Kouri Richins GUILTY, Defense Fumbles, and Cheerleader Indicted for Manslaughter, with Ian Runkle

Summary

MK True Crime – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Kouri Richins GUILTY, Defense Fumbles, and Cheerleader Indicted for Manslaughter, with Ian Runkle
Date: March 18, 2026
Hosts: Ashley Merchant (Criminal Defense Lawyer), Dave Aronberg (Palm Beach County State Attorney)
Guest: Ian Runkle (Canadian Criminal Defense Attorney, "Runkle of the Bailey" YouTube channel)

---

Episode Overview

The episode opens with a detailed breakdown and analysis of the Kouri Richins murder trial verdict. The hosts, joined by Ian Runkle, explore the trial’s key moments, particularly the state and defense’s closing arguments and the verdict’s significance. Later, the discussion shifts to the recent indictment of former cheerleader Lakin Snelling for manslaughter, drawing comparisons to other high-profile cases involving mothers and newborn deaths.

---

Kouri Richins Trial: Key Verdict and Immediate Reactions

[02:03] Jury Verdict Read Aloud

• Jury found Kouri Richins guilty on all counts: Aggravated murder (for financial gain and by poisoning), attempted aggravated murder, two counts of insurance fraud, and forgery.
• Quote: “We, the jury, unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richins, is guilty of aggravated murder.” – Jury Foreperson [02:03]

[03:42] Emotional Impact of Verdict

• Dave describes the tension and adrenaline as the verdict is awaited: “Your heart just starts racing… it's a big moment when you’re waiting for the verdict.” [03:55]
• Ashley compares waiting for a verdict to waiting for life-altering medical news.

---

Family and Defense Reactions

[06:04] Statement from Eric Richins' Family

• Statement read on behalf of Eric Richins' family, emphasizing loss and gratitude for the justice system.
• Quote: “Our focus is now on honoring Eric’s life and supporting his boys as we all continue to heal.” – Sister Amy

[06:53] Brief Discussion of Defense’s Statement

• Not played in full, but both hosts commend the family’s grace.

---

Closing Arguments: State vs. Defense

[07:48] The State’s Closing

• Prosecutor paints Kouri as driven by feelings of being aggrieved and ambitious, influenced by a troubled upbringing.
• Key excerpt: “She was not beneath those homeowners, but she felt that she was. This fueled in her an intense desire…” – Prosecutor [07:48]
• Dave: Expresses discomfort with using a defendant’s poor upbringing to argue motive: “It humanizes that person.” [09:26]

[09:48] 911 Call Analysis

• State frames Kouri’s demeanor on the 911 call as cold and calculated: “The first minute is not the sound of a wife becoming a widow… it’s the sound of a wife becoming a black widow.” [09:48]
• Ashley pushes back: “Everybody grieves differently, and I just. I hate it when there’s these arguments about us grieving properly and that that’s somehow evidence of guilt.” [10:23]

[12:53] Valentine’s Day Illness Incident

• Discussion: Was an allergic reaction evidence of a previous poisoning attempt?
• Ashley: “If you think someone poisoned you, I’m not asking you for guidance… That has never made sense to me.” [11:34]
• Dave: Suggests Eric only suspected his wife after the incident, justifying initial trust.

---

Analysis of Defense Shortcomings

[29:15 onward] Guest Analysis with Ian Runkle

• Ian Runkle offers insight into the rapid verdict: “When it was coming back in three hours, it was just. There was no other hope… three hours is a blowout.” [29:37]
• Judges’ “theatre” and the tension for the accused and families noted.
• The significance of Eric's birthday (May 13th) as sentencing day highlighted.

[34:48] Effective Use of Defendant’s Own Words

• State’s use of Kouri’s repeated denials that Eric used illicit drugs undercuts later defense claims that he could have overdosed unknowingly.
• Quote: “Why did she spend so much time denying it?...It just looks very convenient when she’s now in court saying, well, you know, he was totally doing drugs on the side.” – Ian Runkle [35:41]

[37:44] The Money Motive

• State emphasizes Kouri’s dire financial state and her actions to obtain life insurance and property immediately following Eric’s death.

• Quote: “She was supposed to close until she knew Eric Richards was dead because she knew she would have his money.” – Prosecutor [37:44]

• Ashley critiques: “You’re going to commit murder to net less than $200,000, and you’re still going to be buried under debt? That doesn’t make any sense.” [38:54]

• Ian and Dave argue financial desperation can motivate irrational, self-destructive decisions: “She was not thinking straight... she was jumping into the Scrooge McDuck pile of money, and it’s empty…” – Ian Runkle [39:52]

[43:20] Defendant’s Affect and Courtroom Demeanor

• Prosecutor accuses Kouri of flat affect and narcissism (“narcissistic injury”). [43:20]
• Both Ashley and Ian detest arguments about grieving “properly”; warn clients to have “stone cold” expressions.
• Quote: “If it were legal, I would take my clients to a Botox clinic…just give it to them until their face cannot move.” – Ian Runkle [44:56]

[46:48] The Defense’s Missed Opportunities

• The defense failed to present evidence to support its alternative overdose theory.
• “You never promise anything in opening that you cannot deliver ever, ever…you can’t over promise because the jury lose all credibility.” – Ashley Merchant [50:11]

---

The Lakin Snelling Case: Cheerleader Indicted for Manslaughter

[15:53] Case Background

• Lakin Snelling, 22, UK cheerleader, indicted for manslaughter after giving birth alone; infant found deceased, evidence suggests baby was born alive (disputed).
• Notably parallels the 2019 Brooke Richardson case in Ohio.

[18:59] Prosecutorial Discretion and Possible Defense

• Prosecutor (Dave): “If you overcharge a case, it's terrible…you want to go with what you can make stick.”
• Primary defense challenge: Explanation for not calling 911 and for going about daily routines post-incident.
• Ashley: Criticizes tendency to judge defendants harshly based on reactions.

[22:09] Will Snelling Testify?

• Both agree the only way to humanize Snelling and explain her actions is for her to testify, despite cross-examination risk.
• Jurors often expect defendants to take the stand, even if legally advised not to.

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “Your heart just starts racing… that's a big moment when you're waiting for the verdict.” – Dave Aronberg [03:55]
• “She was a hot mess.” – Ashley Merchant [42:12]
• “If it were legal, I would take my clients to a Botox clinic… just give it to them until their face cannot move.” – Ian Runkle [44:56]
• “There was a lane. There was a defense, a real lane, a real defense, and [the defense] did not get in it.” – Ashley Merchant [62:23]
• “If you give a plausible alternative like that and you have the possibility to show evidence, you have got to put forth that narrative.” – Ashley Merchant [62:43]

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Jury verdict read & reactions: [02:03]–[07:18]
• Analysis of state’s and defense’s closings: [07:18]–[14:00]; [29:15]–[52:27]
• Discussion of grieving arguments and court demeanor: [43:20]–[47:20]
• Cheerleader manslaughter case background: [15:53]–[26:48]
• Ian Runkle interview: [29:15]–[54:40]
• Closing rants/arguments: [57:50]–[63:42]

---

Tone, Style, and Concluding Thoughts

The episode is characterized by a blend of professional legal insight and informal banter. The hosts are candid about courtroom realities, critical of both state and defense strategies, and empathetic toward the challenges defendants face—notably when it comes to interpreting human behavior under stress. Ian Runkle’s expertise, particularly in parsing how defense strategies did or did not create reasonable doubt, adds depth.

Final takeaway:
The Kouri Richins verdict was a clear-cut defeat for the defense, with the prosecution leveraging both Kouri’s own statements and circumstantial financial evidence. The show also previews legal and jury decision-making complexities in emerging cases such as that of Lakin Snelling, emphasizing the nuanced and often emotional nature of criminal trials.

---

This summary distills all primary discussion points, arguments, and notable moments using the original tone of the speakers, with clear attributions and timestamps for key insights.

Transcript

[Opendoor Advertiser]

Cash now, more later From Opendoor gives you cash up front for your home plus all the profit later. That's no chaos now. No cash left behind later. Skip the showings now. Pocket extra profit later. This is so simple now. This is so awesome. Later or sell fast now and pop the champagne later. Cash now, more later. Now available nationwide. Start your [e-mail] radio profits calculated after fees and costs. Eligibility and offer price may vary.

[Ashley Merchant]

Hey, guys, have you heard of Gold Belly?

[Opendoor Advertiser]

It's this amazing site where they ship the most iconic famous foods from restaurants across the country anywhere nationwide.

[Ashley Merchant]

I've never found a more perfect gift than food.

[Opendoor Advertiser]

Gold Belly ship Chicago deep dish pizza, New York bagels, Maine lobster rolls, and

[Ashley Merchant]

even Ina Garden's famous cakes.

[Opendoor Advertiser]

So if you're looking for a gift for the food lover in your life, head to goldbelly.com and get 20% off

[Ashley Merchant]

your first order with promo code GIFT. That's goldbelly.com, promo code GIFT. Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Ashleigh Merchant, criminal defense lawyer out of Atlanta, Georgia. Here's what's on the docket today. The Corey Richens murder trial has come to a close. On Monday, a jury found Richins guilty of fatally poisoning her husband Eric after less than three hours of deliberation. We'll bring you all of the details. And later, we'll be joined by Ian Runkle. He's a Canadian criminal defense attorney and host of the popular YouTube channel Runkle of the Bailey, to dig into the state and the defense's closing arguments in the Richens trial. And a former cheerleader and beauty queen has been indicted on a manslaughter charge. We'll bring you the latest. I'm joined today by my co host, Dave Aronberg, the Florida lawman, Florida state attorney for Palm beach county, former and managing partner at Dave Aronberg Law. So, Dave, we've got a verdict. We got a verdict a little bit sooner than I think we expected on Monday in the Richens trial. But. But before we dive into that, I want to share the jury's verdict with you and our audience.

[Jury Foreperson]

Count one, aggravated murder. We, the jury, unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richins, is guilty of aggravated murder. We, the jury, unanimously agree that the prosecution has proved the following circumstance or circumstances regarding Count 1, beyond a reasonable doubt. The homicide was committed for pecuniary gain and the homicide was committed by means of the administration of any substance administered in a lethal amount, dosage or quantity. Count two, attempted aggravated murder. We, the jury, unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richens, is guilty of attempted aggravated murder. We, the jury, unanimously agree the prosecution has proved the following circumstance or circumstances regarding Count 2, beyond a reasonable doubt, the attempted homicide was committed for pecuniary gain. Count three, insurance fraud. We, the jury, unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richins is guilty of insurance fraud. Count four, insurance fraud. We, the jury, unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richards is guilty of insurance fraud. Count five, forgery. We, the jury, unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richins, is guilty of forgery.

[Ashley Merchant]

Wow. So, Dave, I know you've had those moments. I don't think a lot of people really understand what it's like when you're sitting there and either a client or, you know, for the state, get that type of. Type of news. How does it feel for you?

[Dave Aronberg]

You know, the really stressful moment, the thing that's just etched in your soul as a prosecutor or even a defense lawyer, is that not necessarily the moment the verdict is read, but it's the moment you're waiting for a verdict. You're waiting, and then you hear this. Boy, that triggers me. That is when the bailiff bangs on the door to let us know in the courtroom that the jury has reached a verdict, all of a sudden comes out of nowhere, Boom, boom, boom. And I don't know how they do it in other states, but in Palm beach county, it's always that triple knock. I don't know. Why is that a rule?

[Ashley Merchant]

Triple knock Right on the loudwood doors.

[Dave Aronberg]

Right on the loudwood doors.

[Ashley Merchant]

It's always a loudwood door.

[Dave Aronberg]

Right. No one triple knocks anywhere. There's no wood doors. That's the only time you hear that, is in a courtroom. And then it's on. Like, all of a sudden, your heart just starts racing. And so, yes, that's a big moment when you're waiting for the verdict. And this judge. Oh, first off, Corey Richards, who I think is just a despicable sociopath. I did got a. I get a little schadenfreude there. When I saw. You can see her heart literally beating. What's left of. I didn't know if she had a heart, but she has. Her heart was beating. You can just see it. And she clearly was nervous, which. Which is a good thing. And this judge seemed to make her and the rest of us suffer a bit. I don't know if he was playing with the cameras, but that moment when he says, count one, aggravated murder, the jury finds guilty. Like, what's the pregnant pause there for? Right, right. Why'd you wait?

[Ashley Merchant]

There was Definitely a pregnant pause. Yes.

[Dave Aronberg]

Oh, my gosh. Like that one. I was like, come on, man. So, yeah, that's my thoughts.

[Ashley Merchant]

No, it's always just such a. Such a tense moment. I always liken it to getting news. If you've had a test and the doctor is going to tell you if you have cancer or not, and you have two weeks to live or five years to live, I mean, you're waiting there, you're waiting with your client, and you're waiting to figure out what's going on the rest of their life. Because I've only had the privilege of having a verdict as a defense lawyer. I can't even imagine what it's like as the state. It's got to be the same thing. It's very difficult. So I think a lot of folks don't really understand the moment that that happens. And I think we heard from Eric's family. We heard from Sister Amy, who you saw in that. In that video, if you're watching on YouTube. But we heard from her after, and so I think we can play her statement. She gave a statement on behalf of the family. Four years ago. Our family lost the brightest light. Eric is deeply loved and missed every single day. We are grateful to everyone who has worked tirelessly to bring justice for Eric. Our focus is now on honoring Eric's life and supporting his boys as we all continue to heal. Thank you all for being here. That was. That was a nice statement. It was definitely a nice statement. I know we had one from the defense as well. But I want to talk a little bit about the closing, and we're going to talk more about it later on in our show with our guest, but just talk a little bit about the closing. One thing that kind of struck me, I know we got a motion for a mistrial, but, you know, the state talked a lot about how she had this poor upbringing. You know, they were going on about how Corey Richards was. Was aggrieved and that, you know, her father went to prison, her mother was an alcoholic, and that she wanted to appear privileged, you know, that she wanted him because he was a successful businessman. And I was kind of surprised that they moved from his trial about something else that they didn't object to that, you know, talking about how she was aggrieved and had this poor upbringing. I just didn't really think that it was relevant during the closing. So it's kind of surprised that we didn't see anything on that.

[Dave Aronberg]

You know, it's argument. So you get a lot of discretion, a lot of leeway in it. And it's generally bad form to object during the other counsel's argument. But it happens, right?

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah. They did it with the mistrial, right?

[Dave Aronberg]

That's right. That's right. But, you know, that's in front of the jury when you start objecting during argument. And I don't think jurors like it either. And so you got to be careful about it. Maybe we can. I know we have a side on that maybe we can play Saw two to just to show the audience what we're talking about here.

[Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

Corey Richards feels aggrieved and is thus an intensely ambitious person. She feels aggrieved because, growing up, her father was an alcoholic who traded parenting for prison and her mother a gambler who traded parenting for a casino. Corey Richards thus worked for her aunt cleaning the homes of rich people in Park City. She was not beneath those homeowners, but she felt that she was. This fueled in her an intense desire to appear privileged, affluent, and successful. She met Eric Richards. He was a successful business owner. He had money. They had a son, married and had two more sons. Cory Richards was on her way, but she was unhappy. She wanted to leave Eric Richards, but did not want to leave his money.

[Ashley Merchant]

Good closing argument.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yes. I was just. When I first heard it, though, I was thinking, wow, that's something the defense would say. She was blind, born into poverty. She had a terrible upgrade bringing. Don't blame her, blame her parents. And wow, okay. But then it was. The prosecutor tried to turn that on its head. I don't love when you bring up the poor circumstances of the defendant. It humanizes that person.

[Ashley Merchant]

Does, definitely.

[Dave Aronberg]

So I thought, yeah, I wasn't crazy about that, but I did think he did. Well, when later in the close, like you saw later in the clip we showed, but also later in the close, he Talked about the 911 call that Corey made the night that Eric died.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yes. And, you know, that's a pet peeve of mine, and I think we have a slot on that, too.

[Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

She's on receiver on her phone. The 911 call operator asks her, are you on speakerphone? She says, yes. No, she's on receiver. We're going to listen to the first part, actually. Most of the 911 calls. Again, the first minute is not the sound of a wife becoming a widow. To echo her friend Chelsea Barney, the first minute is the sound of a wife becoming a black widow.

[Ashley Merchant]

I hate these arguments. And, you know, anytime I have something like that, I tell the jury, have you ever called 911, how did you sound? I mean, you know, are you answering the questions right? Who cares if you're on speaker or not if you think your husband is dead? And, I mean, I know that her reaction was not what people would have expected, but I thought the defense did a good job of humanizing that in their closing, you know, when they were talking about, how are you supposed to react? You know, everybody grieves differently, and I just. I hate it when there's these arguments about us grieving properly and that that's somehow evidence of guilt. And I know it comes in all the time, but this is just one of those, and it's my pet peeve,

[Dave Aronberg]

but I think it's relevant here, because if she's not on speaker, she's not able to help. If she has a receiver, it means he's really not going to do the cpr. It also goes back to when she tried to kill him on Valentine's Day, two weeks earlier. And he called her. Eric called her and said, I feel ill. I feel sick. I think I need to go to the hospital. And she said, no, no, no. Just sleep it off. So it's the same thing here. Like, he's dying. I need to help him. And they're like, all right, let's do cpr. Okay, you're on speaker. Oh, yeah. You know, like, care. I'm really, like, looking at her nails. Maybe, you know, that's what she's doing because she wants him to die. So I sort of think it's relevant in that way.

[Ashley Merchant]

I'm so glad you brought up the Valentine's Day hives thing. That has been something that really gets me. I mean, it's Valentine's Day, okay? So he breaks out in hives. Now, follow the logic. You have allergies, you go to an allergist. You have hives, you break out. Your conclusion is not, my wife is poisoning me with fentanyl. That's not what you think. That is an unreasonable leap. It's absurd. It's an absolute insane leap. And it falls apart because we're supposed to believe. This is what I would have argued in closing. We're supposed to believe that he thought she poisoned him. Okay, so what does he do? He texts her. He asks her what to do. And then what does he do? He follows her advice. No, absolutely not. If you think someone poisoned you, I'm not asking you for guidance. I'm not asking you what to do. I'm asking the exact opposite. I'm doing the exact opposite of what you say. If I think that you have poisoned me, unless there's a completely different explanation, it wasn't about poisoning, it's about ingestion. If you took something intentionally and it went sideways, who are you going to text? You're going to text the person that knows the source. You're going to text the person that can tell you, was it a bad batch? Is this serious? Do I need to go to the hospital? It happens all the time. You check with your supplier every time, but nobody is going to check with the person that they think is actually their executioner. So that has never made sense to me. And I know that it was a big issue and nobody really brought it out a lot in closing argument, but it never made sense to me, this whole allergy reaction.

[Dave Aronberg]

Did he check with his supplier?

[Ashley Merchant]

Maybe. I mean, maybe they were doing drugs together. You know, if she was killing him and he thought she was killing him, he's not going to check with her on what to do.

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, he, he. Well, that means you're saying his sister would be lying because his sister said that he thought that his wife had poisoned him. Right. That was from his sister. Although, although, that was hearsay. But they got it in, I guess, because the state of mind.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right, but why would he text if he thought his wife was poisoning her? Why would he text his wife and ask what to do?

[Dave Aronberg]

I think it was after the fact. I think that at the moment he felt ill and you don't know when you're starting to feel your stomach, first thing you do is you call your wife, hey, I feel really ill. Afterwards. You think about it, you're like, huh, something doesn't make sense here. And I think that's what happened.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah.

[Dave Aronberg]

But I think you may make a good point. That could be some reasonable doubt that they left that cash on the table in closing.

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Pay around the corner and around the globe. Apple Pay is accepted at millions of places worldwide. Wherever you see the contactless symbol in stores or the Apple pay button online and in apps, whether you're checking out on iPhone or Apple watch, just double click pay and be on your way. Add your debit or credit card to wallet and you're good to go. Pay the Apple way terms apply.

[Opendoor Advertiser]

Cash now, more later from Opendoor gives you cash up front for your home plus all the profit later. That's no chaos now. No cash left behind later. Skip the showings now. Pocket extra profit later. This is so simple now. This is so awesome. Later or sell fast now and pop the champagne later. Cash now, more later now available Nationwide. Start your [e-mail] radio profits calculated after fees and costs. Eligibility and offer price may vary. What does comfort that really carries you from morning to night feel like? For many, it's Cozy Earth. It starts with their essential socks. They're soft, breathable, and thoughtfully cushioned to support you step by step, from the first step out of bed to the end of a long day. With multiple styles, they fit seamlessly into everyday life. And when the day winds down, that same comfort shows up at night. With Cozy Earth's comforter, it's luxuriously soft, light and naturally temperature regulating, so you stay cool, calm and comfortable all night. No heaviness, no overheating, just deeper rest. That's what sets Cozy Earth apart. Every piece crafted with intention and attention to detail, designed to quietly elevate the everyday. And it's completely risk free. With a 100 night sleep trial and a 10 year warranty, discover how care in every detail transforms simple routines into real comfort. Head to cozyearth.com, use my code MEGAN for up to 20% off. That's MEGAN for up to 20 percent off. And if you get a post purchase purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right here. We've got a question from a viewer and we want to talk about a new case. It's a sad case. It's called Lake and Snelling. And the viewer, her name is Allison, she wrote us and said she was hoping that we could dive into the Lake and Snelling case. It appears her baby was alive after delivery and she wanted us to talk about the new charges that were gonna be brought against her and how it compares to a case from 2019, Brooke Richardson, who apparently was acquitted in 2019. And the circumstances in that case are very similar and we thank you. Allison, you say you're an avid listener and the MK True Crime series has crossed quickly become your favorite YouTube show. We really appreciate that. So we're going to give you what you want and we're going to talk a little bit about Lake and Snelling. So. And I actually wasn't familiar with this case. You know, I'd heard it in the news, but I was very interested when I started looking at it. So just to catch our readers, I mean, our viewers up, Lakin was a student. She was 22 years old and she was a student at the University of Kentucky. There was, she was a member of this cheerleading stunt team. So it's apparently some type of a stunt team. So she was very acrobatic and athletic. And I think that will play into the story. It's called the Wildcats. Competitive cheerleading team. Popular with SEC athletics. So she was active. She appeared to be living typical college life, college student life, until August 27th of last year, 2025. And that's when the police were called to her apartment for a report of an unresponsive infant. The baby was found deceased in a closet, wrapped in a towel and inside of a trash bag. This shocked a lot of people because they didn't know that Snelling was pregnant. She was actually trying to keep that and had kept it from most people. But the court documents indicate that her baby was full term. And I think there's some discrepancy about this, but they indicate that she was born alive but died from asphyxia. And then it said it was by undetermined means. And I think there's some, you know, some disputing over whether or not that the means are, you know, are disputed. But apparently after this event, after she gave birth in her apartment and the baby died, she left for class. And so that's been highly scrutinized because she left for class and she ordered food through a McDonald's app, acting as if nothing happened. Her roommates were suspicious and had called the police. They apparently had heard some noises during the time that she was giving birth and then sometime after, and they're the ones that actually discovered the baby. And some other signs, some towels and things like that, some other signs that led them to call the police. She went to the hospital and she actually gave a statement. She told them that she heard about some fetal movements and a faint whisper or a faint whimper. I'm sorry. The police got a search warrant for her social media accounts. They were wondering if she had deleted any images about this, but. But apparently they haven't found anything. And so the latest on this is most recently the case was indicted. It went before a grand jury in January, and she was just indicted last week. On Tuesday, she was indicted on first degree manslaughter, abuse of a corpse, tampering with physical evidence, and concealing the birth of an infant. So we've got that, and we're going to be covering that case. David, it looks like they indicted her on the first degree manslaughter and not on a malice murder or something like that. So what does that tell us if that's what the grand jury found?

[Dave Aronberg]

You know, you have a sympathetic person here, a young woman who clearly made allegedly a very bad decision. And I think the prosecutors probably thought this was the most appropriate charge because you had the defendant here who's claiming extreme emotional disturbance. And so they just can only charge really what you can get a conviction for because otherwise you could lose the whole case. If you overcharge a case, it's terrible. And you look at the Brooke Richardson's case, I think that was also mentioned in the question. This was from 2019. Similar case in Ohio, a young woman, 20 years old, who was found guilty of abusing a corpse in connection with the death of a newborn daughter. But because they couldn't prove that the baby was born alive, it was just the lesser offenses she was convicted of, not the big ones. Aggravated murder, involuntary manslaughter, child endangerment, all not guilty. So you overcharge, you could lose everything. And so with Brooke Richardson, yeah, she was found guilty of lesser charges. She served seven days in county jail. So that's not what prosecutors want to do here. If you're going to go after, you want to go after what you can make stick. And there are challenges for the defense here in this Snelling case because she left her apartment after the baby was born without calling 911, without reporting the incident. That doesn't look good for her.

[Ashley Merchant]

No, it doesn't. Again, I hate that. I hate that. I hate when people's reactions and bad reactions are used against them. But it is. And juries love it. They love to hear things like that. And it really, you know, they have an idea in their head about how someone should react or someone should act when something bad, something tragic happens. And going to class and ordering McDonald's on a, you know, on an app definitely is not one of them. I agree there's a lot of parallels between this case and, you know, the Brooke Richardson case. It's interesting. I'm sure the defense and the prosecution will be looking at that case and trying to learn from it. I know we always do that. But there's only so many issues about. And I don't want to say the defense because, you know, we're not trying to formulated offense, we're trying to figure out what happened. But the big question is, was the baby born alive? You know, that's going to be the biggest question. Was the baby born alive? And I know in Brooke Richardson case there was a forensic pathologist who testified and I'm kind of surprised this didn't do more in that case. But the forensic pathologist testified for the prosecution and said that the baby died from homicidal violence and they didn't know how, but found six Skull fractures. So, you know, in these types of cases, we used to have shaken baby cases and you know that science has sort of evolved, but there's a lot of these are hard cases. You know, anytime there's a baby that's born, every if you've had a baby, you know, their brains aren't developed, their skull is not fused. You know, trauma happens during the birth. And so it's always really hard to determine if trauma happened during the birth or trauma happened after the birth. So that's always the first hurdle. You know, that's what I look at, at the defense. You know, how the pregnancy was, things like that. Sounds like Lakin didn't really have a lot of pregnancy care, so we may not have really good records about that. Yeah.

[Dave Aronberg]

You know, it means to me, as a new defense lawyer, you've been at this longer than I have, I was a prosecutor, that she's probably gonna have to testify because it looks bad for ordering McDonald's leading.

[Ashley Merchant]

Put her up. I wrote that on my paper. They gotta put her up. Yes, sorry.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yeah, well, and you have to have her testify because she's gotta explain why she was in such an emotion, emotional distress, why she left, because otherwise it looks so heartless and so she could humanize herself. But then of course, as you know, Ashley, what's the drawback if she takes a stand here?

[Ashley Merchant]

Cross examination, always. This is such a big issue. You know, how do lawyers feel about putting their clients up? I know I'm in the minority. I like to put my clients up. I think the jury wants to hear it and I like to put my clients up.

[Dave Aronberg]

But it is, you know, you can't ever refer to a defendant's invocation of the right to remain silent of the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. You do so, immediate mistrial, you'll be sanctioned by the bar. It's like what they teach you in law school on the first day if you're going to be a prosecutor, do not mention, hey, why isn't the defendant taking the stand? What she got to hide? Can't even allude to it. But you make a good point. The jury is sometimes wondering, why isn't she? Even though they're told during jury selection, don't hold it against them. The jury, you know, wants to see the defendant testify. Especially if she seems like an innocent young woman. What does she have to hide? And so I think you're right. I think in this kind of case she should testify. And I think if she comes across as sincere, genuine and scared I think she'll gain some sympathy.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, yeah, definitely. I mean, so. So the issue. And I. You know, it's so funny you said that, because I did literally write that on my paper under, you know, on my notes, under Challenges for the defense. They're going to need to put her up because, you know, they're going to rely on the fact that she appeared heartless, you know, with her, with what she did after. And they're going to need to explain she was probably in shock, she was probably in fear, and she was immature. You know, she was young. This is something that she probably had never gone through before. You know, your body goes through a lot when you're giving birth. Your hormones. I mean, everything's out of whack. You know, as women, we don't like to say that, but it is. It's all out of whack. And so, you know, it will really help if she. If she testifies. I didn't used to like to put my clients on the stand. And it's funny, because we're not really trained to do that. You know, we're trained to be scared of that. We're trained to never put your client up unless you absolutely have to. You know, we find for ways to get around them. And I started interviewing jurors, and I stopped interviewing jurors because it was terrifying. But the one thing I really learned from talking to them was that they want to hear. Then they think that if you're accused of something you didn't do, the natural reaction is to get up there and say, I didn't do it. So, you know, I always try to try to think that. And I agree with you. I think she really does need to. To testify. You know, another parallel with the Brooke Richards case is that she apparently said also that, you know, her baby may have moved right after. And so it's another big issue that we're going to see as to whether or not the baby was born alive, whether or not the bab baby was viable, whether or not there was something, you know, nature taking its course. Because unfortunately, a lot of times things like that happen with. With births.

[Dave Aronberg]

It looks like some jury nullification. In the Richardson case, I mean, there were six skull fractures. And then on the Internet, she searched for the phrase how to get rid of a baby.

[Ashley Merchant]

I know.

[Dave Aronberg]

Come on.

[Ashley Merchant]

I know. It was awful. Well, you know, and I looked at what the defense argued. They argued that there was no evidence that the baby was born alive. So I'm thinking that the. That probably weighed really heavily with the jury, you know, the. No evidence to actually prove that the baby was. Was alive. And. And it's unfortunate, and it's something nobody really wants to talk about, but there can be some noises, there can be some movements, even if, you know, a human is not still alive, baby or not. So it was probably an uncomfortable case. But I do think. I agree. I mean, I think juries feel bad. These are young girls having to make, you know, in. In bad situations and maybe not getting the proper care.

[Dave Aronberg]

And a lot of times are from small towns, small communities. Everyone knows each other, and the baby's not there to defend himself or herself and speak up. So you have the one person in front of you who looks sympathetic sitting in the courtroom with you, and you're thinking, do I want to send this person to prison the rest of her life?

[Ashley Merchant]

Right. They look like a baby, too. They look like a baby, too. Yeah, that's right.

[Dave Aronberg]

They dress them like babies.

[Ian Runkle]

That they.

[Dave Aronberg]

That's something defense lawyers are really good at. Putting them in the oversized sweaters and the big glasses.

[Ashley Merchant]

Librarian.

[Dave Aronberg]

Librarian. Or covering up their face.

[Ashley Merchant]

Come on. The prosecution is good at that, too. Anytime I have a case where there is a child alleged, and maybe, you know, the child's alleged as a victim, maybe they look a little different when they're arrested or when they're interviewed than when they take the stand.

[Dave Aronberg]

So we all prosecutors don't have the money to start buying makeup to cover up face tats or anything like that. We. We just say, hey, you know, dress. Dress nicely, or dress. You know, dress. Dress like you would on a regular day. I've never seen anything like manipulative, but,

[Ashley Merchant]

hey, I've covered up a tattoo with makeup. But I think prosecutors caught onto that, because now they start photographing and putting up these big photographs, and I'm like, well, dang it, now I can't cover it up with makeup.

[Dave Aronberg]

Face tattoos. There's a lesson for our audience. If you're thinking about getting a face tat, don't. Unless you're Mike Tyson. It's not gonna work well for you if you're ever in court.

[Ashley Merchant]

It is not. You do not want to be in front of a jury with a face tattoo. But. All right, well, next we've got Canadian criminal defense attorney Ian Runkle. Very excited. He's gonna join us, and we're gonna dig a little bit deeper in the closing arguments in the Richten's trial. Stay tuned.

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Pay around the corner and around the globe. Apple pay is accepted at millions of places worldwide. Wherever you See the contactless symbol in stores or the Apple Pay button online and in apps. Whether you're checking out on iPhone or Apple Watch, just double click pay and be on your way. Add your debit or credit card to wallet and you're good to go. Pay the Apple way. Pay terms apply.

[Jury Foreperson]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

I don't know if you knew this,

[Jury Foreperson]

but anyone can get the same Premium

[Ashley Merchant]

Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you

[Jury Foreperson]

to Mint Mobile today.

[Ian Runkle]

I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail]

[Opendoor Advertiser]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3

[Ashley Merchant]

month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] Think about this. In 2006, $20,000 equaled roughly 33 ounces of gold at spot price. At today's prices, those 33 ounces would be worth about $165,000. Smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals. And that's why you need to consider buying gold from Birch Gold Group. For thousands of years, gold has been a store of wealth and today it's a crucial part of any balance strategy. Even better, Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered retirement account in gold. Just text MK to the number 989-898 to receive your info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information with an A rating. With the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, let Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. Now that's peace of mind. Text MK to 989898 again. Text MK to the number 98. 9898 today.

[Dave Aronberg]

Welcome back to MK True Crime. Joining us now is Canadian criminal defense attorney Ian Runkle. Ian has been covering the Richens trial In his popular YouTube channel, Runkle of the Bailey. And we'll get to analyzing the closing arguments. But first, what do you think of the jury taking less than three hours to deliver a verdict on Monday?

[Ian Runkle]

I kind of thought it would be fast, but I didn't think it'd be three hours. I thought that we'd see like over to the next day. But as soon as it came back I was actually it's funny because I was doing a nightly recap and the verdict came back just as my recap was starting. So it was like, all right, great timing. But they start off with, well, you know, we have a verdict, and I don't want to tell anybody what it is yet. And I'm like, it's guilty. Because when it was coming back in three hours, it was just. There was no other hope. If they wanted. If defense wanted to win. I was looking at a verdict of like, Friday or later. But three hours is a blowout. And this one, if the defense had a hope, they needed the. The jury to really be. To be fighting in there, and they clearly weren't.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, they needed some holdouts.

[Dave Aronberg]

Right. What do you think of the delay between. The judge had that pregnant pause. We were talking about it earlier where he said, first count aggravated murder, the jury finds. Pause, pause, pause. Guilty. I mean, was that some panache by the judge, little stage presence?

[Ian Runkle]

It might be. I mean, judges like, you know, they like some theater as much as anyone else, but I suspect it might also have just been the jury finds. And you're looking at the page. You know, you hold up the page, you look at it. So I can't say for certain if it was, you know, a little bit of show or not, but I don't think it was unwelcome. I don't think anybody was. And to a certain extent, people kind of expect it. If the judge just went on count one, the jury finds guilty, there'd be a. You know, it's, to a certain extent, some of the. The theater of court, because court is, you know, we've got the judge in the robes and the. The big desk, and all of that is there to a. Make sure that the public and the participants all feel that it was sort of properly respected, but also just the families of the victims probably appreciate, to a certain extent, some solemnity to it and the feeling that it's kind of a momentous event for. Because Eric Richen's family was all there. Like, it was a. A huge turnout there. And you could see the relief. You could see the. You could see that they were very, you know, pleased that at least this chapter of that. Of that story has come to a close, or at least has come to the beginnings of a close, because there's the sentencing coming up on the very auspicious day of May 13th, although we already. I mean, I think everybody knows where that sentencing is going, so. And May 13th, that's.

[Dave Aronberg]

That's Eric's birthday.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah.

[Ian Runkle]

And you're going to be seeing. You're going to be seeing in various, you know, arguments. It'll be, you Know, Eric Richards would have been, you know, today. And today would have been Eric. There's going to be victim statements. They're going to reference that directly. I actually think the defense kind of blundered by not, like, say, by not aiming for literally any other day.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right. Get a. Get a conflict that day. Come on. Just like, your honor, isn't someone graduating.

[Ian Runkle]

Come on, your honor, I've got a trip booked to Spain. When was that booked? Eight seconds ago, your honor, literally on my phone.

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, before I turn over to Ashley for some questions, I have to ask, because Ashley and I have this. Her question we were talking about beforehand. The name of your show is Runkle of the Bailey. You have over 330,000 subscribers. Congratulations, man. Runkle the Bailey. Can you explain where you got the name from?

[Ian Runkle]

It's a reference to an old. There's Rumple of the Bailey, which is like a. About a British defense lawyer. And so it's kind of obscure, but I once had a judge, I went into court, and he heard my name, and he misheard it as Rumple. And he spent about 30 minutes telling me how, you know, how great my name was. It's a, you know, a truly, you know, distinguished name for this profession. And finally, I caught on to what was going on, and I had to correct him of, I'm sorry, it's Runkle, not Rumple. And he never forgave me.

[Ashley Merchant]

Wow, that's funny.

[Dave Aronberg]

And you could have come up with other names. You could have been Runkle, Stillskin. I came up with that one myself. Right. Or. Or Runkle in the jungle.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, yeah. He really wants the jungle one.

[Ian Runkle]

I feel like the branding is maybe not the best, but at this point, you can't change it. Right? It's like, all right, I'm locked in. Here we go.

[Ashley Merchant]

Totally. I immediately noticed the Bailey, though. I was like, oh, Dave. I think that's London. Dave was like, yes, London.

[Dave Aronberg]

Well done.

[Ian Runkle]

Which is weird because I'm Canadian. So.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, we were wondering. We were wondering.

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, that's cool.

[Ashley Merchant]

Well, so, okay, so we had a couple things that kind of stuck out to me in the closing arguments. One of the things. And I think, you know, we have a sot we'll play in a minute, but I'm going to talk about it after we play. That they used, which I thought was brilliant for the state, used Corey's, you know, own words that Eric didn't do drugs, because that was a big issue in the state's closing. So if we could play SOT6.

[Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

He did not use illicit drugs, set aside THC gummies. Cory Ritchin said no, never to Deputy Wynne and paramedic offered. These are people that it would have made sense to tell. He used illicit drugs to in the moment as paramedic offers, trying to save Eric's life. But no, she was honest. Nope, never. Same thing with Dr. Ulmer. As they're reviewing the toxicology and trying to explain the fentanyl.

[Dave Aronberg]

Right.

[Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

Dr. Ulmer's like, well, there's this fentanyl. Really can't explain it. Did he do illicit drugs? No, never.

[Ashley Merchant]

Brilliant. I think, honestly, I was really impressed. That was really good for the state. So do you think that was a pivotal moment?

[Ian Runkle]

There were some parts of the state's closed that I thought dragged. But overall, I really liked a lot of what they did because, I mean, any time the accused has made a statement, it's. It's a weapon because the. And in this case, if Corey Richards hadn't talked and texted and searched, I think she would have walked. I think that this would not have been a conviction, but for all of the things she said. But, you know, if her argument is, well, he was getting the drugs on his own. Why did she spend so much time denying it? The jury's going to say, well, clearly he wasn't, you know, a drug user. Clearly he wasn't, you know, any of this. And then. So it just looks very convenient when she's now in court saying, well, you know, he was totally doing drugs on the side. It feels like she made up that argument. And it may. It may be the other way. Like, you always have to consider the alternative possibilities. It might be that, you know, her loved one died and she's trying to preserve his good image and so forth. That's what the defense would say. Right. The problem is, is that with all of that out there, the defense is now in a position where they. They pretty much have to attack that. And then they chose not to. They chose not to call any evidence. And that is their right. They have no obligation to do so. But they were in a position where strategically it was. It was kind of difficult to dig themselves out of that hole. And in fact, they didn't take themselves out of that hole.

[Ashley Merchant]

I think that was their biggest mistake in the defense. That by far, what you're saying about not putting up evidence of that. They had. They had a very plausible reasonable doubt alternative to this, and they missed it. We've got another. I want to talk. One of my favorite things about this case, though, is to talk about the money, because it seemed like that was really the state's main theory, that she needed this money. We've got Sat seven where. Where the state's talking about how she closed on this Midway Mansion, and it really goes into the money. And I want to talk about that money motive after we listen to that.

[Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

She ultimately closed on the Midway Mansion the day after she murdered Eric. There's an interesting thought here. Did she close on the Midway Mansion in spite of murdering Eric, or did she close on it because she murdered Eric? She hedged. She was supposed to close on the fourth. She didn't want to close until she knew Eric Richards was dead because she knew she would have his money. She knew she could do something with the mansion. And that's why when everybody else signed on the fourth or in advance of the fourth, she signed on the fifth. It's unconscionable that she closed in spite of his death. It's unconscionable that she closed because of his death.

[Ashley Merchant]

This money thing, I want to hear both of your opinion, Dave, Annie, and about the money. It's never really. I've never been sold on it, and I'll tell you why. So years before her husband's death, she allegedly opens this multiple, you know, multiple life insurance policies without his knowledge. They're about $2 million. They total $2 million. At the same time, she is drowning financially. Okay. That's kind of undisputed overdrawn accounts, all this stuff. $1.8 million in debt. She's being sued by creditors. So the state's theory. I just want to get this straight. You're going to commit murder to net less than $200,000, and you're still going to be buried under debt, but all you're netting is $200,000, and this is for a husband who is literally earning four times that and paying her salary. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't seem like motive. That seems like financial suicide. It makes absolutely no sense. So I. I don't know if I'm missing something with this money motive, but, you know, I'm curious what your thoughts are on the. On the. On the money, because clearly it worked.

[Ian Runkle]

I thought the defense did a very poor job of. Of laying exactly that out. But the problem is, is she also was clearly a bit of a financial catastrophe, and she clearly also didn't understand any of what was going on around her. Like, you know, there's this insurance policy that's the part of the buyout agreement, and she's messing with that. And it's like, if you understand the business aspects, you know, that that's an absolutely insane thing to mess with. It's like if you're breaking into Fort Knox and you're, you know, sneaking in surreptitiously, and then you decide, just for giggles, to pull the fire alarm. Because that's what that was. It was pulling the fire alarm. It's getting everybody's attention for no benefit. I think she thought that. I think she was unaware of the trust, and I think the prosecution did a very good job of that. Meaning that she thought she was going to be falling into a pile of money that just never was there. She's jumping into the Scrooge McDuck, you know, pile of money, and it's empty, and all there is is, you know, a hard bottom. And that's really. She was not thinking straight is really what it comes down to. And I think that the prosecution did a much better job of establishing that she had this idea than the defense did of saying, this makes no sense. And.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yep, Ashley, that's a great point, Ian, because she really is a financial train wreck. I mean, she was deep in debt. She had this flipping of houses job that she would do, and she was just underwater. She didn't know what she was doing. And in fact, Eric was so worried that Corey would blow through all the money. That's what he said. In fact, he feared that she would blow through all the money. That's why he changed his will to make sure that the assets would be protected for his three sons in the event of his death. And if you need any more evidence that she was a financial train wreck, what did she do after she killed her husband? She paid $2,500 to a ghostwriter to write a phony book about grief. You can't write that yourself. She doesn't know the value of money. So I can see someone like that being like, yeah, okay, let's do this. Because. Yeah. Even though for you, Ashley, it wouldn't make sense. You're a reasonable, smart individual, sophisticated. She's not.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right, right. She is a hot mess.

[Ian Runkle]

She thought she was going to sell 100,000 copies of her book. A huge success for a first book is like 10,000 copies. So she's overestimated wildly successful by 10 times. Like, every time she approaches money, she does it in this fashion where she's just. She's got no idea of what she's getting into, which is how she ends up in debt for, like, her net worth was negative. More money than most people will ever see in their lives. It's actually the only thing she accomplished that was impressive was just how much money she got people to lend her. Because if I walked into a bank and was like, how many millions will you lend me? They'll be. They'd just be like, zero millions. Thank you. But

[Ashley Merchant]

giving it to her. Kept giving it to her. I know. No, it's crazy. Well, and, you know, we got some more stuff in the closing arguments where they're talking about her observe, you know, her emotions, which I hate. But I think we've got slot six. Oh, I'm sorry, sort eight, where they're talking again about this narcissistic injury. And this is part of the state's closing.

[Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

You get to observe Corey Richards, and you observe her affect with some. When some witnesses testify. And you observe her affect change when other witnesses testify. You observed that when we played the 911 call during trial, her affect was flat. No emotion. You also observe that when Brooke Carrington testified about the financial distress of her business, she was exercised because that testimony pierced her facade. It pierced her facade of being a successful, privileged and affluent person. It was a narcissistic injury. She was bothered because the world saw that she is indeed not a success.

[Ashley Merchant]

I hate arguments like that. But, I mean, there was the mistrial. There's a motion for mistrial, but the judge obviously denied it. You know, and I wonder how much that affected the jury. I'd be curious if the jury juror talks to us about that.

[Ian Runkle]

Well, the other thing is that even after that came up and the mistrial application, she still couldn't keep her face stable. Yeah, when I've got clients, I tell them, you've. Your face needs to just be stone cold. You just need to sit there and if you feel like you're having an emotion, start writing on the pad.

[Dave Aronberg]

I don't.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, my God. I do the same thing. Yep.

[Ian Runkle]

Write something you can write. You know, write Shakespeare. Like if. Whatever, you know, Mary Had a Little Lamb. I don't care what it is. Just look studious but emotionless. If it were legal to do so, I would take my clients to a Botox clinic and just be like. Just give it to them until their face cannot move. Like, I don't use it to. I mean, the problem is, is that anytime your face is moving, you're revealing something. And there is no winning on that. If she breaks into tears during the 911 call, they'd say, look at those crocodile tears. If she, you know, if she smiles at the wrong place. And people. They react to stress differently. Sometimes people smile or laugh when there's. You know, when they're under stress. All of these things can be used against you. And throughout this trial, I was like, you need to get your face under control. She never did. And they. They went after her, especially because the prosecution's got way more resources than the defense does in 99% of trials.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, no, definitely. I do the same thing because I have a tendency to sometimes roll my eyes. You know, I've gotten better at it. But I do. I do the same thing. I write furiously, and I'll write things that have nothing to do with what's going on. I'll be like, I can't believe they just said that. You know, but it's just to keep that composure. So I agree with you. I do. I do the same. Same trick.

[Ian Runkle]

I've written down recipes from memory. Just because you're sitting there trying to remember something, so you look like you're lost, you know, you're deep in thought. And, you know, I've told clients, look, if you see me writing something, it might be something useful, or it might be just that I need to look focused on something. Don't take too much of it. And I did that because I had a client who got upset because I was writing some nonsense, and he's like, why are you writing nonsense? Like, there's a reason.

[Additional Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

Right.

[Ashley Merchant]

And it helps when you're stressed. I mean, I think writing stuff sometimes helps ground you when you're stressed. I did think the defense did a good job in their closing argument. And if this was when Wendy Lewis delivered the closing argument, she said, a big part of the state's case is that Ms. Richins is not grieving properly. And then talked about, what does that mean? And she said she was unexpectedly widowed when she was not much older than Corey and had two little ones. And she learned during this trial that she didn't grieve. Right. So I thought that was really. I thought that was smart. I thought that was powerful to share that and sort of bring it home. Didn't work, obviously. Bring it home.

[Dave Aronberg]

Are you allowed to bring up your own personal tragedies like it's objectionable?

[Ian Runkle]

And I think the prosecution didn't object to it because she didn't do it well, in my opinion. So the prosecution is just like, I'm gonna let this slide.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, interesting.

[Dave Aronberg]

It's like, there's the golden rule where you can't put the jurors. You can't say what would you do. Members of the jury, if you were in this situation. No. And it's still not cool to put yourself there. I know what happened to me. Look what happened to me. So it's objectionable. Not as bad as when you put the jurors in, but yeah, maybe. I think the prosecution also knew they were winning. And, you know, looking at the scoreboard like, yeah, let's just not piss off the jury anymore. They were already ready to go.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, yeah, they were definitely winning.

[Ian Runkle]

Sometimes there's a huge advantage to just not objecting, even though you've got an objection, just to be like, look, we're not fighting this. If you saw the Evaldi trial, there were moments where the defense actually did what I'd call sort of a non objection. And they'd be like, this is hearsay. And judge, we're just letting you know we have no problem with this. Let them. Let them go. And it was this kind of brilliant non objection objection where it's like, we just want to let them talk, but we are identifying that. We're not, like, we're aware of it.

[Ashley Merchant]

That would unnerve me. I would be. That would drive me nuts.

[Ian Runkle]

Oh, it. The prosecution immediately was like. And trying to, you know, backtrack.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah. Like, either object or sit down.

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, are you preserving that for appeal then? If you do a non objection objection interrupt.

[Ashley Merchant]

I don't know. I don't know. Oh, my gosh.

[Ian Runkle]

I don't think the goal there was to preserve it for anything. I think the goal was just to say, prosecution, I know what you're doing. I could object if I wanted, but I'm not think about that.

[Ashley Merchant]

Interesting.

[Ian Runkle]

And the like. In that trial, they very much had a strategy that was quite apparent where they were very. They were explicitly trying to object as little as possible to be like, we want the truth out. I think the prosecution. I think the prosecution had the same thing here, where they were sort of minimally and targeted objections.

[Ashley Merchant]

So they didn't have to, because the defense didn't bring anything. Defense didn't put any evidence up. They hardly brought anything at all, you know, even in cross examination. So there wasn't a whole lot of opportunity other than closing, you know, for them to actually object to anything.

[Ian Runkle]

Well, and the problem is the defense promised that they were bringing a whole pile of evidence. And then at the the end, Bloodworth gets to do this like, conga of, yeah, they said you'd hear this. We didn't hear that. They said you'd hear this. We didn't hear that and all the defense could do in their clothes is, well, strategies change.

[Ashley Merchant]

No, you never promise anything. An opening that you cannot deliver ever, ever. Like, and it's. It's a hard lesson as a lawyer, because sometimes you want to say, this witness is going to say this explosive testimony, but you don't have that witness on tape, and you know, the witness may not show up, and you just. You can't over promise because the jury lose all credibility. That's. That's such a big issue. Well, then they did. You know, the defense tried to. I think we've got. So one of the things. We've got a sock 12. If we don't kind of skip ahead and play that where they were trying to go back to this whole illicit drug use that they were not able to prove.

[Additional Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

Officer Nguyen, he does his little. His. Well, not little, but his death checklist. He says, did he have any history of prescription abuse? Did he have any history of illicit. Illicit drug use? And what does Corey tell him? No. How easy would it have been to just say yes if she had just killed him with illicit drugs? Why in the name of God did she just not say yes? Had she said yes, we probably wouldn't all be sitting here today. She didn't say yes because she did not know how he had died.

[Ashley Merchant]

I mean, that's. I thought that was a good, good argument. Another one that I thought was good was in slot 14, where they were arguing that he was worth so much more alive than he was dead. I thought that was powerful.

[Additional Courtroom Audio / Prosecutor]

20. I told Christina Miller, the attorney he went to about talking about a divorce, that he was making his income that year was over 33,000amonth. Cody Wright testified that they made $500,000 each the last year that Eric was alive. I believe there was testimony that there were other years she made even more. Not sure about that, but I think that was in there. So if this case was about money, Eric was worth so much more to Corey alive than dead.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, I would have hit that way harder. What were you gonna say, Ian?

[Ian Runkle]

I think that there were a few places where she actually, like, specifically denied things that could have been excuses, like where she's like, well, this couldn't possibly be Covid. And he would be super upset if anybody said it was Covid. And I'm like, yeah, I bet you wish somebody said it was Covid now.

[Dave Aronberg]

Right?

[Ian Runkle]

You know, but I mean, if. If at the time she said, you know, she had said to Ems, like, I think he might have overdosed. He's been taking These pain pills. I was getting him these, like, these pain pills on the side because his back and his lungs and all of this. And look at that, you know, pill bottle. Please test that pill bottle. Like, we might have looked at a very different case, but she didn't say those things. The. The problem that the defense has is that the prosecution side is exactly the same argument. She didn't say those things because they weren't true, and she hadn't thought of it yet. And it was only later when she discovered that, in fact, that the, you know, the autopsy was showing the overdose. The autopsy that the prosecution quite effectively said she was not expecting that. Now she's like, I got to change my story. So it. That one cuts both ways. And at the end of the day, I think she was holding the sharp end of that argument.

[Dave Aronberg]

So you speak a lot of common sense there, Ian. You know, I can see why you have so many followers on YouTube. And by the way, what do you ascribe your success on YouTube? Because, you know, it's a crowded space, a true crime space. What do you think you do differently than others?

[Ian Runkle]

I have no idea. I actually started doing YouTube by accident, out of spite, because I used to post on Facebook just like, text commentary. And somebody kept saying, you need to have a YouTube channel. You need to have a YouTube channel.

[Ashley Merchant]

Awesome.

[Ian Runkle]

So I made my first video to be like, look, I am awkward. I'm shy. I'm nervous. Nobody wants to see this. And then it took off, and it. I was just like, oh, okay. I guess I was wrong about that. So I still don't get it, but I appreciate all of the people who tune in, and I just enjoy doing it. So maybe that comes. Maybe that sort of shines through.

[Dave Aronberg]

You give great analysis, and we're very appreciative to have you here to join us, you know, and before we go, I want to give you another chance to tell our viewers where they can find you.

[Ian Runkle]

So, Runkle. R U N K L E of the Bailey. If you just put Runkle into YouTube, it'll auto populate. I'm also on Twitter at Ian Runkle, so those are the best places to find me. And yeah, check it out. More of this.

[Ashley Merchant]

Thank you so much, Ian.

[Dave Aronberg]

Thank you, Ian Runkle. And next, our closing arguments. Stay tuned.

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Security usually means extra steps and complications, but with Apple pay, secure payments are simple. Your transactions are authenticated with face id, touch ID or passcode. So security is built in when you check out. Plus, your name isn't shared with merchants, and they don't see your actual card number. Whether you're shopping in store online or an app, protecting your money should be simple. Pay the Apple way. Terms apply.

[Jury Foreperson]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much.

[Ashley Merchant]

Please, for the love of everything good

[Jury Foreperson]

in this world, stop with Mint.

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month.

[Jury Foreperson]

Of course, if you enjoy overpaying.

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

No judgments.

[Ashley Merchant]

But that's weird.

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Okay, one judgment anyway, give it a try.

[Opendoor Advertiser]

@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for

[Ashley Merchant]

three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] feeling sluggish?

[Dave Aronberg]

Bloated? Not quite like yourself. Life constantly bombards us with silent threats. Processed foods, artificial light, nonstop stress. I got those things. All of which can disrupt gut health, drain energy and weaken immune health. When that happens, it's not that your body is broken. Your body is missing the right inputs. That's what makes Armor Colostrum so compelling. Colostrum is nature's original blueprint for health, packed with more than 400 bioactive nutrients that work at a foundational level to fortify gut health, support immune health, fuel recovery, and promote whole body vitality. It's not just another supplement, it's a bioactive whole food, sustainably sourced, clean and concentrated. What really stands out is how many people report feeling lighter, less bloated and more resilient once they focus on strengthening the gut wall itself, not just masking symptoms. Strong gut integrity supports metabolism, skin and hair health, and even performance and recovery. Which is why Colostrum has long been valued by elite athletes. If you're looking to take back control of your health from the inside out, this is absolutely worth exploring. Go to Armra.com Megan M E G Y N or enter Megan to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's Armra. A R M R A.com Megan

[Ashley Merchant]

welcome back to MK True Crime. Now it's time for our closing arguments. Dave, take it away.

[Dave Aronberg]

Thank you Ashley. Ashley, do you like protein bars?

[Ashley Merchant]

I love protein bars.

[Dave Aronberg]

Yeah, I love protein bars. Especially when they taste like chocolate candy butter. Actually somewhat healthy. I remember when I was golfing and someone gave me this magnificent gold wrapped protein bar on the course. It was called a David Bar. It was like Willy Wonka on the chocolate Factory. It was the best protein bar I've ever had. It tasted different. It was like pillowy, soft and just so good and was like 150 calories? Are you kidding me? I have found the pot of gold. It is at the end of the rainbow on the seventh hole of this golf course. And so I couldn't wait to buy a box. But then I saw a massive class action lawsuit that alleged that these miracle bars, the ones promising 28 grams of protein and only 150 calories, are actually, according to the lawsuit, packing closer to 275 calories and 400% more fat than the label says. If this sounds like the plot to the movie Mean Girls, it's because it is. Now, look, there are two sides to this. The founder of David, a guy named Peter Rahal, says that lawsuit is bad science. He says that they use a special fat substitute called EPG that tastes like fat but passes right through you like a ghost. He says that if you burn the protein bar in a lab, it looks high calorie, but if you burn it in a human body, it's lean. But here's my take. Since when did we start trusting ghost fat from Tech Bros. If a protein bar tastes like a fudge brownie but has the macros of a bowl of spinach, then it's probably a lie. We're out here trying to hit our goals and meanwhile David is out here giving us the Regina George treatment. Or maybe not. Maybe it's just science. We don't know. It's just a lawsuit. But I'm going to go back to a rule from previous decades. If your red velvet cake protein bar tastes too good to be true, it probably is. Ashley, that's my rant.

[Ashley Merchant]

Thanks, Dave.

[Dave Aronberg]

Thank you.

[Ashley Merchant]

Well, I got a lot of feedback from our viewers about an argument I made last week that I would argue that Eric Richards was using drugs, he was addicted. And that was one of the things that the defense hinted at and they promised early in opening statements. And it's one of the things that there was evidence of, but they just didn't really bring it out. And so I'm going to rant a little bit about that and what the defense really left on the table, which was a huge argument that they completely missed and was, you know, unfortunately left on the table. If you're dealing with a fentanyl death, you don't just hint at alternative explanations. You build it or you lose it. You lose that defense. And that's exactly what happened here. There was a lane. There was a defense, a real lane, a real defense, and they did not get in it. They avoided that lane entirely. If there was any possibility, even a threat, that Eric had access to opioids, familiarity with them, prior exposure, anything. You don't just whisper that to the jury. You don't tiptoe around it with the jury. You build your entire case of reasonable doubt around it. Look at the behavior in this case. We're supposed to believe the man thinks his wife is poisoning him. But instead of calling 911, instead of leaving her, instead of going to the police, instead of calling someone else, he texts her, he calls her, he trusts her, he follows her advice. That is not how people act when they think someone is trying to kill them. It is, though, how people act when something else is happening. When they took something, when they're unsure how serious it is, when they're unsure what they took, when they're reaching out for the person who might know the source, that behavior fits. Ingestion doesn't fit. Attempted murder doesn't fit murder. It fits ingestion. And that is where the defense should have gone all in. Don't just prove it. I mean, don't just suggest it. Prove it. Actually prove that. Where are the records? Where are the tests, texts? Where are the witnesses? Where is anything to support that? What they argued in opening, anything to support that shows that he had a familiarity with opioids. Because if you're going to give the jury this plausible, very plausible alternative theory for fentanyl getting into his system, you don't just have to prove it. You have to make it reasonable. You have to show the evidence. They danced around it, they implied it, they gestured it, but they didn't anchor it to any evidence. Juries do not acquit based on that. They acquit on narratives and on evidence that they actually can hear. Even though we have guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defense does not have to put up any evidence, that is not what juries expect. If you give a plausible alternative like that and you have the possibility to show evidence, you have got to put forth that narrative. Not a wife. The narrative could have been not a wife executing some calculated poisoning. It could be a situation where fentanyl entered the picture through an entirely different route. Suddenly, the state's entire case falls apart. Once you open that door, that door that they opened in opening statements, even a crack, the motive weakens, intent disappears, and you do the job and you get a not guilty. So that's my rant. Thank you for joining us, by the way.

[Dave Aronberg]

That was well said.

[Ashley Merchant]

Thank you.

[Dave Aronberg]

And that's why you need to be barred in Utah, because that's the new Florida when it comes to all these criminal cases.

[Ashley Merchant]

I know you keep saying that. It's kind of funny because, you know, I'm from Florida, so I get the. It's the new Florida joke. I totally get it. And it's. It's crazy, but it's true. Well, thank you to our guest, Ian Runkle. And thank you to my co host, Dave Aronberg. And thank you all for joining us. We hope you have a great week.

[Apple Pay / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Pay around the Corner and Around the Globe Apple Pay is accepted at millions of places worldwide. Wherever you see the contactless symbol in stores or the Apple Pay button online and in apps, whether you're checking out on iPhone or Apple Watch, just double click pay and be on your way. Add your debit or credit card to wallet and you're good to go. Pay the Apple way Terms Apply. Real talent is defined by what people can do, not where they learn to do it. So by stopping at the education section of a resume, you might throw away the perfect Hire skills first. Hiring helps you see talent others miss. Like more than 70 million stars skilled through alternative routes, let their story unfold and gain a competitive advantage. Because hiring managers who start with skills are 60% more likely to to find a successful hire, Hire skills first. Learn why at tearthepaperceiling. Org, brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council.