Lori Vallow Trial Day 2: Juror Dismissed, Lori Gets Snappy!

Summary

Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield: Episode Summary

Episode Title: Lori Vallow Trial Day 2: Juror Dismissed, Lori Gets Snappy!

Release Date: April 9, 2025
Host: Ashleigh Banfield
Duration: [Approx. 20 minutes extracted from transcript]

---

Introduction

In this gripping second day of Lori Vallow's Arizona trial, Ashleigh Banfield delves deep into the courtroom drama, highlighting pivotal moments, unusual juror behavior, and Lori's contentious courtroom tactics. The episode offers listeners an insightful analysis of the unfolding legal battle, enriched with Banfield's seasoned perspective on true crime.

---

Juror Dismissal and Unusual Behavior

The day commenced with an unexpected twist as Juror Number Four was dismissed without any provided explanation. This sudden departure left the jury panel consisting of 12 men and two women. Banfield speculates potential reasons, ranging from personal emergencies to external influences, citing, "It could have been anything. Family emergency, sick. I can't do this. I can't be fair and balanced." ([02:30]).

Adding to the courtroom's peculiarity, a juror was observed using his phone during proceedings. When confronted, the juror revealed he was texting his daughter, who had suddenly woken up. Surprisingly, the judge did not impose any strict penalties, leading Banfield to remark on the evolving courtroom etiquettes: "Maybe times have really changed." ([04:50]).

---

Lori Vallow’s Self-Representation and Courtroom Demeanor

Lori Vallow's decision to represent herself has been a focal point of Day 2. Banfield describes her courtroom behavior as "cringe worthy" and likens her demeanor to that of a child, oscillating between giggling and a "tough guy" persona. This inconsistent behavior prompted multiple interventions from the judge to maintain courtroom decorum.

A standout moment occurred during Vallow's cross-examination of Firefighter Scott Cowden ([05:59]). When the judge objected to her questioning's relevance, Vallow responded with frustration:
Lori Vallow ([05:59]): "So do you think that your CPR class would be fairly successful if you had no visuals?"

This outburst led Banfield to highlight past descriptions of Vallow as "manipulative and that she gets her way by using her sexuality." ([06:17])

---

Key Witness Testimonies

1. Scott Cowden (Firefighter):
   Vallow's cross-examination probed the efficacy and potential complications of CPR administered by untrained individuals. While Cowden maintained the importance of attempting CPR regardless of training, Vallow's line of questioning veered into irrelevant territories, such as the type of scissors used to cut Charles's shirt.

2. Kent Keller (Retired Fire Captain):
   Keller provided a detailed account of the scene, noting clinical signs of post-mortem changes like modeling and lividity on Charles Vallow’s body. He also mentioned finding a baseball bat near the body, a crucial forensic detail given Charles's left-handedness, which contrasted with the bat's placement on his right side.

   A particularly damning revelation was Keller’s account of overhearing Vallow making a phone call during the incident:
   "Laurie uninviting somebody to a pool party because of all of this commotion at the house." ([12:45])

3. Daniel Coons (Retired Detective):
   Coons introduced advanced digital forensic evidence, including the Lizard Q Sphere, a 360-degree virtual reconstruction of the crime scene. This technology displayed the precise locations of evidence like the bat and blood patterns, challenging Vallow's self-defense claims by showing discrepancies in the narrative.

---

Juror Engagement and Unique Judicial Procedures

Arizona's unique allowance for jurors to ask questions during witness testimonies provided real-time insight into juror perspectives. Questions ranged from medical protocols to procedural queries, indicating a juror’s potential expertise or personal interests:
"Why was Charles not given ephedrine? Was ACLS protocol followed?"

Banfield appreciates this rare procedural element, stating, "It's awesome because you can get a feel for a jury and what they're thinking in real time all the way through the trial." ([13:30])

---

Host's Personal Anecdotes and Reflections

Midway through the episode, Banfield shares her excitement about receiving a jury summons, reflecting on her dedication to civic duty and her eagerness to experience jury service firsthand. While this segment provides a personal touch, it diverges from the core trial analysis and offers listeners a glimpse into Banfield's personal life and values.

---

Courtroom Tensions and Evidence Challenges

Post-lunch proceedings saw Vallow challenging the state's evidence extraction processes. She alleged a "discovery violation" regarding the incomplete extraction of Charles's cell phone data. The prosecution countered by asserting proper procedures were followed using standard software. Vallow's persistent claims led her to request a hearing for her investigator to testify, a motion the judge has yet to rule on ([14:30]).

Further, Vallow disrespected courtroom protocols by making unsolicited remarks about forensic evidence, such as questioning the scaling of crime scene diagrams. Her instigating behavior culminated in multiple objections from the judge, emphasizing her struggle with legal procedures.

---

Digital and Forensic Evidence Presentation

Detective Coons showcased extensive digital forensic evidence, including detailed crime scene diagrams and high-resolution photographs. These visuals aimed to dismantle Vallow's self-defense narrative by demonstrating inconsistencies in the timeline and physical evidence. Notably, the presence of blood on Charles's left hand suggested he was alive after the initial gunshot, contradicting claims of immediate incapacitation.

Banfield underscores the significance of this evidence in the trial, noting, "The forensics tell the story." ([16:45])

---

Conclusion and Upcoming Proceedings

As Day 2 concluded, tensions remained high with ongoing disputes over evidence and Vallow's courtroom conduct. Banfield teased future episodes, promising a full recap of Day 3, and encouraged listeners to engage via subscriptions and comments.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Ashleigh Banfield ([02:30]): "It could have been anything. Family emergency, sick. I can't do this. I can't be fair and balanced."

• Lori Vallow ([05:59]): "So do you think that your CPR class would be fairly successful if you had no visuals?"

• Ashleigh Banfield ([06:17]): "This kind of reminds me of descriptions that I've heard in the past from people who know Laurie that she is manipulative and that she gets her way by using her sexuality."

• Ashleigh Banfield ([13:30]): "It's awesome because you can get a feel for a jury and what they're thinking in real time all the way through the trial."

• Ashleigh Banfield ([14:30]): "Laurie decided to clap back in frustration at the judge."

• Ashleigh Banfield ([16:45]): "The forensics tell the story."

---

Final Thoughts

Day 2 of the Lori Vallow trial, as dissected by Ashleigh Banfield, unveils a courtroom brimming with unexpected developments, from juror peculiarities to the defendant's tumultuous self-representation. The presentation of advanced forensic evidence underscores the prosecution's robust case, while Vallow's challenges highlight the complexities of self-representation in high-stakes trials. Listeners are left anticipating the subsequent days, eager to witness how these dynamics will unfold.

---

Stay tuned for Day 3 recap on April 16, 2025. Subscribe to "Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield" for comprehensive coverage of legal dramas and true crime investigations.

Transcript

[Lori Vallow]

Foreign.

[Ashley Banfield]

Hi, everybody. Welcome back to Drop Dead Serious. I'm Ashley Banfield and today we're diving into day two of Lori Valo's Arizona trial where she's defending herself against charges of conspiracy to commit murder in the shooting death of her fourth husband, Count Him, 4, Charles Fallow. Let me just give you a bit of an overview for how the day went. I think the word of the day might be cringe, especially if you do this for a living, like you follow trials, legal criminal procedure. And then you see somebody who thinks she knows better trying to defend herself in court and actually get up and act like a lawyer in the well. And you know what, it's really hard to do that. So it was cringe worthy. The number of times the judge had to school her, stop her, and how she just kind of behaved. I hate to say this in a girlish kind of way, like a child. Anyway, she would go back and forth between giggling and tough guy, which, you know, doesn't endear you to anybody. Today she was a little better in terms of holding back on the eye rolling and the head shaking, which is never a good idea either if you're going to be a professional lawyer in a courtroom. Also, something we saw today, which I love and I almost never get to see it, it's super rare, is in this jurisdiction. In Arizona, jurors are allowed to ask questions during the actual testimony part of the case, like the evidentiary part of the case you've always heard about. You know, a jury has a question while they're deliberating. But in Arizona, you're allowed as a juror to ask questions of the witnesses while they're on the stand. Like, first you got to get through direct, right? And then cross examination and then it's the jury's turn and they just submit their questions in writing. Super cool. But you really start to get an idea of like, what jurors are thinking. Right. The other weird thing that happened today, and this is new to me, is that a juror was on the phone. I know, it sounds crazy, right? A sitting jury panel and a juror is actually like texting on his phone. So what I would think would happen in a situation like that is that the judge would go bananas. There'd be an admonishment, put your phones away. They should be back like outside the jury box. But no, it didn't happen. The judge actually did ask the juror, you know, what are you doing? Are you googling? And the juror had an answer. And I will tell you in a moment what that was. But just super weird that there wasn't some big, catastrophic meltdown about a juror having a phone in the jury box. So maybe they're allowed to have them in their pockets. Just not allowed to Google. And then another juror got bounced. Two more jurors were asked questions. So it was a bit active today. I want to get right into it. Court opened up with a shift in the jury box. Juror number four out, dismissed. And the weird part is we didn't get any explanation. No one in the courtroom was treated to the reason why. Just gonzo. Could have been anything. Family emergency, sick. I can't do this. I can't be fair and balanced. I didn't realize. It also could have been that that juror saw some news and admitted to it or Googled something accidentally. Could have been a lot of things. But that juror's gone. So that leaves 12 men and two women seated in judgment of Lori Valo. But we're down alternates, right? Like, this is not good, but it is what it is. And just before the first witness could take the stand, another juror raised an issue. He told the judge in the case, Justin Bereski, that he had actually seen the body cam footage that had been played in court the day before, but that he had seen it on YouTube before the trial began. He insisted that he did not search it out. He hadn't done any research since being on the panel. But the judge said that he was inclined to let this juror stay, and both sides agreed. So that issue was done with. And then the jury was brought in for Lori to begin her cross examination of the last witness that was still on the stand from the day before, and that was Chandler firefighter Scott Cowden. This witness matters because he gave CPR to Charles Vallow when he got to the scene. And on day one, he testified that he believed he was the first person to perform CPR because of the way Charles body was reacting, how it felt when he began those chest compressions, sort of like a crunching, cracking sort of feeling. And that's important because Alex Cox, Laurie's brother and the guy who shot Charles had been on the phone to 91 1, assuring them that he'd been performing CPR on Charles. So Laurie decided to cross examine and drill this firefighter on cpr. How hard is it for someone who's never done it before? Could it make things worse if the person is already seriously injured? The firefighter calmly explained that CPR is difficult without training. Yes, but if a Person's heart isn't beating. The goal is to try always. But Laurie also asked completely irrelevant questions, like what kind of scissors did you use to cut open the shirt that Charles was wearing? And as the questioning continued, Laurie was interrupted with an objection from the prosecution, and the judge had to school her on what she was doing wrong. And clearly this did not sit well with Lori because she decided to clap back in frustration at the judge. So here's that moment.

[Lori Vallow]

So do you think that your CPR class would be fairly successful if you had no visuals?

[Judge]

Objection. Relevance. Speculation.

[Witness]

Next question.

[Lori Vallow]

I got it, your honor.

[Ashley Banfield]

Laurie's tone shifted palpably once that little moment ended. And she reverted back to a flirtatious little girly voice that she has used in past proceedings. And I gotta say, this kind of reminds me of descriptions that I've heard in the past from people who know Laurie that she is manipulative and that she gets her way by using her sexuality. So the next witness up was Kent Keller, recently retired captain with the Chandler fire department. He responded to the shooting and he described what he saw in meticulous detail. He remembered hearing over the radio that CPR was in progress, but when they arrived, no one was performing it. And he echoed Scott Cowden's testimony that there were no signs that CPR had ever been attempted by Alex Cox or anybody else. Keller testified that Charles Vallow was showing signs of both modeling and lividity. And those are two clinical indications that the body has been lying still for some time. Lividity is the pooling of blood in the body due to gravity. Modeling is the blotchy discoloration caused by lack of oxygen. And both of these conditions take time to develop, and both of them were present in Charles Vallow. This witness also described what else was found at the scene. A baseball bat and a ball cap near Charles's body. Noticeably, the bat was on his right hand side. And guess what? Charles was left handed. This might have been a small detail, but it is a critically important detail right in forensics. And then a strange moment. Kent Keller, who again was the fire captain with the Chandler fire department, remembered overhearing something along the lines of Laurie uninviting somebody to a pool party because of all of this commotion at the house. And this happened while Charles body was still lying on the floor. Let's just stop for a minute and think about that. The fire responder hears Laurie on the scene of a death of her husband on the phone uninviting somebody to a pool party. That I think it Just speaks for itself, right? That's an amazing little piece of detail that is not going to sit well with a jury. So this is when Laurie stood up again to start her cross examination, and she asked about body temperature and time of death and how quickly lividity and modeling can appear. Could they happen in just a few minutes? Captain Keller reminded her that estimating time of death is not part of the fire department's training. He wasn't qualified to give that answer. And when she asked whether CPR had definitely not been given, he admitted that he couldn't say for sure, but he also said he couldn't say if it had been. So in a very cool aspect, as I mentioned, of trial procedure in Arizona, this is an opportunity now where jurors can ask questions of their own. They get to question these witnesses. It doesn't happen in every jurisdiction. In fact, this is super, super rare. I've only seen it a few times in my career. But it's awesome. It's awesome when it happens because you can get a feel for a jury and what they're thinking in real time all the way through the trial. And the lawyers, they pay really close attention to what these jurors are saying and what they're thinking, all revealed by what they're asking. So these jurors asked why Charles wasn't given ephedrine, whether ACLS protocol had been followed, and that stands for advanced Cardiac Life support. And they asked if fire personnel are allowed to call a death right there at the scene. This does not take a rocket scientist or even a lawyer to guess that somebody on this jury probably has some medical knowledge. Maybe one of the jurors is an emt, maybe a nurse, maybe even a doctor or a firefighter, or maybe it's somebody like me. I actually have some Red Cross CPR training, so I might actually want to ask questions like that if I were on a jury. This is where I'm going to stop down from the Laurie trial and tell you that I have received a jury summons, and next week, I am being called for jury duty. And I am, like, super excited. Everybody I work with thinks I'm super nerd, right? Because I love this. I am an American by request and by good fortune. Not because I was born here. I was born in Canada. I became a citizen, and I am really pious about being a citizen here. I think it's really important to do service to our country, give back. And you can do that in a number of different ways. You can go down to your, you know, your nearest army Depot, and you can enlist, you can pick up a gun, and you can serve your country in a war zone, or you can do jury duty and you can get a latte before you go there, and you can have sushi for lunch. So I think this is a really, really easy way to serve your country. Plus, I'm just, like, super interested in what it's like to be on a jury. I have never been. I've been called up four times, and I always am excused for some reason or the other before they even ask me a question. Oh, we've run out of time today. The pool can go home or. Oh, we got the address wrong. You can go home. Oh, we canceled for today and we didn't get you the message last night. I've had all these things happen, but I've never actually gotten to voir dire, so I really can't wait. I don't think they're going to pick me because I'm a crime reporter, but maybe they will because I really think I can be impartial and fair because I understand this process and I understand how important it is. All right, let's get back to the courtroom. They broke for lunch. They gave everybody an hour and a half break. But before the jury came back in after lunch, Lori made a big accusation against the the state about what she said was a discovery violation. She said that the state hadn't turned over a complete extraction of Charles Valow's cell phone. The state argued back, saying that the extraction had been done properly using standard cellbrite software and that the full report had been shared with her team. But Lori insisted it was cherry picked, and she asked for a hearing to have her very own investigator testify so that he could explain her concerns a little more clearly. And the judge took it under advisement. But decision on that has been made yet, so stay tuned on that. And then right after that, there was another issue with a juror. The judge was advised that a juror had been seen using his cell phone during testimony right before the juror questions actually came in. So Judge Beski addressed it directly, and the juror admitted he had been using his phone, but only to text his daughter, who had been asleep and texted her dad to say that she woke up. The judge reminded him about protocol and allowed him to remain on the panel, but weirdly, never said anything about jurors having their phones in the jury box and didn't tell anyone to stay off their phones either, which I think is just really, really weird. I say that because I once got chewed out as a reporter in the back of a courtroom for chewing gum. And it was like a small piece of gum, you know, like a trident or something. Because I just had coffee breath. I wasn't like smacking or blowing bubbles or anything, Just small piece of trident to deal with the coffee breath and writing my notes in the back of the courtroom. But this was back in the mid-80s, when I was a cub reporter in Winnipeg, Canada. So to hear that a juror is using his cell phone in the jury box, and the jury wasn't admonished to put their phones away or even not have their phones in the jury box, maybe times have really changed. I don't know. Later in the afternoon, the state called Daniel Coons. He's retired detective with the Chandler police department. He has sniper training. And he responded to the valo emergency after the shooting. He created a full diagram of the scene which was introduced into evidence. And that's when Laurie piped up and said that if the diagram wasn't to scale, it wasn't helpful. But she didn't raise a formal objection on the record.

[Judge]

Your honor, the state will move to admit Exhibit 5.

[Witness]

Any objection?

[Lori Vallow]

If it's not to scale, I don't know how it will be helpful, but no objection.

[Witness]

All right, Exhibit five is admitted.

[Ashley Banfield]

Again, she just made this rando statement in open court, which did not sit well with the judge. And I'll explain what happened and why in a moment. But then came the technology. Detective Coons showed the jury something called a lizard Q sphere. I know it sounds weird, but it is a 360 degree image that allows investigators to move through a crime scene virtually. And this one showed exactly where Charles Vallow's body had been lying. It showed where the bat was. It shows where the ball cap had landed. Laurie didn't react to any of this digital evidence. She just sat back in her chair, occasionally glancing at her attorney and avoiding eye contact with the gallery. And the photos continued, More than a hundred of them. Photos of the house, photos of the body, photos of the blood of the bat, which curiously, was pristine, totally clean, with no visible biological evidence on it. And again, this was the bat that Laurie and her brother claimed Charles had used to clock Alex in the back of the head and cause a deep gash before Alex shot him in self defense. And then the prosecutor showed a close up image of Charles left hand. They said blood on his hand showed that he was alive after the first shot, that he used that hand to clutch the gunshot wound, bloodying that hand before he died. A Photo of the wood floor after his body had been moved was shown. And it showed a pool of Charles Fallow's blood. Another photo of the floor showed a mark where a bullet caused a defect in that same part of the floor. And a piece of the actual hardwood was cut out from the floor and entered into evidence. And that's really important here because don't forget, the story goes that Alex Cox told the investigators he shot Charles Valo in self defense. Right. But if Charles Vallow was on the floor and the gunshots, as we heard yesterday, were in such a position that he had been on the floor when he was shot, and if those bullets are lodged into the floor, it means that Alex shot him when he was on the floor, the floor, that is not self defense anymore. Right. The self defense ends when you can get away, when you have diminished the threat. But if you do like the shot to finish him off, that is no longer self defense. That is murder. That's just the way it works. The forensics tell the story. After the state was finished with Detective Coon's testimony, was only about 30 minutes left remaining in court for this day. So Lori told the judge that this was going to be an important cross examination. She didn't want to be interrupted. And she asked if she could start her cross examine, her cross examination the next day. But the judge, he was not having it. He said, no, there's still time on the clock, so move ahead with your cross examination. So Laurie had to. And she asked more irrelevant questions about searching the backyard, about the difference between a semi automatic gun and a revolver. Newsflash, there was no revolver used in this crime. She asked if someone being attacked should aim for center mass. Detective Koons told her, yes, that is standard police training to aim for center mass. But perhaps Laurie was trying to suggest that if Alex was going to murder Charles, he'd have aimed for center mass. But Alex was no cop. And then Lori got hammered with a bunch of objections.

[Lori Vallow]

So were you there at the time when Alex did the walkthrough?

[Witness]

Yes, ma'am.

[Lori Vallow]

And so you were there. Did he describe where he was standing?

[Judge]

Objective hearsay.

[Witness]

Sustained.

[Lori Vallow]

Did he show you physically where he was standing?

[Judge]

Object to hearsay.

[Witness]

Sustain.

[Lori Vallow]

Was there a wall right next to where he was standing?

[Judge]

Objective hearsay.

[Witness]

Sustain.

[Lori Vallow]

The matter asserted upstate.

[Witness]

He.

[Lori Vallow]

He observed this person standing in that place.

[Witness]

Well, you can ask him if he observed Mr. Cox standing in that place.

[Lori Vallow]

Okay. Did you observe Mr. Cox standing in the room where he told you that the gun was?

[Witness]

I observed him standing in the vicinity that he indicated.

[Lori Vallow]

And was that in the hallway or in the main room?

[Judge]

I'm going to object to hearsay. It's non testimonial, but it is still hearsay.

[Ashley Banfield]

Then Lori pivoted to something called stippling. And if you're a fan of true crime, you know what it is. It's a pattern of gunshot residue that's burned into the skin after a gun is fired at close range. And Lori asked the detective if the medical examiner had mentioned stippling during the autopsy, which Detective Coons said he'd attended. Detective Koons answered no, but that's when Laurie shot back, saying that the medical examiner had indeed mentioned stippling during the exam and actually included it in the autopsy report. Detective Coons was unfazed and reminded Laurie that he wasn't an expert in the field and that he did not write the autopsy report. But it should be mentioned that this is a point that Laurie was able to score. The judge asked Laurie if this was a good stopping point and she agreed. And the jury was excused for the day, but not the rest of the courtroom. As soon as the jury left the room, the judge asked the gallery to be seated. And then the judge unloaded on Laurie over how she's been behaving in court while representing herself. So we're only on day two, folks. And once again, Lori Vala was combative and controlling and oddly flirtatious and a real screw up, you know, when it came to criminal procedure. But while she tries to pick apart the professionals, they keep doing something that she hasn't mastered yet. They keep sticking to the facts and sticking to criminal procedure, which is essential in a trial. It's something that lawyers know how to do. They are practiced at the art. It is like rote for them, but not for Laurie. Thank you so much for listening, everybody. Don't forget to subscribe so you don't miss any trial recaps or any bonus episodes. If you're watching on YouTube, make sure you comment and let me know your thoughts on Lori's performance so far in the trial. We're of course going to be back tomorrow with a full recap of day three in the Lori Fallow trial. I'm Ashley Banfield. Just remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead seriously.