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.