Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:01]
A
Planning a wedding shouldn't feel overwhelming. The Knot brings everything together in one place. Vendors who get your vibe, a custom planning checklist, guest list tools, and a free wedding website that syncs with it all. So instead of juggling a dozen apps and spreadsheets, you can actually enjoy getting married. Get started@theknot.com audio the knot. Let's plan your wedding together.
- [00:25]
B
This is crime and Justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. The verdict is in for Cory Richens.
- [00:31]
C
I'm gonna go with Death by a Thousand Cuts, but I will also say perhaps the jury felt like maybe the rest of us felt a little duped by her for one reason and one reason only. That darn terrible children's book.
- [00:49]
B
Now we're breaking down what led the jury to that conclusion with criminal defense attorney Jonna Spielborg. Before we get into all things Cory Rich. Guilty verdict. Tell me a little bit about the kinds of cases you handle, what brought you into criminal defense, and what you love about our work.
- [01:11]
C
Oh, well, I'm not going to tell you how long I've been doing this kind of work because I'm not going to age myself. But I always thought criminal defense is a very fascinating field of law because it combines fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment. You get a whole host of interesting situations that sometimes I know over the years I've said, wow, I have really heard it all. And then the following month, I'll be like, nope. Now I've really heard it all. And it just. It always is good and interesting. So that's what I like to do. But in my neck of the woods, Donna, because I practice in the Hudson Valley, which is a hop, skip, and a jump from the city. I do everything from traffic tickets to murders and everything in between. And it's. It's an interesting place to practice criminal law because. And maybe where you're from, too, I'm friendly with the prosecutors. We go out to lunch. We go have a drink sometimes. Like, it's sort of a community feel. But at the same time, we don't compromise defending our clients, and my prosecutor friends don't compromise doing what they gotta do. So. So it's a fun career. It really is.
- [02:28]
B
It is a fun career. I agree. And I try to be friendly. This bigger jurisdiction that I'm a part of, mostly I try cases all over the country, but in Chicago and Cook County, Illinois, it's a big jurisdiction. Obviously, we're friendly with the people. We try to be professional. I let most of the people in my office deal with the niceties and I kind of come in and lay down the hammer when we have to try the cases. But I always want to be professional and no, no use in, in being adversarial when you don't have to be. The adversarial portion starts when, when the court call begins. So I, I agree with you there. So let's, yeah, so let's, let's talk all things Corey Richards here. And this guilty verdict, which I know we spoke a little bit beforehand, I don't think it surprised either you or I that this was the way the jury decided this case. But there was a large contingent of supporters out there for her, or at least people, people who thought that they couldn't prove this case because no one could prove that she actually gave him the fentanyl which killed him. And my response to that, and I'll be interested to hear what yours is, my response to that is, you're right, no one actually saw her placing the fentanyl in the drink. But we knew all of the things surrounding what took place there and the fact that, and I think one of the most notable things, and I didn't hear anyone really make this argument strongly at the trial, was the first thing she tells the police and even when she was on the 911, was, we had a drink. We had a drink, we made a drink, we were celebrating something. And I thought, that's kind of odd. Like, if someone is dead in my bed, the last thing I'm thinking is probably not, you know, we had dinner or we ate, we had a drink. I just thought that that piece, in and of itself, it was almost like a mini confession. So talk to me about the pieces of evidence here that you think ultimately sealed her fate.
- [04:30]
C
I agree with you that it was, it was a, it was going to be a tough defense. I don't care how good of a lawyer you are to defend Cory Richards on the fact that, okay, we're going to have a true reasonable doubt defense, meaning, as you pointed out, some jury, even if it's just one, is not going to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Corey administered the fentanyl, that somebody's not going to believe that. But as you also correctly pointed out, with all the circumstantial evidence, you know, the boyfriend, the text, the money troubles, the insurance, now you're painting a picture. It's not like, I mean, we see crimes all the time, but where there are no eyewitnesses, you know, people die and nobody actually saw it happened. But you see the, you know, you've got the gun, you've got the bullet, you've got the text messages, you got the pinging phone. You get it all. So she, Cory Richards, had so much circumstantial evidence that a jury would be hard pressed to find that he did kill himself. And very little evidence of that. Right, Tom? Like, very little evidence of him being a drug addict. He's dead. He wasn't able to defend himself. So it was the interplay just wasn't gonna work for her. And it didn't work for her.
- [05:48]
B
Yeah, I agree. Let's break it down because I think it's really interesting. So first we have Carmen, the maid. So the housekeeper for Corey and Eric actually testifies that Corey asked her to procure narcotics that were a lethal dose. The same drugs that killed Michael Jackson. That's what she was asking for. So we know this fact. Right. And of course, everybody said, well, it's easy to kind of tear down the housekeeper because she had her own issues and she had a reason to lie and she could have been prosecuted. And all of that's true. Right. But at the end of the day, she still is able to testify to the fact that Corey bought drugs from her.
- [06:33]
C
Yes, and why else would you do that unless Corey herself was a drug addict? But I think she even claimed that she was getting drugs for her husband in one exchange. I believe she did. So that's a fact that I think the jurors are not going to be unpersuaded by simply because the witness might have a reason to lie or because the witness is getting a good deal. They gave some credibility to that witness. And that's only one piece of this pie. But I think the jurors found that witness much more credible.
- [07:11]
B
Yeah, and I agree with you. And I think that at the end of the day, they had to be able to prove that somehow Corey had knowledge and asked for these narcotics. Right. If they couldn't make any connection to her and drugs, I mean, maybe that would make it a little bit more difficult that, you know, you'd get up as the defense attorney and you would say, no, no proof she. She tried to find any drugs, no proof she bought any drugs, no proof she ever handled any drugs. You know, that's a little bit different. But when the minute you have a witness that gets up and says, she asked me for drugs, and not only any kind of drugs, but lethal doses of fentanyl and the kinds of drugs that killed Michael Jackson, that testimony is very hard to refute, no matter how many times you bring up the fact that she has a motive to lie, a reason to lie. But. But why lie about that?
- [07:59]
C
Yeah, that's an interesting point. And if you're going to try to bolster that portion of her defense, why not try to bring in evidence that her husband was a drug addict and may have accidentally killed himself? They didn't call any, the defense did not call any witnesses here to try to prove that point. So it's just left hanging. And again, like I said, that's just one piece. There's so many pieces of circumstantial evidence in this one.
- [08:26]
B
That surprised me that they didn't call anyone, because I, I know that they kind of made that point pretty poignantly in their opening argument about the fact that he was a drug user and he took drugs and he. But then they didn't call. I mean, they, they brought it out through some of the witnesses on the stand that he had done gummies and he had done. But nobody that testified to any illicit drug use actually to the contrary. And, and even in the state's witnesses, people contradicted that theory. So you thought for sure that if you make that claim and that opening statement that you're going to somehow try to prove that up. And then I, I read something interesting and I re. Listened to her body camera footage when the police first started to talk to her. And she said, Corey herself said that he didn't have a drug problem. And so I feel like knowing that they had that piece of evidence, it would have been very difficult for them to call some witness to say this because they would. All they'd have to do is press play and let the jury hear her saying he didn't have a drug problem.
- [09:34]
C
Yeah, no, exactly. She probably could have taken this in a different direction, but they were hanging their hats right from the beginning, even before trial, on the fact that the prosecution was not going to be able to prove 100% how the drugs got into Eric's body. But, I mean, come on, I don't know what more in terms of circumstantial evidence. There's just almost a straight line when you connect these dots.
- [10:02]
B
But there, you know, I agree with you.
- [10:05]
C
Do you. I mean, you've seen this. I've seen this a lot of times in my career, and I've probably even done it myself a time or two when you know that the prosecution is missing certain pieces of a case and you rely on the fact that the jury is going to think like a lawyer and say, okay, nope, they just did it. They got, you know, 90% there, but they didn't get over the finish line. I think. Tell me if you think this. Jurors rarely do that. They go more on their hunch. They don't parse out evidence with an exacto knife. I really feel it's a. It's one of the toughest defenses when you're trying to prove that the prosecution can't prove the case.
- [10:43]
B
I agree with you. Unless. And what I like to do, and I don't think they could have done that here, what I like to do is I like to stand in front of a jury and say, what would make you feel comfortable finding this person guilty? These are the types of evidence that you should be looking for. This is what would have made you feel better when you put your head on the pillow tonight if you're going to convict somebody and they can't give you that evidence. But here, the problem was they could give you a lot of evidence, so that wouldn't work. So I think that's the only way. That's a good argument because you're right. Jurors do not go back. And, you know, you've talked to juries after cases. Half the time they'll give you the reasons they came to their conclusion, and you think to yourself, that's what did it, right? All the work, all the months, and you said, wait. That's the fact that you hung your hat on. So you never know.
- [11:37]
C
No, you never know. And, you know, we shouldn't expect jurors to think like lawyers unless you have 12 lawyers in the box, and that would never happen. You know, jurors go by their feeling. And your example right now of when you're explaining to a jury in closing argument, you're evoking their emotions, what would make you feel comfortable? And that's. That's brilliant because jurors will go by what they feel. And when you guide him there, that's great. I'm going to use that next time, my next trial.
- [12:09]
B
Oh, good, good. I'm glad. I do. I think that it. It really puts it in perspective because, again, you're putting people in a circumstance where they've never done this before, for the most part. Right. It's very rare that you have people that serve on juries multiple times. And normally, I don't know about you, but if somebody served on a jury before, I usually don't like to keep them for a variety of reasons. So, you know, I think that usually you're not left with a ton of people who have done this before. So I think that that makes a difference. I also think that you have people that are not legally trained, so they get these jury instructions that are confusing to lawyers sometimes because of the way they're written, and they're tasked with this idea and decision about what they have to do and what do they do to do that. Like you said, feelings. And then they go through certain pieces of evidence and determine what those pieces of evidence say. And in a case like this, defense never, excuse me, prosecutors never have to prove motive in these murder cases, for the most part. And so here they had a motive, and they had a motive that was so strong. I mean, her financial problems were immense. And then you find out that she was basically robbing Peter to pay Paul, and. And on top of it, she had scammed all these insurance documents and forged these documents in order to obtain life insurance that he basically took away from her when they had other problems. So, you know, here's a woman who is just in this web of problems and trying to come up with any way to get out of it. So that financial motive with those numbers is huge. Sometimes prosecutors want to use a financial motive that's weak. I found the financial motive here to be quite strong.
- [14:02]
C
You know, when it comes to spouses who are accused of killing their other spouse, it almost always comes down to money and some sort of love triangle. Right. Those are the love and money make people do crazy things. And Cory Richards had both of those elements in this case. And you're right, motive is never an element to any offense. But jurors love motive. Jurors want to know the why.
- [14:28]
B
They can put it all together, grab onto. Yeah, of course.
- [14:32]
C
And there was a big why that, you know, it was a very easy why, despite the fact that Corey Richards came across to me like she thought she was the smartest person in the room. Similar to, I don't know, 100%. Did you follow the Donna Adelson case at all? Because that woman I came across as. She thought she was the smartest person in the room and, you know, and agree.
- [14:53]
B
And that does not work well.
- [14:55]
C
No, no, not that the jurors got to hear from her directly, but. But, yeah, she wasn't the smartest person in the room.
- [15:03]
B
You. You could see it, though, even in body language. And I think the way she carried herself, and she just did not have this likable aura to her as she sat there. She just had this kind of an entitled aura. And I think that they were able to gain a little bit of information with regard to that through other pieces of evidence. I mean, you have her friend get up and testify that Corey said her life would be better without her husband. You had the boyfriend testifying to all the text messages that she would send about how life would be better without him. And they could have millions of dollars. And, you know, so this is not a likable person in terms of just the way she conducted herself. You have the children's book. I mean, you have all these things that just make her unlikable. And then we get to, like, just the most unbelievable piece of evidence, which is this walk the dog letter that they find in her jail cell.
- [16:02]
C
That was another thing. And again, it just reminded me of the adelson case. Like, okay, we're going to talk in code, and no one's going to know what we're really talking about, but you're going to end up helping me, and maybe you're going to have to lie for me, and no one's going to figure it out from this letter. Like, please, come on. And another thing, People don't realize that you cannot get rid of anything, Especially when you're in jail. You've got no fourth amendment rights. Anything you write down, anything you say, they probably know how many sheets of toilet paper you use. There's nothing is sacred there. And with your own phone and your own text, those don't go away. You can try to delete all you want. It just never happens. So, yeah, for her to try to concoct some story that she thought people were going to buy because she's talking in code, again, major fail.
- [16:52]
B
Well, she's basically saying to her brother in this letter, I need you to testify that you knew he had a drug problem. He talked to you about the drug problem. So I think that letter also dictated their inability to call witnesses, because even if you had some witness get up and say, yes, he had a drug problem, I mean, they're just going to hammer that witness about the fact that, did she coach you? Did she talk to you? Did she beg you like she did in her letters? Right. And of course they're going to say no. But that really puts that testimony into question Just by looking at her own words in the letter itself.
- [17:30]
C
Yeah, which is why, you know, she couldn't. Like you said, she couldn't have any witnesses because they would have been shred. And then maybe the jury would have came back in an hour instead of three. But again. And that almost got the sense, though, from that letter, too, like, not that she was insane and not that that would have been part of a defense in any way, shape, or form. Doesn't she seem a little crazy? Like just a little psychotic?
- [17:56]
B
Yes.
- [17:57]
C
You know, but it wasn't her defense.
- [17:59]
B
Yes. No, but if you look at. But you. You know how hard that's such a high burden to overcome to try to say that somebody is, you know, is. Is insane or whatever, but a little crazy, a little nuts. Yes. And you can see that. I mean, the text messages to the boyfriend and those memes that she's sending with money flying and it's just it. And basically as his body is getting wheeled out of the house. I mean, so here's a person who, like you said, thinks she's the smartest person in the room, but yet sending those messages. And how about all the searches that she's doing on the phone leading up to and after the fact?
- [18:43]
C
I love, I love the Google searches in all of these cases. Right.
- [18:48]
B
It's not. Don't they learn. They never watch one episode of Dateline.
- [18:53]
C
I know, right? Like, I don't know, go to a library in a distant town and do all the Googling you want. I don't know, while wearing a fake mustache. And even that wouldn't even work because they'd figure it out. Yeah, she doesn't get it. I love the Google searches in the Karen Reed case. Those were, Those were really good Google searches, too. Yes, but, yeah, so she didn't get
- [19:12]
B
Karen Reid and the other one, too. The Google searches and the guy who dismembered his wife and the one in Boston, I'll come up with, the detectives, were the same as the Karen Reed. But, yes, this is what they do. They like, they. I don't know if it's that you're not thinking in the moment, but anybody that's been a part of any criminal case, like I said, even if you Watch Dateline or 48 Hours or any crime show of any type, if you've listened to any podcast, you know that the things that end up sinking people are these digital messages. I mean, she is searching things like. Let's see, let's see. Read some of her searches. She was searching about prisons, what type of luxury prisons she could go to. She was searching about. Here, I. I like the exact, the exact wording. Here it is. What is a lethal, lethal dose of fentanyl.
- [20:07]
C
Right.
- [20:07]
B
Luxury prisons for the rich America. And if someone is poisoned, what does it go down on the death certificate as? I mean, those three things alone, to me, that is a guilty mind. That is a guilty Guilty conscience. And I don't know how you get around those things. So even if you're in the back in that jury room and you're thinking about possible ways to say maybe she didn't do this, all you have to do is go look to her own actions surrounding this entire circumstance. And I don't know how you come to any other decision. And I think that's probably why she didn't testify, because she really does seem like the kind of person who would say to her lawyers, I don't care what your advice is. I'm getting up there and I'm telling my story.
- [20:57]
C
Right?
- [20:57]
B
And she just would have been crucified, annihilated.
- [21:02]
C
So, yeah, at least her attorney was seasoned enough to get her not to do that. But, oh, my goodness. Yeah, just another thing to sink her. Because sometimes you probably do the same thing. We have to Google. Defense attorneys have to Google a lot of weird stuff sometimes, right? You just do, depending on what's going on. And every time I do, I'm like, oh, if anybody ever has to seize this computer, but I have an excuse because I do it for a living. But regular folk, it's just another.it's just another piece of circumstantial evidence. And you really can't even attack that evidence is unreliable. Like sometimes, for example, like in Karen Reed case, they were trying to attack some of the digital evidences. Oh, the timestamp was off by six hours. All right, maybe. But this type what you're actually typing, you can't really attack.
- [21:57]
D
Score more with the college branded Venmo debit card and earn up to 5% cash back with Venmo stash got paid back with the Venmo debit card, you can instantly access your balance and spend on what you want, like game day, snacks, gear, tickets and more. The more you do do, the more cash back you can earn. Plus there's no monthly fee or minimum balance. Sign up now@venmo.com collegecard the Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank. NA Select Schools available. Venmo Stash terms and exclusions apply at Venmo me stash terms max 100 cash back per month.
- [22:27]
B
No, you really can't, especially, you know, from your own phone. And then they had other. They were able to kind of show that she lied. And what I thought was really interesting, if you watch that initial body camera of the officer that came to the house to talk to her while he's being wheeled out of the house and it was Almost as if he had been stopped on the driveway by the. By Eric's sister. And Eric's sister said something to the officer about, you know, it could be her or, you know, she's been acting strange or something like that. So you knew right away the tone of his questions was he wanted to get answers out of her and he wanted to get her to be talking. But you could kind of tell by his body language and the way he was treating her and the questions he was asking that he, he had a sixth sense up right away in terms of the types of answers she was giving him, which I thought was really interesting. And I know that he was tipped off by the sister in the driveway that, you know, maybe there was an issue here, but there was a long period of time between his death and her arrest. I think it was almost a year. And so, you know, they really did not jump to conclusions in terms of making an arrest and charging someone, which sometimes they do and it's the spouse.
- [23:43]
C
Oh, yeah, no, they didn't. They took their time with this. And of course you're always going to think it's the spouse in something like this. Right. Means, motive and opportunity and once you start digging. But you're not going to, maybe you're not going to gather that evidence the moment you show up from the 911 call, but still, slowly you're gonna put those pieces together. And not for nothing, cops are most likely going to look at the spouse as their first and sometimes only suspect. But, and correct me, Donna, if I'm. Because I'm trying to think back. Did. Was there also body worn camera footage of her getting interviewed in her pajamas like the night of. Or am I thinking of a different.
- [24:21]
B
Yes.
- [24:21]
C
Right.
- [24:22]
B
Yeah, it was. Yeah. No, she was, yeah, she was. She called in the morning or whatever time it was when she called early or late. Late, late, early morning hours. She called and said that, you know, he was in bed and I can't feel. He feels cold. And they're trying to tell her to get him off the bed as she's calling 91 1. And then when they show up, she's still in her pajamas.
- [24:43]
C
Yeah, like she was ready for her close up. Like her matching pajamas.
- [24:47]
B
Yeah, right.
- [24:48]
C
That struck me too.
- [24:49]
B
It was. Yeah, it was like a. Yes. Well, especially given the fact that, yeah, he's, he's, she's allegedly trying to perform CPR and they're telling her what to do and. But my guess is by that point he's long gone. I don't know what the Death was. But just given the circumstances, it doesn't seem that fit. And again, the fact that she says, we just had a drink and he went to bed, that seems so strange to me. As if you're just in your own home that night, hanging out. Like, the thing that I'm not remembering or paying attention to is what we ate or drank. I. I just. I. That struck me right away.
- [25:26]
C
Yeah. I don't blame you. It's almost as if she should have.
- [25:29]
B
Celebrating something.
- [25:30]
C
We were celebrating. He just did a little fentanyl, and then we decided to go to bed. Like, okay, just set it up. Yeah, it was like that.
- [25:38]
B
Yeah, it was. It was. It was very, very, very strange. And what was really interesting, too, was, you know, the boyfriend's testimony, I think, was pretty damaging. And we didn't really hear much about the boyfriend. You know, this case had gotten so much pressure leading up to this trial, and we were hearing things. We obviously knew about the children's book, we knew about the charges, we knew about the Google searches, but we didn't hear much about this boyfriend and the fact that she was having an affair. So that was just another layer of this. And then not only. And he. What. What really was astounding to me was he was very broken up on the stand. Like, it seemed like he legitimately missed her or loved her or was so sad. I thought to myself, consider yourself so lucky that you got away from this girl. But he. He seemed to be distraught.
- [26:31]
C
Yeah. Which is another. He's probably. Maybe that was a different type of emotion. He's just happy he wasn't being charged with anything. But also, I mean, love is weird. I have. I have clients who have married inmates who have done terrible things. And so, you know, maybe. And now that she's going to be gone for a long, long time, 25 to life, he's gonna have to go on Tinder someplace. Something else. Poor guy. Poor guy.
- [27:00]
B
Exactly. I. I know. It's just. And it's like. But I'm also thinking you're getting these messages from her and, you know, whether he. It didn't seem to me that he knew that she was going to kill him, but she definitely made enough. She made plenty of comments to him that maybe would, you know, raise a red flag to me and think, maybe not that she's going to kill her husband, but maybe this is not the kind of person I want to be in a relationship with. But, hey, like you said, you never know what. What people are going to do. But, you know, she's Sending these messages as they're wheeling the guy. I just. It was just crazy. Absolutely crazy to me.
- [27:39]
C
Bizarre.
- [27:39]
B
What do you think ultimately, in the end? And I think a lot of these cases are not, like you said, you can connect the dots, and it seems to be a pretty straight line. Do you think that it was one or two specific things that made the jury say, there's just no way around this? Or do you think it was a death by a thousand cuts type of verdict?
- [28:04]
C
Yeah, I'm going to go with death by a thousand cuts. But I will also say perhaps the jury felt like maybe the rest of us felt a little duped by her for one reason and one reason only. That darn terrible children's book. Like, it's one thing if you're, you know, your husband dies of a fentanyl overdose, and you're trying to say, I don't know how it got there, you know, and you try to say that, okay, and so what? I'm having an affair, and so what? I'm having money problems. Lots of people do. But then the fact that she tried to really pull one over on the public and. And write this crappy book to sort of placate her children and make the people, make the world feel like she's a sympathetic character, that might have been the point of no return. Even though. Even though that book didn't prove anything. It just proved how perhaps narcissistic she is. And I don't even like that word.
- [28:59]
B
Sure.
- [29:00]
C
But that was the dupe in this case that might have done was.
- [29:05]
B
And her mother sends the book to the sheriff and says, this is who Corey Richards really is. I mean, it was just like, oh, my goodness, just these layers upon layers. And then, you know, mom, of course, is in the same letter that she also is going to send to the brother about testifying and the things that they could do to help her. I mean, it was just this unbelievable orchestration. And I think by writing that letter, it was showing, you know, she orchestrated this death. And now she wants to orchestrate how this trial, trial is going to go by how people are going to testify. But the one thing she could not orchestrate was that finding of not guilty that she was hoping for. And we were getting notes from people inside the courtroom that were watching saying that, like, they were hearing her family talking about dinner plans. Like, people. I think they actually thought that she was going to be found not guilty. And I think just in looking at her and, you know, you know, you represent some clients that are kind of resolute to what's going to happen. And they, they are prepared and they're not delusional. I think she was legitimately surprised by this verdict.
- [30:17]
C
You know, somebody with her personality that would make sense that she would be genuinely surprised because she's not living in the real world. She wasn't living in the real world when she concocted this murder plan. She wasn't living in the real world when she wrote a crappy children's book to try to cover it up. Not in the real world when she tries to orchestrate who should testify for and then lie about that. That, oh, that's just another book of mine. Like lady, you're not gonna get to write any more books. You can write them, you're not gonna make any money off them in prison. Cause you're not allowed to do that. She is not on this planet. And I don't even mean that in a kind way. She's just not well.
- [30:56]
B
And even the money, right, I mean the money she was spending, if we look at the real numbers, I mean the number really astounding in terms of what was going out. I mean she bought, she was $7.5 million in debt. She needed $80,000 a month to service her debt. She bought a 2.9 million dollar house that she was going to flip. I guess that's what she was doing was, was refurbish and flip these houses. She bought that the day he died. I mean, you know, and then she's trying to get all this life insurance. I mean there was, there was a lot of money there that she owed and, and she was under immense amount of pressure to pay back these high interest loans and all these people she was borrowing money from. And so that alone when you talk about not in the real world, I mean you look at these numbers and you think, where did you think? How did you ever think you were going to come out of this hole?
- [31:49]
C
Yeah. See another example of her being delusional. And oh, she wasn't so smart to realize that if I kill my spouse I'm not going to get a dime from his insurance. And what about. And I don't really want to spend time talking about the children because my heart aches for them. But she victimized them as well. I mean thankfully they're still alive, but now they have no parents. So that, and that always breaks my heart as much as I dislike.
- [32:18]
B
Seems like his, his sister. Yeah, exactly. It seems like his sister is in his family is doing Amy. They're doing a good job taking care of the kids. And it seems like they've made them front and center and that all they really wanted was justice so the kids can move on. But just what I mean, your mother kills your father. I say it every time in these cases. Doesn't anybody just get divorced anymore? But I think the prosecutor did a really good job when he said that she didn't want him, but she wanted his money. And I think that that really resonated. And it's like that's more of that motive shining through. She didn't want Eric anymore, but instead of just divorcing them, she found a way because she did get the life insurance money and spent it prior to being charged with this.
- [33:08]
C
Yeah, right.
- [33:09]
B
So I don't know how that works.
- [33:11]
C
Well, they'll. They'll have an empty judgment against her to get it back because she's. I don't think she's ever going to get out of jail. 25 to life, aggravated murder, plus the other fraud charges that went along with it. So she, you know, and that's interesting sidebar, because normally when there's even a hint that there is something strange, that insurance company is not going to give you a dime until they're 100% sure. So she must have fooled them, too. And another reason why you should do a faster investigation, I suppose, when you know that money and insurance is the motive. But too late.
- [33:46]
B
That's true. That's true. Let. Let me. Especially given the fact that right away, I mean, police were involved the night of. So. So it was surprising that she. She did get like 1 point something, 1.3 million or something. She got. Let me ask you this. And I. This is not something I get into very often, but because we're in between the verdict phase and the sentencing phase, talk to us a little bit about what we expect that sentencing date to look like. And incidentally, her sentencing date is on Eric's 44th birthday.
- [34:17]
C
I saw that. And some of the people online are thinking that was intentional by the judge. I'm not so sure about that. But.
- [34:25]
B
But maybe not by the judge, but maybe the prosecutor's asking for that date. Maybe it was intentional.
- [34:30]
C
A little poetic justice. But, you know, there is not a whole lot of wiggle room when it comes to this kind of sentence. It's not like there's a choice between probation and prison. Right. There really isn't a big choice. And, and most of the time, and I'd be surprised if we didn't see it at this sentencing date. You know, the, the victim's family. So her in laws etc are going to get to come up and speak their piece and try to even if it doesn't persuade the judge, even if there's not a whole lot of wiggle room, they're entitled to do that. They're entitled to make victim statements and just sort of air it out and maybe get a little of closure. We will see a lot of that, I expect. Also we might see, as we usually do, maybe there's going to be some pre sentence motions. Sometimes you have to make a motion before 4 you are convicted technically by the judge motion for a new trial. I don't know if we'll see that. They don't usually fly, but we might. So it'll be an interesting and here's the other big question. Will Cory Richens speak at her sentencing hearing? Because she also has the right to do that. But here's the rub, and I know you've seen this too, when you have maintained your innocence and it's time to sort of, you know, maybe show some remorse at sentencing. You're stuck between, well, okay, do I say, you know what? You got me, I did it. I'm so sorry, you know, show me some mercy, judge, or do you say I'm innocent and I'll see you in the appellate division? Like it's a real and hope. Right?
- [35:59]
B
Yeah, I agree. I think we'll definitely, yeah, I think we'll definitely see his family getting up as we did in Coburger where they got up and you know, we knew there was a plea. We knew what the ending was going to be. We knew he was getting consecutive life sentences. But the family did get to get up. They did get to address him. I think we'll see that here whether it's the next court date or, you know, one after that. We'll see that at some point. I also think you will see her family get up and they will make pleas on her behalf. I think she will have people testify and I think you're right. It will be interesting to see if she says anything. My guess is probably not.
- [36:36]
C
But probably not.
- [36:37]
B
We, we, we'll see. Yeah, probably not. And I think that she will spend most likely the rest of her life behind bars. Thanks for joining us for another episode of Crime and Justice. We want to hear from you. Remember to send us your thoughts, questions and theories to social media and we'll be sure to answer them online. And don't forget to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Stitch Fix Shopping is hard. Let's talk about it I don't have
- [37:18]
D
time to shop for clothes.
- [37:19]
C
I have to buy everything in three sizes to find one that fits. They know me at the post office. Workout wear is my only wear.
- [37:26]
B
Stitch Fix makes shopping easy. Just show your size, style and budget and your stylist sends personalized looks for right to your door. No subscription required, plus free shipping and returns.
- [37:36]
D
Oh wow, that was easy.
- [37:38]
B
Stitch Fix Online Personal Styling for Everyone Take your style quiz today@stitchfix.com.