Alex Murdaugh Murder Convictions OVERTURNED, Lynette Hooker’s Boat Seized, and Kouri Richins Juror on Her Sentencing

Summary

MK True Crime Podcast – Episode Summary
Episode: "Alex Murdaugh Murder Convictions OVERTURNED, Lynette Hooker’s Boat Seized, and Kouri Richins Juror on Her Sentencing"
Date: May 14, 2026
Host: Phil Holloway (MK Media)
Guest Co-Host: Jonna Spilbore
Special Guest: Mark Robinson (Juror #1 from Kouri Richins trial)

---

Episode Overview

This episode tackles three major stories in the true crime world:

1. The stunning overturn of Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions and the legal scandal behind it.
2. New developments in the Lynette Hooker missing persons case, centering on the seizure of her boat.
3. The sentencing of Kouri Richins, featuring a firsthand interview with a juror from her trial.

The conversation is rich with expert legal analysis, courtroom audio, and firsthand perspectives, providing an insightful exploration of how justice hinges on integrity and the emotional aftermath of high-profile crimes.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Alex Murdaugh’s Murder Convictions Overturned ([00:54]–[23:40])

The Overturn and Its Significance

• Breaking News: Alex Murdaugh’s double murder convictions have been overturned and he is set for a new trial.
• This is due to misconduct by Becky Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court, who influenced jurors during the first trial while writing (and trying to sell) a book about the case.
• Phil and Jonna reflect on the drama and complexity of the Murdaugh saga, noting the gravity of a fellow lawyer’s crimes, both financial and violent.

The Scandal with Becky Hill

• Hill’s inappropriate contact with jurors, including attempts to sway their perceptions, led to a tainted trial.

• Quote (Phil, [05:35]): “You can’t really have a justice system… people have confidence and faith in… if you have individuals like this clerk of court that had her thumb on the scales of justice.”

• Supreme Court footnote on Hill: “…Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold. The book was pulled from publication because Hill plagiarized portions of it.” ([08:56])

• Jonna’s reaction ([09:39]): “Her credibility is nonexistent with the appellate court. How is that not perjury?”

Legal Ramifications and Systemic Trust

• Phil and Jonna agree Hill’s actions undermine trust in the justice system and open the door for further appeals in cases she oversaw.

• Discussion of appropriate penalties: Jonna argues for harsh sentencing to deter similar misconduct, while Phil expresses dismay that Hill only got probation ([16:32]).

• Quote (Jonna, [15:27]): “When you are in that kind of position and you abuse it and then lie about it… you have to send a message.”

On the Way Forward: Plea or Retrial?

• Phil doubts a plea deal would occur, given Murdaugh’s insistence on his innocence.
• Both believe a retrial—likely resulting in the same outcome—is most probable.
• Quote (Phil, [21:08]): “Maybe they work out a different charge… but what’s the point? He’s serving other sentences… he’s going to die in prison.”

---

2. Lynette Hooker Missing Persons Case ([23:40]–[27:53])

Case Recap & Latest Development

• Background: Lynette Hooker disappeared in the Bahamas while on a sailing trip with her husband, Brian.
• The US Coast Guard seized their sailboat, Soulmate, for a forensic search after the Bahamian investigation.
• The focus is on possible forensic and digital evidence indicating foul play and suspicions surrounding the husband, as highlighted by the victim’s daughter’s comments.

Crime Scene Integrity

• Phil and Jonna criticise law enforcement for allowing Lynette’s daughter, Carly, to access the boat, potentially contaminating the crime scene.
• Quote (Jonna, [27:24]): “It’s essentially a tainted crime scene. That’s ridiculous… especially since it was a crime scene.”

Ongoing Investigation

• Law enforcement seeks contact with the owner of another unidentified sailboat docked nearby at the time of Lynette’s disappearance.
• The Coast Guard treats the case as a potential crime, signaling an ongoing, active investigation.

---

3. Kouri Richins Sentencing & Juror Interview ([29:59]–[52:26])

Sentencing Highlights

• Kouri Richins is sentenced to life without parole for the murder of her husband, Eric Richins, via poisoning (fentanyl).
• Judge’s words: “Corey Richins was convicted… of attempting to murder Eric Richins… then doubling down… ultimately completing the act through the administration of poison. And for what? Money? All for pecuniary gain…” ([32:26])

Juror #1 Interview – Mark Robinson

• Mark praises the professionalism and clarity of the judge during sentencing ([33:46]).

• Jurors delivered a guilty verdict after three and a half hours of deliberation following a weekend to process the defense’s strategy ([34:25]).

• Mark reflects: “We had plenty of time to figure out what the facts were and try to sidestep some of the emotion from the case.” ([34:25])

• On whether Corey's allocution would have swayed the jury: “Whatever she said didn’t refute… cell phone data, financial forensics… all very damning facts that are removed from emotion.” ([43:09])

Corey's Sentencing Statement

• Richins pleads to her children for forgiveness, insists on her innocence, and denies the murder.
• Quote (Kouri Richins, [39:16]): “But murder? No. Absolutely not. I will not accept that. I will not be blamed for something I did not do… I will never quit or give up on this fight for justice, the truth, and coming home to you.”
• Jonna’s blunt analysis ([41:17]): “That is so disrespectful, not just to the system, but to her children who are living, breathing victims. Shame on you, Corey Richards.”

Family Impact Statements

• Eric’s sister Katie’s testimony underscores the emotional devastation and fear that Eric stayed in the marriage only to protect his children from Kouri ([44:40]).

• The children’s impact statements are heartbreaking and pivotal in the sentencing, expressing grief, anger, and a sense of betrayal.

• Quote from child’s letter ([50:14]): “You took away my dad for no reason other than greed. You only cared about yourself and your stupid boyfriends. ... I don’t want you out of jail because I will not feel safe if you are out.”

• Jonna’s empathy ([51:57]): “Here’s my hope for these kids. I hope these kids do find peace. I hope they get the therapy that they’re obviously going to need from surviving something this horrendous.”

Juror’s Reflection

• Mark describes wrestling with the emotional weight and striving to base the verdict on data and facts, not just sympathy or emotion.
• Quote ([47:55]): “There was a lot of mornings when I would wake up at two in the morning and not understand... There were many testimonies that people were bending truths, and then some of the facts, like cell phone data...in forensic accounting, there’s no bending.”

---

4. Closing Argument: The Goals of Criminal Sentencing ([54:37]–[58:42])

Phil lays out the five aims of sentencing judges:

1. Retribution: Punishment should fit the crime to satisfy societal demands for justice.
2. Deterrence: Sentencing deters both the individual offender (specific) and the public (general).
3. Incapacitation: Removing dangerous offenders from society for communal protection.
4. Rehabilitation: Reforming convicts for eventual reintegration into society.
5. Restitution & Restoration: Compensating victims and communities for their losses.

• Quote ([55:38]): “In every courtroom across America, judges weigh these five goals against the facts of each case to craft a sentence that is tough but hopefully fair, protective, but hopeful. That is the heart of criminal sentencing in the United States.”

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• Jonna Spilbore ([02:22]): “He deserves a new trial. I’m going on record for.”
• Phil Holloway ([05:35]): “You can’t really have a justice system…people have confidence and faith in…if you have individuals like this clerk of court that had her thumb on the scales of justice.”
• Supreme Court footnote ([08:56]): “...Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold.”
• Jonna Spilbore ([15:27]): “...when you are in that kind of position and you abuse it and then lie about it…you have to send a message... they need to throw the book at Becky Hill.”
• Judge on Richins ([32:26]): “Corey Richards was convicted... then doubling down... completing the act through the administration of poison. And for what? Money? …A person convicted of those things is simply too dangerous to ever be free.”
• Mark Robinson, juror ([34:25]): “But we had plenty of time to figure out what the facts were and try to sidestep some of the emotion from the case.”
• Kouri Richins ([39:16]): “But murder? No. Absolutely not. I will not accept that.”
• Jonna Spilbore ([41:17]): “That is so disrespectful, not just to the system, but to her children who are living, breathing victims.”
• Child’s impact statement ([50:14]): “...I want her to go to prison forever. You took away my dad for no reason other than greed.”
• Phil Holloway ([55:38]): “In every courtroom across America, judges weigh these five goals against the facts of each case to craft a sentence that is tough but hopefully fair, protective, but hopeful... that is the heart of criminal sentencing in the United States.”

---

Conclusion

This episode of MK True Crime delivers a comprehensive look at the fragility and importance of integrity within the justice system—from tampered verdicts and tainted crime scenes to the heartbreaking personal cost of murder. With firsthand insight from a juror and candid legal breakdowns, listeners walk away not just updated on the headlines, but understanding why the processes behind these verdicts and sentences matter so deeply.

---

Segments and Timestamps

• [00:54] – Alex Murdaugh conviction overturned
• [05:35] – Impact of Becky Hill’s misconduct
• [13:29] – Becky Hill’s testimony and book controversy
• [16:32] – Sentencing debate for Hill
• [23:40] – Lynette Hooker investigation; boat seized
• [27:53] – Concerns over crime scene contamination
• [29:59] – Kouri Richins sentencing; Judge’s statement
• [33:46] – Interview with Juror #1, Mark Robinson
• [39:16] – Kouri Richins’ statement to her children
• [44:40] – Victim impact testimony from Eric Richins’ sister
• [50:14] – Statements from the Richins children
• [54:37] – Closing argument on criminal sentencing purposes

---

Transcript

[A]

What if you could replace your windows and doors today and not pay a dime for two years? This May renewal by Andersen makes it happen. For a limited time, get beautiful new windows and doors with no money down, no monthly payments and no interest until May of 2028 with a minimum purchase of six. That's right. Install now and pay later. Way later. But this offer won't last. It ends May 31. Visit renewalbyandersonhome.com today and take advantage of this limited time offer.

[B]

What they did to your family. Your luck it to make it out alive.

[C]

Streaming on Peacock.

[A]

These men are going to come after me. Taking them out. It's my only chance.

[C]

Put a bullet in your head. From the co creator of Ozark.

[A]

Looks like a family was running drugs execution style.

[C]

Killing. It's rare for the Keys.

[D]

Any leads on who they might have been running for?

[A]

The cartel killed my family. I'm gonna kill them. All of them.

[C]

MIA Streaming now only on Peacock Foreign. Welcome to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Phil Holloway. I'm a criminal lawyer, I'm a former prosecutor and I'm an ex cop. I have been in and around the criminal justice system in the United States for the better part of 40 Years now and I believe I know a great true crime show when I see one. And we've got one on tap for you today. I'm very pleased to be joined by the Jonna Spielbore, my guest co host. She's a criminal defense lawyer and co host of the new our sister MK True Crime Channel show called Positively Legal. Welcome to the program, Jonna. Let's go over what we have on the docket today. There's a shock move in the Alex Murdaugh murder case. The appeal has been decided and the conviction is overturned. Murdoch gets a new trial. We'll bring you up to speed on

[B]

what why that's big. And Corey Richards spoke during her sentence sentencing yesterday. We'll share what she had to say and her fate.

[C]

And joining us a little bit later in the program to discuss that sentence is Richen's trial juror number one, Mark Robinson. So we can't wait to hear John, what he has to say. And John, again I want to say thank you for joining us. Ashley Merchant is off today. So let's go ahead and start with the Murdoch news. Jonael.

[B]

Yeah, so this is big because I almost forgot about one of my favorite trials of all time, which was the case against Alec Murdoch. Now he filed an appeal, as you guys would remember, for a very good reason. Phil, that reason being the. The clerk of the court was kind of caught with her, you know, hand in the cookie jar, influencing jurors while she was writing a book and maybe trying to sell a few more books. And that was the essence of the Murdoch appeal. And that appeal was granted and his conviction was overturned. He's going to be getting a new trial. And I love the first one. I hope I love the second one as much as I love the first, because that was. It was riveting. You know, he's a fellow lawyer, Phil. Like, you never want to think about our fellow lawyers going down the road that he went down. But he did some shady stuff for a long time. That's very, very sad. But he's going to get a new trial and he deserves a new trial. I'm going on record for.

[C]

Well, up until, up until the 13th of May, 2026, which is when we're recording this show, he was serving two life sentences for the 2021 murders of his wife Maggie and his son Paul. And, you know, he had one of the most, I guess, stunning downfalls, right, because he was a sort of a big shot, powerful guy in Colleton County. But his, I guess, crimes sort of revealed a massive web of not only, you know, murders that he was, I guess he's now presumed innocent of again, but he was once convicted of. But there's also all these financial crimes, John. Over $9 million he stole from clients and others. Years of deception. Years of deception. And the whole thing was absolutely just stunning.

[B]

You know, you just reminded me, Phil. Yeah, the financial crimes were really awful. And he had these sympathetic clients and he was, he was stealing from them. Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't he also convicted in a separate trial of those financial crimes? So it's not like if people hear, oh, my God, Alex Murdoch, the appeal was granted. Getting a new trial. He's not getting out anytime soon.

[C]

He's. No, he's not. Yeah, he pleaded, he actually pleaded guilty to a lot of other charges, both state and federal, for stealing in those cases, like, up to like $12 million from clients from his law firm, you know, and from the government. But as of, as of the day of this recording, so he's got his murder convictions at least overturned. And, you know, he's always maintained his innocence on those charges. But, you know, we'll see what happens with the next trial. But here's the thing. You know, you and I were talking about this before the show started, and I think it's worth repeating now. You Know, we. We don't have any love lost for Alec Murdoch. Right. But, but, and again, he's presumed innocent. I personally think, in my opinion, he's guilty of the murders. But. And we'll see what the next jury says. But this particular trial that he had reversed. So you can't really have a justice system, John, and you know this. You can't have a justice system that's reliable. People have confidence and faith in. If you have individuals like this clerk of court that had her, you know, thumb, so to speak, on the scales of justice because, you know, she was convicted in her own case. Right. Of perjury and other related things. And you can't just have a. An officer of the court. And the clerk, by the way, is someone who can have a lot of direct contact with jurors, and you just can't. You got to leave those people alone. You've got to isolate them, basically. Even if it's not a situation where they are sequestered, like in a hotel, but while they are on duty at the courthouse, you got to leave them alone. And she wouldn't.

[B]

No, she wouldn't. And it wasn't like her contact was. What do you want for lunch today, guys? You know, pizza or hamburgers, Right. Like, she was giving cues to this juror as much as. As she could, and it was really inappropriate. And I'm. I'm also trying to harken back. There was. And again, you'll correct me, Phil, wasn't there a motion for a mistrial when that came? Or did it happen? Did it get discovered after the trial was over or did it get discovered during? I want to say during. I should. I should take a trip down memory lane here, because I know it came up before the appeal. I just can't remember if it was after the trial and before sentence or at some other point.

[C]

Well, so here's the thing. You know, prosecutors had argued that there was no evidence that suggested her comments about Murdoch and his testimony impacted the verdict. They did concede that her comments were inappropriate. She was, you know, she was elected as the clerk of the Colleton County Court. I think it was the end of 2020. And that was before Maggie and Paul Murdaugh were killed. And so before that, she was a court reporter. And she's been. So she's not new to this. She's been around the courts for 14 years. She definitely knew better. But we have sought one. Let's go ahead and roll that, by the way. And this is Becky Hill, the former and now convicted ex Clerk of Court of College and county, answering the prosecutor's questions. And this was during the Alec Murdaugh appeal. This was a hearing on his effort to get his case tossed. Sat 1. At any time did you interact with any juror in an attempt to influence their view of the facts in the State v. Murdaugh case? No. All right. Now I want to ask you some specifics about that and some allegations that have been raised. At any time did you tell the jury not to be fooled by evidence presented by Mr. Murdoch's attorneys?

[A]

I did not.

[C]

At any time did you instruct the jury to watch him closely and look at his actions?

[A]

I did not.

[C]

At any time did you instruct the jury or tell the jury to look at his movements?

[A]

No.

[C]

At any time, as the jury moved to deliberate, did you tell the jury, this shouldn't take long? No. At any time did you tell the jury that the defense case, watch out for the defense case, they're going to try to throw you off or anything along those lines that was meant to influence the jurors against Mr. Murdoch?

[A]

No.

[C]

Hey, John, look, I want to, I want to hear what you have to say about that clip, but I want to contrast what you just heard, that testimony. This is a footnote in the, in the ruling that granted the new trial, the Supreme Court dropped this footnote in there. And it says, quote, as her book's title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold. The book was pulled from publication because Hill's plagiarized. Because Hill plagiarized portions of it. I mean, so, I mean, quite a contrast with what the foot, that footnote in the opinion versus that testimony.

[B]

Well, obviously her credibility is non existent with the appellate court. And how is that not perjury? I mean, these questions didn't come out of thin air. These are the things she is accused of doing. And she sat there with a very straight face and said, no, obviously she was not believed because if she didn't do all those things, then the appeal probably wouldn't have been granted. But the appellate court said, I'm real sorry about that, but I. She's probably going to find herself in a little bit more trouble, I would think, following this, as she should. And what about Phil, Sorry, wait, before we move on, I want to focus on this. But what about any other cases that she was in the courtroom for while the jury was deliberated? Like it was illustrated in this one? This was a big high profile. You think she is the first and last time, you know, I don't know.

[C]

I mean this is the kind of thing, it's a great question. I. Look, I don't know. I mean, obviously, but this is such a rare thing and it's not every day.

[B]

Is it though? I mean, does it make you wonder?

[C]

It's rare. I mean, look, in this courthouse they don't have a lot of these high profile cases that hit Colleton County, South Carolina or anywhere else for that matter. You don't really have cases like this. And to me, my sense is that she just kind of let, I guess ambition and maybe greed and some other things get away from her.

[A]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.

[D]

I don't know if you knew this,

[A]

but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities.

[C]

So do like I did and have

[A]

one of your assistant's assistants switch you

[C]

to Mint Mobile today.

[A]

I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail] Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] still waiting in line again. That's time you'll never get back. Save time and money with stamps.com over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with stamps.com join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office for a limited time. Go to stamps.com and use code podcast for a free free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply.

[B]

Missed calls and slow follow ups are silent killers.

[A]

That's how businesses leave money on the table without even realizing it. That is why today's episode is brought

[B]

to you by Quo, spelled Q U O, the business communications system built so

[A]

that you never miss a call. Your entire team can handle calls and texts from one shared number, meaning no more dropped conversations. Everyone sees the full thread, replies are faster and your customers actually feel prioritized. Quo works wherever you are on your

[B]

phone or on your computer.

[A]

You keep your existing number, you add teammates in minutes and then you sync your CRM effortlessly. It is currently the number one rated business phone system on G2, trusted by over 90,000 businesses. To stay professional and reachable, everything you need is in one clean view. It gives your team the full Context needed to. To provide a personalized experience every single time. Money's on the line.

[B]

Say hello with quo.

[A]

Try quo for free. Plus get 20% off your first six

[B]

months when you go to quo.commk that's quo.commk.

[C]

there's another SOT that we have here. We have Becky Hill testifying to a passage in her book. So she says that she felt guilt. She felt when she felt Murdoch was guilty. So let's go ahead and hit SOT 2. You have described in your book your role as Switzerland. Is that correct?

[A]

Correct.

[C]

Okay. And that is that you should not be in any way opinionated about what's going on in the trial. Is that correct?

[A]

That's true.

[C]

Okay. Yet in your book, you indicated a number of different points during the trial. You had concluded he was guilty. Is that correct? Let me give you an example. You indicate writing back from Moselle, that you and three other people were in a car and you all decided adamantly, I think was the word you used, that he was guilty, that he had killed his wife and son. Is that what you put in the book? I can't remember if I put that in the book.

[B]

But if you say I did, then

[A]

I will agree with you.

[C]

Did that happen?

[A]

We did have a conversation about what each of us thought.

[C]

And all four agreed that he was guilty. Correct.

[A]

And none of us were jurors.

[C]

I can. You want me to read you how chilled you were and how you felt that poor Paul and. And. And Maggie been executed by him on that scene? That visiting the scene convinced you that he was a horrible, horrible murderer. You want me to read that to you? Or you can concede that's what you wrote.

[A]

I will concede that's what I wrote.

[C]

John. I don't know if she was lying there. I have my thoughts about it. But I can tell you what she. She did plead guilty to perjury because she apparently showed a reporter photographs that were sealed court exhibits and she. She lied about doing that and she had. So she pleaded guilty to that. And look, here's the thing. What do you think Johnna should be the appropriate sentence? And I'm going to talk about sentencing a little bit later in my closing argument at the end of the program. But what do you think the sentence would be for someone who pleads guilty to perjury and things like that? She misconduct and using her public office to promote her book about the trial. What do you think would be the appropriate sentence considering all the government resources that were wasted on this behemoth of A trial.

[B]

Well, the reason why I think the book should be thrown at her. And look, I'm a criminal defense attorney. You're a criminal defense attorney. We fight for criminal defendants all the time. However, when you are in that kind of position, right, you are the right hand of a judge, and you are there in a very high profile, very serious double murder case involving an attorney who's a court officer. When you are in that kind of position and you abuse it and then lie about it in order to get away. Abusing it is bad enough, but she doubled down and lied about it. You have to send a message, because nobody that walks through the hallowed halls of any courthouse is going to trust the process. We are a part of that process. Judges are a part of the process. The prosecutor's part of the process. No one is going to trust us in our system of jurisprudence if we don't make sure that the bad apples, when they fall from the tree, get kicked to the curb for a long time, and that's why they need to throw the book at Becky Hill.

[C]

Well, you know, look, I. I agree with you. I think that's very well said, Jonna. And, you know, anytime somebody pleads guilty, the prosecutor and the defendant can enter into a plea agreement, but the judge has the final word on whether or not that agreement is going to be accepted. She pleaded guilty, and she got three years of probation. And I'm just going to tell you, if I were the judge, I would not have accepted three years on probation. I mean, I'm not saying she has to go to prison for several decades, but, you know, all the money that was wasted and all of the damage that she did to the sanctity of the justice system, I mean, people. There's a reason why people don't trust it. It's because of shit like this. And so I think I would have had to have some jail time in that if I were going to accept it, if I were the judge that took her plea.

[B]

Oh, absolutely. That's the only way that you're going to instill at least some modicum of confidence back in at least that local community. I mean, this was a big deal. This was almost as bad as if a judge got caught doing the same thing. She sits right there. I mean, she sits there. So really, a slap on the wrist. And there are reasons why. There are reasons why judges would approve such a light sentence. There are reasons why maybe the prosecution wanted to go light on her. But I think the message that that sends is not the one that they that they needed to. And again, I'm going to go back to my other point. I know you're saying, look, this happens so rarely, and you, you very well could be right. But if I were a defendant in that jurisdiction and I had gotten found guilty in a trial that she was sitting next to the judge on, I'd be calling my lawyer and saying, you know what? We got to get back in. Give me a habeas corpus. Give me something. This is bull. And I'd be doing that. I'd be surprised if people in that community aren't doing it.

[C]

You know, here's another thing. What you just said maybe made me have this thought, which has occurred to me before, but I just now realized that I once had previously realized this. You know, if I were the prosecutor. You just saw prosecutors, I guess, asking her these questions. It's their job. Or at least what they tried to do is they tried to protect the appeal.

[B]

Right?

[C]

She, she. She did all these things, and it tainted the trial. The prosecutors attempted to salvage the conviction. And I understand why. I'm not, but I don't agree with them doing so. And let me explain why. I can see why they came to the decision that they have to try to salvage this conviction. But this is one where I think, if I were the prosecutor and it came to my attention that this kind of stuff had gone on, I might have considered, and I probably would have agreed to the defense motion for a new trial. I would have conceded that what she did was so far outside the bounds of what's reasonable and proper and acceptable and ethical. I think I would have just gone ahead and thrown in the towel and conceded the point that we have to do another trial.

[B]

Well, I'm curious. Tell me why. Because that's a big decision. Again, you talk about wasted resources. A DA's, you know, the top DA is an elected official. They'd have to explain that. Why would you do that if you were prosecuting this case?

[C]

Well, the bottom line is, I think it would be the right thing to do. Look, we've got, obviously a situation where they wasted a lot of money, but I think the appeal is, I think throwing good resources after bad, throwing good money after bad because this is so bad and it's so improper that, you know, a prosecutor has a different sort of obligation from a criminal defense lawyer. Their obligation is to do justice. Right. And their obligation is not to preserve the integrity, preserve a conviction at all costs, or to get a conviction at all costs, for that matter. And so once you have a case that you realize is so tainted by impropriety. And not just any impropriety. Impropriety by the clerk of court and jury tampering, essentially. I think that that is the exceptional case where a prosecutor would have been well justified to say, you know what? As regrettable as it is, we feel that we have no choice but to concede the defense point and to agree with a new trial.

[B]

All right, so let me ask you another question. Let's look into. Let's get our crystal balls out. What if. Or what do you think the possibility is that this prosecution team might be poised to enter into some sort of plea deal instead of trying this a second time?

[C]

Yeah, you got to wonder. I thought that myself, too, because, you know, they don't want to have to go through this again. Maybe he pleads guilty to 35 years. It's the same thing as a life sentence. I'm just throwing that out there. Right? It's the same thing as a life sentence for this guy, and he's. He's going to die in prison. Maybe they work out a different charge for him to plead guilty to, because what's. What will be the point? Because if he's obviously serving other sentences, that is going to keep him in prison for the rest of his life or damn close to it. What. You know, why not go ahead and consider at least some kind of plea deal? I wouldn't make the plea deal personally, but I can see why they might.

[B]

What? Okay, last. Last one. Sorry. Sorry. Phil. What if he goes, he has a second trial, right? They're going to try him again. And what if by hook or crook, the evidence of his voice back out in the backyard, the thing that really sunk him, the thing he lied about when. Hey, Bubba. What was it? The dog? Bubba. What if that piece of evidence somehow got suppressed? Everything else was there but that piece of evidence. Do you think it would change the outcome if he has a second trial?

[C]

What if. What if frogs had wings? They'd be birds. And so I say. I say no, I don't think that that's going to happen. I think that that evidence is going to come in, and it's going to be a situation like it was the first time. The jury can decide what, if anything that evidence means. They can decide what weight to give to it or not give to it as they so choose. And so I think that the, you know, they got away. The probative value versus the any danger of unfair prejudice and all that. But the jury, I think, can sort that out. I think that's coming in. I think there's going to be another trial, and I think he's going to be convicted again.

[B]

Yeah, I don't think he's going to enter into any plea deal that doesn't do him any favors. So 35. He might. He should say to himself, you're giving me 35 to 35 years. Let me get. Let me have another whack.

[C]

Well, he's got nothing to lose by having another trial. He's not going to take a plea. The only thing that would, I think, cause him to take a plea deal is if he could admit to something that closes this case where he doesn't admit to killing his wife and son. Because he's been so adamant that he's. He didn't do those things. I think he's just really, really ashamed of it, which he should be. But, you know, I think that if he were going to take something, it would have to have some kind of agreement that he wouldn't have to admit to doing those things, which is. I don't. Which is why I don't think it's going to ever happen. I think it could happen. I don't think it's likely. But you know what, Jonah? I think we're going to have to wait and see on this. And of course, we'll be all over it here on the MK True Crime Channel. And I know your show will cover it. We'll cover it here on the MK True Crime Show. We're all going to be all over this case as it moves forward now through potentially another trial or some other disposition. But I want to switch gears real quick before the break and talk real quick about the Lynette Hooker case, right? She's the lady Lynette hooker. She was 55 years old. She disappeared on Saturday, April 4, while in the Bahamas on a trip with her husband Brian. And of course, she remains missing. But, John, the new news on this, right, is that the. The ship. The ship, the. The boat, the sailboat called Soulmate, has been seized by the. By the US Coast Guard, and they're going through it with a fine tooth comb. Johnna, they're looking for. What are they looking for?

[B]

They're going to be looking for all kinds of forensic evidence, right? Like this husband's story. I mean, the reason why this is so interesting is because obviously the husband is a suspect. And more interesting, the daughter of the. We'll call her a victim, right? We don't really know what happened. We'll call her a victim. Said, hey, they weren't really getting along that great. So how convenient that she goes overboard or disappears at that time. So they're going to be looking for evidence that there was some sort of crime that was committed that led to this happening. And I don't know, they'll probably. I'm sure they're going to come up with something. You would think some sort of DNA that might not be natural for two people out on a joy ride, but I don't know.

[C]

Law enforcement in the Bahamas has been through it and now the Coast Guard has it as of May 9, and it is currently docked in Fort Pierce Coast Guard station down in Florida. They're, they're searching, you know, for any kind of evidence, whether it be digital or forensic or otherwise. But here's the thing, and we're going to show site 5 here in just a second. But before we roll that five is her. Her daughter Carly, who is. Got access to the boat and went on the boat and looked through it for various things related to her mom. Keepsakes, mementos, whatever. And I. I gotta tell you, I think that if there's any chance of law enforcement getting any evidence from it, it was probably best to not let her have access to it while it still is a potential crime scene. But let's go ahead and check out site five, which is Carly exploring the soulmate after her mom's disappearance. You sure there's nothing else up front? You're just looking for little knickknacks, baby. Bunch of. Okay, I'm just.

[D]

I'm just looking like any books or any.

[C]

What about the Bahama thing there or the. Or this?

[D]

Oh, there you go.

[C]

I know, baby, I know, I know. John, it's clear that the Coast Guard's investigation is intensifying, but I gotta wonder, would the, Would the results of any investigation have been tainted in any way by giving her, her daughter, access to what could be a crime scene?

[B]

Oh, my God. Absolutely right. Put our criminal defense hats on. Whatever. If they do come up with something from the boat, that's going to be the examination number one. Defense attorneys are going to have a field day with that. But it's essentially a tainted crime scene. That's ridiculous. That is absolutely ridiculous that she was allowed to do it, especially since it was a crime scene. So that'll come back. That'll come back to haunt the prosecution, you watch. Well, if there's a prosecutor. I mean.

[C]

Yeah, if there is one.

[B]

Yeah, if there is one.

[C]

Well, look, he definitely. Look, he looks shady. And that's about all we can say, did he flee the Bahamas because he has some consciousness of guilt, or was it truly to look for his or to tend to his ailing mother? I think as he said he was gonna do. But here's the thing, John of the US Coast Guard, they released two photos of an unidentified sailboat that was they released these photos on May 5th, and they say this sailboat may have been docked near Soulmate when Lynette disappeared. And they want to speak with the owners of the vessel. They've encouraged anyone with information to submit tips through their Tip app. So clearly the Coast Guard Investigative Service is actively working this case as if it might have been a crime. And so we will have to see. But look, coming up, John, we have get this. We have Corey Richards, right? We're going to get into the Corey Richards sentencing. We have juror number one. He's going to join us to discuss the sentencing. And we will be right back. Stick with us.

[A]

Still waiting in line again. That's time you'll never get back. Save time and money with stamps.com over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with stamps.com. join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail and packages in sample seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office for a limited time. Go to stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply. If you're the proud parent of a

[B]

puppy or kitten, you know you can't

[A]

pet proof your entire life. There simply isn't a sock drawer high enough or a couch cover thick enough. But you can pet proof your wallet with lemonade Pet insurance. Whether it's an unexpected accident or a routine checkup, lemonade can cover up to 90% of the bill. Plus, they can handle claims in as little as two seconds. So before you turn into a complete helicopter pet parent, get a'@lemonade.com Pet folks,

[C]

springtime is a glorious time of year, but it also wreaks havoc on allergies. That's why Beekeepers naturals should be a staple in your springtime arsenal. Their nasal spray max can be used daily during allergy season to flush out irritants, soothe sinus irritation and reduce histamine response while defending against germs. It's packed with other clean ingredients like saline to clear and moisturize and oregano oil to invigorate your sinuses. Paired with their immune support throat spray, your family can be protected with antioxidants that fight free radicals and defend against germs on the spot. The spray provides soothing relief with slippery elm and menthol, calming inflammation without a single nasty additive. Today, Beekeepers Naturals is giving listeners an exclusive offer. So go to beekeepersnaturals.com Megan M, E G, Y N or enter code Megan to get 20% off your order. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Phil Holloway, joined today by my special guest, co host Jona Spielberg. And we have breaking news. Corey Richards has been sentenced to life without parole out in Utah. We're going to have a very special guest we have joining us today, Mark Robinson, who is juror number one from the Corey Richards trial. He's going to discuss the sentencing, his thoughts on the trial, and so much more. But before we get into that, let's go ahead and roll the site showing Corey Richards being sentenced to life without parole. The court's duty is to make a decision, a weighty, long lasting decision based on the best information available today. And the bottom line is this. Corey Richards was convicted unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt of attempting to murder Eric Richards, her husband and the father of their three children. And then having failed in her first effort of spending the next 17 days not changing course, but doubling down, preparing to try again, and ultimately completing the act through the administration of poison.

[A]

And for what?

[C]

Money?

[A]

All for pecuniary gain.

[C]

A person, if convicted of committing that sequence of acts in that way and for that reason, and who causes the absolute tragedy that has befallen Eric Rich

[D]

and sons and family,

[C]

a person convicted of those things is simply too dangerous to ever be free.

[A]

Accordingly, Ms. Richins, based on your conviction

[C]

on count one, first degree felony aggravated

[D]

murder, the court hereby sentences you to life without parole.

[C]

Guys, look, I want to bring everybody into the conversation, but look, that is a, that is a judge who listened very carefully to the evidence and he had his own thoughts. And honestly, I think he probably had a pretty good idea what he was going to do before he handed down that sentence. Mark Robinson, you were juror number one. Let's go to you. What are your thoughts about what you just saw and heard out of the courtroom?

[D]

I mean, that judge is about as classy as a judge there is from a professionalism standpoint. He, he is so clear. He's so precise with his words. He uses his language incredibly well. And I expected nothing less from the way that he handled that entire sentencing.

[B]

Mark, can I ask you a question since it's, it's rare that we get a juror who had a Literal front row seat to this kind of trial. Didn't you guys, like, break the land speed record and coming back with your guilty verdict, wasn't it a very fast verdict? Remind me.

[D]

I mean, this is my first time doing it, so, you know, for me, I only know the singular event. But I can tell you this. When the. The defense team rested on Thursday afternoon, the jury had a good idea that we were going to spend the next three days, because there was no court, we were to show up on Monday morning for final closings. We had three days over the course of a weekend to. Not necessarily with juror instructions to start deliberation, but in our heads, we were able to process and understand that what made sense, review our mental notes. And so some may say that, you know, three and a half hours is fast to deliberate, but. But I would push back on that and say we had the entire weekend to kind of understand that the defense was. Was resting and that was their defensive strategy and good for them for taking it. But. But we had plenty of time to figure out what the facts were and try to sidestep some of the emotion from the case.

[C]

You know, Mark, let's. Let's take a step back. That's pretty good insight as to how you guys went into the deliberations. Are you still in contact with any of the jurors? And if so, do you have any sense for what your fellow jurors might think about today's sentencing?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, I'm on a group thread with them all, so everybody's texting me. I think as we're speaking right now. I put my phone down for the interview, obviously. But, yeah, I mean, a bunch of wows, you know, some. Some other things that I'll probably keep it close because this was such a great juror group. I want to keep some of the comments, probably, unless they want to speak about them, let's let them speak out in their own forum. But yeah, we're all in contact. And, you know, even the alternates have a great lens on what happened. They saw everything. So there was eight of us ultimately, but there really was 12 of us. And so there's a support system there to, to understand. And after listening to Corey's, you know, very long statement, you know, there's a lot of emotion in that, and it brings everything back. And so, yeah, as a human being, I just. It's just taking it all in. That was only, you know, 10 minutes ago, so.

[B]

Well, is that the first time you heard. Sorry, Phil.

[C]

No, go ahead.

[B]

Did Corey Richards Testify. She didn't testify at her trial, did she?

[D]

No, she chose not to. And that was her right in a defensive strategy. But I, you know, I made voice notes every night, 10 or 12 minutes. And I think after day six or seven, I wrote in my notes that I really wanted to hear what she had to say. And if it was my three boys that I was trying to get back to, I definitely would have wanted to. To speak my piece. But ultimately she waited till the very end, and by then it was too late. So that was her choice.

[C]

We're going to get to the statements that were made in the sentencing hearing, I guess, on behalf of the children. And by the way, let's. Let's remember the children are victims too, here. It's not just that she took a life. She ruined a lot of other lives in the process, not to mention her own. But, you know, I think the sentence is. Is absolutely appropriate. But we want to. I want to. I want to talk about what the kids had to say. But since you brought it up, and I know, John, I can't wait to talk about this, let's go ahead and listen to at least some of what Corey had to say today to the judge, which might explain why her lawyers advised her against testifying.

[A]

My sweet baby boys. I know that today you don't want to speak to me, have a relationship with me, or you may think you hate me, and that's okay. I will never be angry at you for your feelings. When the day comes that you're ready, I will be here for you, waiting for you and loving you. But I need you boys to know and understand that I have been desperately trying to get in contact with you any way that I can for years. That all of my communication has been completely cut off from you since early 2024. And now I will use any opportunity I can to get a message to you, even if that means sharing it publicly to the world, fully restrained in my jail clothes in one of the most horrible situations possible. I don't care. And I'm not embarrassed or ashamed by any of it. All I care about is you boys. I will do whatever it takes for you to hear the truth from me and to come home to you. I can beat myself up all day about how I could have been a better person or made better personal choices. And I can understand and accept you boys being upset about those things.

[B]

But murder?

[A]

No. Absolutely not. I will not accept that. And I will not be blamed for something I did not do. I will appeal and fight these charges. No matter how long it takes. Not because I have anything to prove to this court, to the state, to the rich and family, or to the world. But I do have something to prove to you three. I do care what you boys think. And I need you boys to know the truth. And because of that, I will never quit or give up on this fight for justice. The truth and coming home to you. So please, I know that right now you may not believe me, that you believe I took dad from you. And that's okay. I still and will always love you. And I'm asking that you please just don't give up on me.

[C]

Jonna, have you ever seen anything like that?

[B]

I have seen people in denial when they're allocating at sentencing because they don't want to trip up their appellate process. I have seen that aplenty. But we have to remember this is a woman with three children who killed her children's father. Can I just. I just want to break down a couple of things and interpret this for our audience. She says to her kids, I will never be angry at you for your feelings, assuming that her kids can't stand her. How ridiculously selfish is that? To think that the children who she who are also victims, give a shit if she has any anger toward them after she killed their father. So she says, I've been cut off from communicating with you since 2024. Like, oh, poor me. I haven't been able to, you know, make you peanut butter and jelly or talk to you since I've been locked up. Why was I locked up? Because I killed your father. The horrible situation she speaks of, she caused. She also says, I'm not ashamed by any of it. Let me just thumbnut my nose at the entire system. And in fact, she goes on to say, I have nothing to prove to this court or to the state or to the Richards family. You know what that's code for, Phil? That's code for fuck you. That's what that's code for. And that is so disrespectful, not just to the system, but to her children who are living, breathing victims. Shame on you, Corey Richards. Shame on you.

[C]

You know, look, Mark, if the judge had any question about what sentence he might give, and it doesn't sound like he did, but if he did, I wonder if that outrageous allocution by Corey Richards. And I agree with every word John just said, I wonder if that may have pushed him over the edge and into that life without parole sentence. Your thoughts?

[D]

I mean, he's so calculated and such a prose Pro. I would imagine that he knew exactly the forum and he wasn't going to get swayed by the emotion of the case. He just, throughout the entire four weeks we were with him, he was just, he was calm, cool and collected. And I don't, I, you know, emotion right now is, is probably on a little on edge for a lot of people. And, and people probably were expecting a completely different statement from Corey. And now that she has said what, you know, obviously more of a defiant statement, I don't think it probably played into much of an opinion just because he, he's just, he's that good of a judge. I was just so impressed by him. So very more surprised that Corey came out with that statement. But I guess that is. Was her right to come out like that.

[B]

So, Mark, if you had heard her say, if she had testified and she testified like that, would that have changed your mind as a juror?

[D]

You know, hard to say. Monday morning quarterback. I think as a human being, we're all inherently flawed. And so, no, I mean, ultimately whatever she said didn't refute, you know, cell phone data, financial forensics. And as Detective o' Driscoll said, you know, a boatload of fentanyl was left in his stomach and they didn't find any in the house. I thought those are all very damning facts that are removed from emotion. And so I would, I would hope that we could look at it from the same lens that we did and try to make the right decision. But inherently, you know, this is the system that we've had in place in the United States and this is the best system probably in the world. So looking back now. No, but again, the human element is, is it works in a lot of cases and you try to remove that as best you can.

[C]

Get into some of the victim impact testimony which, you know, the prosecution presented prior to Corey Richards. Allocation slot 12. We have Katie's. Excuse me. Katie is the sister of the victim. So it's Eric's sister. She gave some victim impact testimony regarding this sentencing. She basically said that. Excuse me. She said. Basically said that. This was a heartbreaking detail why Eric was in the marriage at the time of his death. She says that she knew that Corey was evil. Let's go with sat 12.

[A]

When Eric told me he had changed his estate planning and appointed me as his trustee and personal representative, I begged him to end the marriage and go his separate way. By that point, he had already consulted with a divorce attorney and was deeply afraid that he might not be awarded sole custody of his children. He made the heartbreaking decision to stay because he could not accept the risk of what might happen to his sons if Cory had equal custody. He told me he would live his life through hell every single day of his life until his youngest was 18, because he believed Corey was the most evil person he had ever met. He knew that his sons did not like her. He told me as much many times. He knew that they would prefer to be far away from her, but he also knew that divorce carried significant risks. And he said he could never allow his children to spend half of their time alone with her because he was certain they were. Would be exposed to harm.

[C]

So, you know, she testified at the trial, too, and in my opinion, she did a pretty good job. But I want to hear what. What you. You think about that.

[D]

I. I actually hadn't seen that clip, but I could see the rage obviously in. In. In Katie. Rightfully so. I mean, I think the veins were popping out in her eyes. And so, you know, as a brother, as a dad, I, you know, it's. It's hard. You can never remove that emotion. But, yeah, throughout the trial, I think there was some evidence that. That came in that Katie essentially went up to one of the detectives while Eric was still being moved out of the house, that. That Corey was responsible and that they should obviously follow the breadcrumbs to her. And so, you know, those are very powerful statements that, that. That Katie obviously believed, well before any of this, that. That Corey probably had malice. And for the detectives to follow that, and then if it wasn't for Todd Gabler, I mean, this. This probably doesn't get. Doesn't get sentenced and finished up like it did. So, you know, a lot of. A lot of the information and evidence that came in, Todd Gabler provided. And so there's a lot of people that were. That, you know, we kind of have to applaud to make sure that this all was done correctly.

[B]

I'm very impressed with your level of understanding of the trial. You obviously took this case exceptionally seriously, which is very heartening to me, because sometimes as attorneys, we don't know if. If our juries are paying attention or paying close attention or what have you. You obviously were, and I'm happy to hear that. I'm very happy to hear that. Was there any one particular moment in this trial that stands out to you in any way? And I mean, a moment that haunts you, a moment that keeps you up, a moment that you maybe ruminate on or didn't understand or maybe change the game for you Was there one thing that stood out in this trial for you?

[D]

I mean, the closing statements and the opening statements were probably the two because, again, the human element. And so it's very easy to look back and say, hey, look, that didn't make sense. But there was a lot of mornings when I would wake up at two in the morning and not understand. I mean, what I'm essentially trying to do is evaluate who's telling the truth, who's telling total truth, and who's bending truths. And there were many testimonies that people were bending truths, and then some of the facts, like cell phone data, like forensic accounting, there's no bending. And so the closing statements had me there for a minute just because I didn't want to have a double homicide. I mean, I didn't want to send. I looked for off ramps for. For Corey many times to say, hey, look, this is a mom. Like, there's three boys. Like, they need their mom. And then. And then I, you know, kind of had to quickly, you know, shake my head and be like, mark, what are you talking about? Like, all the facts lead to her. And. And so just the human element, just being a human being, trying to do the best you can to take the case seriously. I mean, I had, obviously, although all the other fellow jurors might have more analytical brains than me. And so maybe it was easier for them to come to the conclusion faster. But for me, I just need time. I need time to really just evaluate what I saw, tap myself to make sure that I saw what I saw, and then get a good night's sleep so I can compartmentalize it and store it for the next decision.

[C]

Mark, I agree with John. You did a real good job, in my view, of sort of soaking all this up, thinking about it, analyzing it, and paying attention to the evidence that came out in the courtroom, I'm sure by both sides. And you just mentioned thinking about the kids in the process. So there was a sentencing memorandum that was filed prior to the sentencing hearing by the prosecutors in which all three of Corey Richards sons asked that their mother be sentenced to life in prison. And we actually have some sound and some video. And by the way, if you're listening on podcast or on Sirius XM, go ahead and check us out here on our YouTube channel, because this is actually, I think, more compelling when you actually see this stuff coming out in. In the courtroom. So let's go with site 14, which is a montage we have of prosecutors presenting the statements of the children at

[A]

the sentencing hearing after a developmentally appropriate process. The boys were able to decide individually how they wanted to share their statements and this is what they chose. Our roles are to read their words exactly as they wrote. After my dad died, Corey would put us in the basement while she was with the neighbor. I felt scared because I thought something really bad was happening again. She would take me to places that smelled really bad. Everything she did made me feel uncomfortable. When someone talks about Corey, it makes me feel hateful and ashamed. She took away my dad. I can't ever see my dad again. I want her to go to prison forever. You took away my dad for no reason other than greed. And you only cared about yourself and your stupid boyfriends. You were not caring and watching over me and my brothers. You would always argue with my dad and lock the door. You were not playing the role as a real mother does. You were doing the opposite. I don't want you out of jail because I will not feel safe if you are out. Lori would lock me up if I told her she was drunk. This happened pretty much daily. I feel angry that she locked me in my room. I am angry almost all my animals died. I am angry she threatened to kill them. I am angry she killed my dad.

[C]

Almost all my animals died. You know, look, all of our team of producers here at the MK True Crime show and on this channel, I think are all animal people, as I know you are, John. But you know, when, when you hear this victim impact stuff coming in from these kids and you're the judge, how can you not be moved by it?

[B]

Oh, of course you're going to be moved by it. That is just heart wrenching. This judge isn't going to lose sleep over imposing the sentence that he did, that's for sure. And these, here's my hope for these kids, Phil. I hope these kids do find peace. I hope they get the therapy that they're obviously going to need from surviving something this horrendous. And I hope they're able to live long, healthy, loving, happy lives eventually. That may be a long ways away, but that is my hope for them.

[C]

All right, we got to leave it there for this segment. I want to say thanks, of course, to Mark for joining us. That was really, really good insight and thank you, Jona. Up next, my closing argument. Stay tuned.

[A]

Every shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing, you're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way. Mail and ship when you want, how you want, with stamps, dot com, print, postage on demand 247 and schedule pickups from your office or home save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust stamps.com go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days. If you're an experienced pet owner, you already know that having a pet is 25% belly rubs, 25% yelling drop it. And 50% groaning at the bill from every vet visit. Which is why Lemonade pet insurance is tailor made for your pet and can save you up to 90% on vet bills. It can help cover checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, basically all the stuff that makes your bank account nervous. Claims are filed super easy through the Lemonade app and half get settled instantly. Get a'@lemonade.com pet and they'll help cover the vet bill for whatever your pet swallowed after you yelled drop it.

[D]

Buddy's talking about weight loss injections because the results are so dramatic. Yeah, but those needles, right? I mean, these things, they work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. So what if you're looking to lose weight but not interested in painful weekly injections?

[C]

Especially when you hear of some of

[D]

those intense side effects. That's why doctors create a weight loss supplement called Lean. And the results are remarkable. The studied ingredients in Lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite and cravings so you're not as hungry.

[C]

Sounds good to me.

[D]

But listen, Lean is not for the

[C]

casual dieter with only a few pounds to lose. The doctors at Brickhouse Nutrition created Lean

[D]

for frustrated dieters who with 10 or

[C]

more pounds to lose.

[D]

Even better, let's get you started with 20% off and free rush shipping so

[C]

you can add Lean to your healthy

[D]

diet and exercise plan.

[C]

Visit takelean.com and enter MK for your discount. That's promo code [e-mail] welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Phil Holloway and it's now time for what we like to call call on the program, our closing argument. And so we spent the the last segment speaking about the Corey Richards sentencing. And Mark and John had a lot of great thoughts about that specific case. But I want to talk to you now more generally about criminal sentencing and how it might work, or maybe it's supposed to work in the United States in our system of justice. So anytime someone is convicted of a crime, a judge has to decide what the punishment might be. Right? We see it not only in the Richness case, but in all the other cases that we have discussed here on the program. Where there's been a conviction. So the goals, though, what are the goals of a sentence and what is the judge trying to achieve? The judge is essentially trying to achieve, and he or she should be trying to achieve certain things that are rooted in basically a balanced quest for justice. Not only a quest for justice, but safety and, of course, redemption. The first of these goals is retribution. And this is the idea comes from ancient times, right? The punishment must fit the crime. That's retribution. Judges should seek to make the offender pay for the harm they caused in a way that's proportional and fair and that satisfies society's demand that wrongdoing must be answered with consequences, appropriate consequences, to be precise. Second is the notion of deterrence. And there are two kinds of deterrence. The first one is specific deterrence. In other words, the sentence teaches this specific, this very defendant that the crime does not pay and it makes the penalty painful for this individual person so that they will stop repeating it. The most, I guess, precise example of specific deterrence is the death penalty, right? If you execute someone, clearly it deters that specific person from committing any other crimes. But then we have the much more common type of deterrence. This is what we refer to as general deterrence. This type of deterrence is supposed to send a message loud and clear to everyone else. The message being, if you break the law, you will face the same fate. Thirdly, judges need to consider incapacitation. This is the idea that we lock up dangerous offenders. We remove them from the streets, remove them from society for the protection of innocent citizens and to protect the community from future harm. This is society's way of saying that we will not let you hurt us anymore. And then we have fourth, rehabilitation. Judges look for sentences that can reform the offender through treatment, perhaps through education or counseling or other means, so that they can return to society as productive, law abiding citizens. It's the idea of there's hope over despair. Fifth, we have restitution and restoration. Judges will order offenders to repay their victims, to fix what they broke, essentially, and to give back to the community that they have just harmed through their criminal activity. It is justice that heals rather than justice that hurts. In every courtroom across America, judges weigh these five goals against the facts of each case, to craft a sentence that is tough but hopefully fair, protective but hopeful that is the heart of criminal sentencing in the United States. And with that, we will leave it there. For today's program, I want to say thanks to you, our audience, and if you're listening on podcast or Sirius XM. Check out our YouTube channel. We have great videos here and you can see the things that we see in courtrooms across America. And thanks of course to our guest today, Mark and my co host and Jona Spilbore. Thanks again to each and every one of you and have a great rest of your week.

[D]

Hot summer days deserve cool, comfortable nights.

[A]

The Tempur Breeze mattress is made with

[C]

one of a kind cooling technology that pulls heat away from your body to keep you feeling cool and comfortable all night long.

[A]

So no more sweating at night or

[C]

blasting the ac, just deep undisturbed rest. Save big on cooler sleep during the Tempur Pedic Memor Day sale for a

[A]

limited time shop and save up to

[C]

$500 on select adjustable mattress sets only at Tempur pedic.com your home holds the

[A]

story of your life. Renewal by Andersen Windows are built to weather every season with you. They frame the little moments and the big ones from first steps to graduation to new beginnings. While life keeps moving our window stand strong through every chapter. Let Renewal by Andersen be part of your story. Windows Built to last. Visit renewalbyandersonhome.com to learn more.