Hidden True Crime - Lori Vallow Daybell’s Rage UNLEASHED in Fiery Response to Prosecutors!

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

Lori Vallow Daybell is not staying quiet. In a fiery new legal filing, the so-called "Doomsday Mom" lashes out at the state, after the state responded to her claims accusing prosecutors of misconduct and demanding a new trial. Lauren is here to break down her angry, defiant language, and try to make sense of a document written in Lori-lese. Oh, and Hidden True Crime is mentioned... 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. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealthfronts. Check. 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 Wellfront is taking care of me. With the 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%. 3.3% base API why as of January 30th, 2026,000, 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 point 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. Just when you thought I was done talking about Lori Valo for the week, so did I, honestly, but surprise, she's back and so am I. Why? Because Lori apparently cannot resist the spotlight. And this time, I have her response to the state's response to her motion for a retrial. Confused yet? Buckle up. Quick recap.

A couple weeks ago, Lori filed for a retrial claiming jury misconduct. Why? Because one juror, Carl, juror 15, allegedly said he felt sorry for Lori having to serve three life sentences. Lori took that and ran it straight to the courthouse, insisting Carl must have known about her Idaho murder convictions. The state clapped back with a solid, yeah, no, pointing out that Carl, who also gave an interview to hidden true crime, has always said he knew nothing about her past until after the verdict. And now in true Lori fashion, she's firing back at their response. It's drama, guys, it's delusion. It's Lori.

in high definition. And friends, this latest filing pure gold. She's mad and she wants everyone to know it. And she throws shade at hidden true crime. So grab your popcorn. Lori's putting on another show and we'll read it all together right now. Lori starts off on a religious high horse beginning her response with this statement. Quote, the prosecutor, Trina Kay, simply stating that she did nothing that violates rules and laws is not an acceptable remedy for what is reality, end quote. So we're only one sentence in, and I already have to stop reading after that first line. Did Lori really just accuse prosecutor Trina K in her opening statement of not being grounded in reality? Let that sink in.

Lori DeBell telling prosecutor Trina, she that Trina isn't facing. reality. If that's not the biggest case of projection, I don't know what is. I'll go on. Lori is about to get into her rights, the defendant's rights. So here we go. Quote, this defendant's rights to choose her religion and right to interpret that doctrine are legally and federally protected rights. This defendant's religious beliefs are not fodder for this court to use against her. This defendants protected from persecution by the Constitution, of the United States of America. This defendant's interpretation of her religion is not a subject that this or any other

court has the right to dismiss or discredit or use against this defendant. Clearly, during this trial, the judge, as well as the prosecutor violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993 and this defendant's right to be free from bias and prejudice. Trina K. continually raised this defendant's religious. and interpretation of religious doctrine throughout the trial. Ms. Trina Kay questioned non-expert witnesses about this defendant's religious doctrine and interpretation of that doctrine. Ms. Kay made repeated references to her own assumptions that this defendant had misinterpreted

the Mormon doctrine, end quote. So Lori goes on to write, quote, this defendant is guaranteed to be free of of government persecution bias or interference of my religious beliefs. Pause really quickly. It gets confusing because Lori refers to her as this defendant, but then she'll say my. So she is saying this defendant is guaranteed

to be free of government persecution bias or interference of my religious beliefs referring to her, the defendant. It is a fundamental, an alienable right. That right is not subject to the practices promoted, in Maricopa County Courthrooms, which clearly considered both this defendant's religion and interpretation of that religion to be subject matter that played a determining factor and how the court treated this defendant, exerted authority over this defendant's self-representation,

and ultimately and most significantly promoted my prosecution. All were protected, all were violated, end quote. So, okay, let's stop there. for a second. It is true that the United States Constitution protects religious freedom. But nowhere does it say someone can murder someone in the name of religion. Religious freedom doesn't make that okay. And Lori seems to consistently forget this thing called evidence. Religion can absolutely be a subject matter that played a determining factor and promoted her prosecution if her religion is seen as evidence of murder. Lori, no one is saying you can't believe that you're a translated being

or that you were married to chat in a past life. You do you. That's your religious freedom. But if in your translated state, you decide you're going to be like Nephi and kill your husband because the exorcisms aren't working out for you and you think Charles is a zombie and you're a goddess on a mission and these beliefs show themselves in texts and conversations you participated in and then your husband shows up dead because of, you know, your religious belief. That isn't protected under religious freedom. That's called murder. And your belief system shows us motive.

It's just maddening. But, okay, I will go on. Lori continues, quote, the court cannot force this defendant to defend my doctrine or my interpretation of doctrine as it means improving their case in chief. Okay, we'll stop again. Yes, yes, they can. the court can absolutely use your strange beliefs as evidence in this case if they are indeed

evidence. Glory continues, quote, this court has done this under Judge Voreski's supervision, considering the brevity of the misconduct that was publicly broadcast from the courtroom for anyone and everyone to see. We understand why Ms. Trina Kaye and Judge Breske would grasp at any straw available to contradict and dismiss their behavior as typical and commonly acceptable within this jurisdiction. Herein lies the overarching breach of a right to a fair and impartial trial. The trial craft continues. Adherence to the moral, ethical, and legal practice of law envelops all of the violations

named in the motion for new trial, as well as those that were witnessed by all on court TV. There is no valor in intentional wrong prosecutions. There is no victory for justice when the government defrauds its position behind the motivation of self-interest, end quote. And, okay, that last line was gobbly-goob. Now she just wants to hear herself talk, I swear. Let's, like, honestly, read that last line. One more time, quote, there is no victory for justice when the government defrauds its position behind the motivation of self-interest. If that's not a line made with refrigerator poetry magnets, I don't know what

is. You might remember that in Lori's first filing, she cited juror misconduct as her first reason she deserved a new trial. And if you didn't remember, I'm reminding you now again. Juror 15, Carl, stated in a TV interview after the verdict that he'd felt sorry for Lori realizing she had three life sentences. And many felt juror 15 implied he'd known about her three sentences prior to the verdict, which still wouldn't necessarily equate to jury misconduct if he did, but nonetheless, that was Lori's argument. And here is what Carl originally said directly after the verdict. Take a listen. Do you remember your reaction learning that she has been a good day killing two children?

You know what? I feel sorry for her. I mean, driving home yesterday, I'm just 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 her. Even though, I mean, she's, that's often a thing to do. There's just something wrong up here, but, but he's at still, you know, just feel awful about it. And here is what he said in his interview with us,

hidden true crime. Take a listen. You don't know how you knew that there might have been another sentencing. Everything's a blur. I do understand that. Sometimes I forget what day it is when I'm attending trial, reporting out of trial. But you did not know about any of the other murders until after the verdict. Yeah, I had no idea of anything else that she had been through.

prior to this trial, and even during the trial, I didn't know that. And remember, Carl was the holdout. Carl wasn't going to convict Lori initially. Carl thought Lori was innocent, but with Trina Kay's closing arguments and the convincing of his fellow jurors, Carl eventually realized she was guilty and came to that verdict with the rest of his fellow jurors. And in response to Lori's claims of jury misconduct, due to this line shared by Carl in immediate interview, the state came back saying, quote, there was no juror misconduct, end quote.

And well, now Lori has come back in her response, this response, with an entirely new reason that she deserves a retrial with regards to the jurors. Now Lori is claiming she is, quote, entitled to a new trial because the jury received and consulted extraneous evidence, end quote. This is brand new. So this is new. And you can't just do that in a response, by the way, to a motion. You can't just throw out another brand new, entirely new reason in a response. That's rather a whole new motion.

But Lori's never been a rule follower. And for her argument on this point of juror 15 or Carl, as we know him, this is what she says. she states, quote, after two days and multiple media agencies aired Juror 15 statement, he came forward to recant on a podcast, hidden true crimes, not a reputable media agency, end quote. Well, to that, I have to say, well, Lori, you're not a reputable goddess, nor a reputable mother, nor a reputable attorney. But nonetheless, Carl, Juror 15, chose hidden, two. crime, not crimes, but crime, to share his experience as a juror, and it was not to recant anything.

And while you, Lori, have been convicted of crimes, crimes plural, with an ass meaning many, many crimes, we are a reputable true crime, no s podcast. But I'll go on. Back to Lori's response. Quote, in the interview with hidden true crimes, juror 15 allegedly Googled Lori Valo after admonition yet again incriminating himself end quote so i'm going to stop there again lorry just said that karl googled her name after the verdict which is actually what judge breskes recommended to all of the jurors he said hey before you walk outside why don't you google so you can understand a little bit more so this would not be incriminating if the judge asked the juror to do this but i'll go on lorry now jumps into cell usage so quote further juror 15 and other

jurors were instructed repeatedly by Judge Boreski to refrain from use of cell phones in trial. Yet juror 15 had during the trial be advised, guys, this is her, not me. So let's juror 15 had during the trial be advised that he cannot use his cell phone during the trial. In a criminal case, prejudice may be presumed from any private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly. State be devolt, 207, Arizona. Arizona 2004, the motives for concealing do affect a juror's impartiality can truly affect the fairness of trial.

The extraneous prejudicial info was improperly brought to the jury's attention. Info is deemed extraneous if it derives from a source external matters, including publicity and info related specifically to the case, the jurors are meant to decide. In State B. Miller, a judge erred in not conducting first, inquiry in the integrity of jury verdict by taking testimony or questioning jurors, even though prosecutor represented that outside conduct did not influence verdict. In Miller, improper influence of even one juror taint's criminal verdict, the judge must consider surrounding circumstances in additional juror testimony, and the judge must err in favor of the defendant.

The presence of a biased juror cannot be harmless. The error requires new trial, end quote. So again, Carl was the holdout in this jury. His bias, if any, was that he thought Lori was innocent. And while this, what I just read is poorly written, very poorly written without any periods. Thus, I can't exactly figure out where one thought begins and another end. It seems to me as if Lori is implying that when Carl was caught texting someone one day in court, She simply assumes he was instead Googling Laurie's name, not texting his daughter, like he said,

but Googling Lori's name without any evidence to back this up. And what Carl actually told the judge that day, many have brought it up, was that he was texting his daughter, that he would pick her up. And I do know that Carl is a single parent raising children alone. He had also mentioned he was a widow during the trial. And he also told the reputable hidden true crime that he had not wanted to be on a jury because of his other responsibilities, which included his children. I am not excusing Carl for texting on his phone during the trial, but I am just giving context. There is no evidence that Carl was Googling anything

on his phone in that moment that he sent a text in the courtroom. Carl then came clean to the judge and explained he was telling his daughter that he would pick her up. Lori, don't flatter yourself. Carl wasn't Googling you. Exema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with ebbglis. It's monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four and seven people taking ebbglis, achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. Ebglis, Librichizumab, LBKZ.

A 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema. Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. Ebglis can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to Epgless. Allergic reactions can

occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Epgless. Before starting Epgless, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about Ebglis and visit ebglis.lis.com or call 1800 LilyRX or 1-800

545-979. Moving on. Point two. What Lori originally cited as preclusion of Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox statements and impermissible expert testimony by Detective Daniel Coons. She is now citing preclusion of Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox statements. And because the court allowed expert testimony without a ruling, this defendant is entitled to a new trial, according to Lori. So in this section, she writes, quote, Detective Coons did in fact utilize certain aspects of the statement of Tiley Ryan and Alex Cox to determine the alleged

expert testimony. Forensic, ballistic, and bullet trajectory, analysis is highly technical, are subject to peer-reviewed research, and to degree of standardization. Ballistics testimony requires specialized expertise. Police practice expert is not qualified to give such a conclusion as an expert. This expert is not trained in ballistics and thus cannot analyze the trajectory of bullets fired. Federal rules of evidence 702 should be applied consistent with the liberal thrust of the federal rules and their general approach, a mandatory presumption, which shifts the burden of persuasion by requiring the defendant to establish affirmatively the negative of an element of the offense is unconstitutional and unconstitutional,

end quote. I have to admit, I don't know what she just said. The grammar is bad. The wording's confusing. Part of me wonders if I just don't understand legal leads, but I actually think this is about me not understanding Lori Lees. I think she's saying that Detective Coons is not an expert witness, thus he shouldn't be used, something that she's argued multiple times before. And Lori's third reason for why she should get a retrial was what she deemed as a discovery violation. Lori had essentially claimed that while the state produced the gray key information for Charles's phone during the trial, that is the cell phone extraction, the defense, aka Lori, had been requesting her own extraction of Charles's phone. We know that she has really, really, really wanted

her own extraction of Charles's phone. But Lori was not able to complete this extraction in time to use during trial and then claim that the gray key extraction is considered exculpatory evidence. So evidence so damning that it would prove her innocence. That's how important this gray key extraction is yet she wouldn't waive her right to a speedy trial that she could have time to get this evidence nonetheless the state came back claiming there was absolutely not a discovery violation lorry's response to that well her filing says quote himinez versus chevesse reversed and remanded the state discovery violation the importance of the evidence to the surprise or prejudice of the opposing party.

Three, violation was motivated by bad faith and four, any other relevant factors. In addition, the disclosure is no later than 30 days before trial. Failure to inform and controlling evidence and the prosecution's duty to present all material evidence was not fulfilled and constitutes a violation of due process. Materiality standard for Brady claims is met when favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in a different light as to undermine confidence in verdict. Brady violation occurred during undisclosed evidence revealed when prosecution introduced in trial testimony that knew or should have known is perjured. Piles v. Whitley.

And in 1995, as she states case law in the U.S. v. Bagley, the Brady rule required prosecutor to disclose favorable evidence if suppressed deprives the defendant. defendant to fair trial. Impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence falls within Brady rule the government's failure to assist defense by disclosing info that is helpful in conducting cross-examination is a constitutional violation which deprive the defendant a fair trial, end quote. Once again, not a lot of periods. I think there's quite a few punctuation marks missing words out of place. It's confusing. The fourth reason is what she claimed was prosecutorial misconduct. Lori claimed a number of things rose to prosecutorial misconduct in her motion,

original motion, including claiming that Captain Keller made a statement that was irrelevant and prejudicial claiming that Trina said false things in her closing arguments, such as stating that Lori wasn't entitled to a self-defense claim, while the jury was handed self-defense instructions, or that Alex Cox had no reason to be at her house, or that Lori told him to bring a gun. She also essentially accused the state of editing out parts of her police interview that showed her having a motion.

Again, she really wanted that Kleenex waving moment included. The state came back recently saying there was no prosecutorial misconduct at all. But Lori has come back, doubling down now in her response here today on prosecutorial misconduct. The motion states, quote, in US v. Charlie, presentation of evidence is neither trivial nor fleeting. The evidence comprised nearly the government's rebuttal case. The government continued to highlight prior incident in closing arguments. It is impermissible for the government to argue in closing that such evidence reflects the defendant's character. error is not harmless as to prosecutor's failure to provide reasonable notice of its intent

to use other acts evidence. The defendant was not able to investigate the evidence and prepare cross-examination of rebuttal evidence, rules of evidence 404B. In the matter of Martinez, the conduct of an attorney who, as a prosecutor made comments in closing arguments in which appealed to jurors' emotions and persisted with lines of argument, which violate rules of professional conduct prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. In State B. Murray, a prosecutor's single unobjected to misstatement of the reasonable doubt standard constituted prosecutorial error. Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but taken as a whole.

amounts to intentional conduct, which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial. A defendant is denied due process of law when a prosecutor knowingly presents false evidence, whether it be by document, testimony, or any other form of admissible evidence, which is not limited impeachment. Yeah, end quote. That end quote. And again, hard to understand. And for her final reason, which she initially claimed, was the court's lack of impartiality for striking her witnesses and Judge Breske making his famous one-liner during the trial, which was, quote, a guess to the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures, I will allow it.

But now, Lori is bringing up her main argument she had for Judge Breske last week, that he denies promotions all the time. Most of you remember last week's hearing, but it truly was unforgettable. I was there, and it was so intense. Let's just replay the clip one more time here. Take a listen. Your Honor. Yes. I 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. You denied every single one of my motions since for a year and a half that I've been here.

Every single one of my 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 lunch hour. I have granted other motions of 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 every one of my motions until today. I haven't denied every one of their motions was denied, every single one of the second teams' emotions were denied and online. 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 with any ruling that? They filed a motion on your behalf, the first team, to preclude media coverage and I issued my ruling 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 prejudice against one single person? All right, are you done? Are you not going to recuse yourself? No, I'm denying your motion.

Anything else? So fast forward to this filing that just came down. But while it just came down tonight, this was actually filed the same exact day as this argument in court despite it not hitting the docket until late tonight. This time her argument states, quote, the state is misleading the facts that Judge Voreski deprived the defendant, almost all motions filed to the courts.

The defendant was denied most of her witnesses as a review will show just cause that the state's intent is to deceive the public and the courts. That's bold. The state only addresses two potential witnesses, Mr. Eaton and Mr. Boudreau. The defendant had 12 witnesses. The Supreme Court will overturn the court's determination if it proves to have been a clear abuse of discretion. The court has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict. No man can be a judge where his own interest is in the outcome. Critical decisions were set in motion and by the judge not recusing himself was a violation of due process. Judge Boreski violated the Code of Judicial

Conduct, Canon 1 and 2, that states that a judge shall not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice or engage in harassment. Conduct that compromises the independent, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. The judge's blatant comments of this defendant's religious beliefs is also a violation of the religious freedoms restoration act. A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding. The judge knew or should have known actions beyond judge's lawful power and involved actual malice motivation or if acts are intentionally committed with lawful power of a judge but for corrupt purpose, end quote. Whoa. So those were

some really bold claims. So I have a genuine question. How should the state address each and every witness of Lori's when Lori refuses to give any information about why the witnesses might actually be relevant to the case? And even at last week's hearing, when she let the court know that she wanted to call Melanie Gibb and Zulamipa Pest Dennis as witnesses, she couldn't give one sliver of why they were on her witness list and how they were relevant to the case. And trust, me, I can think of numerous reasons why both Ullama and Melanie Gibb would be relevant. I was rooting for Lori to just give one little crumb of relevancy, but she didn't. She often actually seems angry that Judge Voreski asks her about her witnesses and her relevancy,

but now she is angry that the judge didn't ask about all of them. So also, if memory serves me correct, prior to the trial, Trina Kay said that she had no issue with some of those witnesses, which included Lori's sister Summer Shifflet, as well as Lori's mom and Lori's father, Barry Cox. So again, why would the state need to address them if they have no concerns about them? And let's not forget that Lori didn't even call any of her witnesses when she had her chance to do so. She chose not to put on a defense or call any of the witnesses that even the prosecution said she could absolutely call. I do want to bring up that in Lori's original motion, she stated quote, part of the state's case was to establish that this defendant had stepped outside the

Mormon religion by claiming she was a translated being. Specifically, in text messages saying 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. But it seems like now, based on her first paragraph about Trina K, she is essentially saying that the state has zero right to talk about or question her religion. So I guess while she was fine with them doing that during the trial, when she could cross-examine the witnesses,

while snagging the latest gossip from her friends in a roundabout way, while at the same time questioning them about religious beliefs, now that she's lost her case, they were completely wrong to violate her religious rights by bringing it up. Make that one make sense. This filing ends with a paragraph that states, quote, this defendant requests a new trial based on the above fact finding to support this defendant's request. The state failed to produce factual support to their claims.

The court and the state failed to investigate juror misconduct. The state failed to correct false evidence and false testimony. The state's ballistic expert was unqualified. The state is in violation. of prosecutorial misconduct. The courts are in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1 and 2, violation of the Religious Freedom, Restoration Act,

religious prosecution, and abuse of discretion 28 U.S.C.A. 445B1. The judge made various improper substantive and procedural rulings directly to the merits of the case, end quote. I actually do appreciate that final paragraph, she sums it all up. Those long, winding sentences that didn't make sense, the missing punctuation. Here's what Lori is saying, that the state failed to produce factual support for all of

their claims in their response to her motion. The court and the state failed to investigate juror misconduct. She's saying as in other words citing the hidden true crimes podcast over just maybe investigating and bringing Carlin for questioning. The state failed to correct false evidence and false testimony. The state's ballistic expert is unqualified. By the way, that's been gone over multiple times. The court has decided that he is qualified.

The state is in violation of prosecutorial misconduct. The courts are in violation of code and judicial conduct, Canon 1 and Canon 2 and violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So there you go. That's what she's saying, as well as the judge making wrong procedural rulings directly to the merits of the case. End quote. That is it.

In summary, too long didn't read. There you go. That's what Lori is saying. Not thinking that this is going to go far. I am curious how the state is going to respond. Prosecutor, Trina K, always responds methodically and with evidence. And I'm curious, what is going to be in the response to this response? For those that want to read that response yourself, we will have that at patreon.com

slash hidden true crime. That is already posted. You can head there to read this on your own and maybe make it make sense more than I made it make sense. I just also want to say thank you for subscribing because your subscription makes us even more reputable and thus in turn makes Lori even matter. So isn't it worth subscribing? I also just want to say that we're going to be covering this trial.

in person in Maricopa County. We are heading there soon to Arizona. May justice be served. Thank you for following along. I knew about investing, but I really didn't know how to go about it. Meet Corey, a wealthfront client. With Wealthfront, it could put money in, and it would automatically distribute it into a diversified portfolio. Then it starts to compound. The compounding compounds on the compounding. Just let it run, and it's great. Over one million clients trust Wealthfront. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest, outcomes vary. Investment management and advisory services provided by Wealthfront Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. Investing involves risk to principle regardless of the

strategy used. Task performance does not guarantee future results. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wealthfront. Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. It lost 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 and I didn't have to do 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 APY as of January 30 at 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. $.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.