Hidden True Crime - The State SLAMS Lori Vallow Daybell's Retrial Motion in Legal Smackdown

Episode Date: May 8, 2025

The fight isn’t over. Lori Vallow Daybell wants a retrial—but prosecutors just hit back hard. In this episode, we dive into their fiery response, the high-stakes arguments, and what it all means. 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. 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. Hello, hidden gems. for those who are tuning in for the first time. I'm Laura Matthias, a former broadcast journalist. This is hidden true crime, where we uncover the hidden motives of unimaginable crime. And one of those crimes that we have been covering,

or I should say uncovering, is the Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell case, and we have been doing this, uncovering what is hidden in this case for five and a half years, nearly six years. Lori, a convicted murderer, just keeps... on fighting, doesn't she? And to remind everyone where we left off last week, Lori Valo Debel filed a motion for a retrial in her latest conspiracy to murder conviction, the killing of her then-husband Charles Vallo. And she cited five specific reasons. Well, and now the state of Arizona,

or the prosecution, state prosecution, same same. They have officially responded in really, it's Fascinating. Hidden True Crimes Reporting is mentioned in the state's response. And we are going to go over all of it today for those who want to review, though, of Lori's retrial filing. Again, we did a video on that report last week, breaking it all down if you would like to watch or listen on our podcast. And the link will be in the description of this episode. But for a quick summary, the five reasons Lori cited that she thinks that she deserves a retrial were one, jury misconduct in regards to juror 15 or Carl's statement directly after the verdict was read. Two, the preclusion of Tiley and Alex's statements and inadmissible, amissible, I was wearing a retainer earlier, forgive me.

Expert testimony by Detective Daniel Coons. And three, a discovery violation for a prosecutorial misconduct. And finally, fine, the court's lack of impartiality. As for the state's response, we are going to jump in because it is a lot. And like I said, this is fascinating. I'm so glad that we're going to break this down together. When it comes to responding to Lori's claim of juror misconduct, the motion filed by the state's quote, and I'm going to read directly from this filing, there was no juror misconduct.

In fact, after the verdict, the jurors were released from the admonition and had to face a mob of journalists questioning them as they waited for the bus to take them to their vehicles. Juror number 15 was one of the jurors who was caught by the media. Juror 15 made multiple statements that were recorded by multiple agencies. Videos on YouTube from Idaho News on Demand shows the first contact by the media with juror 15 as he was exiting the South Court building. And in this video, there are multiple news agencies rushing up to Juror 15. It is clear from the fact that you see the media running up to the juror that this encounter with the media occurred before the video cited by the defense, which was conducted next to the street bus stop.

In the initial media contact, one of the media asked juror 15 and another juror, quote, were any of you folks aware that this woman had already been convicted of three years? homicides, end quote. Juror 15 responds, quote, no, no, I did not, end quote. So take a listen to the clip that the state provided as evidence in this response. Take a listen. Were any of you folks aware that this woman had already? I had never been heard.

I have never heard of three homicides. I've never heard of before. I did. I did not. The state continues, quote. The motion goes on to read, quote, juror 15 and another juror are then asked. There is a lot of backstory here. And this woman has already been convicted of three homicides.

And they obviously didn't want you folks to know that. And nobody knew that during your deliberations. Is that correct? Question mark. Both juror 15 and the other juror both say, quote, no. And then the state provides this next clip in their response. Take a listen. There's a lot of back story here and this woman had already been convicted of three homicide.

And they obviously invite you folks to know that. Nobody knew that in Europe during your deliberations. No. The state's response then continues, quote, Jury 15 was very clear in this immediate contact with the media that he did not know about the defendant's prior criminal history prior to reaching a verdict, end quote. And then this is where it gets interesting. Most of you know that Carl did do an interview with hidden true crime, this very juror that Lori is accusing of jury misconduct.

And while many people were understandably worried that this interview that I did would hurt the case. We saw all of your comments. Prosecutor Trina K. actually used my interview with Carl in the state's response that she filed. The motion stated, quote, a few days after the verdict, juror 15 participated in an hour-long interview with Lauren Matthias for her podcast Hidden True Crime. In that interview, juror 15 states that everyone was respectful of not telling him anything about the case while the trial was going and that, quote, if anyone would have, I would have put up a hand, end quote. And the

state actually provides time codes for the clips they reference from our interview, from my interview. So let's listen to the clips that the state provided here. Did anybody in your life during your time as a juror know what you were doing, and that you're a juror for this infamous criminal? Yes. And they were all very respectful of my privacy. Okay. And they didn't tell you, yeah, what was going on. And if anybody would have, I would have, you know, put up my hand and said, wait, don't. The state's response goes on to state, quote,

during this hour-long interview, juror 15 stated that after the verdict was read and they were released from the admonition, he started Googling Lori Valo while in the jury room, end quote. So now let's play that clip. So the verdict's read. it's guilty all of you walk out

and at what point do you say I need to learn more about Lori Ballot, David Right away. As soon as he gave, I can't remember what he called it was some 50 cent word he used of course but as soon as he admonished us from

not being able to talk to we could talk to anybody at this point I walked right in the jury room and googled it right there. Yes. So I did it right away. I'm still in the jury room looking at my phone, watching, you know, or reading the story about this.

So you're in the jury room because everybody walked out sort of understanding that there were other murders. And you were one of those. Is that right? It was right after the verdict? Was Redd you're saying you're looking at your phone? Well, yes, that's why they told us, Now, the judge said, don't be careful what you say because there's still another trial coming.

And we don't want to put this one in any kind of jeopardy. So be careful who you talk to and what you say. So I understood that. But at the same time, I wanted to read up on, you know, what happened. I didn't know anything about Idaho or Hawaii or I knew nothing about, well, a little bit about Hawaii because that was in our trial. But I wanted to know about it. So the state then cites another clip to again clarify that Carl, Jury 15, did not know anything.

And here is that clip that they provide. It's the day of the verdict you learn. So is that what you quickly Googled on your phone and you saw before you walked out of the courthouse? Yeah. Okay. So you learned right then. The motion then continues saying, quote. During this interview that we conducted, Juror 15 talks about not wanting to talk to the media

and then he left, but that all of a sudden he was surrounded. Jure 15 was asked directly by Matthias about whether or not he knew about the other murders prior to the verdict, end quote. In that section quoted two clips, which we will listen to. The first clip is about being bombarded by the media. Take a listen. I kind of wanted out of there. I mean, I was walking away and I hear this real fast pitter-patter 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. So that wasn't my actual intention. I just wanted to get on the shuttle and leave. And then the second clip was cited about

whether or not he knew or rather how he knew about the convictions before he did these interviews with media outside the courtroom. Take a listen. So, so, but to clarify, 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, you know, 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. Finally, the last part of the state's argument that there was no juror misconduct reads,

quote, during this hour-long interview, Juror 15 repeatedly stated that he did not know about the defendant's prior murders or sentences before the verdict in this case. Juror 15 spoke with multiple media outlets who accosted him as he was attempting to get to the juror bus. The videos provided by the state in Exhibit A listed as Idaho News on Demand

is the first contact by the media with juror 15 where he clearly states twice that he did not know that the defendant had been convicted of three other murders prior to the verdict. The defendant is later in, interviewed for an hour on the hidden true crime podcast where he is advised that as soon as he was released from the admonition and while he was still inside the jury room, he was Googling the defendant,

Lori Valadebel. Juror 15 advised Matthias that this is when he learned she had prior convictions. And when the jury was again asked if he didn't know the information until after the verdict, he again confirmed that he did not know anything before or during the trial. This juror was basically mobbed by media while just trying to get to the juror bus. During this time, Juror 15 made one sentence that seemed to imply that he had looked up information about the defendant's prior criminal history before reaching a verdict. Looking at all of Juror 15's interactions with the media, it is clear that he has remained consistent that he did not violate the admonition. He waited until he was released from the admonition to immediately begin

Googling the defendant and that he did not know about the defendant's prior convictions before reaching a verdict. End quote. I think it's fascinating. I do still wonder if they're going to perhaps bring Carl in for questioning. My initial thought was after this came out that perhaps they would simply bring Carl in before a judge and say, did, if you knew anything, did this affect your reasoning for the verdict? Because Coral has also told us that he you know, almost considered Lori Valo Debel innocent until the deliberation room that he was

actually thinking she was innocent. He was the holdout. And so I thought initially when this came out that perhaps they'd bring him in to the courthouse and just simply ask him, did this effect? But the prosecution is simply arguing he has remained consistent that he did not know anything until directly after the verdict was read when then he started Googling Lori Valadeo. And I want to say that that consistency does matter. While there was one comment that alluded to a

confusing he was driving home the other day thinking about three life sentences feeling sorry for her, what there had been repeated, repeated, repeated quotes by, Carl from the very beginning that he did not know anything about her past convictions until after the verdict was was read and that consistency does matter. So reason number two that Lori cited for her reasons that she deserves a retrial, a absolute redo of this conviction was the preclusion of statements made by Alex and and Tiley and what she claimed as inadmissible expert testimony when it came to Detective Daniel Coons. Well, the state's position on this. The motion states, quote, in this case, the state

appropriately filed motions in limine to preclude the defendant from admitting any statements made by Alexander Cox or Tiley Ryan as these statements are hearsay, and there is no exception that permits their admission. The court precluded the statements by Tiley Ryan made almost three hours after the shooting as hearsay. If you guys remember, we couldn't even use Charles Ballow's own body cam footage saying that he felt his life was in danger because that was hearsay. To Tyler Ryan's statements, absolutely would also be considered hearsay three hours after the shooting. 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 atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. I'll continue, though, with the state's response. quote, the court ultimately precluded any statements by Alexander Cox to the police from both when the police first arrived 47 minutes after the shooting as well as the statements he made at the police station a couple hours after the murder. The state also objected to and the court sustained as hearsay any testimony regarding Alex Cox walk through with police nearly eight hours after the shooting. Detective Daniel Kuhn was noticed by the state as an expert witness to discuss the trajectory of the shots at the crime scene. during his testimony.

Coons' testimony, the state asked Detective Daniel Coons, if based upon his training experience the location of the casings, projectiles, bullet strikes, and injuries to Charles Vallow, if he could determine an approximate location of where the shooter would have been standing when the two shots were fired. And Detective Daniel Coons then provided his opinion that the shooter would have been standing in the area between the curved wall, kitchen, and hallway.

The defendant never established. a foundation that any statements made by Alex Cox or Tiley Ryan hours after the shooting were admissible under any of the Arizona rules of evidence. The testimony of Alex Cox and Tiley Ryan were appropriately precluded as hearsay. During his testimony, Detective Daniel Coons gave his opinion as to the approximate location of the shooter based upon his training experience in the physical evidence to include the location of the casings, projectiles, bullet strikes, the location of the injuries to Charles Vallow and the wound path trajectory through Charles Vallow. Detective Daniel Cunes did not ever indicate that his opinion was based on the statements or walkthrough of the defendant's co-conspirator, end quote.

You probably all remember that Lori really wanted to bring in Tiley's interview right after Charles Vallow was shot and killed. And in fact, Trina K had to argue in the pretrial hearing that one cannot use state. made by someone that they are convicted of killing to argue their case. And honestly, I couldn't agree more. Imagine her being convicted of killing her own 16-year-old daughter, Tiley Ryan, and then using her statements to defend her case. You simply can't use statements made by someone that you are convicted of killing to argue your case. And the judge ultimately sided with the state in that pretrial hearing.

They agreed with Trina Kay. But clearly, Lori is still going to argue that she should have been allowed to use Tiley's statements, her murder daughter's statements, which go hand in hand with her need to always blame Tiley for everything. It's a pattern we've seen. And now we have also realized she blamed Tiley for everything while Tiley was alive. And now she is blaming Tiley for everything now that she has murdered her. It's despicable.

In fact, I would say it's probably the most. most despicable thing about Lori Valo Debel, in my opinion, the thing that makes me just more and more appalled at this convicted felon, this convicted murderer. In fact, I think that this is where Judge Boreski was decently patient with Lori. Because despite that pretrial ruling that she absolutely could not use any statements made by her murder daughter, Tiley, Lori defied the judge's order by continuing and continuing to attempt to use Tiley throughout her own trial. And as the judge would object, Lori would continue a blatant disregard for this ruling. In fact, let's play a clip from the trial just to show you how blatant Lori's disregard was for this ruling. Take a listen.

How long did you interview Tiley for? I believe we talked for about similar amount of time, 30, 40 minutes. At the time that day on July 11th, did you believe, Tyley? I'm going to object. Sustain. With your experience in interviewing, forensically interviewing children, did you think Tyley's demeanor was genuine that day? I'm going to object to speak.

Speculation. Sustained. Did you have a reason to think that she might be making something up? I'm gonna object again. Sestration. Sustained. Did you learn during Tiley's interview? I'm gonna object right there to hear say.

Sustain. Did you learn during my interview that Tiley came in with the bat? I did. And was that confirmed by Tiley? I'm gonna object, Your Honor, pre-trial ruling hearsay. Your Honor, can we have a sidebar? No, that's hearsay. It's sustained.

The disregard for that ruling that I think most of us can all agree on was so blatant to try to use, again, her murdered daughter over and over and over again. So for her to now claim that she should have been able to do that, and her reason for a pretrial is admittedly upsetting to me. We will now move on to Lori's third reason that she asked for a retrial. is what Lori deemed as a discovery violation. Lori had essentially claimed that while the state produced this gray key information for Charles's phone during trial, gray key is a tool used for cell phone extraction. So while the state had produced this gray key information for Charles's phone during trial, the defense, aka Lori, had been requesting her own extraction of Charles's phone so that she could

give it to Lonnie Dworkin. Lonnie Dorkman was going to be Lori's cell phone expert witness during the trial. Lonnie also happened to be Jody Arias's computer expert. But Lori was not able to complete this extraction in time to use during the trial. And Lori is so passionate about the evidence that she claims is on Charles' phone. She actually claims that the gray key extraction is considered exculpatory evidence. Well, the sculptory evidence is evidence that tends to exonerate the defendant completely. showing that Lori would not be guilty of the crime she is accused of, and that is pretty bold.

Lori is so confident that if she could get her own cell bright extraction of Charles's phone, that it could show Lori is completely innocent, that she did not conspire to murder her husband, Charles Valo. And for clarification, because that is kind of confusing, gray key is a tool used in cell phone extractions. Cell bright extractions are done by law enforcement using gray shift. Gray key. And so what Lori is wanting for her trial was her own personal cell bright extraction done on Charles's phone. She made it very clear that she wanted this over anything else, over everything else in pre-trial hearing. She literally was like, there's one piece of evidence

I really want for my trial. And it is my husband or former husband because she conspired to murder him, former husband's cell phone. And I have to say, say, though, just to be fair, it is very fair that Lori wanted her own cell phone extraction of Charleston. Defendants deserve their own evidence, and defendants deserve to do their own testing of the state's evidence and not to rely on simply what the state says in their discovery. But the question here is if Lori could not get her own extraction in time for this trial, would this then equate and mean that there was a discovery violation? that she deserves a complete retrial.

Well, the state does not think so. They are actually adamant that it is not a discovery violation. And their response to Lori's motion claiming a discovery violation, they state, quote, on January 9th, 2024, the state disclosed the cell bright cell phone download for Charles Vallow's iPhone to the defendant. On January 13th, 2024, so 2024, on January 13th, 2020,

we're talking over a year ago. January 2024, the state filed States notice of disclosure and request for disclosure. This notice advised the defendant that the state would use any evidence arising out of Chandler

Police Department report, any information relevant to the case obtained from Cellbright downloads, and that, quote, all requests to examine or scientifically test items of evidence must be in writing. So for nearly a year and a half, the state said, this is how you're going to need to get your own evidence, and you must have this in writing. And the state continues, quote,

on March 12th, 2025, so now a year and two months after, March 12th, 2025, defendant filed a supplemental rule 15.2 notice of disclosure, where she noticed an expert, Lonnie Dworkin. Defendant never provided the state any notice regarding Dworkin's testimony. On March 13, 2025, the state was advised that Dworkin had not begun work. This is just a couple weeks before Lori's trials about to begin. On March 16th, 2025, the state filed state's motion to preclude defense expert Lonnie Dworkin and preclude noticed witnesses. The state filed a separate statement in support of Rule 15.7, sanctioned.

due to the late and incomplete notice of defense expert Lonnie Dworkin, end quote. And I just want to pause here and say that this notice of expert issue was something that kept coming up. Even in pretrial hearings, the judge was reminding Lori that she was supposed to give notice of experts 30 days prior to the trial. He was basically giving Lori extensions, and she just couldn't seem to figure out how to get it done. And she would say, you know, this is hard for me. I'm behind bars. And right before the trial began, Judge Boreski then asked if Lori wanted a continuance, understanding the hardships of representing yourself behind bars.

So would you want a continuance, Lori, then, to get this done? Meaning, did Lori want to push her trial back in order to have time to get her own cell phone extraction of Charles' phone? And Lori declined. She did not want to waive her right to a speedy. trial, not even for evidence that she considered would completely exonerate her, in her own words. And the judge was even willing to introduce this evidence during trial. Like that, in my opinion, is, I would have said no if I had been Judge Boreski.

But he was even willing to introduce this evidence during trial if Lori was able to get it together. And in the midst of it, if Lori could pull this off, then he would still allow the cell phone extraction in. And we're going to get to that in just a bit. I will come back to this. But first, the state's motion goes on to essentially address what I was saying above, stating, and I will read directly from it now. Quote, on March 18, 2025, the defendant was asked by the court about Lonnie Dworkin. The defendant was advised that she could request a continuance to allow time for her expert to review the victim cell phone. The court further advised,

the defendant that anything the expert discovered could potentially be precluded. The defendant advised she wanted to proceed with trial instead of seeking a continuance to allow her expert time to review the victim's cell phone. The defendant advised that she would like her expert to review Charles's Charles Vallow's actual cell phone. This was the first time the defendant requested access to this item of evidence. On March 18, 2025, the state emailed a stipulation to the defendant's investigator, regarding the release of Charles Vallow's cell phone to defense expert Lonnie Dworkin to allow the expert to extract the cell phone. Jury selection for trial began on March 31st, 2025.

And the cell phone was returned to the Chandler Police Department on April 3, 2025, end quote. It goes on to state, quote, on April 7, 2025. April 7, 2025 was like during trial. while the state and defendant were presenting evidence and testimony in trial, the defendant emailed a motion to dismiss for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The motion provided no facts to support that any exculpatory evidence even existed. Like, there's no evidence here that can even show us that this is so needed, Lori.

No exculpatory evidence even existed the state claims. I'll continue reading. nor did it provide any facts to support prosecutorial misconduct. Attached to the motion was an affidavit from defense expert Lonnie Dworkin requesting the raw data from the gay key extraction of, among other items, Charles Vallow's cell phone. The defendant's expert did not advise that exculpatory evidence existed. It only provided that newer versions of Cellbrite might be able to locate additional data that was unable to be located in the 2019 and 2020 versions of Cellbrite. 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 atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. On April 10, 2025, the state provided defendant with a thumb drive containing the gray key raw data for Charles Valaf cell phone, iPad, and MacBook to give to their defense expert Lonnie Dworkin. So the raw data for Charles Valaf cell phone, iPad, and MacBook to give to their defense expert. The state has not received any reports, notes, affidavits, or information relating to Lonnie Dworkin's review of his extract. of Charles Vallow's cell phone or his analysis of the gray key raw data. The state has not received any information advising that any exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defendant.

Instead, defendant's motion for a new trial makes a conclusion without any support that the gray key raw data contained exculpatory evidence, end quote. So some of you may remember that during trial, while the jury was, out of the room. So jury not there. The gray key thing did get brought up. And I said I would mention this in a bit. So here we are, full circle. We're back. So during trial, the jury out of the room, gray key thing gets brought up. Well, here we are. So in the middle of the trial, the judge is still being super patient in my personal opinion, with Lori wanting her own extraction of Charles's cell phone. And Lori and her investigator are claiming during this moment that they could not access the

gray key data. Well, it turns out that Lori did receive the extraction back as the state just claimed there in their response, but she didn't realize that the raw data that she requested from Gay-key, gray key was simply that, that it was raw. She couldn't read it. Raw data means you can't just read it. It doesn't come out in like a scripted form if it's raw data. It would need to be analyzed using cell bright tools and forensic experts needed to analyze the data and to make sense of it, to put it in a form where a human being can actually read it, to make sense of it. And well, the judge said during the trial, paraphrasing here, look, I've given you a lot of leeway. It's simply too late. But if you can get the extraction, I'll let you use it in your next trial,

which is the upcoming trial where she is accused of conspiracy in the attempted murder of her nephew-in-law, Brandon Boudreau. So the state goes on to cite case law in this argument. They cited Brady v. Maryland, which says, quote, under Brady, the state must disclose all material exculpatory evidence, end quote. They also cited United States versus Bagley, which states, quote, evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different, end quote. The motion goes on to finish this point by stating, quote, in this case, the defendant did not provide the state in writing a request to examine the gray key raw data

for the extraction of Charles Valo's cell phone until April 7, 2025. Upon this request, the state provided this data. Furthermore, the defendant has not provided any documentation to support the claim that the gray key raw data included any exculpatory information that was not part of the cell bright data that was disclosed to the defendant on January 9th, 2024. Defendant's motion does not support a Brady violation or any violation of disclosure by the state end. So in other words, the state is pretty much saying, look, we have given you ample opportunities to get your own extraction. The judge has given you apple opportunities. and while you are absolutely allowed as a defendant to do your own testing on the evidence that is in discovery,

you haven't for a year and a half, nor have you put your request in writing, nor have you even proven that there is exculpatory evidence available in this alleged extraction that you want. Moving on to Lori's fourth reason, she requested a new trial, prosecutorial misconduct. Lori claimed a number of things rose to prosecutorial misconduct, which it's a big claim. And these included claiming that Captain Keller made a statement that was irrelevant and prejudicial, claiming that Trina said false things in her closing, 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 did show her having a motion, according to her. She really wanted the jury to see that moment where she pulled a Kleenex out of the tissue box. A motion. Quote, quote, emotion. Well, the state is having none of this. In their response, the state's motion started by saying, quote, On April 8, 2025, the state elicited from retired Captain Kent Keller a statement made by the defendant while she was standing across the street from her rental house approximately an hour after her brother shot and killed her husband. A statement made by the defendant was admissible under 801D2 as a statement by party opponent.

Furthermore, the statement was relevant to show the defendant's demeanor during the investigation into the shooting of her husband, end quote. As for the closing arguments issue, the state responded by saying, quote, on April 21st, 2025, the court read the final jury instructions to the jury. The jury was advised in their opening statements that the prosecutor and defendant talked to you about the law and the evidence. In a few minutes, the prosecutor and defendant will give their closing arguments and we'll talk about the law and the evidence. What they say or say, what they said or say is not evidence. evidence because it is not sworn testimony, but it may help you to understand the law and evidence. During closing arguments on April 21st, 2025, the state made an argument to the jury about all three of the justification defenses, self-defense, defense of a third party, and crime prevention.

The defendant has intentionally mischaracterized one sentence, one sentence from the state's closing to claim prosecutorial misconduct. The state provided both facts and evidence, to support why the defendant was not entitled to self-defense, defense of a third party, and crime prevention. And during closing arguments on April 21st, 2025, the state made an argument to the jury based on Exhibit 210, 227, and Exhibit 222, that on July 9th, 2019, Alex Cox made plans to have his brother, Adam Cox, stay with him the night of July 10th, 2019. That was, again, the night before Charles Vall was murdered. Alex Cox's plans changed later that night of July 9th, 2019, when the defendant requested her co-conspirator Alex Cox stay close to her the next couple of days.

And the state's exhibits showed that Alex Cox did not answer his brother Adam Cox's calls or text at 3.22 p.m. and at 3.23 p.m. on July 10, 2019. Although the state did interview the defendant's sister, that would be summer, she told the state and Detective Duncan, that she spoke with Alex Cox the night of July 10th, 2019, and begged him to stay with the defendant, according to Summer Schifflett or Shislet, that she begged Alex Cox to stay that night. The state talked to her.

But the state, therefore, was able to infer that since Alex Cox did not respond to Adam Cox, hours before the defendant's sister spoke with him, that his plans to stay with the defendant were based upon his discussion with the defendant on July 9th, So looking at that entire all of the time codes, all of the time frame, all of the texts, what Summer Schiflett said, what Lori has said, and what the texts are saying, they were able to see from all of this evidence that his decision to stay at the defendant's

house was based on a discussion he had with the defendant on July 9th, 2019. And the state continues then. During closing arguments, the state made argument to the jury regarding the defendant's demeanor from the time she arrived at the scene almost an hour after the shooting through the time that she handed over the cell phone to Detective Inclan around 3 p.m. on the day of the shooting. Witnesses described the defendant on July 11, 2019 as chatty, nonchalant, and unaffected by her brother allegedly being struck with a baseball bat. her husband lying dead in her house and her children no longer having a father. The defendant's demeanor with law enforcement the day of the murder was in complete opposition to the defendant's demeanor during opening statements where the defendant attempted to testify as to facts that were never brought in by the defendant during the trial

and crying in front of the jury, end quote. The motion then quoted some case law before wrapping up with, quote, in this case, the defendant, excuse me, in this case, the state did not argue or raise any matters that the jury should not have considered. Each of the inferences and arguments made by the state during his closing argument were based upon the testimony of witnesses and evidence admitted at trial, end quote. And finally, the fifth argument from Lori's retrial motion, the court's lack of impartiality. There were a couple of arguments Lori had for this point. The first one had to do with witnesses, and she specifically listed both Idaho reporter Need Eaton and Brandon Boudreau in this argument, victim Brandon Boudreau in this argument. When Lori made it clear that she wanted both of them, both Brandon and me, on the witness list, the judge was essentially like, how are they relevant to this case, Lori?

How are they relevant? Why do you need them as witnesses? Well, Lori didn't seem to like that she had to prove relevancy. and she is now claiming that the judge made her give away her entire defense strategy. So somehow in Lori's mind, the judge asking how these two people are relevant because she wanted them to be witnesses is forcing her to play her hand and give up her entire defense strategy. One plus one equal six, according to Lori, sort of her M.O. Anyway, in response to this argument, the state's motion reads, quote, the state filed three separate motions to preclude the defendant's notice witnesses. After each motion filed by the state,

the court heard arguments as to the late notice, lack of the witnesses being made available to the state and their relevance to the trial. The court did not preclude most of the witnesses even after multiple requests by the state. One witness, the defense, one witness the defendant noticed. Nate Eaton is a reporter with no personal knowledge of the case. Mr. Eaton filed his own motion to be allowed to remain in the courtroom. Later, Mr. Eaton's attorney filed a motion with the court. The court heard argument by Mr. Eaton's lawyer and the defendant. Mr. Eaton's lawyer argued to remove Mr. Eaton from the defendant's list of witnesses and to allow him to remain in the courtroom during the trial. During this argument, the court asked the defendant why she needed Mr. Eaton,

a reporter for trial, and the defendant indicated that Mr. Eaton might be used to impeach a witness who testified. The court. court advised the defendant that she could impeach a witness with Mr. Eaton's recordings. The court also advised the defendant that if she felt Mr. Eaton became a necessary witness, he would reconsider his preclusion even if Mr. Eaton was in the courtroom during the testimony. The defendant never requested to call Mr. Eaton to impeach any witnesses, end quote. As the motion goes on to talk about Brandon Boudreau, stating, quote, the state filed two motions seeking to remove Brandon Boudreau

from the defendant's witness list as he is a listed victim. During trial, the parties interviewed Brandon Boudreau. In his interview, Mr. Boudreau advised he was not aware that Adam Cox was in town or that Charles and Adam were planning an intervention, which was a big part of the trial this intervention with Lori. Well, the state says that, quote, the defendant Lorry was unable to provide any other basis for calling Brandon as a witness. court struck Brandon Boudreau from the defendant's witness list without prejudice. Again,

advising the defendant that should Mr. Boudreau become relevant, the court would be open to hearing her argument. The defendant did not request that Brandon Boudreau testify, end quote. And for the second reason that Lori claims the court wasn't impartial, well, she claims that after the state objected to her cross-exam, the judge's response to that objection was not impartial. And honestly, this was an interesting part of Lori's motion for a retrial to me. So in other words, let's just lay this out here. And I'll explain what this is. Laurie claims that the court wasn't impartial because after the state objected to a cross examination that she was doing with a witness, the judges, and that was Serena Sharp,

the judge's response to that objection was not an impartial objection. More specifically, the judge told Lori, quote, I guess to the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures, I will allow it, end quote. We all remember this moment the judge said this because it was funny to us. As we were reporting, we agree that this was one moment that was underrated that Judge Boreski said. You know, it was funny. You don't always hear that in a trial.

file the judge saying, I guess to the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures, I will allow it, end quote. So in other words, during this cross-exam with Serena Sharpe, there's an objection by the state and the judge allows her to continue, but just as only to the extent that you're comparing yourself to these biblical figures. And Lori is now claiming that he is showing that he is impartial. Never mind that the judge did overrule an objection by the state and that he allowed Lori to still ask for questions. He actually overruled the state's objection. So the motion reads, quote, on April 10th, 2025, the defendant cross-examined Serena Sharp. The defendant asked the witness if several named people in the Bible were

translated. And the state objected to this as relevant. Why are you asking this witness if she believes that people are relevant? The court allowed the defendant to continue questioning the witness about this area. The defendant never asked Serena Sharp or any of the other three witnesses who were members of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints, who testified during the trial if they thought it was a, quote, regular part of the Mormon religion, end quote, for a current living person to be a translated being. Instead, the defendant merely asked one witness if there were people in the Bible who had been translated, end quote. The motion then cite some case law before wrapping up this point with quote. Here, the defendant has admitted

to the court that the court overruled the state's objection, but argues that one comment by the judge during the two-week trial somehow rises to the level of establishing by preponderance of the evidence that the judge was biased or prejudiced. Defendant has not shown by any level that she was denied a fair trial before an impartial judge, end quote. This episode sponsored by Forkful. Most meal delivery services promise healthy food, but look closer, and you'll often find cheap industrial seed oils hiding in the ingredients. Forkful does things differently.

Forkful delivers chef-prepared meals made with premium ingredients you'd expect at a great restaurant, from center-cut filet mignon to wild-caught lobster mac and cheese, and every meal. is 100% seed oil free. Instead of canola or soybean oil, Forkful chefs cook with extra virgin olive oil, avocado oil, and grass-fed butter, because better fats make better food. Meals arrive fresh, never frozen,

with clear nutrition and ingredient transparency, so you always know exactly what you're eating. Restaurant quality meals, real ingredients, no seed oils. Discover Forkful today at forkfulmeals.com. You know, this is interesting because I do personally feel Judge Boreski has been patient with Lori. She is not always prepared going into hearings. She can be argumentative. She needs guidance because she's simply not an attorney representing herself from behind bars.

And yet every hearing and all through trial, again, in my opinion, my observations being there, Boreski was patient. Judge Breske was patient or rather not dealing with her. and mostly just gray rocking her antics. And to use the term gray rock, different than gray key, gray rock, gray rocking, look it up. Judge Boreski definitely gray rocks Lori Valadevo. Some may even argue that Judge Breske has bordered on giving Lori legal advice to help her. The motion finally wraps up with one last paragraph that reads, quote,

defendant's motion for a new trial should be denied, since the evidence supports that juror 15 did not know about the defendant's prior felony convictions before reaching a verdict. The court properly excluded the hearsay testimony of Alex Cox and Teddy Ryan. The state's expert witness, Daniel Coons, relied upon the physical evidence at the scene and the autopsy of Charles Vallow to reach his conclusion as to the trajectory and general location of the shooter. There has been no discovery violation by the state. There has been no prosecutorial misconduct by the state.

And there is no evidence that the court was biased or prejudiced against the defendant, end quote. So there you go. It was, it was fiery. That was, they, they are wasting no time to put Lori in her place. This morning, a new order was put in the docket about Brandon, Budrow's upcoming trial that hidden true crime plans to attend. The judge is ordering Lori to file an updated list of witnesses specific to Branding's case no later than May 14th, 2020. That is coming up quickly. And this list of witnesses will be included on the juror questionnaires that will be going out for this new trial. Her third trial.

Not everyone gets three trials, well, but Lori does. And the reason she needs to do this now is because on March 6th, she filed a list of witnesses under both case numbers, as in the case for Charles and the case for Brandon. So it isn't clear which witnesses were for which case when she filed it originally. So it goes on to state, quote, additionally, given the defendant chooses not to call any of her notice witnesses in Charles's case, further clarification is required as to which witnesses may be applicable to this case, end quote. And lastly, we have seen an order come through from the court denying court TV's request for streaming modifications, a disappointment to me and I think all of us. So there will still be that 30 minute delay on everything,

even even the verdict. So minus the five, oh, excuse me, actually the verdict will have a five minute delay, but everything else besides the verdict, it's going to be a 30 minute delay still. So future Lauren will still be a thing at Lori's next trial, 30 minute future Lauren. So I'll be careful, though, not to share too much. As you watch from home on our hidden true crime live stream, not to give anything away that

happens that's too big of a bombshell so you can all watch in real time with me and with our hidden gems. The trial starts next month. And I want to say I am so grateful that six years later, Brandon Boudreau will finally have his opportunity for justice. He is truly lucky to still be alive, lucky to have a second chance at love and to be here as a husband and father raising his children. He is lucky. And it is going to be the first trial where we hear from the actual victim because he is still alive, to hear what he went through and to what he has suffered since that moment where he missed a bullet by inches. And for those interested in the Brandon Boudreau trial and everything, an important interview when it comes to Brandon's case. It's actually one of our most watched interviews on

Hidden True Crime as well as one of our first interviews at Hidden True Crime. And it is with Jess. We will have a link to that interview in the description of this episode. And for those wanting to understand Branden Boudreux in all of this and understand it, check out our backstory, our full story of the Lori Vallow Daybell case. Many people have asked me to do another Branden Boudreau episode. And I do plan to do that right before the trial to read through the charging documents, to get a good grasp. But if you want a good solid story and Brandon is involved in it and to understand where he plays in this, head to that backstory. It'll also be in the description of this of this video. Brandon is very important and he is lucky to be alive. Again, the link to Jess's

interview will be in the description of this episode, hit subscribe, hit notifications, as many of you are now aware. We don't always know when we're going to go live. Even when it comes to our wonderful sponsors who we love, they'll always want to know, when is this going to happen? What is your calendar for content? Tell us, and we always have to say, we can't tell you. We are news. News is new. We never know when we're going to be going live. Some episodes are planned. Others just hit subscribe and hit notifications and then you will be aware. Thank you, everyone, for being here. And once again, may justice be served for Brandon.

We'll see you. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off.

They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, 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 at aura.com slash remove.

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 at. 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.