Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Accused Husband Killer Kouri Richins Suffers Loss Ahead of Crucial Hearing: 'Bring It On'

Episode Date: August 12, 2024

Kouri Richins, the Utah woman accused of murdering her husband, Eric, by poisoning him with fentanyl, appeared in court with her new lawyers. Richins' former lawyer, Skye Lazaro, filed a motion asking to disqualify Summit County prosecutors from the case as she claimed they listened to jail calls between Kouri and one of her lawyers. Prosecutors said the claim had no merit. The motion by Lazaro came as she was withdrawing from the case citing a conflict and Kouri declared to Dateline NBC "this is war." Law&Crime's Angenette Levy outlines the latest in the case with Greg Skordas. the spokesperson for Eric Richins' family in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Use the code LAW15 for 15% off at https://citybeauty.com/LCCrimeFix. That’s promo code LAW15 for 15% off your order!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Greg SkordasCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@LawandCrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. I can understand why your office is really pissed about the content of that motion, but that is not enough. Corey Richens, the Utah woman accused of murdering her husband and then writing a book about grief for her children is back in court with her new lawyers as she tried to get the prosecutors removed from the case. Correcting the record begins and ends with one simple and essential truth.

We didn't listen to the calls. The judge's decision on that request is just one recent development in Corey Richens' case. The spokesperson for the family of Eric Richens' case. The spokesperson for the family of Eric Richens is here to unpack all of it. Welcome to Crime Fix, I'm Anjanette Levy. Corey Richens is the Utah mom accused of poisoning her husband, Eric Richens, by poisoning him with fentanyl. She was back in court recently asking that prosecutors be removed from the case. Good afternoon, Ms. Richens. Good afternoon. Richens.

Richens has pleaded not guilty to murdering Eric Richens in March of 2022. Prosecutors claim that Richens had actually tried to poison Eric on Valentine's Day weeks earlier, but failed. Before that, a person prosecutors call Witness 8 claims that Corey Richens said in December of 2021, it would be better if Eric was dead. The following day, prosecutors say Richens texted her paramour, I'm in love with a man that's not my husband. I want to, but I can't break up my family. It's having our cake and eating it too. I do just want to love you. The next day, Corey Richens texted the paramour, if I were divorced right now and ask you to marry me tomorrow, you would? And I just want to lay on the couch and cuddle you, watch a murder documentary and snuggle. In May of this year, Richens was supposed to have

a preliminary hearing. That's a hearing when prosecutors present witnesses and testimony to show the court that there is probable cause that the defendant committed a crime and should go to trial. But that hearing was delayed at the request of Richardson's then defense attorney, Sky Lazaro, who then withdrew from the case, citing a conflict that had been created related to the civil case in which her firm represents Richens. But as she withdrew, Lazaro filed a bombshell motion claiming that prosecutors were listening in to Richardson's jail calls with one of her lawyers, Ramsey Hamadi. Prosecutors responded that no one had really listened to the contents of the calls

and they claimed the issue was caused by one of the defense attorneys himself, Hamadi. Brad Bloodworth wrote at the time, Ramsey refuses to register for and use the HomeWave app that Shields attorney-client calls. His calls are therefore recorded as any other call. Prosecutors claim they had only listened long enough to determine who was on the line, and once they determined it was a call with Ramsey Hamadi, they've stopped listening, which only took a few seconds. At a recent hearing, Corey Richardson's new attorneys appeared to throw cold water on the claim by Richardson's former lawyer what we expect to happen, especially as defense counsel when we discover sometimes inadvertently, sometimes knowingly, that a recorded phone

call has been given to the prosecution. And that is that as soon as the prosecution takes note that that is an attorney-client call, the call is immediately stopped, it's given to a team team I know they've represented that that's what's happened and we don't have any evidence to say otherwise than that right it seems to me that the findings that are supported by the evidence is that there was no intentional or purposeful intrusion into the attorney-client relationship between Ms. Richens and her counsel by the Summit County Attorney's Office or any agent of it. Do you see any error in that finding?

I don't. And on that basis, I don't see a basis to disqualify anybody from that office, at least under this record. I'm not suggesting that the case is frozen in time, but on the record before me today, that is the affidavits and other attachments that are referenced in the joint request regarding which Ms. Richards has waived

any hearsay objection that there is no credible evidence that anybody from the Summit County Attorney's Office listened to any potentially attorney-client privileged phone calls other than to confirm, well, that's Ramsey, I'm moving on, or did anything else to intrude upon the attorney-client relationship between Miserations and her prior counsel or with any of you? Am I missing anything in the record before the court? I don't believe you are, Your Honor. Our only position would be that, of course, if anything were to come up in the future, that would be something we had addressed at that time.

But as of right now, no, I think as the court has articulated it, that's correct. It appears that Corey Richardson's new lawyers don't think that prosecutors violated her rights. Then they discussed a notebook that belonged to Corey Richens that Sky Lazaro had claimed a jail captain looked at that was marked attorney-client privilege. Is there anything else you wanted to say at the outset regarding the March interaction between Ms. Lazaro, jail staff, and the notebook? I don't think we're in a position to address that, Your Honor, and as we said, Ms. Lazaro's not waiving privilege. We weren't present

when that happened, so we'll just submit what is so far in the record on that issue. We submit on that. I don't see any legal issue with jail staff reviewing scanning a notebook for words,

diagrams, or contraband that would constitute or implicate a safety concern? We would agree with that. I know that in the motion filed by Ray Quinney has intimated that it went farther than that, but yes, as you said, we don't have any affidavits to support that and we're not waiving privilege. There's no one here to testify about that. But yes, I do believe they have the right to scan briefly any documents coming out of the jail. OK.

Summit County Prosecutor Margaret Olson said she believed that Sky Lazaro was trying to create an appellate issue in case Richens is convicted so she could get a new trial. Let's call this the poisonous breadcrumb strategy. I am one member of the bar who strongly disagrees with that conduct. I posit that every lawyer has an affirmative duty not to engage in conduct that would be prejudicial to the administration of justice and for this I cite rule 8.4d it is wrong for a lawyer to intentionally throw a wrench into the gears of the system of justice to intentionally create an allure, to intentionally procure a fundamentally flawed proceeding for their client.

As an elected county attorney, I have a sworn duty to protect the constitutional rights of the criminally accused. I have a duty to provide a fundamentally fair process. Among the many rights of the criminally accused, I am charged with protecting the right to a manufactured appellate issue is not one of them. Ray Quinney and Nebuchadnezzar and Sky Lozaro

went where no attorney has ever gone before and took the unprecedented action of seeking to deprive this aggravated murder proceeding of every single attorney of record on a single Friday afternoon. They withdrew and they moved to disqualify the entire prosecution. So this is where I need you to slip in for a second. Scott Lazzaro's motion of withdrawal was not because of any of her conduct. It was an imputed conflict from somebody else in a large firm. And so I need you to stop just short of going too much farther down the road of alleging a dial and dash kind of plan here. Let's just stay focused on what was in the motion and what evidence there is, if any. You know that I cover some really sad,

difficult cases here on Crime Fix, and I'm able to do that because of sponsors like City Lips. City Lips is a lip plumper, and it's made my lips look 10 years younger. I'm on camera all of the time, so I need to look my best. City Lips is not like those painful lip plumpers that sting and burn. It actually gives you fuller, healthier, younger-looking lips. I used City Lips for two weeks, once in the morning and once at night, and let me tell you, I've noticed a big difference. They even have a 60-day money-back guarantee, so why not try it? Here's how it works. It uses clinically tested ingredients like hyaluronic acid spheres, peptides, and soothing moisturizers for long-lasting comfort.

Just swipe it on clean bare lips and experience immediate hydration. After a few minutes, you will experience the full plumping effects of City Lips. And with continued use, women have experienced even more dramatic results. To get this game-changing all-in-one lip solution, click the link in the description, scan the QR code on your screen, or go to citybeauty.com slash lccrimefix. Use the code LAW15 for 15% off. That's promo code LAW15 for 15% off your order. Now, this motion to remove the prosecutors from the case came around the same time that Corey Richardson's original defense team, including Sky Lazaro, filed to withdraw from her defense team, citing that conflict. The evidence showed Mr. Bloodworth didn't listen to him

and that jail staff did not read the substance of that notebook. That's it. I can understand why your office is really pissed about the content of that motion, but that is not enough to form a Sixth Amendment violation. Summit County Prosecutor Margaret Olson, as you could see, was indeed upset. Judge, I'm accountable to this community. The community, Eric Richards' family, and the defendant deserve to know with certainty that there has been no intrusion into the attorney-client relationship. You are accountable, as am I.

And Ms. Nester, Ms. Lewis, and Mr. Ramos are accountable to me and to the bar. We are all accountable to somebody here. There is no credible evidence of any intrusion by your office or anybody in it or any agent of it into the attorney-client relationship between Ms. Richens and her current or former counsel. That is the end of the motion. Judge Richard Morazek denied the motion to remove the prosecutor from the case, saying there was no violation of attorney-client privilege and no violation of Corey Richens' Sixth Amendment rights, specifically her right to counsel. Prosecutors laid out much of their case in court documents

in May. They claimed that Corey Richens was taking out loans and was in desperate need of cash to save her real estate ventures. They claimed she owed more than $3 million. And as I mentioned earlier, they also said that text messages showed that she had a boyfriend. This was back in May, and at that time, Corey Richens decided to speak about her situation to Dateline. Dateline said that Richens told them, I've been silent for a year, locked away from my kids, my family, my life, living with the media, telling the world who they think I am, what they think I've done or how they think I've lived. And it's time to start speaking up.

You took an innocent mom away from her babies." Richens added, and this means war. She also said her defense team was forced to withdraw from the case and that that was not her choice. I want to bring in Greg Skordas. He is the spokesperson for Eric Richenson's family. So, Greg, I don't think you were probably very surprised by the judge's ruling saying that the prosecutors could remain on the case. No, not at all.

I thought it was a bit of a stretch for her prior defense attorneys to even raise that. But there was some contention between the attorneys in terms of what the prosecution was allowed to do with respect to the items and things that she had in her jail cell. There was some concern about a letter that she had written ostensibly to her mother that the police found and which the prosecution had. And the defense attorneys felt like they shouldn't have been able to obtain that and shouldn't have been able to access that claiming that it was privileged materials and the communications between the council from both the defense and the prosecution had broken down pretty seriously but they're now off the case and corey now has some public defenders assigned to her case you know obviously there was major tension there,

but I mean, this was a pretty serious allegation that Sky Lazaro was making as she was exiting the case. I mean, I think somebody said she dropped a grenade, you know, at the hearing, they said she basically dropped a grenade in the middle of this and then walked out the door. And she was essentially saying that the prosecutors violated her rights. And it came to pass that they were just listening to see who was on the line because Ramsey didn't download the app that would have filtered these calls out. So the judge sounded like it was pretty clear that there had been no violation. And even her own public defenders sounded like they didn't believe that there had been a violation. Right. And there really wasn't a violation.

When a person's in custody, for obvious reasons, they have a lesser expectation of privacy with respect to things that they say, phone calls that they make, and that type of thing. Of course, it's protected when you're communicating with your attorney, but with family members and whatnot, for obvious reasons, inmates, their calls are recorded, they're monitored. And that was no exception in this case. But like I said, there has been some contention between prior counsel and the district attorney's office. It was unfortunate that they filed this really scathing motion on their way out the door. They weren't even around to argue the motion. And the subsequent lawyers really sort of felt like there wasn't a lot of merit to it. The judge obviously felt that there was no merit to it. As Sky Lazaro and the other lawyers were

exiting the case, Corey Richens, it seems like, took that opportunity to speak. And she sent some materials to Dateline. And she was basically asserting her innocence, basically saying, you know, she's been painted as a villain here, that she hasn't done anything wrong. And she said, and this means war. This is what she's telling Dateline. What is your response to that? I mean, she sounds like she is ready to fight and fight bitterly about this. She's contending she didn't do anything wrong, despite some of the material that the prosecution laid out earlier this year, basically, that does not make her look good. She was in debt up to her eyeballs and she was having an affair. Plus, she allegedly is

reaching out to somebody trying to buy fentanyl, the same drug that killed Eric Richens. Right. And even within her jail cell, she's reaching out to family members, proposing that they make up a story about her defense. She's presumed innocent, and we understand that. But we feel that the state has put together a very good case. We feel that justice will ultimately be served. Sure, if she wants to say this is war, you know, bring it on. I mean, I wish that we could go to trial on this case next week, because the evidence is compelling. And I don't know that a jury is going to look at that evidence and believe her stories, which, by the way, change fairly regularly. So there's going to be a preliminary

hearing soon. That will be very telling. We'll learn a lot about the case. And I anticipate there will be a trial. But we're already into August. We haven't had the preliminary hearing yet. We're looking at a trial probably spring of 2025 at the earliest. So Greg, how long do you anticipate this hearing lasting, the preliminary hearing? I don't see the preliminary hearing going very long. We've had the detention hearing a year ago. That was just a matter of hours. And that was a similar standard, a similar showing, if you will, for the court to consider in deciding whether or not she should be held without bail. I know the preliminary hearing is a different hearing.

It's to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and that she committed the crime. But in Utah, and most states follow the same model, it's just a prima facie case. It's a determination for what we call a probable cause showing, and the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the state. I don't anticipate that the defendant will put on any evidence at all, so it's probably the state show. Having said that, probably a day, maybe into a day and a half, but I don't see this preliminary hearing going much longer than that. And how is Eric Richardson's family doing through all of this? I mean, obviously, cases like this, this is a high-profile case. They can sometimes take a very long time to

work their way through the system. You know, the Richens' family has been patient. They appreciate the work of the state. They appreciate the work of law enforcement. They're comfortable that Corey is in custody and that she'll remain in custody. And so long as she remains in custody, her attorneys can take whatever time they need to prepare for this trial. But again, keep in mind that she's in custody. The children are safe. So right now, the Eric Richens family is comfortable with the way the case is proceeding. Well, Greg Skourtis, thank you so much for coming back on. We appreciate it as always. Okay. Anytime.

Corey Richens will be back in court on August 26th for her preliminary hearing, and we'll have that covered for you. That's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.