Karen Read Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Kouri Richins’ Defense STUNS Courtroom, “Walk the Dog” Letter Admitted, with Martin Radner

Summary

---

MK True Crime: Karen Read Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Kouri Richins’ Defense STUNS Courtroom, “Walk the Dog” Letter Admitted (with Martin Radner)

Date: March 13, 2026
Host: Dave Aronberg
Co-host: Ashley Merchant
Guest: Martin Radner (Criminal Defense Attorney, “Brother Counsel” YouTube Channel)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of MK True Crime dives into high-profile legal cases with major developments: the Kouri Richins murder trial (Utah), the ongoing Karen Read civil lawsuit (Massachusetts), and a parallel Utah “friend killing” case, with a strong focus on new evidence, strategy behind the defense resting early, and the infamous “Walk the Dog” letter’s courtroom impact. Special guest Martin Radner provides expert legal analysis and first-hand trial impressions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Kouri Richins Trial: Defense Rests Early and Evidence Review

[00:55–17:02]

• Defense Rests Without Calling Witnesses

  • The defense’s choice to rest without calling any witnesses on the third week of trial surprised many, but co-host Ashley Merchant explains this is common:

    “We’re not the ones that are supposed to be proving the case… We put on our evidence through cross-examination.” — Ashley Merchant, [02:25]

  • Dave Aronberg highlights public misconceptions, influenced by televised high-drama:

• Handwriting Expert & the Forged Signature

  • The prosecution’s handwriting expert, George Throckmorton, says Eric’s signature on a life insurance policy was “probably…a simulated forgery” [03:44]

    “My conclusion was that there was no evidence that Eric authored this signature and… it appeared to be a simulated forgery.” — Handwriting Expert SOT, [03:44]

  • Merchant critiques such testimony’s weakness, calling it speculative (“probably is nothing”) and doubts its value to a jury.

• Financial Motive & Permission to Sign

  • Motive is debated. Dave stresses Corey’s financial woes and gambling on house-flipping as “obvious motive.” Ashley counters by highlighting the ambiguity around whether Eric ever gave Corey permission to sign his name, using a relatable story about parental permission for signatures:

    “My 16-year-old…can sign my signature way better than me… With permission.” — Ashley Merchant, [08:05]

  • Dave responds with the fact that Eric changed his will and trust to exclude Corey, signaling deep mistrust:

    “He didn’t trust Corey. He even removed Corey as his health care agent.” — Dave Aronberg, [09:45]

• Business Partner Testimony

  • The business partner states under oath he never made beneficiary changes and never saw Eric do so, deflecting defense suggestions of alternate suspects. Yet the hosts agree it provides little clarity on how the signature actually changed.

• Fentanyl as Cause of Death — Chain of Evidence Issues

  • Ashley attacks the state’s lack of proof regarding who actually procured/dosed Eric with fentanyl. She raises the possibility Eric self-administered, a point supported by evidence of widespread opioid use and “addiction chaos”:

    “They've got to make…the state’s really gotta show that Corey Richins actually got fentanyl…that he didn't get it himself or…something laced with fentanyl.” — Ashley Merchant, [15:05]

• Housekeeper Carmen Lauber’s Testimony

  • Carmen’s criminal history and vulnerability to police pressure are discussed. The defense points out that law enforcement, not Carmen, first introduces “fentanyl” into the conversation during coercive police interviews:

    “The first people that ever injected the word fentanyl…were you and the other investigating officers.” — Ashley Merchant, [16:04]

  • Dave notes the prosecution’s ability to tie Carmen to the crime is bolstered by details only the “buyer would know” (e.g., “Michael Jackson stuff” code), but agrees she is a “non-ideal” witness.

2. Walk the Dog Letter: A Pivotal Piece of Evidence

[39:28–48:54]

• What is the Walk the Dog Letter?

  • Found in Corey’s jail cell (jury not told she was in jail), this handwritten note, addressed to her brother, instructs him to provide coached testimony about Eric’s alleged drug use, code-named “Walk the Dog.”

  • The letter reads in part:

    “…Ronnie will have to testify…Eric told Ronnie he gets pain pills and fentanyl from Mexico… There are pictures in my phone of Eric passed out on the floor … Ronnie should have texts from Eric talking about getting high as well.” — [42:08]
    “Reword this however he needs to to make the point, just include it all.” — [46:22]
    “The connection has to be made with Mexico and drugs…” — [46:48]

• Legal Analysis

  • Martin Radner calls it the “nail in the coffin,” as it documents an apparent attempt by Corey to orchestrate perjury and direct a family cover-up narrative:

    “You have a client…they do something so…stupid that just completely loses the case. I mean, this would be it.” — Martin Radner, [48:03]

  • Ashley floats whether Corey’s warped belief was that planting this “Mexico theory” would help her, and all agree the letter is devastating for the defense.

  • Dave highlights how the letter and Corey’s children’s grief book (“ghostwritten, not authentic”) make it look like a “calculated cover-up”:

    “She didn’t write about missing her husband. She wrote a script.” — Dave Aronberg, [20:07]
    “She is going to be hoisted by her own petard. Her own writings are coming back to haunt her.” — Dave Aronberg, [44:57]

3. Attorneys’ Mock Closing Arguments

[19:48–24:07]

• Both Dave (prosecution) and Ashley (defense) deliver powerful “on the fly” closing arguments, demonstrating strategies:
  • Prosecution Emphasis: Motive (“$4.5 million”), calculated actions (“this isn’t a tragedy, this was a strategy”), and especially the Walk the Dog letter as the “smoking gun.”
  • Defense Emphasis: Reasonable doubt, chaos of addiction, unreliable witnesses, and multiple other plausible suspects—while tactically avoiding direct talk about the Walk the Dog letter.

4. Parallel Utah Insulin Murder Case

[27:38–31:05]

• Brief commentary on a Utah nurse accused of killing her friend with insulin for insurance; the central defense is suicide.
• Both hosts agree it’s harder to win than the Richins case due to poor police work and lack of thorough forensics.
  • “Proving that it wasn’t a suicide” is the core legal challenge, and a cryptic text (“If you dying would get me out of this mess… I would take it”) is discussed as troubling but not definitive.

5. Karen Read Civil (Wrongful Death) Lawsuit Update w/ Martin Radner

[49:42–55:11]

• Background: Karen Read acquitted criminally of killing her police officer boyfriend; now faces a civil wrongful death lawsuit and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the latter related to her spreading of online conspiracy theories post-trial (potential collusion with “Turtle Boy” blogger).

• Discovery Drama:

  • Her cell phone is sought for evidence of collaboration with bloggers. Legal complications involve prior criminal search warrant, delays, and an illegally recorded phone call between Read and “Turtle Boy” making legal ripples.
  • Plaintiff attorneys allegedly misquote from leaked call, then withdraw their motion after the error is exposed.

• Lisa Darden (Corey’s Mother) Background:

  • Discussion of her own ex-partner’s suspicious death (from oxycodone), which mirroring the current case, but deemed inadmissible and too prejudicial for trial.
  • The children’s book Corey “authored” was actually ghostwritten, further undercutting her public persona.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On defense cross-examination as the main tool:
  “We put on our evidence through cross-examination.” — Ashley Merchant, [02:25]

• On the Walk the Dog letter’s catastrophic impact:
  “This walk the dog letter is the nail in the coffin. I just think that it’s… you know, it shows that she’s trying to make up this story to fit in with all the evidence.” — Martin Radner, [41:28]

• On the prosecution’s core theme:
  “This isn’t a tragedy. This was a strategy. … Corey Richards didn’t write a book on grief. She authored the very grief that her children now live with every single day.” — Dave Aronberg, [20:07]

• On addiction and reasonable doubt:
  “This case… is really about addiction, money, and a group of people who are not making any sense. … If the story doesn’t make sense, that’s the state’s problem.” — Ashley Merchant, [21:46]

• On the value of AI for legal advice:
  “AI can summarize the law, but it cannot replace actually knowing it.” — Ashley Merchant, [61:24]

• Legal strategies and insights for defense attorneys:
  “I always try to leave some questions that I don’t think [the prosecution] are going to be able to answer. … Is that reasonable doubt?” — Ashley Merchant, [24:38]

---

Major Timestamps

• [00:55] — Episode begins, docket rundown (Richins, civil lawsuit updates, new insulin-murder case)
• [03:44] — Handwriting expert testifies on life insurance forgery
• [06:48] — Discussion of motive and permission to sign
• [08:05] — Ashley’s analogy: signatures with parental permission
• [12:36] — Cross-examining housekeeper Carmen Lauber’s credibility
• [16:04] — Defense: “Fentanyl” introduced by police, not witness
• [20:07] — Dave’s “closing argument” for prosecution
• [21:46] — Ashley’s “closing argument” for defense
• [39:28]–[48:54] — Deep dive: “Walk the Dog” letter read in court
• [49:42]–[55:11] — Karen Read civil suit developments, discovery battles, wiretap drama

---

Tone & Style

• Balanced blend of legal expertise, trial analysis, and conversational candor.
• Frequent use of humor, pop culture references, and personal anecdotes. Direct, sometimes blunt, but always accessible for true crime and legal drama fans.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a rich, insider breakdown of real-life legal drama, highlighting how small but incriminating actions (like the “Walk the Dog” letter or a ghostwritten children’s book) can tip the scales in a major criminal trial. With sharp expert debate, live legal strategy, and an eye for the memorable and bizarre, it’s essential listening for true crime followers, legal students, and anyone following the tangled fates of Kouri Richins, Karen Read, and other notorious cases.

For more analysis and updates, check out Martin Radner’s “Brother Counsel” on YouTube and follow MK True Crime for future developments.

---

Transcript

[Ashley Merchant]

An all new season of the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is now streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney. Mom talk has just been blowing up. Whitney and Jen are on Dancing with the Stars. Taylor is a bachelorette. Saying that out loud is crazy.

[Dave Aronberg]

Like that is huge.

[Ashley Merchant]

But all the cool opportunities could pull us apart. It's causing issues in everyone's marriage. My whole world is falling apart right now. It's chaos.

[Martin Radner]

Watch the Hulu original series the Secret

[Ashley Merchant]

Lives of Mormon Wives, now streaming on

[Martin Radner]

Hulu and Hulu on Disney for bundle subscribers to avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is with thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

[Dave Aronberg]

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Dave Aronberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida and current managing partner of Dave Aronberg Law. Here's what's on the docket today. We're at the end of week three of a Cory Richen's murder trial. Housekeeper Carmen Lauber was called back to the stand by the defense. Why? And Carmen's police interviews were shown to the jury. We'll bring you all the details. And in a shock turn, the state and defense both rested on Thursday with the defense calling no witnesses. What does that signal? We'll discuss later. We'll be joined by criminal defense attorney Martin Radner to discuss the infamous walk the dog letter that was read in court. And the latest with Karen Reed. Also in Utah, a nurse is on trial for allegedly killing her friend with insulin for insurance. We'll bring you up to speed on that one. I'm joined today by my co host Ashley Merchant, criminal defense lawyer from Georgia and also a fellow native Floridian. Ashley, good to see you. Dave, good to see you. Florida law man and Florida law woman. Or Georgia law woman.

[Ashley Merchant]

I love it.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yeah. Well, Ashley, you and I have differed on the Corey Richards case and you're an excellent criminal defense lawyer. And I've said not even the great Ashley Merchant can pull a rabbit out of this hat. What do you think about the defense side resting on day one?

[Ashley Merchant]

You know, I'm not surprised that they didn't put up any evidence. You know, the defense doesn't usually put up evidence. And so that's what I think. A lot of people are surprised when they don't put up evidence on tv, but in real life, we don't usually put up evidence. And that makes sense. I mean, we're not the ones that are supposed to be proving the case. And a lot of times we're actually just poking holes. And I hate to say that because it sounds like it's cheapening, but, you know, cross examining, bringing out the other side, and we do that through the state's witnesses. So we put on our evidence through cross examination. I think. I think it's interesting what the defense or what exactly ended with the state. I don't think they ended on a strong note, let's put it that way. And we heard from a handwriting expert, which we all know. I don't love handwriting experts, but one of the folks that we heard from, from the state before they rested was a handwriting expert. And this witness, his name is George Throck. Morton. What a name. Throckmorton. But George Throckmorton, he's been a police officer and a forensic specialist for many, many years. But he testified. And I think we actually have a SOP for him. We've got SOT2. If we could play that where he's talking about the signature on a life insurance policy, and then we can kind of talk about what that means.

[Martin Radner]

A couple signatures on this page. What one were you focusing on? The one on the right, the one that purports to be Eric. Were you able to come to a conclusion? Yes. Okay, what was that conclusion?

[Dave Aronberg]

My conclusion was that there was no

[Martin Radner]

evidence that Eric authored this signature and that he probably did not, and that it appeared to be a simulated forgery written by somebody who was familiar, had access to his writing in an attempt

[Dave Aronberg]

to copy, draw or duplicate his signature,

[Martin Radner]

and try and pass it off as a genuine signature of Eric.

[Dave Aronberg]

Now, Ashley, generally pro prosecution, and I understand what you're saying, that this is not the strongest testimony because he said probably he can't absolutely eliminate that. Eric didn't sign for it for sure because he's dealing with a photocopy, not the original. Why isn't he dealing with the original, by the way? Maybe you can help me with that. And he also couldn't determine who was authoring the signature. So is that what you mean by not closing on the strongest note?

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, yeah. And I got a lot to say about this. I'll try to make it brief, but I have a lot to say. But let's just think about it. The real question with handwriting Experts isn't whether or not they're right, it's how often they're wrong. Because typically they're wrong. And they say probably. Probably. Why are they here? That doesn't help the jury, probably does not aid the jury. Probably is nothing. So that's my little rant on handwriting experts. But where this comes in. Let's just talk about that for a minute. So before in day 10 of the trial, we heard from the business partner and the business partner of Miss. Of the deceased. The business partner is one of those witnesses that I think has been important in this case and I think plays a vital role. And there were some allegations that maybe he had signed this life insurance policy. He testified and he testified. I think we actually have a sot about it. He testified specifically that he did not make the changes to Eric's life insurance policy. So that he was not the one that made these changes and he didn't sign it. So if we could play SOT1, then we can talk about what that means.

[Dave Aronberg]

Are you familiar with a buy sell agreement that you and Eric had in place should anything happen to either of you?

[Detective or Witness]

Yes.

[Dave Aronberg]

Are you familiar with the new law,

[Martin Radner]

New York life insurance policy, a set of New York life insurance policies that were associated with that buy sell agreement?

[Detective or Witness]

Yes.

[Dave Aronberg]

Are you familiar with the series of beneficiary changes to the New York life

[Martin Radner]

policy on your life in January of 2022?

[Dave Aronberg]

I was told those happened. Did you make those beneficiary changes to your New York life policy in January of 2022?

[Detective or Witness]

I did not.

[Dave Aronberg]

Did you ever make any beneficiary changes to that New York life policy?

[Detective or Witness]

No.

[Martin Radner]

Did you ever observe Eric Richards make any beneficiary changes to that New York life policy? No.

[Ashley Merchant]

So, Dave, what have we learned from these witnesses? Because I don't think we've learned a whole heck of a lot that helps the jury actually determine whether or not Corey Richards did this. What do you think?

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, I think the evidence is pretty clear. She had this financial motive. She needed millions of dollars to rehab her next big house, and she was frustrated. She had no money, deep in debt. She hated her husband. She had a lover. Plenty of motive here, and this is not a hard motive to understand. As we've discussed, jurors always want to know the why. And this is the why. So I think that's important. Now, I know that the defense lawyer, Nestor, said that, hey, there's not been any testimony about whether Eric gave Corey permission to sign his name on documents. Well, okay. Is that a normal thing? Where you give the wife, you don't trust a get out of jail free card, a blank slate, just go ahead, sign my name and all my documents. When he clearly tried to keep things from her. So I think that's a poor argument. And by Nestor, and in fact, o', Driscoll, who is the detective, was on the stand when Nestor was asking that. And he says no, I don't think that's required to meet the forgery statute where you have to actually show that the defendant did not give or did not get permission from the victim to sign his name illegally. So that's what defense lawyers do. They throw anything against the wall hoping it will stick. I don't think that it's going to stick here though.

[Ashley Merchant]

But there's also no evidence that, you know, that he didn't give someone permission to do it. So I would be arguing, you know, there's nothing like that. And I think if you've got some jurors that are gonna have given permission to somebody in their life to sign something, and I know I don't know about you, but I mean, I'll probably be divulging a little more than I should here. But like my 16 year old, by the way, can sign my signature way better than me. I have not signed a school permission slip since she learned cursive. And we have a thing, though, we have a thing where she asked me permission to sign it. But regularly I get texts from school, mom, I forgot to get this permission slip sign. Can I sign your name to. Of course. We've gotten to the point where literally I'm like, can you just please sign my name? Like, why am I signing it? You sign my name, you have my permission. My paralegal signs my name's the checks with permission. I mean, we have this thing with permission. And so I think, you know, the fact that if they argue this, I think that they're going to have a hard time disproving that she actually had permission or somebody else had permission. You know, somebody else could have easily had permission. And I don't really buy this whole theory of this financial motive because if you think about it, he living, he was making money and he was supporting her awful business venture of this flipping houses. So she was actually better off with him being alive because he was supporting it. She wasn't doing well, but neither was he. Nobody was doing well. They were all a hot mess. He's a drug addict. They're all a hot mess. But what's happening is now he's dead. He can't finance her house. I mean, in theory, maybe she could have thought that she was going to get this life insurance policy, but she was fine. She wasn't doing well, but she was fine. He was still financing it. Why would she kill the atm? He's the one paying the bills. He's the one paying for her financial, you know, flipping of these houses. Why would she off. Who's paying for her bills? That I think the state's going to have a hard time proving that.

[Dave Aronberg]

Okay, well, but if you're saying that you need to show that he did not give her permission to sign his name like your 16 year old, then how do you explain that just six months before his death, he established a living trust and named his sister as a trustee and beneficiary, not Corey. I think if you gave her the trust that you had to sign, your signature, your name, maybe you would make her the beneficiary instead of excluding her, making the sister the trustee and beneficiary and explicitly changing your will. Because that's what Eric did to ensure that his sister managed his estate and not Corey. He didn't trust Corey. He even removed Corey as his health care agent. He said he did not want her making the medical decisions for him if became incapacitated. And he also discovered that Corey had attempted to change his $2 million business life insurance policy to make herself the sole beneficiary. So he immediately changed it back to his business partner and his trust. And so it doesn't sound like a guy who's saying to Cory, yeah, you can sign me. Go ahead, knock yourself out.

[Ashley Merchant]

You know, Dave, I think you are an excellent prosecutor, and I think we would have so much fun arguing in court, because I would immediately be wanting to jump up and down and say, but this man that you're talking about, this man, he is paranoid. He has been a drug addict since his high school days. He is addicted to opiates. He has paranoia. He is faking illnesses to seek drugs. Do we really think that he's doing things that are rational? So he took her off his policy. So he created a trust. He was paranoid. He was suffering from drug abuse. He was suffering addiction. He was suffering. All of these different issues lead to bad decisions, decisions that just don't make sense. So I think we would have a good time, but we'll catch up on a little bit more. One thing I wanted to talk about was Carmen Lauber actually came back to the stand, which I thought was really interesting. And I know we want to talk about some Theories about why. But if we could play Sat 3 where we hear what Carmen actually is saying when she took the stand a second time, did you violate the weapons condition? There was a weapon found in my room when they rated it, yes. That's your meaning. Was there a weapon found after you signed to these conditions? Yes. So you violated that condition? Yes. All right. You also violated the alcohol condition, correct? If you're talking about where I went to a concert, that's correct. That's what I'm talking about. Yes.

[Dave Aronberg]

All right. By the way, did you notice Corey's the doe eye, the little sheepish, like, well, why am I here look about her? I'm so innocent. No makeup, the hair pulled back. It's like Menendez brothers with the sweater, the oversized glasses for the mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas.

[Ashley Merchant]

I'm not gonna lie. I love how that's what you saw with that thought. Because what I see with that thought is Carmen is the biggest liar ever, and she is literally trying to say anything to get out of trouble.

[Dave Aronberg]

It's a Rorschach test, right? It's a Rorschach test.

[Ashley Merchant]

It is. It's totally the like that. I can't get past that. And all I'm thinking is this woman is lying, you know, And I think why they brought this up, and we've got another shot. We'll play in a minute, which I think will help sort of bring this point home. But the reason that they brought her up, you know, in trials, we have to follow the rules of evidence. And a lot of times they're not convenient. And so, you know, as the defense, we don't necessarily know what the state is going to bring in. So when she testified, maybe the door wasn't opened to this testimony. Maybe they didn't have this testimony, and so they didn't need to rebut it. But then once the state actually played her interview to the police, it became more relevant, and they decided, hey, it's worth it. They made a strategic decision to ask her more questions about that. And I think that theory is sort of buttressed by the fact that they did play and we'll play in SOT5. They did play. And this, I think, is just pivotal. I would, you know, in closing, I would play this, this sought over and over again. But we've got Carmen actually talking to the detectives, and the detectives tell her that drug court is looking to ask for seven years in prison for a violation. And the only exception is that if she helps the detective out with the Richards trial. So she knows she needs to give up details or else she's going to jail. So see if we could place out

[Detective or Witness]

five, give up the details that will

[Dave Aronberg]

ensure Corey gets convicted of murder.

[Martin Radner]

Oh, my God.

[Dave Aronberg]

This is a serious case.

[Martin Radner]

I know.

[Dave Aronberg]

And listen, don't, don't freak out, okay?

[Detective or Witness]

Because this is a long process and

[Ashley Merchant]

this is a good thing.

[Martin Radner]

And there's good news for you

[Dave Aronberg]

that's good for the defense.

[Ashley Merchant]

That's good for the defense.

[Dave Aronberg]

Oh, yeah. But, you know, who do you think is going to buy fentanyl for you? The Michael Jackson stuff, Mother Teresa. And you can have people like Carmen, the desperate housekeeper who wants to stay out of jail or has a criminal past and just can't stay above the law or can't say. They say not above the law, can't stay clean. And so she is going to cut deals, but doesn't mean she's lying. I mean, that's what cross examination is for. And if you believe that there's no corroboration for what she says. Yeah, then call her a liar. But I think it's been plenty of corroboration. She's not an ideal person, not an ideal witness, but that's who you get as a prosecutor because the choir boys ain't walking through that door.

[Ashley Merchant]

No, they're definitely not. And they're not the ones that are selling drugs. But, you know, the issue for me is this, this fentanyl leap. They've got to make the states really gotta show that Corey Richards actually got fentanyl because that's what killed him and that he didn't get it himself or he didn't possibly get something that maybe was laced with fentanyl. Everybody's heard those stories. And so, you know, I think that what the defense is doing, and we have it in Sat 6, is they're really planting this theory, this doubt as to the Fentanyl, because Carmen is not the first one to bring it up. The police are. So you've got to think about where she is. She's in this coercive situation where the police are saying, you're going to go back to jail for seven years for drug court. She doesn't want to go back to jail. They're saying, we need information. And they say the word fentanyl, she doesn't say it first. So if we can play six, I really think that's going to be something we see back in the defense in their closing. Did Ms. Laubert tell you that because of what happened to her daughter, tragically that she did not mess with fentanyl. She didn't deal with it.

[Detective or Witness]

I believe those were her words.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yes.

[Martin Radner]

Right.

[Ashley Merchant]

As a matter of fact, the first person, the first people that ever injected the word fentanyl into any conversation with. With Carmen Lauber were you and the other investigating officers. Correct. Came out of Yalls mouth first, not hers.

[Martin Radner]

Objection here on our argumentative.

[Detective or Witness]

I overruled. If you understand.

[Martin Radner]

Understand who she's referring to by y' all go ahead.

[Detective or Witness]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

[Ashley Merchant]

I didn't.

[Detective or Witness]

I'm still focused on the previous question because I thought there was going to be a follow up question about my impression.

[Ashley Merchant]

No. So the first people that mentioned Fentanyl in the interview were law enforcement, not Ms. Laver, correct?

[Detective or Witness]

Yeah, I believe so. Because I think we told her in that first interview that while investigating Eric Richardson, we told them that we were investigating Eric Richen's death and that he had died of a fentanyl overdose.

[Ashley Merchant]

She keeps getting hung up on the y'. Alls.

[Dave Aronberg]

That's right. Well, you know, although detectives may have mentioned Fennel's fentanyl first, the prosecutors, I think, have the better argument. Because you have proof that Carmen was the one who provided the fentanyl. Because she knew details that only the buyer would know. Like Carmen testified that Corey specifically asked for some of that Michael Jackson stuff. And Corey's defense is relying on. Oh well, Eric's a secret addict. Okay, well, if he was a secret addict, why were there no illicit dealers found in his phone? But Corey had a direct line to a supplier. With the Venmo debit card. A taco in one hand and ordering a ride in the other means you're stacking your rewards. Nice. Get up to 5% cash back with Venmo stash on your favorite brands when you pay with your Venmo debit card. From takeout to ride shares, entertainment and more, pick a bundle with your go tos and start earning cash back at those brands. Venmo stash bundle terms and exclusions apply. See terms@venmo me stashterm max $100 cash back per month.

[Ashley Merchant]

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. Home security can feel overwhelming, but SimpliSafe makes it simple. Many people are choosing it for the peace of mind it provides. With over 4 million homes already protected with no long term contracts and an anti theft guarantee, it's easy to see why so many feel safer having SimpliSafe in their lives. With 20 years of experience in home security safety, SimpliSafe has consistently been recognized for excellence. They were named the best home security system of 2026 by U.S. news World report, and their customer service has been ranked the best in the industry. That's why so many homeowners feel safer and more secure with SimpliSafe in their lives. Right now, you can get 50% off their new SimpliSafe [e-mail] Megan. That's SimpliSafe.com Megan. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. So we're gonna hear closings, I think Monday is what the court has said. They're gonna come back early next week. So, Dave, if you were given the closing for the prosecution, what point would you hit? What do you think is their strongest point?

[Dave Aronberg]

Oh, I would just rely on the evidence. And, you know, this prosecutor, I think is doing a very good job. Although Megyn Kelly mentioned that he was a bit monotone for her tastes. But monotone can win you cases when you're building your case on a mountain of evidence. So I would. Well, do you want to do some closing arguments?

[Ashley Merchant]

Let's do some closing arguments.

[Dave Aronberg]

Okay, let's do it. I would say something like, you know, ladies, hold on, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. And hopefully I wouldn't have an earpiece falling out while I'm speaking. But I would say, I would use a line that says like, this isn't a tragedy. This was a strategy. You know, Corey Richards didn't write a book on grief. She authored the very grief that her children now live with every single day. And I would say that. What was the motive? Well, how about $4.5 million? That's the price Corey Richards put on Eric's life. She was drowning in debt and he was her life raft. And if you have any doubt about intent, you just look at the walk the dog letter. I mean, from the jail cell. She didn't write about missing her husband. She wrote a script. She told her family exactly what to lie about how to frame Eric as a drug addict and even give it a catchy non sequitur title, Walk the Dog. Why would you use code like that? She thought she could write the ending to this story just like she did in her phony children's book where she had a crocodile tears, went on national TV to try to explain why she is the victim here. Well, this story is going to end with the truth because Eric Richards didn't choose to leave his children. Corey Richards chose it for him.

[Ashley Merchant]

Guilty. That was amazing. That was so good. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I'm pretty sure Dave had maybe five minutes notice that I was going to ask him to do that. So that is amazing to be able to do that on the fly. That's awesome.

[Dave Aronberg]

Thank you.

[Ashley Merchant]

If I was arguing it, I would avoid, first of all, before I get into it, avoid that Walk the dog letter. I just don't even want to touch that. I hate that fact. But beside that, I talk about this case being sort of like a murder mystery. You know, sometimes we've got a group of deeply unreliable people and you're trying to get them to explain chaos, explain what happens when there's a drug problem. If you step back, you take an actual look at this case, the first thing you notice is not a clear suspect. It's a cast of characters. The wife with a struggling house flipping business, the business partner, the cleaner. Let's see who else we have. The sister, the doctors. Everybody has a story and not a single one of those lines up. They're all over the place. Then you add in this medical narrative, which I think is really at the core of this whole case. What does he have? He has Lyme disease and he has nerve pain, he's got some mysterious allergies, he's got the kind of diagnoses that are notoriously difficult to verify. But they're extremely useful if someone is doctor shopping for pain pills and people who are addicted to pain pills, they're going to put just about anything in their body. Could be laced with fentanyl. They don't care where they get it. If they need a fix, could get it from anybody, any of these cast of characters. Now you layer on some paranoia, you layer on financial stress, you layer on a man who suddenly believes he's been poisoned because he broke out in hives, but he's already being treated for allergies. It doesn't make sense. And don't get me started on this simulated forgery, this life insurance policy forgery, that testimony Was just pointless. Carmen, what do we hear from her? She doesn't want to go to jail. It's easy. We know her motive. The police said fentanyl, and then, heck, yeah, she says fentanyl. I'd say fentanyl, too. If I was facing seven years in prison and I was a person who had potentially sold the drugs or given the drugs. Heck, maybe she gave him the drugs. At some point, you have to ask the difficult question, is this really a whodunit or is this really a case about addiction, money, and a group of people who are not making any sense? And if the story doesn't make sense, that's the state's problem. The state's the one that has to tie all these pieces together. They have all of the evidence, they have all of the ability, and they're the ones that need to present a story that actually makes sense. So, ladies and gentlemen, if you are not convinced and you think there is a reasonable doubt as to her innocence or a reasonable doubt, just that she's not guilty, it's your duty to find her not guilty. We'll see. I can't wait.

[Dave Aronberg]

That was really, really good. I mean, wow, this is. We didn't have a lot of time to prepare this.

[Detective or Witness]

We didn't.

[Ashley Merchant]

That was totally on the fly.

[Dave Aronberg]

I think it was fun, though, not to pat ourselves in the back too much, but that was. I was waiting for you to say, if the fennel doesn't fit, you must have quit.

[Ashley Merchant]

But I know, I know that would have been a good one.

[Dave Aronberg]

I actually, I, I, I do have one, one legit question about this. Now, you did an amazing job as a criminal defense lawyer, though, and you've been on that side longer than I have. How do you ignore the walk the dog letter? The prosecution is going to hammer on it, I would think. You have to address it in some way, don't you?

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, the walk the dog letter is going to be difficult. You know, I would, I, I'm one of those lawyers that I like to take the sting out of things, so I would definitely address it. You know, I'm not really sure in this case how I would do it, but I would address it because I definitely do not let the state be the first one to strike. I like to be able to explain it. I also, like, this is kind of a, you know, a secret tip of mine that I'm giving away here. But I also like to end closing arguments with questions that I think the state should have to answer. And that's because, you know, here in Georgia, the state gets to go first, and they get to go last. So it's a sandwich, and I go in the middle. I don't get the last word. And so, because I don't get to talk to the jury, I always like to leave some questions. And, you know, the state hates it. I mean, who wouldn't, you know, hate that? They don't want to have questions thrown at them. And so I always try to leave some questions that I don't think they're going to be able to answer. And so some things to sort of make the jury think in the back. Well, you know, I hear that lady talking and I hear that question, and I didn't hear the answer from the state. Is that reasonable doubt? So I'd try to focus on that stuff. But, I mean, the walk the dog's difficult.

[Dave Aronberg]

Which question would you pose at the end of your close to challenge the state? I know you'd load it up in a way where the state really doesn't have a good answer to it, which you think is the most powerful question.

[Ashley Merchant]

You know, for me, I have a really hard time in this case because they didn't put the fentanyl. They were not able to show that the fentanyl was not taken by him. Like, he didn't take it. And he's a drug addict. So it's very reasonable to think that he could have consumed. That he could have put his own fentanyl in the Moscow Mule and the fact that he's a drug addict. And so I would ask what evidence did they show to disprove that? Because, you know, there's a jury charge that says the state has to disprove all of the reasonable inferences from the facts. And I think that they have a really a big hole in their case because there just wasn't anything to. To disprove that he could have done this on his own. And so, you know, if a jury has an option that maybe a crime didn't happen, they're likely to like that. If, you know, they want the pieces put together, they want the state to fill the whole puzzle. If there's a big hole in the puzzle, they don't like that.

[Dave Aronberg]

It's. It's a great point. So for any of you in law school or want to go to law school, that's really good, because the best defense lawyers are the ones who've been there and know the rules of the game and then can do a tip like that and not sound so monotone. You know, Ashley, we have another trial that's very similar. It's like Richen's a Jace, which is. Which is a way to say Richen's adjacent. It's also in Utah. And, you know, Utah is becoming the new Florida because we have another case and we don't have a lot of time in this block, but let's at least touch upon it, a case where you have. It's Megan Sunwall and it's Utah woman who's standing trial this week on charges she killed her friend with an overdose of insulin as a part of a plot to collect insurance money. It's parallel to the Richens case. And here you have proof, apparently from the autopsy that showed no terminal health problems. So it looked like perhaps a monetary motive, that this nurse who befriended this patient, killed her to get the money and got in her will. I mean, what do you make of this?

[Ashley Merchant]

I think it's crazy, this case. There's a lot going on here. I think the biggest issue is going to be proving that it wasn't a suicide, because you could always already kind of preview that if. I think we've got. Let's see, we've got SOT 8, which is part of the defense opening statement. I think they're going to have a hard time.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yeah, let's head to that. So insolence talks about as a method of suicide with Megan in these texts. I think there's going to be witnesses that say they've seen it. And you're going to see that Casey is begging her to help her be able to have access to that and saying she's going to use insulin to kill herself. Well, apparently you're going to hear that she's telling her sister, Megan's trying to kill me.

[Martin Radner]

Manipulating her sister at one point.

[Detective or Witness]

Yeah.

[Dave Aronberg]

To move her out of the house where she's got a freeload in the

[Martin Radner]

basement of Mark's house. And that's basically nothing except deal with getting and using opiates and other drugs of abuse.

[Ashley Merchant]

Okay, well, that's going to be an issue, I think, the suicide. But we've got the prosecutor and I mean, their opening statement was strong, too. They're saying that Megan said to Casey, if you dying would get me out of this mess and darkness I'm in, I would take it. Which is really a cryptic and a troubling statement. And I wonder how they're going to actually prove that statement. But I think we've got seven where we can hear that since the beginning of the year in January 2024, Megan had lost her job. She had run over something on the road and caused $4,000 worth of damage to her car. The car ended up being totaled. Her husband had doubled his child support requirements from the prior marriage. They owed on taxes. And then the car that they did have kept overheating. She was stressed financially. She expressed in February of 2024 to Casey, or I'm sorry, Casey expressed to Megan, I wish I could just pass so you could get out of this mess. And Megan's response was, if you dying would get me out of this mess and darkness I am in, and I would take it.

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, first off, what do you think about the tone of the prosecutor? Is it good because it's solemn or is it bad because it's a little bit too soft and monotone?

[Ashley Merchant]

I think it's a little soft and monotone, you know, and it's interesting talking to jurors about tone. They, they don't like the super theatrics, but they do like you to have energy in the case and they do like you to be passionate about it. So, you know, there's a fine line between having passion and being monotone and boring. I think there, I think I really do. And I'm, I'm curious your opinion, Dave, but I really think that the hard part is going to be disproving that it could be suicide.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yeah. And also, it doesn't help that the police work was not very thorough. You know, you had a bunch of mistakes in there. Apparently, she was arrested before there were forensics and medical records that were fully evaluated. I mean, that's why when you're a prosecutor, you always tell law enforcement, hold off on the arrest. Once you make the arrest, it changes everything. The clock starts ticking for speedy trial, and then evidence that you should be getting to make sure you got it right may contradict you afterwards. And so, yeah, I think this one is going to be a tough one. This is not going to be as easy in my mind as the Corey Richards case.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, I totally agree with you.

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, thank you for that great segment. And now we're going to go towards our next segment after the break, which is with criminal defense attorney Martin Radner, who apparently, Ashley, you're friends with.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yes, he interviewed some of my clients.

[Dave Aronberg]

Oh, oh, he's a client of yours?

[Ashley Merchant]

No, he's interviewed some clients. You got a little too excited about that.

[Dave Aronberg]

I thought we were just violating attorney client confidentiality there. All right, Martin Radner is going to join us next to dig deeper on the Cory Richards trial. Stay tuned

[Ashley Merchant]

day or night. VRBoCare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out.

[Dave Aronberg]

From the moment you book to the

[Ashley Merchant]

moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly

[Dave Aronberg]

because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.

[Ashley Merchant]

Just got a new puppy or kitten. Congrats. But also yikes. Between crates, beds, toys, treats and those first few vet visits, you've probably already dropped a small fortune. Which is where Lemonade Pet Insurance comes in. It helps cover vet costs so you can focus on what's best for your new pet. The coverage is customizable, sign up is quick and easy, and your claims are handled in as little as three seconds. Lemonade offers a package specifically for puppies and kittens. Get a'llemonade.com pet your future self will thank you. Your pet won't. They don't know what insurance is. Waking up sneezing and congested every morning isn't just frustrating, it may be a sign the air inside your home isn't as clean as it should be. Even with regular cleaning, dust, odors and invisible pollutants can linger in the air you breathe every single day. Air Doctor is a powerful air purifier designed to remove those hidden contaminants. Its advanced three stage filtration system captures particles about 100 times smaller than what the typical air purifier can remove. That includes dust, pollen, mold, spores, pet dander, wildfire, smoke, bacteria, viruses, odors, smoke, ozone and harmful VOCs that you do not want circulating indoors. Air doctor runs whisper quiet so it won't disrupt sleep or daily routines. The Auto Mode feature monitors air quality 24,7 to maintain optimal performance and built in filter change reminders take away the guesswork. It's also backed by strong credibility. 98% of customers say their home air feels safer, cleaner and healthier. Over 93% noticed fewer allergy symptoms. Plus, Air Doctor won Newsweek's Reader Choice Award for Best Air Purifier. Head to airdoctorpro.com and use promo code Trucrime to get get up to $300 off today. Air Doctor comes with a 30 day money back guarantee plus a three year warranty. That's an $84 value free. You get this exclusive podcast only offer [e-mail] that's a I R D O C T O r p r o.com using promo code TRUE CRIME welcome back to MK True Crime. Joining us now is criminal defense attorney Martin Radner. Martin has been covering the Richens trial on his popular YouTube channel, Brother Counsel. Martin, we've got to start with what we have learned about Corey's kids book. Are you with me? So I want to ask you about this kids book. I know that one of the detectives was sent the book on, or sent the book actually to Amazon. Can you tell us what's going on with this?

[Martin Radner]

Yeah. So, I mean, really, I think the question that a lot of lawyers may be thinking about when this was introduced is what exactly is the relevancy to the crimes that she's being charged? I mean, Ashley, your defense attorney, you're sitting there, you know, you see this coming in, you know, like, what does this have to do with whether she actually committed the crime or not, Whether she wanted to gain from a book that she published afterwards? But what was very interesting, what you point. What you brought up, was the fact that this was sent to the sheriff's office. Sheriff's office with. By anonymously by somebody. Seems like it's a fan of Corey's saying, with a letter saying something to the effect of, you got to see the other side. There's always two sides to a story. And this is the Corey that's the devoted mom, you know. So that's what came in to the sheriff's department, and then they actually subpoenaed Amazon's records. And it turns out that it was none other than Corey's mother who sent that in to the police. So I think it would have been better for. If it was just some random person saying, hey, you know, you got to look at both sides. But. But, you know, your mom's always going to be kind of in your corner. So that kind of came out. Yeah.

[Ashley Merchant]

And your mom should be. And I think we've actually got the detective talking about it on SOT9. If we could play that.

[Martin Radner]

Is this an accurate depiction of a

[Dave Aronberg]

scan of the COVID of the book

[Martin Radner]

that the s. The Summer County Sheriff's office received along with the message that accompanied it?

[Detective or Witness]

Yes. When we received this, evidence technician scanned the COVID of the book and then the note that came with it as well? Yes.

[Dave Aronberg]

Did detectives investigate who anonymously sent the book?

[Detective or Witness]

Yes. Subpoena was sent to Amazon to request the information on who the sender was, and it came back as Lisa Darden.

[Ashley Merchant]

All right, Lisa Darden. Let's talk about Lisa Darden. She has not gotten enough. Enough chatter during this trial. So she's got a little bit of a past herself so apparently there's some search warrants that were unsealed that said in March 2024, the mother. And again, this is the mother of Corey Richards, who we've been talking about, the Utah author accused of murdering her husband with fentanyl, that she was investigated back in 2006 for the death of her very own romantic partner. That's an interesting twist, right?

[Martin Radner]

Yeah. And as I was, you know, learning about that information, I was like, I wonder if this could actually come out in trial. You know, the fact that his mother. I mean, look, the book came out. Who knows what else is going to be coming in to the trial? And actually, it did not come out at all. This. That nugget of information about how the mother, Lisa Darden's romantic partner, mysteriously died from an overdose of oxycodone.

[Dave Aronberg]

Right, right.

[Martin Radner]

Which is something that we hear. We heard about in this case, actually, that there was a bottle of oxycodone next to Eric's nightstand or on Eric's. Eric's nightstand. So, yeah, some very mysterious circumstance. Circumstances there and coincidences, perhaps, that mirror very similar stories of what happened to the mother, Lisa, and to Corey herself. So was there any sort of interaction there? Was there any sort of corroboration there? Was the mother kind of whispering into her ear, Some ideas, you know, but the jury didn't hear about any of that. So that's.

[Ashley Merchant]

God, I would have been losing my mind if they had. I don't know. Dave, can you think of any way that that could have come in front of the jury? I mean, I know as a defense lawyer, I would have literally been jumping out of my seat, try and keep it out.

[Dave Aronberg]

You know, it's not the same as the previous attempt by Corey Richards or the Hush Puppies, because you're dealing with a separate person, her mother. I don't see how a judge would let that in because your mother did it. Obviously, you would argue, well, this is where she learned it from. So we should be able to call the mother's den and discuss it. But I can see how it would be more prejudicial than probative. So I think that the prosecutors knew that not only should they would they not get it in, but if they even succeeded in getting it in, that could jeopardize the whole conviction on appeal. An appellate court could just say, no, no, no, over, overturn. Do it over again.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, yeah, definitely. I mean, I just can't really see any relevancy to it. It's very interesting to talk about.

[Dave Aronberg]

Oh, I Think it's relevant?

[Ashley Merchant]

Of course you do.

[Martin Radner]

Well, if there would be some text messages back and forth between Corey and Lisa, you know, something opening up the door about this, you know, that she was involved, then maybe it can come in. But, yeah, from what we've seen, I don't see how it comes in either. But again, I was surprised that the book got in. I have no idea how the book got in.

[Ashley Merchant]

I know. I'm surprised about that, too. Well, and in this case, I mean, Lisa was never charged, so there were never charges actually brought, you know, which just really shows how hard it is on these types of cases. And I know Dave is convinced that the state has presented their case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but these cases are hard. I mean, how do you, you know, how do they disprove that he overdosed himself? Or how did they show that she actually put the. Put the drug in there and that's what killed him? So, I mean, I'm not surprised that there weren't any charges. So we want to talk while we have you about the Walk the Dog letter. I don't love the Walk the Dog letter. Dave likes the Walk the Dog letter. What do you think about the Walk the Dog lover, Martin?

[Martin Radner]

Okay, I'm going to get to the Walk to the Dog letter, but I really just want to mention one more thing about, about the book. And I think this came to me as a surprise. And I think when the jury heard this, I think it also, because all these little pieces of nuggets, I think, is really building up on the jury. So the fact that actually Corey did not write that book, it was ghostwritten, you know, like, this is a mom, like, saying, here, I'm going to teach you what I, you know, what I did for my children, how he supported them. And these are the techniques that I use to help them get through this and how to grieve. And the truth is that she didn't write a word of that book. I mean, that's what it seems like. And the jury's hearing about this person just an imposter, just trying to make money out of every situation that she's in. I thought that that was a very important part about that book as well. But. But let's move on to the Walk the Dog letter because, you know, to me, and again, like, you know, I always. I kind of sit in the. In defense attorney's seat here because I feel like the prosecutor's got, you know, the case kind of wrapped up in a little bit both. So I always Try to, like, play on the other side. And, you know, I'm thinking this whole time, what could the defense be? What can the argument be? You know, can we argue that, you know, Carmen Lauer did not get her fentanyl? How did she get the fentanyl? You know, that's going to be a question. Maybe they can argue reasonable doubt. I think that this walk the dog letter is the nail in the coffin. I just think that it's just, you know, it. It shows that she's trying to make up this story to fit in with all the evidence. And very similar to the theme of how we're hearing the defense present their case and, you know, make certain points in cross examination. You kind of see where they're going. And then you see her put it together in this walk the dog letter and then basically asking her brother to testify to all of these things, which in the defense's mind, this is how the theory would work. I just don't see how maybe even an Ashley Merchant can get a acquittal after the walk the dog letter.

[Ashley Merchant]

I appreciate your confidence, but the walk the dog letter would be tough. It would definitely be tough. And I think we've actually got. It was read out in court, which is what's most wild about it. The jury, of course, didn't know the it was found in her jail cell. They just know that it was found. And, you know, for our viewers, that's because we don't like the jury to know that someone's in jail. We don't want them to make an assumption that if you don't get bond that maybe you did it, you know, something like that. We don't want that assumption because it's prejudicial. So they just know it was found, but it was read out in court. And so we've actually got that. We've got. If we want to start with the part of the letter, we've got three parts of the letter. So we can start with the first

[Detective or Witness]

one, page one, walk the dog, but take vague notes so you remember,

[Dave Aronberg]

here

[Detective or Witness]

is what I'm thinking. But you have to talk to Ronnie. He would probably have to testify to this, but it's super short, not a lot to it. He will need to tell sky at the meeting next week. Upon information and belief, just like they say, a year prior to Eric's death, Ronnie was over watching football one Sunday, and Eric and Ronnie were chatting about Eric's Mexico trips. Eric told Ronnie he gets pain pills and fentanyl from Mexico from the workers at the ranch. Not to tell me because I would get mad because I always said he, he just gets high every night and won't help take care of the kids. There are pictures in my phone of Eric passed out on the floor or in the chair. Ronnie should have texts from Eric talking about getting high as well.

[Ashley Merchant]

So the jury got to hear all this. I mean, it's definitely not good. And just for our viewers, Ronnie's referenced is Corey's brother. And then we've got sky, who is the defense attorney at the time. That's who that was referenced. There were some redactions, as you could see, but essentially the detective is just reading this letter. The thing I liked about the first part that we've read, and then we'll listen to the second and third was about fentanyl being bought in Mexico. I mean, I would be arguing that like crazy, you know, in closing that he was buying drugs anywhere he could. I mean, that's, that's what he was doing. And so we don't know that he didn't buy it off the street and get something bad.

[Martin Radner]

And in fact, I mean, to support that is the fact that he was in Mexico very recently, before he died. He was there on a hunting trip. So, you know, I, I, you know, you saw this as you're watching the trial. You saw the defense kind of planting all these seeds. And this is where you see they're going with this. Either they told her the theory and then she goes and puts it in a, you know, a suggestion box for Ronnie to testify to about. But that's what it seems that they're, they're headed that, oh, maybe he got this from Mexico. We keep hearing every single day in the news how fentanyl is coming across the border from Mexico. So, you know, that could be a reasonable conclusion which can, which would create some reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

[Ashley Merchant]

I know. That's what I'd focus on.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yeah. Well, to me, it shows a calculated killing when you have all this talk about, well, we're gonna plan this and that, and that's where the book comes in, where we're going to try to. It's like a cover up. And part of the COVID up is the book, which she paid $10,000 by the way, to that ghost author. Why do you do that?

[Martin Radner]

Right.

[Dave Aronberg]

I thought you had real grief. No, this is part of the COVID up. It's the book. That's why it was allowed into evidence. And it's the explanation about the drugs and it's the letter, the walk, the Dog letter. She is going to be hoisted by her own petard. Her own writings are coming back to haunt her.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, and let's see, we've got set 11, which is the second part of it.

[Detective or Witness]

Eric told Ronnie he keeps them in an allergy pill bottle in his work truck so I wouldn't find them. Ronnie never told me about the conversation. Eric finally told me and asked if Carmen could get him some. Eric never wanted anyone to know he had an issue, especially get caught. He always wanted Corey to go down for him. When they traveled, Eric would put his drugs in Corey's bag at the airlines right before they boarded. That way if they were caught, Corey got in trouble, not him. Once they got to whenever, wherever they were going, Eric would pull the drugs out of her bag and it would cause a huge fight. She was pissed. He would risk her going to jail for his drug use. He just would laugh about it. Eric couldn't run, couldn't ruin his image that he had drug issues. So he would do whatever he had to. Corey has never done any type of pills, didn't like them. Rarely would she consume thc. Only if Eric begged her because it was a special occasion. Reword this however he needs to to make the point, just include it all.

[Ashley Merchant]

Do you ever think that maybe she planted this? Maybe she wanted this theory to get out?

[Martin Radner]

If she wanted to really get convicted, maybe.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right? I know, but in her warped mind, you know, in her warped mind, she wanted to get. She thought somehow that this would. I mean we, we see people do crazy things, you know, thought somehow that this would throw some theory out or maybe throw them off. I don't know. I was just, just, just carrying. So we've got, we've also got site 12, which is the third part of the letter.

[Detective or Witness]

The connection has to be made with Mexico and drugs. Ronnie will have the messages to prove Eric confided in him about getting high. It can be short and to the point, but has to be done upon information and belief. Lol. They never found pain pills or fentanyl in my house because he had. He hid it in allergy bottle and work truck. And Cody emptied out work truck within a week. So they were never found. When you talk to Ronnie about this, meet up with him in person. I worry sometimes your house and phone are bugged. Maybe drive down to SL and meet him after work without Bri. Tell Ronnie. Don't overanalyze it. It was a quick 2 minute conversation. LOL. Tell him I need him to do this. Bring me home and then we will get those. Damn.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, the damn. That's not a good statement.

[Martin Radner]

What about all the LOLs?

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, I know, I know it's, it's

[Martin Radner]

not good upon information and believe lol. And you know, don't overanalyze it. It was only a two minute conversation. Lol.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yeah.

[Martin Radner]

Oh, you mean like the conversation didn't really happen to lol?

[Dave Aronberg]

It's like using air quotes, right?

[Martin Radner]

Yeah, it's, it's just, you know, like you sometimes you have a client who just, you know, you're working so hard on the case, you've got it all figured out and then they do something so absolutely ridiculous and stupid that just completely loses the case. I mean, this would be it.

[Dave Aronberg]

It.

[Martin Radner]

Yeah, you know, this letter that's, I'm saying like, I think before this they had maybe like, if you get like a real good defense attorney, maybe you'd be able to figure out, to argue some reasonable doubt they didn't search the work truck. Maybe he had some drugs in the work truck. You know, maybe the actually the, what's it called, that oxycodone pill was really, you know, fentanyl in there. And they didn't search it, they didn't swab it. And you know, you can start making those arguments, but then you got this letter, it's like, oh, just.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, why you gotta do that? Case is yours to lose. Why you gotta do this? Yeah, definitely. Well, I want to talk about Karen Reed, because you are the master of Karen Reed, so you can update us. And I can't wait to hear about this. So just a reminder for our viewers. Karen Reed was the Massachusetts woman that was tried. She gained a lot of national attention. She was tried and it was a mistrial. And then the second go around she was tried again and she was found not guilty of everything except for driving under the influence of alcohol. This happened outside of Boston. And essentially she was charged with killing her boyfriend and he was an officer. And so there was a lot of stuff going on. This was a really highly publicized case. But we've got a couple things coming up now because there's some civil lawsuits. So I wonder, Martin, if you could just catch us up on these civil lawsuits we're seeing coming out now.

[Martin Radner]

So there was like a lot of times you have a criminal case where the person gets acquitted. So Ashley, you do your job, but then, then that person will also get sued because the standards are very different. In order to prove someone's guilt in criminal court, you got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a very high standard in order to get some money damages, since that's just money, it's just a couple million dollars. So, you know, you only have to prove your case by the preponderance of the evidence. More likely than not. So much easier burden to satisfy. So what the o' Keeffe family did here is that they sued, and the estate of John o', Keefe, of course, sued. They sued Karen Reed in civil court. So now she's dealing with the civil case. Actually, by the way, Ashley, that civil case was filed while the criminal court was still. That criminal case was still going. And in fact, I believe. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe that they wanted to take her deposition in the civil case while the criminal case was going on.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, my gosh. And that's rare, Martin. Right. I mean, normally they would seek a stay in that.

[Martin Radner]

Exactly. So that's exactly what happened. Because I think that they realize, hey, in the civil case, you can't exactly. I mean, you could plead the Fifth, but then they could, it could be used against you in the civil case. And, you know, so they don't want any of that, any of that gamesmanship. So they actually sought a stay, and the state was granted, was granted only with respects to Karen Reed's deposition. But anyway, so the criminal case continues, she gets acquitted, and now the civil case is. Is ongoing. They're having all this discovery issues. They want to take, you know, dozens and dozens of depositions in this case. It's going to be a long time, I think, before we see trial, although the judge is trying to push things along. But what most interestingly happened very recently is with respect to Karen Reed's cell phone. Now, the reason why this becomes interesting is that in the civil case, one of the counts that they're suing Karen Reid for is something called intentional infliction of emotional distress. And that is by the fact. So there's obviously the wrongful death, which they're suing Karen Reid for. That's for her killing John o'. Keefe. Right. And civil court, they're going to feel that they can prove that. But then on top of that is the fact that if she did that, let's say if we go into the world of the plaintiffs in this case, that she actually did kill John o', Keefe, and then what she did was she spun this crazy conspiracy. Well, then that conspiracy can be, you know, utterly intolerable for a civilized society. It can rise to a different cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Is for her spreading this false narrative, this conspiracy. So in order to prove that, they want to show that she was in concert with somebody else that you may have heard of before. And it goes by Turtle Boy, who is the very loud YouTuber. He's a content creator, he's a journalist, and he gets on. He's getting on YouTube for years, saying about, you know, you know, spewing this conspiracy. So if they can show that there was some sort of corroboration between Karen Reed and Turtle Boy, so then they can say, look, we've got some evidence that she was actually involved in spreading this false narrative to, you know, satisfy the cause of action called intentional infliction of emotional distress. So she was. So they're trying to get her phone and be able to do a full extraction on her phone. So this is what's interesting, because in the criminal case, they still. They still seized her phone, even though

[Ashley Merchant]

they didn't search warrant and they didn't do the extraction.

[Martin Radner]

And, well, she's so very, very weird.

[Dave Aronberg]

They.

[Martin Radner]

They had a search warrant on the phone, but then they sat on it for 19 months and didn't do anything. Then the, you know, in the criminal case, they said, you cannot search it anymore. So then she wants it back. But in the civil case, they filed for a TRO that she should not be able to get it back because we still want a full extraction. And if she gets it back, maybe they're going to. She's going to manipulate it or alter the information and change it and delete it. So all this motion practice is going on in the civil case, and then something very interesting happens, like something completely on the side, ancillary, but very significant, and that is that there is a recording between Karen Reed and Turtle Boy that got leaked. So this was a recording, an illegal recording. Seems like it was a violation of the wiretapping statute where Karen Reed was talking to Turtle Boy on the phone and not very happy with him at the. At that point. But in the motion where the plaintiffs are seeking the full extraction to get the Trojan, they actually misquote what she said in that recording. So that became a huge issue in that case. You got an attorney misquoting Karen Reid, and that blew up. Eventually, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion and apologized on the record. Oh, I shouldn't say apologized, but he corrected himself on the record and said I was mistaken. So it's just. The drama never ends when it comes to Karen Reid.

[Ashley Merchant]

So who. Who do they think? Who actually recorded this?

[Martin Radner]

That is a question.

[Detective or Witness]

Yeah.

[Ashley Merchant]

So nobody knows it just got leaked.

[Martin Radner]

There are. It got leaked. There are definitely some strong speculation about who may have done it. But, you know, people want to be very careful about it because technically it's a crime.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right.

[Martin Radner]

You know, so I don't want to speculate that somebody committed a crime, but that was actually another issue that came up in this motion itself, that, that maybe the plaintiff attorneys are not even able to use this recording because if they know that it came from an illegal wiretap, they're not allowed to use it at all. So that. That also blew up in this specific case. So, like, it's just you can't get away from the Karen Reid case without getting sucked into all this drama that comes up on every single motion and every single hearing.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, my God. No, we can't. And hopefully we will have you back to talk about it again because I'm sure there will be lots more. Thank you so much for joining us. And can you tell us where our audience can find you?

[Martin Radner]

Absolutely. First of all, it was an honor and a pleasure to be both with you, Dave and Ashley, obviously, two very renowned attorneys that I can just be happy to be in your company. But I do have my own YouTube channel. It's called Brother Counsel. And that's where you can find me on YouTube. And I'm also on Twitter. Other Counsel.

[Ashley Merchant]

Awesome. So everyone hopefully will check you out and we would love to have you back. Thank you again.

[Dave Aronberg]

Thanks to you, Martin.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah. So next up, we've got our closing arguments and your questions. Stay tuned. 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.

[Dave Aronberg]

Imagine relying on a dozen different software

[Martin Radner]

programs to run your business, none of

[Dave Aronberg]

which are connected, and each one more

[Martin Radner]

expensive and more complicated than the last.

[Dave Aronberg]

It can be pretty stressful.

[Martin Radner]

Now imagine Odoo.

[Dave Aronberg]

Odoo has all the programs you'll ever

[Martin Radner]

need and are all connected on one platform.

[Dave Aronberg]

Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software. That can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up [e-mail] that's O-O-O.com. if you're looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, Riverbend Ranch is a great place to start. Riverbend Ranch steaks are not only delicious, they also contain real high quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein and contains all nine essential amino acids your body needs to function. It also keeps you fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking. It's one of the most nutrient dense foods you can eat, packed with protein, iron, zinc and B vitamins that help support energy, strength and overall health. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it's raised and where it comes from. That's where Riverbend Ranch stands apart. For more than 35 years, Riverbend Ranch has been building an elite Black Angus herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. They only use the top 1 to 2% of the entire population for breeding, which is why their beef tastes noticeably better than average Black Angus beef. Who wants that middle Black Angus beef anyways? All Riverbed Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the usa. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics and the beef is processed right at the ranch and their award winning USDA inspector facility. Each steak is aged 21 days to enhance flavor and tenderness. It's a difference you will notice with your first succulent bite. No shortcuts, no middlemen. Just incredible, healthy and flavorful beef shipped directly to your home. Order [e-mail] and use promo code Megan. M, E G Y N for $20 off your first order. Welcome back to MK True Crime. We'll get to our closing arguments, but first we have a question from Tina. Hello. I love MK True Crime. Thank you, Tina. Thank you for streaming the Corey Richards trial. I think she's probably guilty, but I'm disappointed that I haven't seen any direct evidence linking Corey to giving her husband Eric the fentanyl. In your opinion, is the state in trouble here? Thank you, Ashley.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah. And I think, you know, you and I sort of had it out early on, so hopefully, hopefully that answered your question when we were arguing what we would argue in closing arguments. But you know, I'm with you. I think she's probably guilty, but I really don't think the state proved it here.

[Dave Aronberg]

And I think the state proved it. I think that Corey didn't just find the fentanyl Keep in mind, she allegedly reached out to the housekeeper to buy it. Specifically, she wanted that Michael Jackson stuff. And she also had that search history for lethal doses and luxury prisons. It shows that mine focused on a certain outcome. Also, there's the walk the dog letter. I mean, if she's innocent, why write that six page manual from jail to instruct her family to invent a story about Eric's drug habits. So. So I think there's a lot of evidence, but we don't normally have, like a smoking gun in these types of cases, so you're right to identify that. So thank you, Tina, for your excellent question. And now for our favorite part of the program, it's our closing arguments. Ashley, ladies first.

[Ashley Merchant]

Why don't you go first? Thank you, Dave. All right, I'm going to do something a little bit different today. And I got my client's permission to talk about this. So that's the first thing I wanted to say. But everyone is a little bit obsessed with AI right now. We talk about it all the time. But clients are starting to run every legal question through ChatGPT. Claude perplexity gronk. There's all these that I can't even keep up with. Whatever the flavor of the week is, they're running it through it. And sometimes, sometimes it's useful. AI can help explain complicated things in a way that someone may understand a little better, because AI is supposed to be trained to talk like you talk and speak to you. But here's the problem. AI does not know the law in your courtroom. So I had a client, again, full permission, but he was absolutely convinced that when we filed a certain motion, a very specific thing would happen in relation to that motion being filed. And I said, no, no, that's not how it works. And he insisted, yes, yes, it is. Yes, AI said it is. And I knew that he runs just about everything I say through AI So I already anticipated that, talked about it. I said, you know, fine, ask AI what statute says that. Ask your AI at, see what it says. So he gets the statute, he sends me the statute. He says, AI says it's a statute. I look at that and I say, guess what? It's a wrong statute. It's actually this one. And I cited the statute from memory. He plugs that into the AI.

[Martin Radner]

Boom.

[Ashley Merchant]

AI comes back and it basically says, oh, wow, you're right, I was wrong. And it said that. He screenshotted it and sent it to me, and I think I want to blow it up and paint it on my wall. My Client says, my lawyer beat AI. And I told him, no, your lawyer didn't beat AI. Your lawyer read the statute. Your lawyer knows the law. AI can summarize the law, but it cannot replace actually knowing it. There's my rant.

[Dave Aronberg]

Ah, so well said. And AI, there's gonna be tools just for lawyers. Claude apparently is coming up with one. But in the meantime, there's nothing that beats inexperienced criminal defense lawyer like you are, Ashley. The computers and you don't do it right. Well, thank you. Well, you know, I'm a relatively recent criminal defense lawyer. I've been prosecutor for. For a lot longer. And so now I'm on the dark side with you.

[Ashley Merchant]

So we're happy to have you.

[Dave Aronberg]

Hey, happy to be here. And I'll do my rant. So you may have seen I have this Miami Heat cup that I drink out of. And Jaime, Miami Heat fan. And just as a caveat, this is not a sports rant, so stick with me this week. Bam Adebayo, a great guy. He's of the Miami Heat. He's an upstanding member of the community. He did something so remarkable, so shocking that I need to mention it here. He scored 83 points in a single game. In the entire history of the world, only Wilt Chamberlain, one person has ever scored more. Coming into this, his average was just 20 points a game. His previous career high was 41 points. So he didn't just beat his personal best, he doubled it and left it for dead. But here's the real purpose of this closing statement. It's because you have this glass half empty brigade out there. They are ready. You know the type, the kind of people who would win the lottery and then complain about the font used on the giant check. Well, online, they're out there right now complaining about free throws or fouling, trying to take the luster off this achievement. Honestly, imagine being that miserable in life. Imagine witnessing a once in a century masterpiece and responding with, yeah, but the lighting was mid to the haters. Your negativity is the only thing more exhaustive than the guys who had to guard bamboo in that game. So as you head out, remember, greatness is rare and joy seems to be even rarer. Don't be the person looking for a motive when you should be enjoying the evidence. Because in a world full of cold cases, Bam's game the other night was pure, unadulterated fire. And that's my closing argument. Ashley, that's awesome.

[Ashley Merchant]

I love it.

[Dave Aronberg]

Thank you. Did you watch the game, by the way?

[Ashley Merchant]

I did not watch the game, I admit it. But I am watching the Gators tomorrow, you know, and I'm getting very excited for the Final Four. Go Gators.

[Dave Aronberg]

That is exciting. March Madness is upon us. And I admit I didn't watch Bam's incredible game because it was like a game against a Washington. What do they call them these days? The Capitals? It was the Generals. Used to be the Bullets, whatever. The Washington basketball. The Wizards. The Wizards. That's it. Sorry.

[Ashley Merchant]

Well, I would never have guessed that because you were giving me goosebumps describing it, so I assumed that you had watched it.

[Dave Aronberg]

You know, I watched. I was following it on online and they said he scored 62 points. I was like, wow. And then I realized it was the end of the third quarter.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, my gosh. That's amazing. I think everybody should enjoy good talent, right?

[Dave Aronberg]

And it's not like he's Michael Jordan or, I mean, not even considered one of the top 10, 20 players of the league, but it's just great to see. He's the captain. Great guy. And on that day, he was. So I want to say thank you to our guest, Martin Radner, and to my coast, Ashley Merchant. And thank you for joining us here on MK True Crime. Have a great weekend. Imagine relying on a dozen different software

[Martin Radner]

programs to run your business, none of

[Dave Aronberg]

which are connected, and each one more

[Martin Radner]

expensive and more complicated than the last.

[Dave Aronberg]

It can be pretty stressful.

[Martin Radner]

Now imagine Odoo.

[Dave Aronberg]

Odoo has all the programs you'll ever

[Martin Radner]

need, and they're all connected on one platform.

[Dave Aronberg]

Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for

[Martin Radner]

a fraction of the price.

[Dave Aronberg]

Sign up [e-mail] that's o d o o dot com. Tired of the same old game night? Switch things up with Chumba casino. Play over 200 free online social casino games from classic slots and blackjack to exclusive in house favorites. You won't find anywhere else, however long you got. But you can play your way anytime, anywhere. Make your next chill night a little

[Martin Radner]

more fun with Chumba Casino.

[Ashley Merchant]

No purchase necessary.

[Dave Aronberg]

VGW group void where prohibited by log. See terms and conditions for details. 21.