Hidden True Crime - TRIAL DAY 8 | Lori Claims State Had MISTAKEN Facts | Lori Vallow Daybell

Episode Date: April 18, 2025

Day 8 was jury instructions and Lori's latest arguments.. Lauren is here to break everything down for you as we prepare for closing arguments on Monday! 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. I am not in my Airbnb anymore. I am actually at home with Dr. John. and our family. So after jury instructions, I jumped on the plane and flew back and here I am. And this is where I'll be spending Easter. And then I will be back in Phoenix for closing statements on Monday.

Well, let's get to it. Today, today was more interesting than I thought it was going to be. While there were many empty seats in the gallery today, in fact, when I walked in, many of the bailiffs and security guards who know me well from walking in every day, he said, really, you're here. No one else is here. You're the only one. And I thought, well, you never know what's going to happen when the defendant is a convicted murder. And when the defendant is Lori Balladebel, even jury instructions can be a little surprising. So I said, I'm here and I'm, we're going to find out what happens. And you know what? It was more interesting than I thought it would be.

Lori even wanted to argue or debate some of the things in the jury instructions. We'll get to it. There were many empty seats, though, as I pointed out, in the gallery today, as the judge, the state, and Lori were going to go over jury instructions. And as we know, the state rested yesterday. And as we also know, it was a little up in the air on whether Lori would rest as well. First she said yes, then she said maybe. Then she said, I'll let you know Monday.

It was a not-not rest. Well, however, today, Lori did clarify that she will be resting in front of the jury on Monday. And then closing statements will begin. So let's go through everything that was discussed today together. Because even though it's not the most exciting piece, this is a very important aspect of the trial. And these instructions are what the jury will use to arrive at their decision. Their verdict is Lori guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in the death of Charles. fallow or is she not the actual written instructions are not available to the public at this time so

all we could do was simply listen as they went through each page we could hear the headings for most of the instructions sections and we got to hear some of them more in detail if there were any objections so the first section was about the duty of the jury evidence to be considered and rulings of the court. No one had any objections to this instruction. Well, the second was about direct and circumstantial evidence, production of witnesses in evidence, and redacted exhibits. Prosecutor Trina had one objection on this page regarding the production of witnesses in evidence. Judge Boreski stated that this is a standard given when we've heard about people like J.J. Tiley, Alex Summer, Detective Moffitt, all of whom either weren't or couldn't be called to testify.

at trial. Part of me still wishes the jury would have asked why Tiley wasn't called to testify. I wish that so much. But maybe they have figured out the reason on their own. We don't know. The instruction states that neither side is required to call every single person that's mentioned throughout the trial and in evidence. Trina said that she hasn't seen that included as an instruction before and was concerned that it could be interpreted that the defense doesn't ever need to present any witnesses. Lori said that she agreed and the judge decided to remove that portion of the instruction. Well, the next portion stated that an indictment is not evidence and discussed defendants who represent themselves, Allah Lori, Ballow DeBal, a defendant who represents

themselves. Judge Boreski said that he changed the language in this instruction because Lori is actually representing herself. So instead of saying the attorneys, they will now say the prosecutor and defendant will talk to you about the law and the evidence. And neither side had any objections to this change by Judge Boreski. The next section discussed credibility of witnesses and testimony from law enforcement officers and expert witnesses. There again were no objections. Judge Boreski stated that in the next instruction, they should keep the portion that says, quote,

defendants need not testify, end quote. Well, Lori asked if they could add the statements made by the defendant were voluntary. And Judge Boreski and Trina agreed. It wasn't a bad request. by Lori. And the next section stated that the jury should not consider the penalty of Lori, perhaps not testifying when making their decision. And again, there were no objections. In another, it stated that the law does not require a defendant to prove their innocence. Every defendant is presumed by law to be innocent. The jury should start with the presumption

that the defendant is innocent and that the state has the burden of proof to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof, beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced. And again, this is important because this really is, I think, Lori Valadevilles, in her minds, her defense, that the less she says and the less she's questioned, and if she doesn't testify, then she is leaning on the hopes that the jury thinks that the state did not prove

you know, did not meet their burden of proof that she is guilty of conspiring to kill her husband Charles Vallow. So this really is Lori's hope that because the jury has to presume her innocent, she's going to be good to go if, you know, again, the state didn't meet their burden. Well, after this, the judge began going through three sections at a time to help move things on a little bit quicker. And in one instruction regarding evidence, Trina did have an objection about a portion that state of the defendant is acting with the advice of an attorney. And in this case, Lori is her own attorney. So Trina asked for that portion to be removed. The judge agreed and the new instruction will read, quote, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. The defendant is not required to produce any evidence of any kind. The decision on whether to produce any evidence is left up to. to the defendant. The defendant's decision not to produce any evidence is not evidence of guilt, end quote. The next instruction discussed was pertaining to the charged offense, the definition of first degree meditated murder, and the definition of premeditation. There were no objections

for these, and the next instruction was pertaining to the definition of accomplices, elements of conspiracy, proof of conspiracy, and proof of membership in conspiracy. Next, some changes were made to an instruction about justifications for self-defense. This was interesting to me. Trina stated that since Charles was actually paying for the rental house, like his name was on the lease at the house. Intrusion could not be used as a justification for self-defense. Like he didn't intrude into Lori's house.

His name was on the lease. And the judge agreed because the judge also said, look, even if he wasn't living at the house, he was invited into the house to pick up his little boy for school. There was no intrusion. And so the judge removed that portion. He added in a few more justifications like defense against deadly physical force, defense of a third person, and self-defense to prevent a crime. He went on to read the next portion of the jury instructions, which said, quote,

if the state is required to prove the defendant acted knowingly, that requirement is satisfied if the state proved the defendant acted intentionally. A defendant is criminally accountable for the conduct of another if the defendant is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense. An accomplice means a person who would intend to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense or does any of the following. solicits another person to commit the offense, aides, councils, or agrees to aid, or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing the offense,

or provides means or opportunity to another person to commit the offense, end quote. And, well, there were no objections to this portion from either side. Well, in the next portion of the jury instructions, Lori asked for a rule to be added regarding, quote, ignorance or mistake of fact. And quote. Well, Judge Boreski read the meaning, which said ignorance or a mistaken belief as a matter of fact does not relieve a person of criminal liability unless the ignorance or a mistaken belief as to a matter of fact negates the culpable state required for the commission of the offense or the ignorance or the mistaken belief as to the matter of fact establishes a defense of justification. end quote. Well, the judge asked Lori what other mistake of fact she believed should be added.

Well, let's listen to what Lori had to say. Take a listen. The mistake of fact that you think exists. Your Honor, it's mostly the mistaken of fact that have been presented as evidence in this case, like one shot versus two shot, you were being attacked, you weren't being attacked, thinks that the state is proposing that I'm denying. Well, you can deny those and you can argue that, but that's not really what is meant by a mistake of fact. It refers to a misunderstanding of the facts that would somehow negate any criminal liability. In other words, you'd have to be under a false belief about a fact.

I think an example might be if someone's breaking into your home or someone's coming in your home, you thought it was a burglar and you shoot them and it turns out to be. your spouse, that might be a mistake of fact. So a dispute as to what the facts are, what the facts mean wouldn't warrant this instruction unless you have something else. That was all. That was what I was thinking. Okay.

So that was really all they went through today in regards to jury instructions. And Judge Boreski asked them to read their new copies over the weekend, their new copies of the jury instructions to make sure everything is very. ready to go before closing arguments on Monday. That is, again, if Lori officially rests in front of the jury. And she doesn't all of a sudden say, wait, I want more field trips out of this. Wait, I want to testify. Let's prolong this trial a few more days. Don't think she's going to. She made that pretty clear that she plans to rest on Monday in front of the jury before closing arguments. But you never, ever know. So since Lori is playing,

planning on resting, though. Trina asked for anyone out who has been subpoenaed, but not yet called to be released as a witness. And Boreski agreed. They also decided that court will start at 10.30 on Monday. And they will make sure everything with the instructions for the jury is good to go before the jury arrives at 11 a.m. And after reading the instructions, court will break for lunch. And then closing arguments will begin at 1 p.m. on Monday. The last thing that was discussed today for Lori's was scheduling for Lori's other trial. So closing arguments are going to be Monday at 1 p.m. And then the other trial, as we know, there is going to be a third trial where she's charged

in the connection with the attempted murder of Brandon Boudreau. Well, Judge Voreski scheduled a pretrial conference for May 14th with the trial tentatively beginning on June 2nd. And Lori did have a little bit to say about the second trial occurring later into the summer. As you know, she doesn't want to waive her speedy trial rights and feels like there's never reason to slow anything down when it comes to her facing the next jury. So let's take a listen to a little bit of Lori objecting to this trial date for Brandon Boudreau. With that said, the current last day is May 11 on that trial.

So as defendant, want to make a record because I am going to exclude time. I know you object to the exclusion of time. I object to not having it by May 11th, correct. You want to? What? Do you have anything further than that? No, just that, yes, I would like to have my speedy trial by May 11th. All right.

Well, we screen the first trial through May 15th. we can't do, you can't do and the state can't do and I can't do two trials at the same time. Additionally, the state indicated they need to make arrangements for out-of-state witnesses to come well in advance of the trial. They're scheduling issues for myself. I'm out part of the week of May 19th. I'm out and coming back early the week of May 26th to do jury selection. Additionally, I guess the delay is of minimal prejudice given the current sentences that you're serving.

For all those reasons, the court will exclude time from May 11th. The new last day will be June 30th. So I guess Lori thinks that since this trial didn't take as long as any of us expected, me included, I'm certainly surprised that we're heading into closing arguments on Monday. Lori just assumes that since she hasn't waived her speedy trial rights, that they could just immediately jump right into the next trial, the one where she is charged with attempted murder of Brandon Boudreau. But that is not really how it works.

Of course, she doesn't have anything else to do with her time. But for other people, there are schedules to consider and logistical things that come into play, including the fact that the courthouse is used for many other reasons, many other court hearings, many other trials. Regardless, that was really all that took place today. It was a little hard to follow without being able to see and read along with the jury instructions, but we will hear them in depth on Monday and can take a look at those then,

as well as listening to closing statements. And some of you did notice that I snuck out a little bit early from jury selections. We were caught on camera doing that. It is true. I had a plane to catch, which is why I'm able to report tonight from my home. So, again, I will be here for Easter. For those of you, we have a long weekend. For those of you that want some reading, I suggested last night, and I suggested again,

we have thousands of pages of FOIA documents, evidence from Chandler, Arizona, and Gilbert, Arizona. Text between Lori and Alex, text between Alex and Summer, between Summer and Lori, between Zulama and Melanie Gibb and more. Charles, emails, Charles reaching out to Tammy, evidence, photographs. We have that all at patreon.com slash hidden two crime. When I read my evidence dumps, I actually put them over on Adobe Reader. I read my PDFs that way. But we have them all over at patreon.com slash hidden two crime if you want some weekend reading.

and the first one is pinned to the top of our Patreon right now, and then we have how to pull the other one's instructions there. Additionally, Dr. John, my better half or my other half, and co-host and husband has shared his thoughts on this trial this far, also over on Patreon. All right, guys, I am going to go hang out with my family, But that's the latest. Thank you, everyone.

All right. Have a very happy weekend, and I will be back in Arizona before closing statements on Monday. It should be interesting. Stick with me. We'll see you. May justice be served.

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.