verdict, then I think that's it. I don't know, but it seems like that's the direction they might take. Penny Brown says she will not get a redo, but poor Carl, he may never sleep again, bless his heart. He is struggling to sleep. He is struggling because he is in shock of what he didn't know about Lori. He really thought he was really leaning towards innocence. And he has told a lot of us, both in those interviews outside the courthouse and here a hidden true crime, what it took for him in the deliberation room. Everything that he has said to us implies to me that he really did not know.

And I have no reason to not believe. Penny also says he jumped on his train of thought mid-sentence. I agree with that too. Who knows what he meant. He could have even said, I was driving home feeling sorry for her and then added thinking of three. I don't know what he was thinking. Maybe he knew.

So I don't want to put words in Carl's, mouth, but he has said he did not know. Kelly J brings up the Murdoch trial. I'm not too concerned. Murdoch trial had some major issues with jurors. Yes, they did. And they did not grant a new trial. And Leanna says, weren't there reports that the jurors watched her whole interview and they

did not find Lori credible? Yes, in the deliberation room, they watched Lori's entire interview. Lori requested the jury to watch her entire interview. And what I mean by that is the interview she gave to police. the same day Charles Ballo was shot and killed by Alex. And she requested them to watch her entire interview was long and it was only cherry picked, she said, for court, right? So Trina Kay gets up and says, you know what?

Yeah, do that. Do what Lori's asked you to do. Go watch that entire interview. And the jurors did. I spoke with three jurors now. I had interviews with two of them on our channel. I believe that there's going to be a new one. very soon so stay tuned and they all said that they watched it in the deliberation room and

what did they mention they did not mention lorry grabbing a Kleenex and think oh she must have actually been crying what they noted was how nonchalant she was and how not emotional she was and how she did not seem affected by her husband being shot and killed Nobody mentioned a Kleenex. But Lori clearly wanted them to note the Kleenex. I think she's actually probably sitting in her cell angry that nobody noticed that she picked up Kleenex in that interview. Maxine asks, so how can Lori help other women inmates that she's locked up 231 lying again? Yeah, I don't know.

That's a question for Justin Lum. I am curious. Hey, let's have a new trial for and keep her in Arizona for two more years. That's the other thing too. Lori complains about how this jail is not good. It's the worst she's ever been in, this jail, that she would prefer to be in prison or back in Idaho. And so, yes, this desire for a new trial would keep her in the place she hates the most for quite a bit longer. God Magnus says no one would use a Kleenex to fake cry.

It's so wasteful. What kind of monster do they think she is? Well, I mean, you have a point because, you know, Alec Murdoch should have used Kleenex and he didn't. I'm like, that's, you know, Alex, take the Kleenex. Lori, show us some tears. Alex Murdoch had no tears, we had a lot of snot if everyone recalls. And everyone, I was just like, grab the Kleenex box, Alex.

All right, everyone. How long do we know the decision on the retrial? I think that it won't take too long. The court will respond and hidden true crime will be here to tell you what you need to know. As soon as it comes down, the decision of the court comes down. Anyway, when you write the judge about juror concerns, Lori's going to be given those clips. Yes. A couple other things, though.

I actually something just came down. We have seen a letter. I've seen a letter from court TV to Judge Boreski asking that for Brandon's trial, which is coming up starting June, June 2nd, that the court allow the 30 minute delay to be lifted because remember how it was future Lauren during our live stream and I was like, do I give you guys spoilers in chat? Do I not? Well, court TV, who is pooled camera, they're the ones with the camera in the courtroom.

They are asking for that 30 minute delay to be lifted on closing arguments. and the verdict, meaning that they would be able to stream both of those things in real time. But what else are they asking? Well, let me tell you. Court TV is also asking that for the verdict, there would be another camera allowed in the front of the courtroom that could face Lori and the attorneys. Many people wanted to know what was Lori's reaction when she received that guilty verdict. And we've asked jurors because in the gallery, as we sat there, we also

could not see. The only people that could see was the judge and the jurors. So we have asked the jurors and their answer was she was expressionless. According to Carl, like she had no emotion when it was read. We also know from her interview, Lori's after the verdict interview

with Brianna Whitney, reporter Breonna Whitney, a local and reporter from True Crime, Arizona. Lori said that she was shocked by this verdict. Absolutely shocked that it was a guilty verdict. But she certainly didn't show it according to the jurors, any of that shock. And she even was just like, you know what, we're good here. We don't even need to go over, you know,

everything. I agree to everything right after that guilty verdict. So that is what court TV is asking. And court TV was very respectful. I hope the judge grants these basic simple request. And I'm glad that they're asking. I do want court TV to ask if they could just have a camera. in the front the whole time. But I know that that's selfish, and it's just because I want to watch. We all want to watch. And I don't think the judge would probably request that. So court TV is doing what, doing what they're doing well, which is like just slipping

a little bit, you know, they're negotiating. It's like my seven-year-old. You know, but mom, maybe if you just let me do this. So I hope that their requests are granted. And then maybe they can push the envelope a little bit more and ask if they could have camera in the front of the courtroom for a little bit. longer. So we can see some of these expressions. All right, guys, thank you for being here tonight. We will be here again. Again, thank you for supporting us, hitting subscribe notifications.

And I want you to know that there are some other cases hidden two crime is working on, current cases that are happening that have happened. And we are preparing. And there is one case that we're not working on. I'm here with my. producer Grayson because we were actually before this breaking news came down. We were working on another case that nobody knows about. We are doing some investigative journalism on something that very, very few people know about and it's time to put some sunlight on this case. So stay tuned. Some big things are going to be coming down ahead and true crime. We'll see you guys. 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'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 atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.