← MK True Crime
MK True Crime
Kouri Richins’ Suspicious Internet Searches, Conflicting Testimony on Drug Deals, and Dissecting the Defense, with Bob Motta
01:17:46
MK True Crime hosts Ashleigh Merchant and Phil Holloway join the show to discuss week two of the Kouri Richins murder trial, the conflicting testimonies of Richins’ housekeeper Carmen Lauber and drug dealer Robert Crozier, Ashleigh details how the defense could have cross-examined Crozier more effectively, the missing context in both the defense and prosecution’s strategies so far, why it’s highly unlikely Nancy Guthrie will be found alive at this point, footage of a vehicle law enforcement are looking into now, Bob Motta, criminal defense attorney and host of the show “Defense Diaries,” joins Ashleigh and Phil to discuss Kouri Richins’ call to the chief medical examiner to discuss how the fentanyl got into her husband Eric Richins’ system, whether or not this is an unusual call to make in the first place, Richins’ memes and internet searches found on her phone that were introduced to the jury, how the defense poked holes in the digital evidence, and more. Ashleigh Merchant: http...
Loading summary
Transcript212 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:05]
B
Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Ashley Merchant. I'm a criminal defense attorney out of Atlanta, Georgia. And here's what's on the docket today. The Corey Richards murder trial enters week number two. And Richins web searches and texts were shown to the jury. We'll discuss what effect that could have on the jury. As of this taping on Tuesday, March 3, Nancy Guthrie is still missing. It's been 30 days. What is being done to find her will bring you up to speed. And later we'll be joined by criminal defense attorney and host of Defense Diaries, Bob Mota. Bob has been covering the Richens trial extensively and we cannot wait to get his perspective. But first, I'm joined today by my co host and good friend Phil Holloway, criminal lawyer, ex prosecutor and former police officer. Phil, so I know you've been following this trial. It's the second week of the Corey Richins trial. And just to catch everyone up, this is a murder trial where Corey Richins is charged with aggravated murder out in Utah, aggravated criminal homicide, and financial crimes relating to the death of her husband Eric. Eric Richards, he died from a lethal dose of fentanyl back in 2022. So I know we've got a lot to go over from the last week of testimony. We've got a lot of witnesses that have testified. One of the star witnesses though was Richen's housekeeper, Carmen Lauber. And she took the stand when we taped this last week. So what did you think, Phil, of her testimony?
- [01:23]
A
Well, great to be with you, Ashley, as always. Look, this trial is really a fascinating trial in many ways and I've been studying it on lots of bases. One of those though is the, the styles of the various lawyers involved because you've got multiple lawyers on the prosecution side and multiple on the defense side. And it's just interesting to see sort of how they handle witnesses and how they handle, quite frankly, some unexpected things that have happened in this case. And you brought up the housekeeper, Carmen. Right. She really throws her former boss, Corey Richards, just right under the bus pretty quick. You know, she's basically telling the jury that she made arrangements with her boss and at her boss's request to go out and purchase the drugs, the fentanyl, which is key to this case, that word fentanyl versus something else. Possibly we'll get into that. But she says that she bought the fentanyl on Corey's behalf and at her request. And then later, the drug dealer, who we'll talk about him too, but the drug dealer she bought it from There may be some question about whether he thought it was fentanyl and all that. But there's a very interesting. Let's just start with SOT1, if we can roll that. That's this housekeeper's testimony, because I found some things about this fascinating. Did Corey Richards ever asked you to
- [02:49]
B
purchase for her illicit drugs? Yes.
- [02:53]
A
How many times?
- [02:55]
B
4.
- [02:57]
A
Did you purchase illicit drugs for her?
- [03:00]
B
Yes.
- [03:01]
A
How many times?
- [03:02]
B
Four.
- [03:05]
A
When you purchased illicit drugs for Corey
- [03:08]
C
Richards the first time, who did you
- [03:10]
A
purchase the drugs from?
- [03:13]
B
Susan Kohler.
- [03:15]
C
When you purchased Corey. For Corey Richardson's drugs the second time,
- [03:20]
B
who did you purchase the drugs from? Robbie.
- [03:23]
A
By Robbie, do you mean Robert Crozier?
- [03:26]
B
Yes.
- [03:27]
A
How about the third time?
- [03:29]
B
Robbie.
- [03:30]
A
The fourth time?
- [03:32]
B
Robbie.
- [03:37]
A
So we'll have some more from her. And what. The reason I wanted to play that right now, Ashley, is because, you know, I don't know about you, but I would like to have seen more context brought out here. When you talk about four times. Okay, like, when did. When did this discussion about drugs start? How was it communicated? Was this something that was said over the phone? Did you ever talk about it in person? Were there text messages? Was there anybody else involved? You know, obviously, that's just one snippet, and there's a lot more to her testimony. I fully understand that. But just in general, I feel like there was a lot of context that was sort of left out during this and other parts of the questioning.
- [04:16]
B
Right. I do, too. I think there. There's definitely more to this story, and I would have liked to have seen that fleshed out a little bit more. The only thing we really heard about a specific was one time when she asked Carmen if she could get some pain meds for an investor that she knew. So we did hear that theme, that the pain meds were not for her. But I would be curious. And maybe, you know what? In fairness, maybe we're going to hear more from the defense. When the defense puts up a case, maybe we'll hear some explanation as to why she needed these drugs. I mean, I would be curious to know if she needed these drugs because maybe had an accident or, you know, maybe she had been injured. We would have expected to hear that on cross examination if they had evidence of that. But perhaps they're planning on introducing that in their case in chief. I would hope so, because I think this is part of the most damaging testimony we've heard so far in this trial. You know, this is opportunity. What does the state want to show? They want to show motive. They want to show opportunity. This is opportunity. This is a means. If she. If they can put fentanyl in her hand and then prove that he died from fentanyl, that is a huge step forward for the state in their case. And I think this witness got them there to a certain extent. Know thought it was interesting. We've got a side, I think, about where Carmen claims that Corey actually knew that it was fentanyl and actually okayed the purchase of fentanyl. I think we have that at SAAT, too. If we can go ahead and play that.
- [05:27]
A
What, if anything, did you ask Robert
- [05:29]
B
Crozier for if he knew anybody who had any pills, pain pills for sale?
- [05:37]
C
And how did he respond?
- [05:39]
B
He said he would reach out to a couple people. He said he had a buddy that had some fentanyl pills.
- [05:49]
C
What then did you do?
- [05:51]
B
I had text Corey back and told her that I had a friend that could get them, but they were fentanyl pills.
- [06:04]
A
So you told Corey you had a friend a hookup for fentanyl pills?
- [06:08]
B
Yes.
- [06:10]
C
How did Corey Richards respond?
- [06:12]
B
She said, okay, go ahead and get. I think this is going to be a key issue that we hear throughout this trial, especially when we hear arguments, because, you know, we've got Robert Crozier, who we'll hear from in a few minutes, claiming that she didn't sell fentanyl. And then we've got Carmen Lauber saying that she did sell fentanyl, that she knew that there was fentanyl. So. And that's a big issue because we know that's what he died from, from fentanyl. So if it was a different drug, that's going to undermine the state's case. What did you think, Phil, about. About Robert Crozier's test where he claimed that he didn't sell fentanyl. I don't know that he was the most credible person, the drug dealer.
- [06:45]
A
No. I want to get to him in a second. But first, for those of you who are watching on YouTube, you see my mug that says Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on it? If you're listening on podcast or on SiriusXM, you can take my word for it. Because when I say that, I'm like, okay, where's more context? This housekeeper Ashley has said this was a. This was an exchange, a conversation done by text message. Where are those text messages? Okay, we've seen evidence. We know that there were text messages where the two are communicating, but where are the text messages? Because for the reasons that you pointed out. And we're going to get to. What's this Robert Crozier here. In a second, we're going to get to him. But it's very critical that we establish that Corey Richards knew that there was fentanyl that was going to be involved in this. And specifically that not only that she knew it, but in fact it was fentanyl. And so we need more context. We need the text messages. We need to know how was it that these two were communicating. And be very clear, Mr. Prosecutor, in front of this jury, be very clear with this witness that we are talking specifically about fentanyl. We gotta hit that point harder because we have SAT three, which is what you just referenced. Robert Crozier claiming that he doesn't believe that he sold fentanyl to housekeeper Carmen.
- [08:13]
C
I mean, if I said it to
- [08:15]
B
her, then it would be true, but
- [08:17]
C
I don't know that I said that to her.
- [08:19]
B
Were you selling her fentanyl pills?
- [08:22]
C
I don't believe so, no.
- [08:23]
B
Okay, and let's. Let's go over that again, because I know this was you were using during that period, but why was it that you remembered that in 2022, early 2022, you were selling oxycodone and not fentanyl?
- [08:41]
C
Because everybody was scared of fentanyl in early 2022. And in 21, you know, they all over the news and people were dying and everybody was. It was kind of hard to get, and it was. People were scared of getting it. And like I testified, I had people that had prescriptions. I had my own prescription, and we sold those.
- [09:04]
B
I think this is really important, and I'm curious what you think about it when you heard him testify, there's no prescription. What you've been saying this whole time about where are the texts, where's the acts, you know, the actual evidence, where are the prescriptions? He said that he had a prescription for oxycodone. He didn't say that he had one for fentanyl. He said that everybody was scared of fentanyl at that time. And you and I both know those are tightly, tightly controlled substances. So if he had a prescription for fentanyl, I would expect that we would have seen that in evidence at this point.
- [09:31]
A
Yeah, I don't think. I don't think anybody's claiming there was a prescription for fentanyl. I think what the defense is trying to say there is that what this guy did is he basically curated these pills that people had prescriptions for, but they weren't using and they were selling to him, and then he would then sell to other people, and he was he basically went on to say that, you know, on the stand at least, he said that, you know, he was selling oxycodone. And so there was this whole thing where the prosecutor was asking him about this affidavit that he had signed. And apparently it was a really sloppy affidavit because instead of oxycodone, it used the word oxycontin, which is a very different, more powerful drug than oxycodone. And at the bottom, you know, where you swear under oath and you have it notarized on the affidavit that what you're saying is the truth and subject to perjury and all that, the. The notary attestation at the bottom of this affidavit referred to it as a power of attorney. So it was. And I was like, who created this document? That's just, you know, really, really sloppy. And it turns out the defense had created that. They used a. I guess a power of attorney, and they just changed the language of it, and they didn't change the language in the notary attestation. So that whole thing was very frustrating and very sloppy. But video and I don't know the SOT number. Maybe producer Natasha can help me out. But there's a video and audio of this guy talking to the cops where he said in no uncertain terms, and this is when he was in custody, because he's wearing the black and white or gray and white, you know, striped outfit. He said in no uncertain terms that it was fentanyl, and everybody knew it was fentanyl.
- [11:15]
B
I think it's S6. When karma hit you up, what did she tell you?
- [11:20]
A
She told me she had a friend they wanted.
- [11:24]
B
Did she ask for blue specifically or fentanyl specifically, or did she ask for oxygen? What did she ask for? No,
- [11:33]
A
I think she might have asked me for blue. Now I can't remember.
- [11:36]
B
But you sold her, right?
- [11:38]
C
Yeah, I told her what she knew, what she was buying.
- [11:40]
B
Okay, so she wasn't like, she's asking for oxy or something like that. She got the answer. Okay.
- [11:45]
A
So she knew that there was. Remember where you got those pills from?
- [11:51]
B
I don't.
- [11:54]
A
Okay, so somebody's phone vibrates right near wherever that microphone is, Right. When he's discussing the word fentanyl. Right. But it's clear that that's what it is. So there's no one. He says in no uncertain terms, he. He provided fentanyl. So, look, this is part of why I say some of this is frustrating to me when I'm the. If I'm the prosecutor and this witness is backing up on me, so to speak, and he's saying things differently, things that I didn't expect. And by the way, there's been some of that that's happened to both sides. I'm not trying to pick on the prosecutor, but when he changes his story and says something you don't expect him to say, I got frustrated because I wanted to. And this is what happens when I watch trial.
- [12:39]
B
I know exactly where you're going.
- [12:41]
A
I get frustrated because I'm like, oh, my God, I want to just jump in the screen and ask these questions myself. But I want to say, look, didn't you remember talking to the cops on such and such day? And here's what you said. You said exactly this. And then you read it out, you know, with indignation in your voice. And you essentially, when your witness turns on you, you sort of have to start treating them like an adverse witness and that kind of thing. You're allowed to impeach, by the way, which is your own witness, which means question their credibility. The old rules, you couldn't impeach your own witness, but now you can if your witness says something you believe is not true or they change their story on you. So I. We're going to get into that with our guest a little bit later, I'm sure. More. But when I saw that happening, I just was like, you really, Mr. Prosecutor, you need to make a bigger deal of this prior inconsistent statement in front of the jury.
- [13:29]
B
Yeah, I was thinking that myself, and I was wondering, you know, what was their, their theory? Why did they decide to do it this way? Because there are a lot of different things that they could do with this. I mean, they've got this witness that's lying. But you got to remember, the prosecution has a hard time when they bring a witness that they're arguing is there to tell the truth and then they impeach their own witness. That's not a good look, because you bring this witness, witness, you're supposed to bring a credible witness. And then you're saying, oh, well, actually they're lying about this fact and they were telling the truth when they talked to law enforcement years ago. That's a, you know, that's a slippery slope. But as we know, we're stuck with the witness that we've got. We're stuck with their statements. But this one is sort of like a law school evidence class. I think this, this testimony, because you've got this gentleman who testifies, Robert Corsier, testifies, Testifies differently than he told the police. And the state can bring in that statement. It's a prior inconsistent statement like you mentioned, Phil, they can bring that in to impeach him. What they've done here is they've decided to sit on it. They've decided to not impeach him directly to his face, but impeach him later on with that testimony, as we'll see in a couple days. You know, when we get through the, the chronological examination of these witnesses, we see more recently, they've actually put in this evidence, but they didn't bring it up when this guy was on the stand. And, you know, the defense could have done that as well. The defense could have anticipated that this testimony was going to come in. They could have treated it as an inconsistent statement and they could have actually confronted him with it. And I think to your point, Phil, confronting him either with a transcript or even this video, literally when this guy, get him to commit, say, you know, you just said this. You just said you did not sell her fentanyl. You just told this jury you did not sell her fentanyl. You just told this jury that. And then, boom, play it. Is that you? Is that you in that video? Well, you're talking to law enforcement. Did you tell the truth to law enforcement? Did you lie to law enforcement? Did you lie to this jury? You know, either he's lying to law enforcement or he's lying to the jury. And I think that's powerful stuff and we missed that moment. So I'm like you, Phil. I wanted to just jump in and be like this. What's your theory here? What's your theory here? And I'm sure that they've got a theory. I'm sure they're waiting to put the pieces together ultimately, you know, at the end of the case. But I'm like you, I want that, that moment right when that witness is on the stand and I want to see him squirm in the chair. If you are looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider Riverbend Ranch. Their 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. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it is 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. All Riverbend Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the usa. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics. And the beef is processed at the ranch in their award winning USDA inspected facility. No shortcuts, no middlemen, just incredible, healthy, flavorful beef shipped directly to your home. Order today@riverbendranch.com you don't want to go to the store. Have to wait for products that may or may not be what you want. Is it grass fed? Is it organic? What is it? Just go to riverbend ranch.com take care of it in advance. It'll be in your freezer. Super convenient and you know you're getting quality. Use the promo code, Megan, to get 20 bucks off your first order.
- [16:58]
A
So it's always easier to Monday morning quarterback these things, which is exactly what we're doing now.
- [17:03]
B
100.
- [17:05]
A
So it's easier. We're up in the press box calling the game and we're not down on the field, you know, getting the crap beat out of us playing the game like these lawyers are. And it's very stressful for both sides. And I'm not trying to be hyperly or overly critical. But it's very frustrating though for me. And I think honestly I detected some frustration from the judge in this case too because like, we've seen lawyers who didn't know the difference. And for the lawyers in our audience, I think maybe they'll get it. And even for some of our audience that is not a lawyer never tried a case, but is maybe experienced court watchers, they may get this. There's a difference between refreshing a witness's recollection. If like they, they have some trouble remembering something that happened years ago and you need to show them something to refresh their memory, that's one thing. That's not impeachment. But then you have impeachment, whereas you're trying to show that they're basically talking out of both sides of their mouth. They're blowing hot and cold at the same time. Therefore what they're saying is not believable, it's not credible. We call that impeachment. And we've seen lawyers using these terms which mean nothing like the other. They're using them interchangeably. And it just drives me out of my skin sometimes.
- [18:17]
B
Well, also, I mean, if I was the defense lawyer and I knew that this guy Robert was on drugs back when he gave this statement, I mean, he's on drugs when he made this statement, and that's the statement that harms them. And the statement he made today, you know, the one where he doesn't remember. I mean, you know, you can use that as a defense lawyer. So maybe we'll see that in their Case in Chief. Maybe. I would kind of hope to see it during, you know, during some of the cross examination. But also, you know, there's one other side I want to play before we move on. So we've got Corey, and, you know, we can talk about this a little bit with our guests, but she cracks a smile when this witness is asked about Michael Jackson stuff. And I always cringe when a person who's on trial for murder cracks a smile like this, but can we play SOT4? Did anyone ever ask you for the Michael Jackson stuff?
- [19:03]
C
I'm sorry,
- [19:06]
B
I think that answers my question. Nobody ever asked you. Carmen Lauber didn't ask you to sell her Michael Jackson, the Michael Jackson drug?
- [19:16]
C
No, no.
- [19:18]
B
Do you know what that is?
- [19:20]
C
What do they call that? Pro hypnol or something?
- [19:23]
A
Propofol.
- [19:24]
C
There you go.
- [19:24]
A
Yeah, I've heard of it as I've
- [19:26]
C
watched the Michael Jackson thing when he died, but. Yeah, nobody's ever asked me for that.
- [19:32]
B
Do you know if you can even I that on the street?
- [19:34]
C
I doubt. Seems like they would keep that under a tight locking key.
- [19:40]
A
Yeah, Propofol. I mean, any of us who've ever had any kind of outpatient surgery or procedures or whatever we may have been administered. I know I have. And it's the kind of thing where they tell you to count to three backwards and you're out by the time you get to two.
- [19:55]
B
Yes.
- [19:55]
A
Very powerful stuff. I would imagine, though, that you probably could be obtained on the illicit market somewhere. But I didn't like the. Look, it's okay to have a light moment sometimes, even in a murder trial, you see lawyers and you'll see judges and all this kind of, you know, chuckling and even jurors, but to see the defendant in on it is a little unsettling, depending on the context. I agree with you.
- [20:19]
B
I know, and I always prep my. My clients that the jury is watching every single move you make, you know, so you just got to be super careful. We had another interesting moment in the trial where an undercover officer testified. This witness, he was. Yeah, he worked for Salt Lake City Police Department, and he had an impressive beard, which we see often on these undercover officers. I think, you know, it's not. It's not coincidence, but he was questioned and, you know, I don't love the testimony. He was. I hate it when officers are questioned about street level drug dealings as though they're experts on street level drug dealings. I get the theory that, you know, cops, because they're making these arrests, are experts, but I don't really think anybody can be an expert on this area. But so that's what he was testifying about. You know, he was talking about that there's, you know, how these, these hand to hand street level drug deals work and whether or not it's going to be part of a ring. But what was interesting was he was actually shown, transmitted. He was shown on Court TV and the judge had to stop everything. And we've seen this happen in other trials where nobody remembers that it's an undercover officer and it says, oops, we have to stop, you know, videoing this. We have to stop this officer from being shown on the, on the stand. So I think that was a little bit of a snafu that happened.
- [21:24]
A
He's out. I mean, that beard is unmistakable, Right. I mean, we're not going to show it, but. And it was. And honestly. So Court TV has the, the pool camera on this, right. And they're doing a great job. And they, they are, they go by what instructions are given by the court. And so look, folks who are friends of mine at Court TV have assured me and told me and I have absolutely believed them that they weren't told. And, and it doesn't seem like that's the case because there's been, I think the court realizes that that's on them, that somebody made a mistake. But that guy's already out there. If I were in charge of that police department, I'd already be transferring him somewhere else because whether they ever, anybody ever shows him on a replay or not, regardless his, his name's and it's very distinctive. That beard was unmistakable. So I think his ability to serve undercover is probably already toast.
- [22:22]
B
Yeah, and I agree with you. I mean, we want cameras in courtrooms. So the last thing Court TV or anybody else is going to do is, you know, something. Yeah. Something that messes that up.
- [22:31]
A
But we didn't hear his audio, by the way. We didn't hear the audio of the, like they could have done him, audio only, for example, and that would have achieved the same purpose. I think what they were going to get into him, and maybe they did, and we just don't know is like he was going to get into things like the nomenclature, what the street level terminology was for some of these pills, because it was obvious that we now have an issue of, okay, was Corey Richards getting hooked up with fentanyl, or was it some other type of opioid? Because if it's not fentanyl, then they're going to have a hard time hanging this murder on her.
- [23:06]
B
Right. And I think that, you know, they actually risk potentially a mistrial if they can't hang the fentanyl on her. And they've put in all this evidence of drug dealing, that she was addicted to pills and things like that. That really changes the analysis, because that evidence would not be. It would not be relevant, and it would be prejudicial. And we know there's a balancing test. It's got to be super relevant and not super prejudicial. It's really a balancing test. And if there is no evidence that she actually obtained fentanyl, and they've put in all this evidence that she was handling drugs, getting drugs, all of this stuff, it's not relevant to whether or not she killed her husband when he died from a fentanyl overdose. So I think they do risk a mistrial. So hopefully they'll be able to link that up for their own case. But I want to talk a little bit about Savannah Guthrie's Mom, Nancy Guthrie, 30th Day Phil, this is crazy. And I know you were out there in Arizona. I mean, can you believe that? It's gone on for 30 days now, and we don't have any real solid updates.
- [23:58]
A
You know, I. I guess I got out there the day after the super bowl, so it's been a couple of weeks. And, you know, at that time, I was thinking to myself, and I think most of us who were covering it, who are watching it, and, you know, following along with the investigation, even at the time when I would talk to other folks in the media, because we were all kind of at the same hotel, in this case, a couple of different hotels, but we're all, you know, seeing each other in the lobby and lobby bar at dinner and, you know, around. And the general consensus, I could say even back then, was that, you know, it's highly unlikely that she's still sadly, with us and here at 30 days and counting. Right. I think that that just underscores that the. There's. We have a video now of Savannah and her family visiting the. There's a memorial that, like, when I was out there, maybe we can show that when I was out there, one of the first places I went was right in front of her home, where the media was sort of set Up. They've now blocked that off. By the way, you can't park there. It's a no parking area. But right there at her driveway entrance, it's a semicircular, sort of rock, gravel, dirt driveway. Right in front of those cacti there, there's these. It's a memorial. It's a impromptu memorial. Folks that come out, they leave flowers, notes. There's a sign there, obviously showing support and wanting her safe return. And I can tell you from looking at this, what I'm seeing on my screen right now, this has tripled in size just in the couple of weeks since I've been there. So there's clearly a lot of support still in the community and well wishes for them.
- [25:37]
B
Yeah, well, and we have a little bit of an update. I mean, it seemed like something, at least we're getting something. There was a new ring camera footage. So new video showed a vehicle leaving her neighborhood. And this was around the time of the disappearance. The ring camera showed, and it's a house that's about two and a half miles from her home, shows that they drove about eight minutes after her pacemaker had been disconnected. So her pacemaker, you know, we sort of have a timeline because her pacemaker was linked to her watch and linked to her phone. And when that disconnected, that's the time that we all assume that she was actually removed from the house. So we're working on that timeline, using that timeline, and if we use that, about eight minutes after that is when this car was seen about two and a half miles from her house leaving the neighborhood. And I think it's interesting because this wasn't found initially because they had a much smaller search area. So what the police do is they start small and then they slowly broaden that area. So they had a very small perimeter at first, getting all of the, you know, ring camera footage, anybody's cell phone cameras, anything like that. And then they've expanded it a little bit. And so now they've got this footage from about two and a half miles away. So, you know, maybe this will help us establish someone, establish a suspect, establish someone. Because they've got a car. It was a light colored suv. And so hopefully that will give us something. If they can question whoever owns this car, that will give us.
- [26:55]
A
Well, you know, there's a lot. So the area out there is. It's not a very congested area. It's. But it is a residential area. Right. And so I think that it's. We're in this. We're in the area where that video of that car could mean something or it could be unrelated, we just don't know. And honestly from looking at it, and by the way, we've showed it, and if you haven't subscribed to us on YouTube here at MK True Crime, you might want to take a minute to do that so you can see what that car looks like. And by the way, if you do watch on YouTube, put in the comments because I'd like to read it and I will read it. What, what you think that car is and how it may be relevant because I'm really on the fence about it. I don't know, it could be completely unrelated, but it was in the middle of the night, the wee hours of the morning, I guess, and there's not going to be that much traffic out there at that time. So that does push it maybe in the area of, hey, maybe that is the car. Because look, remember back to the Brian Kohberger case, right? It was the presence of his car near the scene that sort of unrolled or started unraveling that case and eventually led to his conviction. So maybe it will help.
- [28:05]
B
Yeah, I'm with you, Phil. I think it will and I hope it will, so at least the family can get some closure. So next we've got Bob Mota. He's a criminal defense attorney. He's from Chicago and he's the host of the Defense Diaries. He's going to join us. Stay tuned.
- [28:21]
A
Waking up sneezing and congested every morning isn't just frustrating. It may be a sign that the air inside your home is not as clean as it should be. Even with regular cleaning, dust, odors and invisible pollutants can linger in the air that 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 typical air purifiers can remove. That includes dust, pollen, mold, spores, pet dander, wildfire, smoke, bacteria, viruses, odors, smoke, ozone and harmful VOCs that you don't want circulating indoors. Air doctor runs whisper quiet so it won't disrupt your sleep or your 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 up by strong credibility. 98% of customers say that their home's air feels cleaner, safer and healthier. Over 39% noticed fewer allergy symptoms. Plus, Air Doctor won Newsweek Reader's Choice Award for Best Air Purifier. So head to AirDoctorPro.com and use promo code TruCrime to 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. Get this exclusive podcast only offer now@airdoctorpro.com that's Air Doctor Pro.com using promo code True Crime. Welcome back to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co host today, Ashley Merchant. We are very happy that joining us now is Bob Motta, criminal defense attorney from Chicago and the host of Defense Diaries. Bob, welcome to the program. I see that you have been covering every second of this trial just like we've been following every second of this trial. And it's always good to have the perspective of people that we haven't talked to before, that we don't talk amongst ourselves with people like you. Because Ashley and I just spent the first part of the show sort of giving what we thought about what's happened in the show and we're very curious to see now what your take is on it so far.
- [30:51]
C
Yeah. Well, hi Phil and hi Ashley. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. You know, the first few days were a little slow. Like any criminal trial, you gotta have those proof of life, proof of death witnesses. And then it started to pick up and it's a fascinating trial, it really is because you have that classic theory of the state which is a very compelling theory. And then ultimately we gotta hold the state like we always do to their Borden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally killed them, which has been fascinating. And the concept of the two different dealers, you had Carmen Lauber and then you had Crozier come on after her were really, really interesting witnesses. And I don't know personally, at least in our chat on our channel, I don't know that the feeling was that the state had moved the needle much in terms of meeting that very high burden as to that aggravated murder charge. But this is really a case that's going to be a death by a thousand paper cuts for the state because it's really circumstantial.
- [32:02]
A
You know, you talked about proof of life and proof of death. And so to expand on that for our audience, you know, we've got to, it seems basic, but in every murder case you've got to prove that it was a human being that died. Okay. And it's not enough to just refer to someone by name. And so we Saw early on in the trial, we saw Eric's sister. Right. And we saw other people who sort of served many purposes, but they were able to also prove, you know, that particular fact that at one time, he was a living human being. But we. We now have seen some testimony talking about proof of death. We've seen some Testimony now from Dr. Christensen, who was the chief medical examiner. Right. So the state has called him to the stand, and the prosecutor, Fred Burmester, introduced this recording that I want to talk to you about. It's a recording between Corey Richards and this and Eric Christensen, the chief medical examiner. And it's regarding how this fentanyl got into Eric's system based on the autopsy. Can we run SOT5? Don't change anything in the cause or manner of death. It's still, you know, definitely, you know, death from fentanyl intoxication. And we still don't know how he
- [33:19]
B
got it into him. Yeah. I mean, is that anything you could ever find out if it was? I mean, do people normally eat that? Like, take it?
- [33:28]
A
Like, is that something you'd like? It's not usually something people eat. Well, that's not even true anymore. So with illicitly manufactured stuff, sometimes people take pills that have that. So, yeah, these days, you can't really tell.
- [33:41]
B
Yeah.
- [33:42]
A
All right.
- [33:42]
B
Well, I appreciate your time.
- [33:43]
A
I do. Thank you very much. And, yeah, if you have other questions, don't hesitate to give me a call. It's the first time in almost 40 years in the justice system that I have seen a criminal defendant, in this case, a murder defendant, speaking with a state's very important witness, the chief medical examiner, regarding a case. Now, presumably that was done, you know, before she was maybe a defendant in the case, but still, I found that to be very fascinating. What do you guys say?
- [34:13]
C
I agree. I. Well, first and foremost, I thought Christensen was a phenomenal witness, not necessarily for the defense or the state, but for the jurors. Yeah, he was just very knowledgeable and answered so many questions about fentanyl and the amount that you would need to take in order to kill you. And I just thought he was very, very helpful to the. To the jurors in terms of kind of having an understanding of how that drug operates. But, yeah, to your point, when we were watching that testimony, all I wanted to know was, when did this call take place in relation to Eric's death? And then we kind of figured it out collectively about halfway through. And it's about eight months after Eric's death. So the way that it went down is ultimately, they had done a supplemental report because they had done much more thorough tox screening with, you know, a lot of the other biologicals that they. They ended up testing to really try to get a better feel, because initially, the ME who had performed the autopsy had really ruled the death undetermined in terms of how he died. And so that kind of factored in for me in terms of how I looked at it. And I was like, well, is it unusual for a wife to want to call? And you look at it from both perspectives as defense attorneys. I'm looking at it. All right, if. If Corey's guilty, how does this look? Is this a. Is this a weird thing for somebody who killed their husband to do? I think the answer to that would be yes. That's a very strange thing for somebody who had committed the crime to do. But you could argue it both ways, because it's unusual otherwise. But I think if I died, you know, and they didn't really know how, I think my wife might make that call, too. I just thought it was unbelievable that she got Christensen on the phone.
- [36:08]
B
Oh, I know. I thought that was too. And I agree with you. I think the defense, though, is going to have to really spin this to try and explain why a grieving spouse would want to call an M.E. you know, and for answers. And I think, you know, if you can. If they can hit any of the jurors who have lost a loved one and just want answers. And we see this from the Nancy Guthrie case. You know, I think most people assume that she's no longer with us, but we want answers. And I think everybody can really feel that and know that they want to know what happened. Did he take his own life? Wife, perhaps? You know, that could be a theory that maybe the wife was thinking about. So I think the defense, if they could weave that in, they could minimize the damage of this. But, I mean, the problem is the jurors, they tend to really over interpret evidence like this, you know, as guilt.
- [36:48]
C
Yep.
- [36:48]
A
Well, Ashley, look, I. I think it might be a mistake for the defense if they try to portray her as a grieving widow, considering all the other evidence we've seen about the. The affair and how she wanted to be done with her husband one way or the other. I don't know that. And she didn't. I mean. I mean, eight months later, she didn't sound to be that full of grief in that call. But. But look, the question I've got for both of you guys. We'll start with you, Bob. Look, why is it that you. You mentioned. And I took a note of this, it was very interesting. You just said that it took you guys on, I guess the folks in your chat rooms at your show, y', all, you guys had to figure out collectively when this call took place. And I've been talking some, and I'm going to talk more about the advocacy in this case. But why is it that you had to go to the steps that you went through and the measures that you took to figure this out? Should that have not been part of the context that that was available to the whole world and to the jury when they introduced this into the trial? Shouldn't we know when this call took place?
- [37:54]
C
Yeah, I mean, absolutely. In terms of laying the foundation you have, you know, like, I would have needed to know exactly when this call took place. And I didn't know I was asking my chat, you know, on occasion I can get diverted doing other things because I'm on for eight hours, you know, and I'm asking the chat. I'm like, did. Did they bring out when this call took place? And the chat was like, no. And then, you know, people started doing research. But yeah, I mean, absolutely. And I felt that that scene, to your point, Phil, been kind of a running theme. I felt that the prosecution in the case has been a little bit disjointed. You know, I mean, when you go back to some of the earlier witnesses, in particular Lauber and Crozier, like I would have liked to have seen, especially with Lauber, when they were trying to bring in and introduce the text message between Corey and Lauber and they had to use the celebrate extraction. And yet he hadn't put that into evidence yet, which created an issue for the state. I mean, in terms of. And look, you know, it's easy to sit here in armchair quarterback, you know, the order of witnesses when it. When the state or the defense is going to put their case in chief on. But, you know, for me, logically, you would have liked to have seen that because that did create an issue for the state in terms of kind of smoothly going through their case. So I've just been kind of wanting in terms of how the state has decided to proceed with this case in general. I mean, today we've been going through a huge, huge, just diatribe of testimony from a forensic accountant who's been on the stand all day. And it's. It's got that Murdoch feeling, you know, where you're three weeks into the financial crimes and you're like, man, when are we going to get to the, to the murder. And it's got that kind of feeling. And I know that the judge in this case has been careful and I think that he's been even handed in terms of his pre trial rulings, but in terms of how much he was going to allow in because they did sever the financial crimes and she's going to be tried separately for those. But yeah, I. My feeling, Phil, is I found it to be a little bit disjointed in terms of the state's case.
- [40:06]
A
Well, actually, you know, you and I talked about this and I want to get into it with Bob. Actually, you and I talked about the. The issue of whether or not this is, you know, are we dealing with fentanyl or more accurately, were. Were they dealing fentanyl or was it oxy or Roxy or oxycontin or something else? Because we can go ahead and if we can just roll SOT6 again, this is Crozier the drug dealer saying that Carmen the housekeeper knew there was Fentanyl. Okay, and. And that's become an issue. But I want to get your take on it too. After the site, when Carmen hit you
- [40:44]
C
up, what did she tell you? She told me she had a friend that wanted.
- [40:50]
B
Did she ask for blue specifically or fentanyl specifically, or did she ask for oxygen? What did she ask for?
- [40:59]
A
I think she might have asked me for blue.
- [41:02]
B
But you sold her opportunities, right?
- [41:04]
C
Yeah, I told her what she knew what she would find.
- [41:06]
B
Okay, so she wasn't like she's asking for oxy's or something like that. She got the answer. Okay, so she knew that there was.
- [41:15]
A
You got those pills from. Okay, all right, Ashley and Bob. Look, and I want to. I want to know from both of you guys, because you guys are pros, you've done this before. You know, the state has to prove that Corey killed her husband and specifically that she did it with fentanyl. So we've seen there in. In that site, we've seen that early on this witness said clearly there was fentanyl that was involved in all these transactions. But we've also seen him in court saying the other, saying the opposite. So I want to ask you guys. We'll start with you, Bob. Do you think the state has proven that there was in fact fentanyl that was at the heart of this case?
- [41:58]
C
Well, I think the state has proven that fentanyl is what killed him because of the medical examiner's testimony. Whether or not they've proven whether Corey Richards specifically asked for fentanyl and got fentanyl. I give you a little pushback. I like to call that interview the I'm not here to jam you up up interview. Because that cop said it about 15 times. I'm not here to jam you up. If you carefully watch the transcript below, Crozier never says the word fentanyl. The cop says it. So. And what he does is he says, oh, so she, she didn't order oxys. No. The M30s, if you go back to the testimony at that point in time were the Roxy 30s. So when the. The counterfeit Roxies came out, they looked identical to Roxy 30s. They, they were blue. They had the. The line across, and then they had the 30 on it. So I look at that very, very differently. If I'm arguing the case at closing, I'm going into that video and I'm saying, that's not what he said. Because even though he came and he basically recanted in terms of what he was saying, and it was basically, look, man, I was high as all get out at that period of time in my life, and I don't remember saying any of that. And I didn't say it. But beyond that, I think if you look at that interview very, very carefully, it's the cop who's feeding him everything that he says. It's not Crozier saying it. And it's all with the cop on his thumb on top of him. You know, I mean, the bottom line is, I don't know how many times he told this guy, we're not trying to jam you up on these federal charges, but we're going to jam you up on these federal charges if you don't say what we need. That's. That's how I'm spinning it from the defense angle.
- [43:54]
B
Yeah. I would hit it hard during closing. I would say, you know, they have proven that he died from fentanyl overdose, but what they have not shown is that Corey Richards is the one that gave him fentanyl. And so he could have gotten it from any other source. It would definitely prove. You know, talk about how they. They brought in Robert Corsier. They brought in this person who you don't even know what he's saying. If he's telling the truth. Back when he was high, I mean, he's high. During this police interview, he, like you said, Bob, he's not the one that actually brings up the term fentanyl just because he didn't, you know, dispute it. Well, he's high and he's trying to please the cops, of course, he's not going to dispute it. Right. He's saying whatever they want to hear because, you know, they're the ones that hold the keys to his freedom. So they brought in all this evidence, and I would just highlight the fact that they've got witness upon witness. And guess what? Nobody told you. Nobody told you flat out that they put fentanyl in her hands. Nobody said that. And so you've got, you know, you've got a lot of little links, but you don't have anybody. And the state has brought all of these witnesses. They clearly have subpoena power. They clearly have search warrants. They've gotten, you know, they have experts who've testified, forensic experts. They've got all of this data. They've got, you know, these phone things that they hooked people hooked the phones up to. And what did they bring? Nothing. They brought nothing about fentanyl. So I would really make them eat this. This lack of link to Fentany, you know, and that's the plausible explanation. That's reasonable doubt.
- [45:11]
A
Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, jury, she. She's an adulteress, she's a con artist, she's a liar, she's committed financial crimes, all these things, but she's not guilty of murder because you can't tie her to the fentanyl that we know caused his death. That's kind of where you're going with this, actually. And I think it makes sense because based on what's come out in court so far, that's. That seems like the best way for the defense to play it. But speaking of the affair, we have some text messages that come in. Ashley, what's going on with those?
- [45:46]
B
You know, we saw these text messages, and I gotta. I gotta tell you, I expected something more, you know, I expected something a whole lot juicier. If they're having this sordid affair, I expected something more than some I love yous on Valentine's Day. And I know the volume of the texts are troublesome, and I know some of the content of the texts are troublesome, but if they're having this sorted affair, I guess I expected some. Something a little bit more. And so I would really hit that home as well for the defense. Maybe she was talking to another man. You know, was it. Was it fully on an affair? Did they prove that it was an affair or was this just someone that she's talking to? Just because she is with some other guy does not mean that she wants her husband to die. And I would really hammer that point home. The affair. Not great. Not great evidence. Not something you want. You never want a jury to know that you're. You're client is a cheat and a liar. That is not good. But you can get around that, you know, And I think the jury is probably expecting something a whole lot more than what they've got with this. With these. With these text messages. But I'm curious, Bob. What did you think about all the text messages that came in?
- [46:44]
C
I was with you. I, you know, you kind of want to see if you've got that motive floating out there with the, you know, the cheating spouse. You really, if you're the prosecutor and you're being honest, you'd like to see.
- [46:57]
A
The.
- [46:58]
C
The messages were like, we're close. I'm, you know, I'm gonna. I'm gonna do what I have to do to get rid of them.
- [47:04]
B
I want to be with you, baby. I do anything to be with you.
- [47:06]
C
Exactly. That kind of stuff.
- [47:07]
B
And we just can't wait till he's gone.
- [47:10]
A
Right? Exactly.
- [47:10]
C
She's talking about having the dream of, you know, that she wishes he wasn't there. Those are a far cry from saying, I'm gonna make things happen to get rid of this guy so that we can have our life together. So, yeah, I found them wanting as well, and they were pretty tame in terms of what we saw, you know, and it's just one of those things where I'm kind of looking at the totality of the circumstances, and I don't know how much those moved the needle. And I wanted to ask you, Ashley, about the witness who was Cody's wife, and her name escapes me, but she was short but impactful. But I'm not sure that she was impactful for the state because she basically laid out this concept where Eric was really controlling the finances in a way that was. Could be construed as abusive in the sense that Corey felt that she had to make moves in order to have some financial independence. It really made me feel some sympathy for Corey. And I was kind of rooting for her at that stage in her life to say, you know what? She went and got her master. She wouldn't got her real estate license. And she wanted to create a situation where her husband, her spouse, wasn't holding all the purse strings. You know, I don't know how that played out. I was curious as to what your thought on her was.
- [48:31]
B
I actually think that that plays into what we were just talking about with the texts because, you know, you sympathize with her. If she's in this controlling relationship. And so if, you know, if her husband is someone that the jury doesn't like, they're going to view everything through that lens. And, you know, that's, that's what happens. And so if there's some reason that maybe can soften the fact that she was talking with another guy. I mean, I know that we're talking an affair, but you know, the texts were kind of innocuous. So, you know, sort of saw and soften that, that he was controlling and he was, you know, trying to, to do all these things and she was just trying to get her life back. I think that that could carry some weight with the jury. And the fact that she's trying to better herself, the fact that she's trying to do things, you know, to better herself financially, I think that's also really helpful because does she need to kill him? Does she really need to kill him or is she able, is she making a plan, you know, a plan to get around him, get around his ways, get around his controlling you and actually just continue on with her life? Why would she be bettering herself if she was going to off him?
- [49:24]
A
You know, I, personally, so I. Here's the thing. Let me just preface this by saying I think she's guilty. It the walk the dog letter that we haven't really gotten into yet, but we, we have on previous shows here at MK True Crime. Go back and check those out. But I think for, I think for all the reasons that we've been talking about in this and the evidence that we've seen and the evidence that we know about that we haven't seen, I think she's guilty. But I think that the prosecution has made some mistakes. I think there's some advocacy issues that I think may hurt their chances at a conviction. And I also think there's, there's something called over trying your case. And let's, and when we talk about those, I want to talk about these memes, right? These memes that have been introduced now into evidence. Witness CHRIS I'm going to miss, I'm going to mispronounce this name. Let me see, how do you say that? Chris Katrademos street kid. Yeah.
- [50:28]
B
Yes, definitely.
- [50:29]
A
He testified that he's recovered three PNG thumbnail images from Corey's phone. The images were what they were calling ghost or orphaned images. They were deleted. But the so called ghost or print of the images remained on the phone. And so these come into court. Let's go ahead and roll. This is the prosecution submitting these memes into evidence on the day Eric had passed away. Of course, the defense is objecting, but the look on Corey's face is priceless. The database overwrites it because of time has passed and there's no more room in that file. You'll never know the source of that text, whether it was incoming or outgoing,
- [51:08]
C
who sent it, that type of thing.
- [51:10]
A
All you're going to see is the remnant of that.
- [51:12]
C
And that's what these are the small PNG files.
- [51:15]
B
Files again, move to admit 3 19. At this point, it seems like it's a.
- [51:24]
A
What Mr. Corn is a remnant. Something. I understand. Defendant's objection.
- [51:30]
B
It is respectfully overruled.
- [51:32]
A
You can explore these topics during cross examination.
- [51:36]
C
States Exhibit 319 is admitted.
- [51:40]
B
We have could publish, please. So these are the images you were just describing? Yes. And you described that they were found in the image files as a remnant of possibly a text message, right?
- [52:00]
A
I wouldn't say a remnant.
- [52:01]
C
It's a thumbnail.
- [52:02]
A
It's a PNG file.
- [52:03]
C
I mean, it's a thumbnail.
- [52:04]
B
Yes. From the data that you analyzed, were you able to tell if these images were accessed by Ms. Richen's phone?
- [52:15]
C
They were accessed by the system in her phone, yes.
- [52:18]
B
How do you know that?
- [52:19]
C
It gives an access indication in the
- [52:23]
A
file path in the data and the extraction. It'll say when the device was accessed, and it will give a timestamp. So I'm holding up my Whiskey Tango Foxtrot mug. Seriously, because I'm like, what in the hell does this even mean? And how is it relevant? If you're the state, how does it advance your case to show that she had three what looked to be superficially meaningless memes? And for those of you listening on podcast or SiriusXM, as I mentioned earlier, check us out on YouTube because I want you people to see these images and tell me in the comments to this video why they are relevant and what do they prove. But I'll start with you guys. Ashley, what do you think I am?
- [53:11]
B
I'm with you. Wtf? Like, why are we seeing these? And you know, jurors get mad at that. We saw that a lot in what I think is the world's longest criminal trial, the YSL trial here in Fulton County. There was a lot of, why am I sitting here listening to this? Why is this important? Important? Why do I care about this? I mean, so is it inappropriate to be getting these text messages? I don't know. I mean, I don't know. They're. They're stupid. But look at my Phone. I'm sure my kids have sent me random, weird things. My husband sent me things. Maybe we have inside jokes, like, what does this tell me? Absolutely nothing. And I would rail on that as the defense. And, you know, they've wasted time. I always make a promise to jurors at the very beginning of my trial. I promise you, I am not going to waste your time. If I put a witness on this stand or I ask a question, it's got a point. It's got a point. Purpose. And jurors hold that against the state when they waste their time. So I think that the state is losing the style here. They're losing, you know, the style points here. Maybe they're winning on the substance, because I think we all think that she did it, but I definitely think this is one of the hits to their style.
- [54:05]
C
Yeah. And for me, it's funny because the reality of that situation is Bloodworth, Brad Bloodworth, who's the. The lead prosecutor, felt so strongly about that evidence that he used that as his closing for his opening.
- [54:24]
B
It's crazy.
- [54:24]
C
It's crazy. And, you know, and I thought that ultimately, what the state is trying to put out there is that the timing, as we know, is. Timing is everything. And in terms of when they were able to show the extraction, showing that when she accessed those was right after the ME left the house to right alley. So they're saying as soon, like, he's not even cold, right. She's accessing these memes, which show a guy wiping money all over his face, a Trump meme talking about being filthy rich, and a meme calling everybody idiots. So the implication being she's now got the money and all the people around her are morons because they don't know what she just did. That's what they're implying by it. I thought Ramos, the defense attorney who handled that cross examination, did a pretty good job in terms of kind of really focusing in on the. The orphan slash ghost aspect of these particular images and saying, look, you can't even say, did these come in from somebody else, which is something that she searched. Did she send him to somebody? You know, like, in terms of what they were doing on her phone was not handled by the state at all. Like, I. I don't know why those images are there, and I don't know if she sent them off to anybody.
- [55:41]
A
We don't either. Before we let you go, there's a couple things I want to make sure we talk to you about real quick. There's this whole thing about web searches. Right. And these are searches that were shown to the jury and were not read out loud. They include, can you delete everything on an icloud account? Can you can. Deleted. Retrieved Utah prison. Women's prison in Utah. Had to completely wipe an iPhone. Clear. Can cops force you to do a lie detector test? In fact, let's. We got the video of this that we can show while we're talking about it, because that's all the jury saw. They didn't hear these things. Read to them out loud. Will life insurance pay if death certificate is pending? Luxury prisons for the rich in America. I mean, my God, the question I've got, it's like, I gotta bring out my. My mug again for Whiskey Tango Fox right here. Because why. Why are. Why is somebody not reading this to the jury? Because it just gives it so much more powerful presentation. My friend Kathy Ruson over @Court TV tweeted this, and I think I responded to it, but I noticed it at the time, too. She says, I think it's strange that the state isn't having the witnesses read these texts and these searches allowed. Is there some rule in Utah that says they can't? We hear experts and we hear people reading these things all the time. Because as a lawyer, when you put your voice to it, you know, you can put whatever inflections you want. You don't just have this thing that you're just showing to the jury.
- [57:14]
B
I think that's why they didn't have someone read it.
- [57:17]
C
Yeah, right, exactly. That's exactly why you saw it in Karen Reed when Jackson was objecting as to who was going to read the text messages. And like, Phil, just look at how you were reading them. If I'm the defense, I don't want you reading those text messages with like, you know, okay,
- [57:35]
A
but I don't have to look in court. I wouldn't necessarily read them the way that I'm reading them here on this show. I think as a prosecutor, I could control myself and just read them, may I publish these to the jury? And then you put them up on the screen and you just. You can actually read them aloud with neutral sort of a tone and neutral inflection. I think that's the way to do it.
- [57:55]
B
I think we'll see that in closing. I think we'll see them read them in closing. But I think the difference is on the witness stand and, you know, it comes down to who do you pick? Do you pick a law enforcement officer? Do you pick a man? Do you pick a woman? You know, the defense isn't going to participate. They're not going to help this and they're not going to offer up anybody. And I think there may be a risk that they just decided wasn't worth it in reading these.
- [58:12]
A
Well, real quick, we got SOT8, which is the defense lawyer suggesting that Corey Richards could have been searching prisons because of Real Housewives.
- [58:21]
C
It's great. I loved it.
- [58:22]
A
I know a lot of those churches
- [58:24]
B
as we saw, have no dates,
- [58:28]
A
correct, right?
- [58:29]
C
Yes.
- [58:30]
A
And we do see some of them
- [58:35]
B
when they were searched, correct?
- [58:36]
A
Yes.
- [58:37]
B
Okay. Are you familiar with a real, a certain Real Housewife in Salt Lake city
- [58:43]
A
recently in April 2022? Oh, no.
- [58:46]
B
No.
- [58:46]
A
Okay.
- [58:47]
C
Are you aware of somebody maybe being
- [58:50]
A
sentenced around that time?
- [58:52]
C
No.
- [58:52]
B
Okay.
- [58:53]
A
And now that would provide context to you, correct? I could, yeah.
- [58:59]
B
Because right now, just as we see
- [59:00]
A
the searches, we don't know why that would be a search.
- [59:05]
B
Correct.
- [59:06]
C
I don't know content or can't speculate on anything. You can't speculate, know you shouldn't speculate yet.
- [59:15]
A
He's asking him to speculate. But we've got to leave it there with you for this segment. Thank you very, very much, Bob, for joining us. Tell the folks real quick before we let you. How can people find you?
- [59:26]
C
You can find me all over the place. Our YouTube channel is called Defense Diaries podcast. My wife, who's much smarter, much better looking than I am, is my co host and also a pit bull defense attorney herself.
- [59:39]
B
Awesome.
- [59:40]
C
We co host that together and then our podcast that you can find anywhere you get your pods. We've got the Defense Diaries podcast buried inside the John Wayne Gacy investigation because my father was serial killer John Wayne Gacy's trial attorney back in 1980. So yeah, just check it out and I think it's pretty good.
- [59:58]
A
Well, we appreciate you spending part of your time with us and I'm sure we'll talk again soon. Next, Ashley and I are going to have our closing arguments for today's show and and your questions from the mailbag. Stay tuned.
- [60:14]
B
Home security can feel overwhelming, but Simplisafe makes it simple. Many people are choosing it for the peace of mind it provides. Over 4 million homes are 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. This is the kind of system I actually trust to do the job. And it might be worth checking out for your own home. With 20 years of experience in home security, 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, my listeners can get 50% off their new SimpliSafe system@simplisafe.com that's SimpliSafe.com, megan. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. Welcome back to MK True Crime. We'll get to our closing arguments, but first we have a question on the Corey Richards trial from username sneemac, asks do you think defense attorney Wendy Lewis went too far in pressing the housekeeper drug distributor? And I love how you added that drug distributor, Carmen Lauber, about her learning disabilities on the standard. And what would you have done differently if you were the prosecutor or the defense attorney in that courtroom? We love those questions. Phil, I think you had, had something you wanted to share on this.
- [61:42]
A
Yeah, I do. Well, first off, let's, let's, let's show the question how it came out in court real quick.
- [61:48]
B
You told the officers numerous times, I have been using drugs since I was sixth grade. Yes. My brain is not that good. Correct. I don't remember things. Yes. You have a learning disability also, correct? Yes. Can you share what that is? No. No. I would ask you to share what it is. That was a question, not a request. Sorry, I apologize. But it could be relevant.
- [62:25]
A
Ms. Lewis, Ms. Lauber, if you would please answer the question.
- [62:30]
B
Yes, I do have one. And what is it? It's not the highest education of. It's a low grade education. Is that because you struggled in school because of your learning disability? Yes. All right. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. A lot of people have that right.
- [62:55]
A
All right, so, Ashley, you know, look, we, we, we know this. You and I have had to deal with sensitive topics in court a lot. And our job, when we, whether we're a prosecutor or whether we're a defense lawyer, we, we have to be a zealous advocate for our client. And part of that means that, you know, you've got to explore a witness's ability to perceive an event, to recall an event later, to articulate it. And if the witness is deficient in any of those areas, it goes to what we call their credibility. Not that we think they're lying, but maybe whether or not there's some other reason that the jury should not necessarily trust what they say. So we don't want to pick on People. But it has to be done, and it can be done in a respectful way. In fact, let's run SOT 11, which shows A. A very good lawyer doing this with a witness who has vision problems. Mrs. Riley, when you saw the defendants,
- [63:57]
C
were you wearing your glasses?
- [63:59]
B
Yes, I was.
- [64:01]
A
Over here, dear. How many different levels of thickness have you gone through?
- [64:07]
B
Oh, I don't know. Over 60 years, maybe 10 times.
- [64:13]
A
Maybe you're ready for a thicker set.
- [64:15]
B
Oh. Oh, no, no. I think they're okay.
- [64:18]
C
Maybe we should make sure.
- [64:20]
B
Let's check it out. Now, how far were the defendants from
- [64:29]
A
you when you saw them entering the sack of suds?
- [64:33]
B
About 100ft.
- [64:35]
A
100ft. Would you hold this, please?
- [64:37]
C
Thank you. Sorry.
- [64:43]
A
Excuse me.
- [64:43]
B
Excuse me.
- [64:44]
A
Sorry. Sorry.
- [64:49]
C
Okay, this is 50ft. That's half the distance.
- [64:55]
A
How many fingers am I holding up? Let the record show that Counselor's holding up two fingers.
- [65:03]
B
Your honor, please.
- [65:04]
A
Huh? Oh, sorry.
- [65:09]
B
Now, Mrs. Riley, and only Mrs. Riley,
- [65:16]
A
how many fingers am I holding up now? What do you think now, dear?
- [65:35]
B
Thinking of getting thicker glasses?
- [65:39]
A
All right, Ashley. So that's Joe Pesci's character, Vinnie, from the movie My Cousin Vinnie. And he does a good job. And we actually studied this film in law school because a lot of real life lessons that you can take from it that apply to the real world, but it's an example, even though it's a comedy, it's a fiction movie, but it's a good example of how. Now, when you're an advocate for your client or for your position in court, you have to, sometimes delicately, but still you have to do it. You've got to show the jury that a witness, even if through. If it's through no fault of her own, that a witness may have difficulty giving testimony to the jury that is reliable, right?
- [66:18]
B
Yes, you do. And we have to do it. It's part of our duty. We do this every day. I think there's a little bit different way that I would have done it just to answer her question. I would have probably, since this wasn't a topic that this was clearly wanted to divulge, I would have been a little more controlling in my questions and just asked her, you know, isn't it true that you've got a learning disability? Isn't it true that your disability affects your. Your ability, your recall? You know, isn't it true that your disability affects your memory? Isn't it true that your disability has caused you to not be able to finish school and things like that? Because this lady clearly doesn't Want to divulge what her learning disability is. It didn't even sound like she really knew what it was or understood what it was. But I think they could have gotten those questions out in a much more controlled manner and gotten the point across pretty quickly. But you know, I love my cousin Vinnie and I think if there's any way that you can do anything for my cousin Vinnie in court, you definitely should.
- [67:03]
A
Yeah, I've always wanted to say that something was, you know, identical the way the co counsel did in that case. And one of these days I might be able to get to do that.
- [67:14]
B
I think you should wear the outfit too, you know, the suit with the ruffles personally. But when you do it.
- [67:18]
A
All right, well, you can be there and take pictures.
- [67:22]
B
So I think, Phil, you got your closing argument. You're going to go first, right?
- [67:25]
A
Yes, I'm happy to go first. And you know, what I'm to talk about here in my closing I think dovetails actually into some of the themes that we've been talking about through today's show. So. And it deals with trial advocacy and particularly trial preparation. So imagine that you step into say a battlefield and you're blindfolded, Right. That's what it would be like going into a trial without interviewing witnesses firsthand. There was a comment in the comment section on the YouTube video for this show one day last week and someone was asking if it was appropriate and ethical for a lawyer to talk to a witness before trial. And I said yes, it's expected. Because we as lawyers, we can't afford surprises, surprises that derail our case. Witnesses are the backbone of whatever the truth of the case is. They hold the key details that could, can make or break a case and they can bring a verdict either in your favor or against you. First interviewing lets us uncover the full story. We've talked today about context that's missing from some of this testimony. Interviewing a witness ahead of time and then re interviewing them right before trial. Actually that allows you to uncover the full story. Witnesses might remember nuances that police reports miss, or they might remember nuances that they didn't tell you about the first time. That crucial glance, the fleeting conversation that somehow they are able to articulate or it comes up in your conversation the second time can be very important. And without this pre trial preparation, this interviewing of the witnesses, we're sometimes guessing and we're guessing specifically about what's going to come out on the witness stand. And when you guess about what might come out, that's when you can lose A case we, we've got to assess the witnesses credibility. And one way to do that is to know if they've ever talked about this subject before, have they ever said anything different? Is this person reliable or do they crumble under pressure? We need to know these things before these witnesses take the witness stand. We test their story, we spot inconsistencies in their statements, and we can prepare to either bolster or challenge them on the stand as the case may be. So a witness who flips, for example, under cross examination can literally torpedo your case. And then it's also, guys, it's about strategy, right? We need to know what they're going to say before they get up on the stand and say it. So nothing really should surprise you, you, and particularly on cross examination. There's a golden rule of cross examination. Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. You know what they're going to say because you've talked to them ahead of time. You've read what they've written ahead of time, you've read their written statements, but you've also spoken to them. And another benefit is it allows you to sort of establish and maintain a cohesive narrative story, a theme, if you will, for the jury. You can anticipate the opposition and how they're going to deal with your witnesses. And you can even use this to negotiate plea deals and settlements of both criminal cases and even civil cases. And so skipping this step would be like playing chess, for example, without seeing the pieces that your opponent is working with. And I would, quite frankly, I would call it reckless. It's reckless for a lawyer to speak to a witness for the first time. Now, I want to paraphrase here or in parentheses, say this. Sometimes witnesses are not willing to talk to the lawyers ahead of time. And people sometimes don't realize that. In many states, like Georgia, where I practice, we don't have the benefit of using pretrial depositions. Like if you're in a civil case, you can make someone come to your office or to their lawyer's office and answer your questions about who ran the red light. But if it's like if it's a civil case, but in the criminal case you can't do that. But you've got to try. If you're the lawyer, you've got to try to talk to these witnesses because doing so, it honors justice. It's thorough preparation and it ensures that in the courtroom truth prevails. And that's what trials are about. The word verdict is based on The Latin word veritas, which means the truth, through witness interviews used in preparation for trial, this helps us to ensure that the verdicts that come out in court speak the truth. And, Ashley, that's my rant, my closing for the day. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.
- [72:06]
B
All right, well, thank you, Phil. And, yeah, just so our viewers know, we don't know what we're about to rant about each other's rants. That is, we know what we're going to rant about, but not what the other person is. So, Phil, you're in for a treat. I have been on this. This role where I'm enjoying talking about stories, real stories, taking life experiences, criminal experiences, criminal practice experiences, and bringing them into here and talking about them in my rants and kind of explaining how the sausage is made. As I like to say, you know, why we can't have nice things. That's another thing I like to say. And what I mean by that is, you know, sometimes common sense leaves the building when it comes to the criminal legal system. So I want to talk about a client that I have, and I'm going to use the case of a dui. And the reason I'm going to use this is because it's really simple and it's kind of easy to follow, and the facts of my particular case are a little bit more detailed. But I think the DUI is a perfect, perfect example. And why I want to talk about this is how the criminal system and immigration actually plays together. This is not political. This is just how it is and how it works or doesn't work. So I've got a client who's charged with a dui. And if, you know, when a DUI happens, if someone's not drunk, the officer actually thinks they might be on drugs. So if the officer thinks they're on drugs, what they have to do is they have to actually take a blood test and send that off, but it takes months to get that back. And so the officer has a choice. They can either make an arrest at that. That stage just on their subjective view that the. That the person may be on drugs, or they can actually wait until they get the results back. So we're going to use that example for my story. So I have a client. He's charged. The officer. Well, he's alleged. Let's start there. He's alleged to have committed a crime. He hasn't formally been charged. The officer contacts me and says, hey, I want to talk to your client. I say, well, that's nice, but I don't let my clients talk, so that's not going to happen. But how about instead you wait until you actually get the crime lab report back before you arrest my client and put him through the process. And I think people who aren't involved in the process sort of think, well, that seems reasonable, you know, why would you arrest someone before you have the crime labs back? I can tell you the majority of my cases, I probably would estimate 99% of my cases are charged long before they have crime lab reports back. So it's very common. But this case was a little bit different. I said to the officer, you know, well, my client's actually here on a work visa. He's here legally. He was invited to be here because he is of the type of work that we needed in this country. And so we let him come in, we gave him a visa, he is completely documented and he's allowed to work here. So it would make sense if you actually are really sure that he committed the crime you think he committed and wait until the labs come back before you actually charge him with a crime. Well, the officer said, you know, I'm going to talk with the prosecutor, I'm going to see what they say. And Shocker says, we're going to go ahead and make the arrest, we're going to go ahead and make the charge. Okay, I understand. So client gets arrested, client makes bond, clients out on bond. And of course, as any good criminal defense lawyer, we're consulting an immigration lawyer because I don't touch immigration. So I want an immigration expert to actually consult on this. So what do I learn? And this is why I want to tell this story because it's absolutely insane and I don't think anybody understands how this actually works in this country. So the immigration lawyer says, well, well, all right, so your client's out on bond and he's legally allowed to be here. But because he was arrested, the department of, you know, the ICE essentially is restricting his travel. So he can't leave, he can't go back to his home country, he can't self deport, he has to stay here, he can't leave, he can't travel, can't do anything like that. Okay, fine. So then they say, well, he has 200 days, some amount, 200 and change to show that he has been exonerated of this charge or else, else ICE will start deportation proceedings. Okay, well, crime lab report's not going to be back in 200 days, so we can't show that he's been exonerated of this charge. Okay, so what do we do? Well, ICE is then going to take him into custody and they're going to initiate deportation proceeding against him. Okay, fine. He wants to self deport, that's fine. Well, he can't self deport. He can't self deport because then that could be used against him in the criminal case here that he has in Georgia. And if he self deports, they would be able to argue that he fled. Okay, well we don't want to do that. So he's not going to self deport. Okay, so he's going to sit in immigration custody. Yes, well, immigration, the court has to actually move very quickly because they have strict statutory timelines. Okay, so while they're processing this case, guess what? Crime lab's still not back. He's going to be deported at the expense of the federal government. Deported to his home country because. Because all of this happened in this exact process. So he gets deported to his home country and then if they want to bring him back to prosecute him for this case, they're going to have to extradite him. This is the stupidest situation I think most people have ever heard of. Why do we have a system in this country? We have got to overhaul our immigration system and we have got to overhaul our criminal defense system because things like this should not happen. It is nonsensical. I think the fact that we've got people who are willing to either self deport because they want to self dependence deport or they want to face charges and go ahead and get exonerated because they know they didn't do it, but they can't do that because ICE is detaining them. It's nuts. It's absolutely nuts. So I'm not here to say one side's right, one side's wrong. I'm here to say that this system is absolutely insane. It is not working. It is inefficient. And that is why we can't have nice things. Because we're spending a lot of money locking people up, trying people, moving people around when it just doesn't make any sense. So my hope is that we get a much better system sometime in the future. But I just wanted everyone to know kind of what happens and how the sausage is actually made. I do want to thank everyone. I want to thank our guest, we had Bob Motta here earlier. I also want to thank my co host, Phil Holloway and I want to thank you for joining us. We love hearing from you. So please feel free to reach out, Send us your questions and have a good week.