A (3:45)

And.

B (3:45)

And a guy blowing his nose into dollar bills from the movie Dumb and Dumber. Those, I think, so far have been some of the most explosive moments, along with testimony from the. From the medical examiner, police officers, and Eric's family himself.

A (4:00)

And Nate, tell us a little bit about her reaction to the opening statement by the prosecutor. Because I've watched a little. I've read about this, and it seemed like this. The prosecutor's opening statement was. Was an unbelievable timeline of the way this took place. And they really did a very good job weaving in motive. And as we know, you don't need to have motive in these cases, but it's definitely helpful when you do. And the way that they described not only her motive financially, but her motive regarding the boyfriend, her motive. And when we look at the finances, the. She needed money. I mean, her. Her finances were a mess, and she was living this lifestyle that she really couldn't afford. And so I think they did a really good job laying out what that motive is, because at the end of the day, the prosecutors have to prove that she actually gave him that fentanyl. And so, you know, they may not be able to point to that directly, but everything surrounding it definitely points to that being a real possibility.

B (5:03)

Right. They did lay it out very clearly over the course of 20, 22 minutes, I think, was their opening statement. They went through each charge and said, this is what we found. This is what you're going to hear. Now, the defense, Corey Richen's side They're kind of going on this narrative thus far that Eric really liked THC gummies and kind of hinting at the fact that maybe he had a drug issue or he was on hydrocodone and maybe the pills were switched for fentanyl and that he himself took a pill that he thought was hydrocodone or maybe a THC gummy or something along those lines and he may have poisoned himself. I think we're going to hear more from the defense along those lines. They haven't yet addressed the money issue, though they did admit in opening statements for the defense that Cory has made some bad decisions, that their marriage wasn't always the strongest. That sure you're going to find out that maybe she was having this affair, but is that enough to convict her for these very serious charges?

A (6:02)

Right. And I think that's obviously what it's going to come down to. We'll see. The evidence that we've seen so far doesn't look great for her. And you know, I'm looking at things normally through the eyes and through the lens of a defense attorney and I listened to that opening statement and I thought, ouch. There's, there's a lot there. So we'll see. I mean, she's represented by very qualified lawyers. We know Ms. Nestor, who's one of Tyler Robinson's lawyers, is a, is a very experienced trial lawyer. And so I'm sure she will do an excellent job for Corey. So we will see how this turns out. And I would love to have you come back as we continue to talk about this case.

B (6:35)

Thank you, Donna, Good to see you.

A (6:39)

Now I'm going to bring in Katherine O'Daniel. Katherine O'Daniel is a well known criminal defense attorney in Chicago, a dear friend of mine and I'm thrilled to have her join me today. Catherine, thank you so much for being here.

C (6:52)

Donna, thanks for inviting me on your show. I'm really pleased to be here.

A (6:57)

Thanks, Katherine. So tell me a little bit before we get into this. And we heard a lot of interesting things and I'm really going to delve into it. Two lawyers talking about this as we normally would over lunch. Tell me first how you got into criminal defense. Tell our viewers and our listeners what, what brought you to this wonderful career of ours.

C (7:15)

So I came to Chicago. I went to Indiana University, which is now on the map. Thank you. To that wonderful football season. But I came up to Chicago.

A (7:24)

It was awesome.

C (7:25)

It was awesome. I was glued to every minute of it. It was so much fun. And to be to have that and be a Bears fan. I happen to know I'll never have it this good again, but I sure enjoyed every minute of it. So I came to law school in Chicago and fell in love with the city. And I was clerking for Sheila Murphy, a judge, and she sent me on an errand one day, and it was over to Dave Shippers and Rick Motweiler's office. And I wound. I was just returning something to them. I wound up talking to them, and they told me. Rick did. He told me, you don't need to put together a resume. Why don't you start to clerk with me? And when you're done with law school, I'll teach you how to try cases, and we'll just set up shop. And I don't know that I would recommend that path to many people, but it worked for me.

A (8:14)

So. Yeah, hey, hey, that's. That's the Chicago way. You find somebody that you just jive with, and you end up having a career. So I think it's awesome. And we'll all also do a great shout out to our two USA Hockey team. So the two sports fans that we are, it's. It's been a. It's been a good, good, good run for us. But let's get into this Corey Richards case. Okay, so you are tasked with the unbelievable issue here of trying to defend Corey Richards, given what we just heard Nate talk about. And we'll get into some of the more nitty gritty of it, but given what you've heard, you know, normally in these cases, you know, yes, they have to prove that she actually gave him the fentanyl that ended up killing him. And on top of that, there is a medical examiner's report that states that the medical examiner believes that the cause of death is undetermined. So the medical examiner is not saying that this is a homicide. The medical examiner is really not even saying it's an overdose. The medical examiner saying undetermined. So what are you doing to highlight those obvious positive facts for the defense, given all the other things we've heard about that are not great for Cory Richards?

C (9:30)

And there's certainly a pile of those. But at the end of the day, as you well know, they can trash her all they want. If they cannot make her the agent of his. His passing, they really don't have much. So the origin of this fentanyl becomes pretty interesting because apparently her housekeeper is going to testify that she was the one who provided it after contacting not one, but two different sources. So she obtains this fentanyl. However, one of the sources that connected the housekeeper with this fentanyl now has come back and said, I didn't give her fentanyl. I gave her, I think it was hydrocodone or oxy, which is something that her husband Eric had a history with. He's got a pain problem. He's known to take these THC gummies. He has a history of using and I'm not sure if abusing, but using certainly oxy and hydrocodone. So I think I'm going to try and play up on that as much as I can, obviously.

A (10:39)

And I, I agree with you. Let me ask you this. It. What and, and how far as a defense attorney can you go with that without offending the jury to the point where you are sort of dirtying up the victim? Right. It's like you have to be careful to lay out the facts without making the victim the bad guy.

C (11:04)

Well, it's a tough line. I think that you try to do it as respectfully as you can and try to do it as clinically as you can and just put it out there through the witnesses what his background was. And I think his own sister does somewhere, I can't remember where I read it, but she does corroborate the fact and she happens to be also the person that he swapped out to become the administrator of that estate. So she will play a central role in this. And I think you just pull it out witness by witness, as respectfully as you can, because you're right, you don't want to alienate your jury by savaging this victim. But at the end of the day, it's all going to come down to did she, Is she, Corey, responsible for providing that fentanyl for putting it in drink?

A (11:58)

Yeah. And if they can't even show that she had access to or purchased fentanyl, that really makes this much more difficult because you're right. And the housekeeper, the housekeeper has a motivation to lie because I'm sure the housekeeper got some level of immunity because she's dealing narcotics. So it's kind of easy, I think, to point out to the jury that this housekeeper shouldn't be trusted because she has a motivation to protect herself. And you know, the drug dealer, I guess you can argue that the drug dealer has that same, you know, motive, I guess, to lie because he doesn't want to be the one that sold drugs that then killed someone. A lot of jurisdictions have drug induced homicide, you know, charges. And so I, I guess you can, you can make Those arguments. But at the same time, you know, if they're admitting to selling one type of narcotic, why not admit to what you actually sold? So I think that you can, you can dirty them up to a point. But is it going to be enough to help Corey or enough to say that they, they can't prove it or that they can?

C (13:10)

You know, it's interesting because those two witnesses are going to be critical. And the information I read is that the purchasers were not. The purchases were not for just one pill. They were for like 15, 20 pills, and there were two. The timing of those two purchases is tricky for the defense here because it's alleged that she first tried on Valentine's Day, no less, to put fentanyl in a sandwich. Nothing says love like a sandwich loaded with fentanyl. I suppose the prosecution will argue.

A (13:45)

On Valentine's Day.

C (13:46)

Yeah, on Valentine's Day. And he took a few bites of that and became violently ill. And he happened to have an EpiPen from some issue that his son has, and he knew enough to hit himself with an EpiPen and brought himself out of it. Prosecution is going to argue that she used that as a trial run and that she learned from that that she didn't have the correct dose, so she went back for more. Why does that matter? It matters because now we're talking about, if these are batches of 15 to 20 pills that in a short period of time she acquired on two separate occasions. Where were they when they searched the house? They didn't come up with a single pill. And later on it comes out that the actual dealer now says, wait a second, I know that. I originally told law enforcement that I provided fentanyl. I was in a drug induced coma stupor myself when I made those statements. And now I'm telling you that it wasn't fentanyl. It was hydrocodone or oxy or some. Some different type of an opiate.

A (14:55)

And we know that drugs, depending on where they're manufactured, how they get them, you know, whether these were pills that you would get from a doctor and. Or pills that are somehow manufactured. It's tough to prove exactly what's inside of a pill unless you have that actual pill. Right. And to your point, they didn't find any other drugs in that house that would match what was found in his system.

C (15:22)

Correct. And I wonder, was there ever a toxicology from the sandwich when he got so sick? I haven't seen or read anything that says he went to a hospital or he threw up or you know, any. Any testing was done to determine what the cause of that would be. Poisoning, you know, what the origin that was. Can they even say that that was fentanyl?

A (15:45)

Yeah, I agree with you. I haven't seen any of that either. I'm sure, you know, some of it's going to play out during the trial for a case that has gotten so much attention as it's gone on. We really. There's a lot of things that we heard in this opening statement that have not been reported on. So I do think it's going to be interesting to see how they play that out in the trial. And obviously, they're going to use that Valentine's Day issue because he told other people that he thought she was trying to poison him. So the fact that he already had this in his brain. Right. I. I mean, it would surprise me if he ever ingested anything else she ever made for him. Right. So it's like he knew that this had happened, or at least he believed that it happened because he expressed it to friends and family members that she had tried to poison him. So I, you know, we don't know. We don't know how he knew that other than the fact that he didn't feel well. Did he go to a hospital? I guess that's something that we will. We'll find out as this trial goes on, because I have not seen any reporting on that either, just that she had tried to poison him prior. So I don't know if he made a report or other than just, you know, telling family and friends, but one way or another, I mean, it's very sad. This guy goes to bed one night, he has a Moscow mule. At least that's, you know, the reporting is that he had this drink and that, you know, he dies. Now, I also have not heard, and I don't know if this will come out during the course of this case that they were able to find that glass or drink. It doesn't seem like the investigation they did that night was really that thorough. They did not really search around that house for other drugs. There was a nightstand there. There was the bathroom. There were cabinets. And it didn't seem that that evening they did any real searching. Now, of course, you know, you have somebody who's deceased and you're taking them out of the house, but it did not seem like they did a big investigation Right. At that point, because, remember, there was a long period of time before Eric's death and Corey getting charged.

C (17:48)

Right. And it does kind of make you wonder. It's certainly a fertile ground that I'm sure the defense will go into because we rely on that a lot. You know, we expect the cops to do their best and to not leave stones unturned. And it would seem to be a very reflexive first move to spread out and try to find what it was that caused this. And I would be very interested to know if they, you know, Moscow mules are in those hammered little glasses and whatever. I wonder if they did. At least other people tell me that it would be interesting to know that. It'd be interesting to know if they collected any of that and did any. Any testing on it. It doesn't seem like they covered that in the opening, which was, you know, seems to be methodically presented and it went down a timeline.

A (18:42)

Right. And I think when you look at this murder and whether the murder is a premeditated murder and. Or if it's this overdose, you know, obviously the prosecution is going to say it's premeditated because of things like the February 14th issue. They're going to say it was premeditated based on the fact that she took out life insurance on him and forged documents and forged signatures. Premeditated because she was having these financial issues. Premeditated because she had a boyfriend. So, you know, although it might be difficult to prove that, that she actually gave him the medication, all of these things surrounding it sort of make it easy for the prosecution to make the argument that it was a premeditated, planned out situation. And what do you do as the defense to counteract that?

C (19:35)

Well, you know, sometimes these cases are drip, drip, drip. There's not going to be any witness that says, I saw her crush it up with a mortar and pestle. I saw her sprinkle it in. That's not going to happen. But she is surrounded by really, really tough evidence. I think what's going to be the most damaging will be documentary evidence. Her text messages are going to be awful. Her searches, her Internet searches are so damning. She, before she's even arrested, is looking into luxury women's. Utah, Utah women's prisons. What can a woman bring to prison with her? She looks into what is considered a fatal fentanyl dosage. She looks extensively into can I wipe my icloud clean? How long do text messages last? Spoiler alert forever. You know, so, yeah, we call that

A (20:44)

death by a thousand cuts.

C (20:46)

Exactly. Exactly. So it's just really, really daunting here for her. But, you know, the way we push back as defense lawyers against the death by a thousand cuts is we do a version of that ourselves. We punch a hole in each piece of evidence and we argue cumulatively, cumulatively at the end that it isn't enough, that it's reasonable doubt, that, you know, and we talk attack, like we just said a minute ago, the beginning of this investigation and some flaws that happened early on.

A (21:18)

Doesn't it amaze you that, you know, here we are over a decade into this type of evidence being the linchpin in these cases when it comes to convictions, things that you search on your phone, things that you text messages that last forever. Just the fact that they can tell that she said she was in bed with him and, and then they can prove based on where the phone was in the house or the fact that she was on the phone and not sleeping. Isn't it amazing to you that these things continue to be the situations that bring people down? It's like you're. You're searching this, and as you're searching these things, aren't you thinking to yourself, someday some law enforcement person is going to be able to find this?

C (22:01)

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've counseled clients that, you know, don't say anything or type anything on your phone that you would not mind a judge and jury hearing down the road. You know, yes, it amazes me, number one, the technology, it's so fascinating. You know, they can put, they can tell what room she was in at 1. Like you said, she was 200ft over here, and she's not trained in that. So, you know, good luck to her. As they begin looking into that, where she's saying, yeah, I was in checking on one of my sons, you know, and they can tell if that was true or not by science. So as good of a storyteller as she might be, you know, technology wins oftentimes.

A (22:49)

And speaking of science, what do you make of the coroner not ruling this either an overdose or, or a homicide, the fact that it's undetermined. And do you think, I mean, obviously the defense is going to jump all over that, I mean, because we are told, trust the science, the sciences, of all the things that you can and can't believe and of all the things that you know and don't know, the science is even telling you that they don't know. And if they don't know, then you, the jury, should not know.

C (23:16)

Yeah, that is a huge mystery. I mean, I really don't know what to make of that. It's quite unusual. You know, they're always looking for manner and motive And I, I mean, not motive, but manner and means. And here they know it's fentanyl intoxication, but there's really. I don't know what to make of that, frankly. It's going to be interesting to see what the defense does there.

A (23:37)

Yeah, I mean, I would think that maybe hiring an expert to talk about the fact that it's very difficult to, to detect not only that type of poisoning, but obviously, you know, how it's actually ingested. And I mean, if this guy is in bed and sleeping, you know, this is not like the murder where you find somebody that fell on the ground and, you know, in the middle of having dinner, he's poisoned and falls over, he went to bed. So obviously, you know, whatever was in his system didn't kill him so quickly. I mean, we're told that even a, you know, teeny granule of fentanyl can kill you. So the fact that maybe they'll hire an expert to say he wouldn't have been able to even get himself into bed had she given him that amount of fentanyl prior to him going to sleep.

C (24:29)

Right. And it will be interesting for that expert to tell us how quickly fentanyl, you know, acts on the body. The coroner was able to determine it was street level fentanyl, so. And that it was five times the lethal dosage, which if, depending on how much the judge let in about the sandwich, is, you know, not a great fact.

A (24:55)

No, not at all. Let me ask you, I found this really interesting and maybe you can explain it to our viewers and our listeners. The defense played the 911 call during their opening statement and you know, normally you can't use pieces of evidence in your opening statements that are not admitted at trial. So explain to everybody listening and watching how that happens in a case prior to trial, that the defense has the ability to play those pieces of evidence prior to them being admitted in front of a jury.

C (25:32)

So the defense, and this is a talented team, as you noted, and I give them a real shout out because they have a very uphill climb, but they're, they're fit for it. So as you well know, there will be a series of hearings and they have already taken place here, motions in limine where the defense sort of gives a blueprint of what's to come. Judge, we want to get this in and we want to play it in our opening, no doubt, because they know there's going to be an avalanche of damning things and impressions form early and people, you know, listen for evidence to try and Link up is the government proving its case during these motion hearings. The judge is going to get the preview of the evidence and is going to make a ruling whether it's going to come in later on down the road. So once the judge greenlights that for the defense team and indicates that that's going to be admissible, I'm sure another ruling was made allowing them to play it in the opening. And I don't blame them. I mean it's powerful.

A (26:32)

It is. And it was very smart of them because it was really the only way and they obviously had to anticipate what was coming. It was the only way to counteract this idea that she was this cold blooded person that, that premeditated this, that planned it out, that gave him these drugs. It really was the way to show that in that moment. She does sound, as they said, as the grieving widow. That's what a grieving widow sounds like. So I do think that that helped because that, that prosecution's opening statement a, a blow for sure. And I do think that that was a good way to kind of lessen that a little bit. So I, I did think that that was a smart move on their part. And I think it's a good lesson to any lawyers listening that it's really smart to look at your evidence ahead of time and figure out how can I utilize this evidence as quickly as I can and sort of paint that narrative that you're going to try to carry on throughout the whole trial. So I, I agree with you. The team is stronger than it was a, it was a good move. I've been a little critical of them, especially Ms. Nestor on the Tyler Robinson case because I feel like they're trying to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. But I do think in this, this case, this was a good and smart move. So I, I liked it. But I'm sure we will be talking about this case for weeks to come as this trial continues. It's going to be fascinating to see how the evidence plays out. And now we are going to turn to the Caleb Flynn case. And Caleb Flynn is a former American Idol contestant who was known in his community as a churchgoer, as a faith filled guy. And now he is charged with the murder of his wife after setting up this elaborate scheme saying that they had an intruder in the home. He's calling 91 1. He's saying that the intruder shot his wife and just three days later Caleb is arrested for her murder. So let's talk about that one a little bit. Katherine what do you think so far? Now obviously it's very new, it's a very new case. So we're only talking about, you know, what we've heard thus far. But I think it's kind of interesting to talk about these from the time they happen and then we'll follow it through. So tell me what you're thinking about that because that three day period of time, I'm like wondering what they found that quickly that made them realize, or at least think that he's the person who was responsible for this.

C (28:52)

So. Ouch. Unlike the case we just talked about, there was no alleged trial run here. I think this was not a well thought out, well reasoned plan and obviously he's presumed innocent. But the way it's setting up, there was no forced entry. And the affidavit so far, there's no camera footage showing anyone coming up to the any ring doorbell. And we know everything's on film these days. We don't have any of that. There are no primarks showing a forced entry. And the entry itself is really unusual here because it would require the police to have believed that an unknown intruder got to that house with no trace from the outside world in a pretty crowded neighborhood. And we have to presume there are ring, like I said, ring cameras and things everywhere. The intruder gets in to a side door that has been left open that is blocked by a gigantic fridge or freezer that would have had to have been moved out of the way for the intruder to come in. And before going into the house for whatever business he planned to, he or she or the intruder planned to conduct inside that house, knows to stop at the truck that's inside the garage and knows to go into a center console to get out the gun that is then used to kill the wife. So it's, it's really. Yeah, it looks rough.

A (30:31)

And that's why it only took three days to arrest him. Right? Because it was all of these things that just made no sense. And like you said, in today's world, if you get a coffee at Starbucks, they know that you were there, they know where you went after that. They can follow, they can find your license plate reader on a car. I mean, if you live in a, a crowded area or metropolitan city, these are not hard things to figure out. As we saw in Luigi Mangione with New York tracing him all the way through the streets of New York to him getting in a taxi cab. So you know, as you said, this was not a well thought out situation and that's why this arrest Happened so quickly. And I know that the defense has argued very early on in the detention slash bond hearing that this was a rush to judgment and this was all of these things. But when you're using a gun that's attached to the person who lives in the house, that makes it a little bit difficult when you can't prove that anyone actually entered.

C (31:26)

Yeah, right, right. And it also explains why he went from taking his. I think he has two daughters. He's got two daughters. And he and the daughters went to camp out at the in laws and he was welcomed. And it's kind of harkens me back to the Peterson case where Lacey's family was very much in support of Scott up until the time they weren't. So something has transpired quickly behind the scenes where in consultation with these, with this police department and federal authorities, the family has withdrawn its support from the defendant and placed it squarely behind the law enforcement. So it's a tough one.

A (32:12)

And here's another case where there's an alleged affair or speculation of an affair. And of course, that will just go into motive. An affair is not enough of a reason to say that someone would kill their spouse, clearly. But it definitely adds to one more piece of that puzzle, which when you're trying to explain why a defendant may actually commit a crime.

C (32:35)

That's exactly right. So, you know, it's. Apparently there are some text messages out there and there's even one that I read about from his wife and Caleb's wife, the victim here, and it was on the day or just before that she was murdered. And it apparently allegedly says, I can't anymore. So, you know, it may, it may come out. What's been reported is that there was another woman at this church that worked alongside the victim and was involved with Caleb. And so, you know, it's. There's a lot more to this one than, than meets the eye.

A (33:20)

There's a 911 call here as well, and it was, know, Caleb calling the police, talking about an intruder, talking about the fact that his wife was shot. And, you know, I think that that call is obviously going to be very germane either to the prosecutor or the defense in this case, because I think that some of the allegations here now are that whatever he was saying didn't make sense based on the evidence. So, you know, the argument's going to be either that in his mind that's what was happening, or the prosecutor saying that could have never happened, given what we know about this case.

C (34:01)

Right. And you know, did you listen to the call.

A (34:06)

Yes.

C (34:07)

Okay. I did too. Yeah. I think, I think this is going to be another battle of the experts and agree he is. He's got that American Idol background. I think there's going to be a lot of speculation that he's well trained and it was performative performing and all that kind of stuff. And, you know, the prosecution will bring in these voice stress experts and, you know, and the defense will push back with no two people grieve alike. And there is no standard playbook for how people grieve. In the other case they were talking about, Corey had her hands down in her head. I mean, you know, so it's really, it will become a question for the jury to determine was this theatrics or was it genuine. But he does say some interesting things in the call. And he says she's been shot twice. And they do find two shell casings. But it. I have not heard anyone come out and say how many wounds to that head. So, you know, it's going to be kind of interesting to. To see how that all shakes out. And he's got the evidence tampering charge. So, you know, the accusation that he falsely tossed the room and everything, I mean, that adds another layer to it doesn't look good.

A (35:23)

It does. And it's this idea that that's not the way these things normally happen. And again, if you're trying to stage a crime, if you are trying to sound rehearsed, if you are trying to. That all plays into exactly what his training and background is. So I think it's going to be really interesting. Obviously, as you said before, everybody is innocent until proven guilty. That's what courtrooms are for. That's what trials are for. We will watch this one as it plays out. Again, we have two families here that have parents who are no longer with young children, which is awfully sad. And we hope that justice is done one way or another. But Katherine, I thank you so much for joining me today. You are a wealth of information and I will definitely have you back.

C (36:06)

Thank you so much. It's been my pleasure. And thanks for inviting me on. Great to see you, Donna.

A (36:10)

Thanks, Katherine. You too. I'm Donna Rotuno. Thank you for joining me on another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember to send us your thoughts and your theories. We want to hear from you. And don't forget to subscribe on YouTube or anywhere you get your podcasts. See you next time.