Lori Vallow Daybell requesting new trial after conspiracy to murder ex-nephew conviction

PHOENIX (ABC4) — The Idaho mom convicted of killing her two children, conspiracy to kill her husband, conspiracy to kill her new husband’s wife, and — most recently — conspiracy to kill her ex-nephew, is asking for a new trial following her latest conviction.

On June 12, 2025, Lori Vallow Daybell was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder of her former nephew-in-law, Brandon Boudreaux. Her sentencing is scheduled one month from now, on July 25.

Vallow Daybell filed a motion Monday in the Maricopa County Court in Arizona, asking the court to grant her a new trial in the case of the attempted murder of Brandon Bordeaux. She outlined three reasons why a new trial should be granted: Fourth Amendment violation through a medical evaluation, lack of impartiality, and abuse of discretion.

‘Fourth Amendment violation’

In the motion filed on June 23 for a new trial, Vallow Daybell argues that her due process was violated according to the Fourth Amendment right to privacy after results of a medical evaluation were shared with the court.

The motion states that on May 30, Vallow Daybell became ill while the court was on a lunch break during jury selection. She reportedly informed the judge and prosecution of her symptoms and said that “her investigator had been out sick… with the same symptoms.” Vallow Daybell states that Judge Beresky made her stay for over an hour while she was sick until everyone was dismissed by the court.

On June 2, Vallow Daybell argues in the motion that she was feeling very sick and had informed the court of her expected absence the previous day, in what she called a “timely manner.” The court filed a motion to bring her to the courthouse by any means necessary on June 2, and she was brought into the courthouse in a wheelchair.

Vallow Daybell states that she “could not walk from being weak and dehydrated and having vomited all weekend” on June 2. When she was brought to court in a wheelchair, she informed the judge of her sickness and was dismissed. Vallow Daybell claims she was left in a holding cell with “no blanket, medicine, or hydration for six hours waiting.”

Her health was evaluated on June 3, as ordered by the court, and the results were provided to the judge. Vallow Daybell says this is a HIPAA violation, and that the medical evaluation was done without her knowledge that it would be shared with the court.

“In the end, Judge Beresky still ordered [Vallow Daybell] to defend herself at trial knowing she was too ill to proceed,” the motion reads.

‘Lack of impartiality’

In the motion, Vallow Daybell argues that Judge Beresky showed a lack of impartiality while she was presenting her case. She states that she was not allowed to argue objections, denied sidebars, and not allowed time to consult with her investigator before the cross-examination of witnesses.

Vallow Daybell cites two instances in which she was cross-examining a witness brought by the prosecution and was not allowed to complete her examination due to an objection.

“The initial responding officer spoke with a witness who provided a different description of the jeep she saw during the incident. [Vallow Daybell] attempted to [cross-examine] the case agent when the State objected to the answer based on hearsay. The objection by the State was sustained,” the motion reads.

According to the motion, Vallow Daybell asked for a sidebar from the judge and was denied. The same thing happened during her cross-examination of another witness: a hearsay objection was entered by the prosecution, and Vallow Daybell says that she was not allowed a sidebar or to argue for her objection.

Vallow Daybell also claims that because her investigator was sick, she did not have all of the resources she needed for the trial. Additionally, she states the prosecution said her “line of questioning relating to Melani Boudreaux constituted a third-party defense,” and argues that she was only trying to cross-examine Brandon Boudreaux.

‘Abuse of discretion’

Under “abuse of discretion,” Vallow Daybell outlines three times that the court allegedly abused its discretion and violated her rights.

Vallow Daybell argues in the motion that the court denied a probable cause hearing on “aggravating factors alleged” by the prosecution. She claims that because there is only one sentence allowed for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, the prosecution should not have been allowed to argue those aggravating factors.

The next point Vallow Daybell notes is that the jury was not released from admonition — instructions for the jury — on the record. The motion claims that the jury was dismissed so ” the parties could discuss whether an aggravation phase would be presented,” but were not brought back into the courtroom after the discussion so the admonition could officially be lifted.

The final argument presented by Vallow Daybell states that evidence was presented without sufficient foundation and that she was denied the right to confront a witness. An employee who was involved in the investigation resigned on May 1, 2025. Evidence from that witness was still presented in court, but the witness herself was not called. Vallow Daybell claims that she was denied access to the employee’s file so that she could ensure that her resignation did not involve the criminal case.

Vallow Daybell asked for a new trial based on the arguments she presented in the motion. As of today, the court has not submitted a ruling on this motion yet. The only upcoming court date in the trial is Vallow Daybell’s July 25 sentencing.