Hidden True Crime - BOMBSHELL Testimony from Star Witness & Defense Fires Back! | Kouri Richins Trial Day 4 Full Recap

Episode Date: February 27, 2026

Today began with measurements, missed vehicle searches, and questions about why key evidence only appeared after private investigator tips — but everything shifted when the witness the jury has been waiting for finally took the stand. In this episode, we break down continued cross-examination of crime scene tech Chelsea Gipson, including what wasn’t searched, what wasn’t tested, and why investigators returned to the home nearly ten times. Then we dive into the explosive testimony of Carmen Lauber — the woman the state says sourced the fentanyl. From immunity deals and deleted messages to alleged cash drops, Maverik meet-ups, and the “Michael Jackson stuff,” the jury heard detailed claims tying Kouri to multiple pill purchases. But the defense came hard on credibility — highlighting shifting memories, prior inconsistent statements, incentives to cooperate, and whether Carmen’s story evolved under pressure. We also address the unexpected juror sketching incident that led to someone being removed from the courtroom. Day four was messy, intense, and credibility-driven — and cross-examination isn’t over yet. Sponsors: Oneskin: Get 15% off OneSkin with code hidden at https://oneskin.co #ad Beam Dream:  Get the sleep you deserve with up to 35% off Dream. Just click https://shopbeam.com/hiddentruecrime and use code TRUECRIME at checkout. About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day of returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfront. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest.

Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API Y as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month, and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. Hello, hello, everyone. You know that it's a really big day and you've been prepping a lot when right before you go live, right before you hit live, you spill a giant Coke, which is what I just did. But, you know, we'll get to it later. Wiped it up with the shirt and here we are because we really have to get started because it was a huge day for those that are, we're watching our live stream, you know. Day four of the Corey Richens

trial did not disappoint and we are going to go through everything here. And while the day might have started with evidence of measurements and missing searches and tips that keep showing up after private investigators got involved. The day really turned when the witness everyone's been waiting for takes the stand. Yeah, today was that day. Because when the person accused of sourcing the fentanyl in a murder trial finally testifies, it's not just about the pills. This is also about credibility. It's about immunity. It's about whether the story holds under pressure from the defense. And it's about some really, really shocking things that we're hearing for the first time. And if you're new here, I'm Lori Matthias, and this is hidden true crime. At a hidden true

crime, we have been covering this case from the very beginning, every detail, every hearing, every piece of evidence. And we have a lot to talk about today. So, stick with me. We're going to go through the whole day in order, and it's going to start with crime scene technician Chelsea Gibson, who was again back on the stand. So the reason she was back on the stand, day three, by the way, for Chelsea Gibson, to walk the jury through more details about the searches of the Richens home. And she explained that during the April 13th search, Agent Smoot was present, not just to look for anything. that may have been mailed to the home, but also to test any suspected drugs on site.

And that point, investigators already knew from the medical examiner that Eric did have fentanyl in his system, that they knew at that point had at least partially caused his death. So they were operating under the belief that fentanyl could still be somewhere inside the house, right? And that's the one thing that's never been disputed by either side in this case, that Eric had fentanyl in his system. So Gibson said she knew there was a large detached garage on the property, but she didn't really recall whether the vehicles inside it were searched that day. She did remember that Eric had both a work truck and a personal truck,

and one personal vehicle in the main garage was searched, but none of the vehicles in the detached garage were searched. Nestor then shifted to electronics. So Gibson confirmed that the... they were searching for devices belonging to either Eric or Corey. A computer from the office shop was eventually turned over to investigators, but not that same day. Nestor also asked whether Gibson personally retrieved items from Cody Wright, Eric's business partner.

She did not, but other investigators did and brought her a hard drive. Nestor then showed a timeline exhibit listing all the dates that the home had been searched, marked by colored dots. and Gibson said her last visit to the house was around February 6, 26, so just earlier this month. There was also discussion about the 3D camera used to document the home and the measurements it captured. Gibson measures the distance between the master bedroom and the front door, the master bedroom to the kitchen and the master bedroom to each boy's room. And the purpose of this was to correlate with Corey's phone data, right?

Because Corey's phone, as you remember, it's being picked up, turn back, looked at put down, looked at put down. So they're correlating the phone data. How long is the distance to each of these places in the house? And then Nestor asked if the Richens family had a dog. And she said they did. And then after that, she said, well, did you measure the distance from the master bedroom to the back door? You know, assuming maybe she's taking care of the dog. But Gibson said no. No, she did not measure that. The focus then turned the hydrocodone pills. collected from the home. Gibson didn't personally find them, but about 10 pills were discovered loose in a bag inside a laundry room cabinet. Interesting, right? Nestor asked then whether there was a way

to determine whether a loose hydrocodone pill was purchased on the street or from a drugstore. That's important. And Gibson says she did not believe so. Nestor displayed an image of gummy packages seized from the home and pointed out two unlabeled backs. Gibson clarified there were actually three clear packages with no markings. A green jacket was also found in a closet and gummies were located in one of its pockets from this jacket. Gibson wasn't sure whether it was a men's or a woman's jacket. Nestor moved into later searches. So on May 8th, 2023, by the way, that's a big deal. Day, by the way, Dave and arrest. On May 8th, 2023, investigators returned to collect additional electronics, documents and drugs. No fentanyl was found during that surge. And then on October 24th,

2023, they went back again, likely for more electronics. So Gibson said she would need her notes to confirm what they were going back for exactly. It was, you know, nearly three years ago. Copper cups were also found in the home and tested. Nestor pointed out that if Corey had told investigators her husband consumed gummies the night he died, then finding gummies in the home would corroborate her statement. Copper cups, by the way, because of the Moscow mule, right? Confiscating those. Gibson agreed that gummies were found. Nestor continued highlighting items that aligned with Corey's earlier statements like the sheet on the ground that she said she used to pull Eric off the bed. It was clear the defense was trying to show that investigators repeatedly found

physical evidence supporting parts of Corey's version of events. Nestor attempted to ask whether phone data showing Corey's movement in the house corroborated her account of being elsewhere before discovering Eric. And prosecutors objected to hearsay grounds. And after a sidebar, yes, plenty of sidebars today too. After a sidebar, that line of questioning was limited. One of the more surprising parts of the afternoon involved a private investigator. Nestor asked whether there were times law enforcement returned to search the home because a private investigator tip them off about specific items. And again, remember that the Richens family did hire a private investigator. And Gibson said yes, twice. The first time involved a voice recorder after the private investigator

alerted law enforcement. A warrant was obtained and officers retrieved it. The second time was November 7th, 2024, when they returned to collect a letter. Gibson confirmed that during several earlier searches, no letter had been found at the foot of Eric's side of the bed. And then in November, a letter was located there. Just like with the voice recorder, that discovery came after a tip from a private investigator. Nestor also asked how many times a private investigator was physically present during a search. Gibson said once. Gibson was also responsible for maintaining audio and video recordings of witness interviews. Nestor questioned her about missing recordings from interviews with Nick Von Savage and Nancy Peterson.

Gibson said she was unsure whether those interviews had ever been located. The testimony then turned to Eric's Apple Watch. Yeah, Eric's Apple Watch is important because if you remember, Eric's Apple Watch did Corey or did she not clear this Apple Watch before giving it to her son that evening? So Eric's Apple Watch, Gibson said there was some data on it. Nestor asked whether it would be an accident. accurate to say the watch had been wiped. And that question clearly, again, referenced earlier testimony from Katie. That's Eric's sister, who claimed that she saw Corey delete the contents of the watch

before giving it to their son. And Gibson said there was data on the watch, but she couldn't say whether anything had been deleted. So then on November 7, 2024, during another search, investigators found an EpiPin in the kitchen. Nestor confirmed an EpiPin. is used for allergic reactions. Another epipen was found in the master bedroom. Surringes, those were also located in the master bathroom and bedroom. They were collected, but they were not tested because they had not been used. These were new epipens, unused epipens. They did remain in evidence, though one syringe found in the kitchen was tested, though Gibson couldn't recall what it tested positive for. Nestor asked about oxycodone pills.

allegedly found in the home, but Gibson wasn't sure. There were also quatia pain pills discovered, including two that had been cut in half. She confirmed that was their condition when she found them that they had been cut in half. And finally, Gibson clarified that the last search of the home took place on February 9th, 2026. So again, just weeks ago, we're in February 2026. So the last search of the home took place, February 9th, 26. And during that search, a black underarmored jacket was seized from a downstairs bedroom closet. She noted there were many jackets in the house, but that one jacket, that was the one they chose to take. Interesting.

And overall, the defense seemed focused on two themes today with Gibson. First, showing that investigators repeatedly found items that aligned with Corey's statements. second, highlighting gaps like missing recordings, untested syringes, vehicles that weren't search, and items that were only located after tips from a private investigator. In other words, the defense is poking holes in theories, right? It's all they can do here. There's evidence, and then there's poking holes in that evidence. And whether or not that creates reasonable doubt will ultimately be up to the jury. But strategically, you can see, what they're trying to do, right? Like, maybe, maybe we should be a little bit uncertain about this

evidence the state is bringing forward. Nestor then started this next portion by saying she wanted to be very specific about the search of the trucks, the Richens Trucks. There were two trucks again, right? Two trucks in question. One was described as a brown work truck. And the other truck, belonging to Eric was a red truck. Nestor asked which one had actually been searched, and Gibson said she believed it was the red truck in the garage that was searched. Nestor followed up impressed her, so you have no note anywhere that a brown truck, the one Eric's spent all day in, every day, was ever searched. Gibson said she didn't personally search the brown truck. She added that if anyone had taken anything out of it, she would have been.

documented it. Nestor asked, again, directly, whether the brown truck had been searched. Gibson repeated that she did not personally search it. I mean, again, you can feel, right, what the defense is trying to do here. Implication is clear. If Eric used that truck constantly, and if it wasn't searched, that could matter. Did Eric have pills in a truck somewhere? that nobody ever found that nobody knew about. Nestor then asked about a canine search of the home on April 14th, 2023. She wanted to know whether the dog went into any of the vehicles that Gibson said

she was unaware. And with that, so whether or not the dog went into any of the vehicles, that is when Nestor said that she had no further questions. That was the moment, the dog. So not really a mic drop ending in my opinion, That was it. No further questions. And then the prosecution then took over. They started by going all the way back to the first search on March 4th, 2022, the day that Eric died. That morning he was pronounced dead. And there was no search warrant at that time because, you know, there was no investigation.

There was no homicide investigation. And because there was no search warrant, law enforcement was legally limited in what they could even look for, right? So Gibson explained to the prosecution that they were only permitted to search for prescriptions belonging to Eric. They were not searching for prescriptions belonging to Corey. In the death investigation, they typically look at the decedent's medications or medications that could potentially be misused. They did note some of Corey's prescriptions just to rule out the possibility of any overdose from those medications, right? You know, sharing of medications, but they did not find any hydrocodone that day. Gitson also clarified that she wasn't back at the home between March 4th and April 13th because there was no search warrant during that

period. The first time they returned was actually April 13th, 2022, with a warrant specifically to search for fentanyl because by then, by that date, they knew that it was fentanyl that had killed Eric. And again, that's what nobody's disputing here. It was fentanyl. sentinel that killed 39-year-old Eric Richens. The prosecutor asked whether a brown truck was at the home on April 13, 2023, and Gibson said she did not recall seeing one. She only remembered the red truck being searched. The prosecutor followed up with an important question. So if a brown truck had been there and something had been found inside it, would she have been made aware? And Gibson said,

yes she would have been made aware the state then showed photos of the gummies and walked through where they were located in the home we saw a photo gibson had taken of a jacket she was asked again whether she knew if it belonged to a man or to a woman but she said she could not tell they also asked about the black underarmored jacket that had been seized during that last search not too long ago out of all the jackets in the house why that jacket And Gibson explained that a pair of tweezers and a small piece of plastic had been found in that jacket. That's interesting. And that's why it was collected.

The prosecutor then addressed something that had come up repeatedly. Why did investigators keep going back to the house for years? They went back to this house for years repeatedly. Gibson answered that they had obtained additional information that they may have missed originally. The prosecutor then asked whether the investigation was developing over time and whether they were receiving new information as the investigation progressed. And Gibson said, yes, exactly. Then there was a moment that felt a little unusual to me. The prosecutor asked Gibson. If she had ever participated in downloading what she called secret phone calls, yes, secret phone calls.

And Gibson looked confused, you know, I was confused, and asked what she meant by secret phone calls. The prosecutor repeated the question. Gibson said, no. And with that, the state said they had nothing further. Nestor got up for a brief follow-up. She returned to Gibson's statements about repeatedly going back to the home because they might have missed things. Gibson confirmed that yes, they went back around 10 times. That's a lot, by the way, guys. 10 times as they receive new information. Each time they located items that hadn't been collected before. Nestor then asked whether police can legally search a home with the consent of the homeowner.

Gibson said that's correct. They can. Nestor then pointed out that Corey never stopped them from searching and that they did not search the home. The night Eric died. And then the tone shifted slightly. Nestor suggested that the minute Gibson arrived on scene, she knew there were allegations that Corey was involved in Eric's death. Gipson, though, Gibson pushed back on that. She said she actually wasn't sure when she became aware of the allegations, but it wasn't the very minute she arrived. She was there to assist Detective Woody,

and she understood that there were suspicious circumstances. She did eventually, acknowledged, though, that she knew there were some allegations against Corey that day. So, that's interesting. Nestor also asked whether Gibson obtained permission from Corey to photograph the bathroom or kitchen or to take the drink cups in the sink, and Gibson said no. And with that, Nestor ended her questioning. The prosecutor declined any further questions. But Gibson, you know, I was hoping she'd get a break, but she was not released from her subpoena, which means the defense could call her back later. So a lot of time on the stand for Gibson, a lot of days, and she has not been released, the defense could call her back. But before we get to our second witness

of the day, I just want to say again, I am so grateful at Hidden True Crime for our sponsors that make this trial coverage possible. We couldn't do it without them. And a quick word from one of our wonderful sponsors. What makes one skin different isn't packaging or trends. It's real longevity science. The founders, they're researchers who asked, what if you could actually target the cells driving visible aging instead of just covering it up? And that research led to OS01.

It's their peptide designed to help reduce damaged zombie cells and support healthier looking skin at the source. I've been using their face formula consistently, and I love how simple it is. It layers easily into my routine, feels lightweight, and my skin just looks smoother and stronger over time. It's science that actually fits into real life. Born from over a decade of longevity research, One Skin's OS-O-1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. For a limited time, try OneSkin with 15% off using code hidden at OneSkin.com slash hidden. That's 15%

sent off one skin dot CO with code hidden. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you've heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. All right. Next witness. Guys, this was a big day. This was a really big day. Thanks for being with me today because I have a lot to impact too, man. Watching that with all of you today and live stream. So the state calls the next witness. And this witness is Brianna Peterson. Peterson has been a first. forensic toxicologist for more than 20 years and currently works for NMS labs. She explained that a forensic toxicologist analyzes biological samples to determine the presence or absence of drugs and alcohol. Very important person in this case, right? Her primary responsibility is case review

and she has testified approximately 160 times in that capacity. That's a lot of times. So she walks the jury step by step through how samples are handled at NMS labs. they receive specimens from clients, such as medical examiners, coroners, law enforcement agencies, and hospitals. The client specifies what substances they want tested. Samples are either shipped or hand-delivered. And then when a package arrives, the specimen processing department opens it and then confirms that the paperwork matches the contents. The lab then assigns its own unique case number. Each piece of evidence is barcoded, electronically tracked too. The facility itself is secure in the area where the samples are stored, require special access. So in this case,

the lab received two blood samples. Each vial was assigned its own barcode. A small portion of blood is removed from the original vial and placed into a new test tube for analysis, which is also barcoded and tracked. And testing is performed in batches alongside other unknown samples. Each batch runs with standards and controls to ensure accuracy, and the instruments generate data, which is tied to each sample through the barcode system. And then once testing is complete, one analysis reviews the results to confirm they meet reporting criteria,

and then a second reviewer independently checks the same data before the batch is officially released. This is all important, you know, sets the stage. Can they poke holes in this evidence if this is the procedure? So Peterson testifies that she becomes involved after all of the testing is completed. Her role is to review the data from the entire case and ensure everything was done properly before final results are issued. It was a very, again, technical testimony.

But again, strategically important. The state clearly wants the jury to understand how controlled, how layered this testing process is before getting into the weeds of what the actual results show. Can they poke holes in this test? They're making sure that they can't, or at least it's very difficult to do. So Peterson explained that once all the lab testing is completed, she steps in to review everything. She makes sure the requested tests were actually conducted and then issues the final toxicology report based on those findings. So in this case, NMS labs, do you guys notice how slowly I say that NMS labs?

that's a tongue twister for me, and MS Labs received Eric Ritchin's blood samples from the medical examiner on March 8th. So then, along with blood, they also received vitreous fluid from the eyes, urine, gastric fluid, and liver tissue. She was initially asked to run a screening

for alcohol and drugs on one of the blood samples. Peterson explained that the lab first performs a broad drug screen, and then if anything comes back positive, they follow up with a second confirmation test that is more specific and more sensitive for that particular drug class. So in Eric's blood, they found fentanyl and norfentanyl. The fentanyl concentration was 15 nanograms per milliliter. Norfentanyl was measured at 3.3 nanograms per milliliter. She explained that nor fentanyl is a metabolite of fentanyl, so when your body breaks down a drug,

It converts into a different form that's easier to eliminate. So norfentanyl itself is inactive. It does not produce an effect, but its presence shows that the body had already started metabolizing the fentanyl. They also screened for hydrocodone, and none was detected, as well as no other opioids were found either. Peterson testified that hydrocodone is typically eliminated from the body within 20 to 30 hours. She also explained that once a person dies, the body generally stops metabolizing drugs. So whatever is present at the time of death remains for testing. But there are exceptions, for example, cocaine.

Cocaine can actually continue to break down after death because of certain enzymes. Interesting, right? I didn't know that. And then the prosecutor asked about something called post-mortem redistribution. Peterson said she's familiar with it. She explained that after death, the pH of the blood changes. tissue shifts, right? Drugs that were stored in major organs can begin to seep back out into the bloodstream. In other words, they are redistributed it. For example, so if there was a concentration

of a drug in the heart after death, some of that drug could move into the blood and raise the measured concentration, right? That means the blood result might not perfectly reflect the exact concentration present right before death. Could be somewhat elevated, right, due to redistribution. She was then asked whether it matters where the blood sample is drawn. And she said, yes, redistribution tends to be less pronounced in peripheral blood sources like the femoral vein, because those areas are farther from major organs. Central blood sources like cardiac blood drawn near the heart are more susceptible to redistribution

effects. Still, she clarified that redistribution can't occur in peripheral samples as well. And the prosecutor then asked whether there was any established lethal dose of fentanyl in the scientific literature. Peterson said there are published concentration ranges associated with fatalities, but it varies widely from person to person. Tolerance plays a significant role. Someone who regularly uses opioids would require a higher concentration to experience the same effect compared to someone with no tolerance. It makes sense. So then she testified that the lowest fentanyl concentration reported in a case where it contributed

to death was three nanograms per milliliter. And then in this case, Eric's blood level was 15 nanograms per milliliter. And that's five times the lowest reported fatal concentration. Now, a lot of you that are in medical have been leading comments on our live streams and on my recap saying, this is so much fentanyl. We're seeing that today. We're starting to really understand that with this testimony. Again, death can happen with three nanograms per milliliter. Eric's blood level was 15 nanograms per milliliter.

five times, five times that. She added that even accounting for possible post-mortem redistribution, 15 nanograms per milliliter is still considered very high. Obviously, for some reason, that explanation finally helped me get it today. This is so much fentanyl. And then the testimony is shifted to additional testing done in October 2022 on Eric's gastric fluid. So in that sample, ethanol was detected at 279 milligrams per deciliter. And then quatiopine was found at 16,000 nanograms per milliliter. Fentanyl was measured at 20,000 nanograms per milliliter. And then norfentanil was 52 nanograms per milliliter. Acetal fentanyl was detected at 29 nanograms per milleter. So Peterson explained that acetyl fentanyl is fentanyl analog. It has a similar chemical structure,

but is not a prescription drug. It's, it is considered illicit. It's often found in illegally manufactured fentanyl. That's okay. It is often found. Did you hear that? In illegally manufactured fentanyl. This was such an important testimony. She said its presence would suggest that the fentanyl came from an illicit source rather than a pharmaceutical one. And now we're starting to realize why this testimony is coming before the key witness, right? We need to understand that maybe there's a dealer involved here. Where did they get? Who's the illicit source, right? So as for the ethanol level and the gastric fluid, she explained that 279 milligrams per decilator in that context would be well below what you would expect from even one standard

alcoholic drink. She also said ethanol can be produced after death. So if there is glucose and bacteria present, such as from food in the stomach, decomposition can convert into that glucose. And there is no test she can perform that would distinguish between how it's produced, whether it's from decomposition or something like vodka. So that test can't be done. They just know that it's in Eric's system.

And finally, she was asked about the quatyapine found in the gastric fluid. Could she determine how much of a pill would result in 16,000 nanograms per milliliter? She said that amount roughly equates to 11 milligrams of quatapine. That is less than a typical prescribed dose, which generally ranges from 75,000, to 200 milligrams, depending on the individual. She noted that Eric did not have a prescription for quatyapine, but as we know, Corey did. So overall, this testimony, yes, it was highly technical to watch.

But when you break it down, it carried a lot of weight and definitely set the stage for the next witness. The fentanyl levels are off the charts. That's my non-scientific way of saying it. There was a lot of fentanyl. The levels were significantly elevated. There was evidence of an illicit analog, meaning where did they get this fentanyl? Hydrocodone, that was not present.

And the quatapine amount was relatively small compared to standard dosing. But then it was the defense attorney's turn to take a, take a, take a, stab at this testimony, defense attorney Lewis turned to question Brianna Peterson, and you could immediately tell. She was really focused on narrowing down timelines and opening the door to alternative possibilities. Lewis was definitely like, okay, let's see what we can do here. So Lewis started her questioning by revisiting lethal doses of fentanyl. She pointed out that there's a wide range of fatal concentrations reported in literature. And then Peterson agreed and reiterated that it depends heavily, though, on a person's tolerance.

Someone who has used opioids before can survive concentrations that might kill someone else. And then Lewis asked about how quickly fentanyl shows up in the bloodstream after it's ingested. Peterson said it depends on several factors, like whether the stomach is full and how the drug was taken. But generally, you're looking at 15 to 30 minutes. Lewis then moved to nor fentanyl, since nor fentanyl was present in Eric's blood, that means his body had already started metabolizing the fentanyl, right? So in other words, he was alive long enough for his liver to begin breaking it down. And Peterson agreed with this.

She added something interesting. She said, you're more likely to see metabolism in someone who has taken fentanyl before, meaning it wasn't necessarily their first exposure. So then Lewis went with that, right? and then asked an important question, is it possible for someone to die from fentanyl so quickly that you would not see nor fentanyl in their system at all? And Peterson said, Peterson said, yes, that that is possible. We see what the defense is trying to do here, right?

Lewis then asked whether Naltrexin was found in Eric's blood. Peterson said that their testing could not confirm that. And next, Lewis turned to alcohol and post-mortem production. She asked whether ethanol is found in every body after death. And Peterson said no. You would not see it in every case. Lewis asked about circumstances, whether it could appear in the body and whether a long delay between death and autopsy could contribute.

And Peterson explained that two components are needed for post-mortem ethanol production. You need glucose and bacteria. So there are certain scenarios where it's more likely, such as when a body remains warm for long period of time before examination, Lewis suggested that there was a long time between death and autopsy in this case. And Peterson responded carefully. She said she doesn't perform autopsies and couldn't speak to the specific. She stayed in her lane, scientifically speaking, right? Lewis also said whether testing was done for yeast, which can produce alcohol. And Peterson said, no, no testing for yeast was conducted. This is the defense really stretching, in my opinion.

but could it have been yeast? No, no testing for yeast was conducted. And Lewis pointed out that yeast in the body could produce alcohol like what was seen here. And Peterson agreed that it's possible but reiterated yet that yeast wasn't tested. So Lewis summed it up. It's possible that Eric's body produced the alcohol after death or it's possible he had a drink before bed. Peterson agreed that both are possibilities. And then Lewis asked about alcohol. absorption. Can alcohol hit the bloodstream within 10 to 15 minutes? And Peterson said it depends on whether the stomach is empty. If it is, empty absorption can happen rather quickly. And then she followed up with fentanyl. Could fentanyl appear in the blood within 15 to 30 minutes? And Peterson said

yes, generally. Lewis tried to tie it together. If Eric had fentanyl in his blood, but not alcohol in his blood, is it possible? He ingested fentanyl and then had a drink 15 to 30 minutes later. Peterson would not commit to that timeline. She said she cannot provide a specific ingestion sequence or timeline based on the data. But Lewis continued pressing about how much fentanyl was actually ingested. Peterson explained that you can't reliably determine the exact dose consumed because drugs distribute differently throughout the body. So at this point, she's rinsing and repeating, right? Just really emphasizing her points. They also discussed therapeutic fentanyl. And Lewis asked about the difference between someone receiving fentanyl in a hospital

setting versus someone ingesting it elsewhere. And the implication seemed to be about dose and context. Lewis again asked whether it's possible that Eric ingested fentanyl and then consumed alcohol afterward. And Peterson said yes, that it is possible. They then moved to quatyapine. Peterson confirmed that quatapine is not naturally produced in the body. So Eric would have had to ingest it. And the amount found in gastric fluid equated to roughly 11 milligrams, which is lower than a typical prescribed dose. There was a small amount detected in the blood, but it was below the lab's reporting threshold.

So the official report indicates none was found in the blood. It was that minimal. Quotapine reaches the bloodstream on a similar timeline to fentanyl. So Lewis asked whether it's possible Eric took the fentanyl and then took quatiapine. I mean, they're really trying here. They're really throwing out some scenarios here. Peterson said that yes, it is possible. So let's listen to how Lewis really tries to break this down.

Let me just boil it down. Is it possible, based on the findings here, that Mr. Richens ingested fentanyl, and then after he ingested the fentanyl, he had a drink of alcohol. We don't know how much, but he had a drink. That's a possibility. True? True. All right.

I want to talk about the quittalapine for a minute. Now, quittalapine is not naturally produced in the body after someone dies, right? Correct. So he had to have ingested quitopine. Correct. And it appears that it was not a very high dose. You said it was probably a fairly low dose of quitoapine. In the gastric, yes.

In the gastric. And again, the quatiapine had not made it to the blood. He died before there was a chance for the quatiopine to make his way into his blood. Correct? There was no quatapine above our threshold for performing a confirmation test. Well, you couldn't measure any quatypein in the blood. True? No.

You did measure some in the blood. Yes. And where is that in your report? It wasn't above our threshold for reporting or performing a confirmation test. So in your report, there's no indication that quatopine was found in the blood? Correct. All right. And your report's accurate.

Correct. All right. So again, quatyapine takes about the same amount of time to hit the blood. as fentanyl more or less, about 30 minutes? Correct. So a very possible scenario, likely scenario, is that he ingested the fentanyl before the quitoid pain. Fair? No. Well, if you took them together, they would have both been in the blood, right? That's not true. I mean, if you didn't take a dose that would lead to a concentration that's reportable in the blood, doesn't mean you didn't take it. It just means that it wasn't at a concentration high enough to be above our threshold for reporting.

I understand that, but maybe I don't maybe my question was unclear. Whatever amount of quatypine he took, there was not a measurable reportable amount in his blood. That is correct. The fentanyl he took there was. That is correct. The fentanyl had made its way to his blood prior to him passing. That is correct.

The quatiopine had not. Not above a concentration. that would be reported by us. Not even in a concentration that you noted in any way. Correct. So it is possible that he took the fentanyl and then later took quittapine. That's a possibility.

Sure. All right. So one possibility here is that Mr. Richens ingested fentanyl. And then within the next 15, 20, 30 minutes, he had a drink, into ketopine. That's possibility. Correct? Sure. All right. Correct. So that seems to be what the defense is really focused on throughout this cross-examination. Honestly, that sums it up. Possibly alternative sequences, timelines, variables, post-mortem alcohol production, tolerance differences. They weren't necessarily proving a different version of events outright. They were highlighting

how many scientific unknowns exist when you're reconstructing a death from toxicology alone. And like many of you, I agree that the defense really didn't like a lot of her answers, so they kept pushing. Lewis ended her questioning there. And next up was Brian Holden with the Utah Bureau of Forensic Services at the Utah State Crime Lab. And the state questioned Holden first, of course, in Holden testimony. that he was given a large number of items to test and was specifically asked to look for fentanyl in everything submitted to the lab. That was his job. He made it clear that fentanyl was the only substance that he was tasked with identifying. This was the fentanyl guy. And after testing the items, he was not able to confirm fentanyl on anything that he examined. And that was short and to the point. And the state, nothing further. No fentanyl found. But then Nestor began her cross-examination, and she pulled up Holden's

report and asked who had submitted the items. And Holden said, Detective Woody, Detective Woody had collected them. And Chelsea Gibson, Chelsea Gibson had delivered them to the lab. We've heard from her today. And Nestor asked, well, whether he tested any pills or items for oxycodone. And Holden said, no, he was never asked to test for oxycodone or hydrocodone. That's felt significant, honestly, because given how much has been discussed about various opioids throughout this trial, this was significant. He wasn't asked to test for that. But Holden testified that he tested 19 items. And Nestor asked whether he ever tested a pill bottle and the prosecution quickly objected. And there was a sidebar. Yes, another sidebar. And then after the sidebar,

Nestor asked about the process Holden would use to test an empty bottle. So moved on from that. And Holden said he needed to review his notes before answering further questions. And at that point, the jury was actually dismissed while attorneys reviewed the notes with the witness. And then once that was sorted out and the jury returned, the jury was seated. Nestor asked again how he would test an empty pill bottle. And Holden responded that there was no pill bottle to test. I think they got the answer they wanted and that was that. no further questions from either side.

It was a fairly quick witness, but the defense, I think what the defense was doing was seeming to highlight what was not tested just as much as what was not tested or maybe more so what was not tested. And then it was lunch. And after lunch, yes, after lunch, we're there, guys, we're there now. I know we've all been waiting for after lunch. After lunch, things shifted dramatically. The next witness was.

the long awaited Carmen Lauber. Carmen Lauber, for those just joining in, Carmen Lauber was Corey's, or is Corey's former housekeeper, was her housekeeper, and the woman that the state alleges supplied the fentanyl. So again, we're realizing how they set the stage here with the previous witnesses for the day. This fentanyl was not a prescription. this seemed to be from an illicit source. So who is this illicit source?

Enter Carmen Lauber. Again, Corey's former housekeeper, the woman the state alleged supplied the fentanyl. We want to hear from Carmen. Carmen, we're listening. And she testified that she currently works as a direct support intake worker for individuals with disabilities

and mental health challenges. That's noble. But almost a moment. Immediately, the questioning turned to her past, not where she is now, but let's go into your past. Let's learn about your history, Carmen. And the state asked whether she had a history of drug use. And she said, yes. She began smoking marijuana in sixth grade, she said, and it escalated from there.

Over the years, she used marijuana, LSD, acid, cocaine, mushrooms, and alcohol. She said she struggled with addiction for most of her adult life and and she has sold drugs. She has a criminal history and her criminal history involving drug possession and distribution, including felony convictions for drug distribution. She is currently at this time on probation for felony drug distribution through drug court. She explained that drug court is designed to rehabilitate participants through superiors. provision, treatment, group sessions, classes, and regular urine analysis. So if someone successfully completes drug court, it does not go on their record. She is also on probation for possessing marijuana

and for possessing a firearm when she was prohibited from having a firearm. However, Carmen testified that she today is now sober and has been for a little over four years. So not just recently, for four years, she has been sober. I loved hearing that. She said that it is the longest period of sobriety that she has had since sixth grade since she was smoking marijuana in sixth grade. Then came the issue of immunity. Carmen told the jury that she is represented by an attorney in connection with her testimony and that she has received several grants of immunity to people wondering, yes,

Carmen Lauber has immunity. She acknowledged that she committed crimes related to this case. And under her understanding of her immunity agreements, if she tells the full truth, the whole truth, she will not be charged for her involvement. But if Carmen Lauber lies and if Carmen Lauber withholds information, she could be prosecuted. So there's a lot on the table for Carmen Lauber.

And I just want to pause to it again and say like four years sober, that's awesome. That's incredible. The state asked whether she had spoken to investigators before she was granted immunity. So back to immunity. Had they spoken with investigators before she was granted immunity? She said yes, approximately six or seven times. They then asked why she chose to speak with investigators before she had. any immunity protection in place.

And she said that after she was told what she was being held for, she wanted to make sure that she was doing the right thing if what they were telling her was true. And when she began to say that investigators told her Eric had died, the defense immediately objected on hearsay grounds. The attorneys went into a sidebar. And after the sidebar, the prosecutor rephrased the question. Okay, let's try it again. Carmen testified that investigators told her.

Erica died from an overdose. She said that hit her hard. If that was truly what happened, she felt she needed to take accountability for her role and what she had been asked to do. And we're going to learn what she was asked to do in just a minute. She also admitted another reason. She cooperated.

She hoped she would eventually receive some benefit, including immunity. another honest moment from Carmen Lauber. Is it a benefit to have immunity? Absolutely. And she hoped that possibly she would. She's telling us straight out of the gate. She was so candid about looking out for herself. I appreciated that.

And it was a good move. It was a good strategic move for the prosecution. Let's just lay it all out on the table. The truth will set you free. Perhaps the benefit from immunity, right? So before, though, being offered immunity, she had not spoken to a lawyer or reviewed any materials to prepare for questioning. She said she was in jail at the time. And before testifying

in court, however, she met with her attorney and reviewed materials, including some of her jail statements, photographs, and cell phone data. So again, this is, this was a huge moment in the trial. Carmen is a critical witness for the state. But, but there's a but here, right? But she comes with significant baggage. The jury now knows, though, about this baggage. They know now that she has a criminal history. They know about her past drug distribution, her probation status, and the fact that she is testifying under immunity. Just lay it out on the table. Own it. That's what I would say. Own it. Just own it. Here's the truth. At the same time, and this is why it works. She did not try to hide any of this. She was upfront about her addiction, her conviction, her conviction, her conviction.

her convictions and her motivations. How the jury weighs her credibility is going to be a whole different story. It doesn't matter what I think. How the jury weighs her credibility is going to be incredibly important moving forward. I mean, how important this witness is is going to depend on how the jury sees her. But moving on, prosecutor Bloodworth asked Carmen how she knew Corey Richens. And Carmen testified that she worked for her aunt's house cleaning business, and cleaned Corey's home every other Friday.

She said that she had known Corey for about nine years, and in addition to cleaning, had helped with landscaping work. So over time, Carmen and Corey discussed Carmen struggles with addiction, drug court, and her progress toward graduation. Carmen said Corey would regularly ask how things were going with drug court, and Carmen also testified that she knew Eric Richens. He was sometimes present when she cleaned the home,

and she had attended a barbecue at the house and her son's birthday parties. She knew that Eric owned a stone masonry business but did not know any of his employees. So Bloodworth then asked whether Corey had ever asked Carmen to purchase illicit drugs for her. And Carmen said yes, four times, four times. And she did so on all four occasions. In other words, she purchased them all four occasions for, for, for, for, for, Corey. She testified that the first time she obtained drugs for Corey, she purchased them from a woman named Susan Kohler, but the second, third, and fourth times were from a man named Robert or

Robbie Crozier. Carmen explained that during the first transaction, Corey approached her and asked if she could do her a favor. And Carmen said, probably, right? They have a long relationship now, housekeeper, landscaping. And then Corey asked if she could find pain medication for an investor that she knew. The Corey knew an investor that wanted some pain medications. And Carmen testified that this occurred in late January or early February, 2022. She said she knew Susan was still an active drug user. So that's why she reached out to Susan. Susan told Carmen she knew someone with pain medication, and then Carmen gave Susan $600 and asked for pain pills or opioids, and then Susan returned with an envelope full of pills.

The following morning, Corey came to Carmen's driveway to pick them up and reimbursed her the $600. Bloodworth asked whether Carmen still had text messages related to that transaction. And Carmen said she did not, explaining that she deleted them because if she was lost her phone, the messages would show that she was violating drug court rules by associating with drug users and participating in drug activity. So yeah, she didn't keep evidence of that transaction. The second transaction involved Robert Crozier. Carmen testified that Corey sent her a text saying the investor wanted something stronger. So that investor wanted something stronger. And Carmen said she would reach out to other contacts. And so she first contacted a woman

named Nicole Cummings through Facebook Messenger. Bloodworth displayed those messages in court. Carmen explained that she told Nicole to text her instead because she did not want to discuss illegal activity on Facebook and this exchange occurred on February 5th, 2022. And once they switched to text messages, Carmen asked Nicole if she knew anyone selling opioid pills. Nicole said she had a friend who could help identifying again Robert Crozier. Carmen then called Robert and asked whether he had pain pills for sale. Robert told her he would check and later said he had contact with fentanyl pills, had a contact

for the fentanyl pills. And Carmen testified that she informed Corey. She had located fentanyl pills and Corey told her to proceed. Carmen warned that it would be expensive. And Corey then instructed her to go to a house that she owned in Midway, Utah, specifically noting that it was not the mansion, so not the Midway Mansion, but another home in Midway, a different property, where money would be left for her. Carmen and Robert arranged to meet and did so at a Maverick gas station in Draper, Utah.

And Carmen said, again, that she deleted the text messages between herself and Robert as well. This transaction was a little more pricey. This transaction involved $1,000. And it occurred on February 11th. And I want to point out there is an attempted murder charge here for Valentine's Day, which would be February 14th and now we're talking February 11, right? So three days before. The state introduced photos showing Carmen riding in a friend's car that day,

which she said corroborated with her account. So there's that even if she deleted the text. And then Carmen testified that the pills Robert sold her numbered between 15 and 20, as she described them as small and light green. And then after obtaining them, she told Corey she had the pills. And Corey then instructed her to bring them to the Midway House, where Carmen said she placed them inside a fire pit on the property. This testimony laid out in detail how Carmen claimed she repeatedly obtained opioids

and eventually fentanyl at Corey's request, while also reinforcing that much of the communication was intentionally deleted because Carmen was actively violating drug court conditions at the time. I mean, this was, this was, we were listening, right? I was, I was listening. Picking back up, though, Bloodworth introduced documents that Corey had provided to Carmen regarding community service hours. And Carmen explained that she had been late to court-ordered therapy sessions as part of

drug court and was required to complete community service. She asked Corey if she knew anyone with official letterhead who could sign up. off on hours for her. Documents were created stating that Carmen had performed work on the Richens ranch, cleaning horse, chicken and pig stalls, helping facilitate children's riding lessons and other tasks. And then when Bloodworth asked if she had actually done any of those things, Carmen responded absolutely not. She turned the paperwork in anyway. It did not go well. And Carmen testified that she ended up spending a day in jail and then was assigned additional. community service hours.

She did not elaborate on exactly why, but the implication, you know, that was pretty clear. The service was not legitimate and it was not approved through proper channels, essentially. So Bloodworth then asked the obvious question, well, why risk lying to the court and engaging in more drug distribution while already on probation for drug offenses? So, yeah, I want to know, Carmen. And Carmen answered candidly. In early recovery, she said she was still testing the waters to see what she could get away with, right? The state then returned to the drug transactions.

Carmen testified there was a third time in February that Corey approached her for more pills. Again, she contacted Robert Crozier. Carmen said, Corey told her the investor needed something stronger. Carmen responded that when buying drugs on the street, you don't get to place an order like at a restaurant. You get whatever's available. This was the transaction where Carmen testified that Corey allegedly asked for the Michael Jackson stuff. And Carmen said she didn't understand what that meant and ended up Googling it. And then once again, Corey left $1,000 for her at this Midway property, not the mansion, not to be confused with the mansion, the other Midway property.

and then Carmen contacted Robert again who said he could get the pills. So Carmen's friend, Nancy, drove her to meet him at that same Maverick gas station in Draper, Utah, and the routine was the same. This time, Carmen testified she received between 15 and 20 pills that were light blue. That's important, by the way, too, light blue. Fentanyl is often known as powder blue, right? Light blue. And she admitted she gave a few of the pills.

to Nancy. She then contacted Corey to ask what she should do with the rest of them. And according to Carmen, Corey said she could come pick up the pills. And so then Corey allegedly drove to Carmen's home and retrieved them directly. Bloodworth, you know, then asked whether Carmen had ever purchased drugs from Robert before Eric Richens had died. She said she had not. She also testified that she had never been to that Maverick.

and Draper except for those drug transactions. Carmen said that she learned Eric had died a day or two after his death. She was on the way to a urinalysis appointment for drug court with her friend Nick when she spoke to Corey on speakerphone. And Nick could hear the conversation. So we have a witness here. Carmen testified that she asked Corey, please tell me these pills were not for him, meaning Eric.

And according to Carmen, Corey responded, no, they were not for him. Eric passed away from a brain aneurism. Okay. Not true. Carmen also testified that after Eric's death, Corey asked whether she still had the hookup through her friend. And at that point, Bloodworth moved to admit an exhibit

showing a March 6th through 7th, 2020 text exchange between Carmen and Corey, so a couple days after Eric's death. And the defense immediately objected, arguing that the cell bright extraction containing the messages. So in other words, cell bright extraction is where text messages are sort of extracted from for these types of cases. And they argued, and I thought this was a fair argument, that the cell bright extraction had not been admitted into evidence. And so Carmen could not testify to these text messages without a proper foundation being laid. Where did they get these texts? Well, the judge called for a sidebar.

And after the sidebar, the jury was excused for a break. And then Carmen was asked to also step out so the attorneys could argue this legal issue of foundation and the cell bright extraction and if we could show these texts from Carmen. So Bloodworth argued that the issue could be resolved by redacting the cell right header from the top of the exhibit. So defense attorney Lewis countered that the document was a cell right report and should not be admitted because the cell bright system itself had not yet been introduced through testimony. Fair. she pushed back on the foundation and authenticity concerns. And at one point during the argument, the judge asked her to please stay focused. He then ruled that only the table portion of the exhibit could be admitted through this witness,

meaning the state would need to amend and redact the document before it could go to the jury. So once revised, a text exchange was displayed in court. And one message from Corey read, quote, still have your hookup? And then Carmen testified that she responded and that she could reach out to Robert. And Corey replied, okay. And according to Carmen, Corey then said that the investor would leave money under the dormant at her Camus home so that Carmen could use it to purchase drugs. And then Carmen said her friend Nick picked her up and they drove the Corrie's together to retrieve the cash. But then when they checked, there was nothing under the dormats. So Carmen,

ring the doorbell and Corey answered and told her to come inside. And then Carmen testified she told Corey the money. It wasn't under the door mat. And Corey then asked, well, could I just write a check instead? And then she ultimately wrote a check. Well, prosecutor Bloodworth moved to admit the check into evidence and here's the check, right? It was dated March 6, 22 for $1,300. And in the memo line, it read, construction clean midway. Ledworth asked whether Corey owed Carmen money for cleaning or any other work, and Carmen said no. And she actually said, I have never cleaned a house ever in my life for $1,300. That's what she testified.

Carmen then went to the bank. She said her account was overdrawn, so she deposited $300 of that check and then withdrew $1,000 in cash. The bank receipt was displayed for the jury. Carmen and Nick then drove down Provo Canyon to meet Robert. She texted him, but he was slow to respond. And then while waiting, she had Nick stopped at thrift stores before eventually ending up at the Maverick gas station and Draper. I love a good thrift store. I get it.

So they stopped at some thrift stores and then eventually ended up at that sea, Maverg gas station in Draper. And they waited there. And Carmen testified that Robert arrived, but then left for about 20 minutes. later returning to say his friend wasn't answering the door. Carmen and Nick followed Robert to a nearby duplex. They waited again and waited, and Carmen said she was getting uneasy and wanted to leave. I get it.

And then eventually Robert came out of the townhouse house with a baggie containing round, dark blue pills. And then Carmen and Nick then left. Nick dropped Carmen off at her home. Carmen testified she texted Corey asking what she wanted her to do with the pills. and then according to Carmen, Corey instructed her to take them to the Midway House, the Not Not Mansion.

And then Carmen said she placed the pills in a closet there at that property. She testified that she had never done any other drug deals with Robert and had never returned to the Maverick and Draper outside of these transactions. Carmen also said Robert later reached out to her saying his buddy had more available if her friend wanted any. And Carmen said she contacted Corey and let her know, hey, by the way, more is available. Robert's texting me or my hookup is texting me.

And according to Carmen, Corey responded that she did not need any because her investor, while her investor had left town. Bloodworth concluded his questioning. And then it was defense attorney Wendy Lewis's who then prepared to begin cross-examination. And honestly, I was like, okay, here we go.

Because given everything, the jury had just heard, this cross was bound to be intense. Again, what Carmen is saying is not great for Corey Richens. And so how are they going to cross? How are they going to cross this key window? And before, though, we get into that. We have a quick word from our final sponsor of the day. Hang tight because this cross

is going to get intense and I have things to say. Right, gems. Many people have been asking me for my secret formula or the perfect way to make dream. And although there's not any perfect way, I think I found the almost perfect way, if I'm going to be honest. It starts with hot water, as you can see there. And then you add a scoop of dream. Okay, a scoop and just a little bit more, especially when I need that extra help falling asleep.

It does the job every time I sleep so well and wake up feeling refreshed and ready to go in the mornings. And then I use the frother. The dream gave me on my first order. Everyone gets this on their first order. I use it more than just on Dream. It is now a staple in the kitchen. I love this. And then what I'm going to do is top my drink with some steamed oat milk.

This is a secret, in my opinion. Just a perfect amount of creaminess, but nothing too extreme right before bed. Use a QR code or the link in the description of this episode for more information on Dream. We love this drink. It has done so much for our family. Thank you, dream. Love me, my dream. They're so wonderful.

They help us get through these trial days, truly. So, but cross-examination with Carmen Lauper. So Lewis started the questioning, and she started by handing Carmen binders, binders of interviews that Carmen did in April and May of 2020. Oh boy, here we go. So nearly three years ago. Interviews she did nearly three years ago.

And Lewis gave her those and stated that they correlated with five different interview dates to which Carmen said, wow, that's a lot. And then Lewis honed in on April of 2023 and May of 2023 saying that she had seven different interviews, mainly with Detective Odriscoll and Detective Maynard. And then since her last interview during that time period, which was May 13th, 23, Carmen said she has met with O'Driscoll and Maynard a couple of times. They would go to her house to check on her ankle monitor or swing by and ask a couple of questions about her part in the case. Carmen didn't remember the exact number, but thought it happened three to four times.

And then what asked if any of those conversations were recorded, Carmen said she thought they were, but she wasn't 100% sure. Lewis then asked if they drove her around and Carmen said they did when she was jail and drove her to Wasatch County Courthouse a couple of times when reporters were there, but they did not have conversations during those drives. When asked if she'd met with the prosecutors, Carmen said, yes, yeah, I've definitely met with the prosecutors. She met with Bloodworth when the cases initially happened and then a couple of times over the last couple of weeks prior to trial, she explained. Carmen said that they had prepared her for what kinds of questions, would be asked. And then they asked her practice questions as well for her to answer.

So Lewison asked if she was corrected on any of her answers by the prosecution, or if her answers were ever wrong according to the prosecution, to which Carmen said not really, no. Lewison shifted, though, to whether or not they practiced cross-examination with Carmen, right? like who she told, who she's told about the case to as well as also asking about her mental help. Let's watch this together. Did they practice cross-examination with you? Yes. So they did a, we call it a mock cross.

Someone pretended to cross-examine you. Is that fair? Yeah, they kind of just brought up how you were going to bring up my past, how I was going to how I was going to feel that's all yes did they tell you how to answer the questions that I might be asking you no they can give you any advice on how to answer the questions no did they help you put the pieces together so you would remember what to testify to actually I'm the one that's asked like when if I needed to know Robbie I'd put in my phone obviously it says

Corey Doreen's niece Robbie Nicole's friend just stuff like that I don't know if I understood your answer to my question so my question was did they help put the pieces together for you for your testimony and what was your answer I said I'm the one that asked for

pictures and stuff like that so you asked for them to help put the pieces together for you I don't know if it was actually helping me put the pieces together can refresh my memory a little bit it happened a long time ago that's true this happened almost four years ago right yeah okay and your original interviews with detectives was almost three years ago yes all right we're gonna get back to who else have you spoken to about your testimony in this case nobody well now when i was in jail when i was incarcerated in jail who did you speak to about that you were

to be cooperating there was o'driskell maynard and i can't remember the lady that came from the feds but i didn't really talk to her that would be miss whistler i have no i cannot remember we'll get back to that too well you talk to nick bon savage that you were cooperating in this case during the time you're in jail yeah he's one of my best friends okay so you told your best friend that you were cooperating yes and you told your best friend man i don't even remember what happened You got to help me out here, right? Just in the part where you, in the car, yes. Okay.

Because Nick was with you one of the times you had Robbie Crozier. Yes. And you had Nick help you remember that because you did not remember that. Specifically, you did not remember the dates, right? I didn't remember the dates, exactly, no. Okay. Today you remember the dates? Well, yeah.

Because they were told to you. But no, the more you think about it, the more it pops up. Okay. All right. So the dates you couldn't remember three years ago, you thought you remember enough. Yes. All right. We'll get back. Ms. Crozier, do you have mental health diagnoses?

Do I what? Any mental health diagnoses. No. You're not diagnosed with any mental health problems? No. You're sure. Yes. What about anxiety?

Yeah. Do you take medication for that? Not so much, no. Okay. Are you any medication? today. No. Lewis then shifted focus to drug court, which Carmen was offered to be a part of in 2021 after she was charged with two first-degree felonies of possession with intent to distribute a third-degree possession or use of a controlled substance charge and multiple misdemeanors that all had to do with

possession of controlled substances, paraphernalia, or driving under the influence. Carmen agreed that when you go to drug court, you plead to some of the charges. in advance. And then if you successfully go to and finish drug court, the charges will be dismissed. At this moment, Carmen's drug court is on pause. However, she is clean and doing well. And I just want to point out, too, like, if, you know, she says she's been sober for four years. I love a good redemption story. Well done. Carmen. It's incredible. But back to Cross. While she was in drug court, she was expected to get treatment, call in every day, and sometimes go in for drug testing, have a job, and then have one-on-one therapy as well as group therapy multiple times per week.

And when Carmen had earlier said she was prepared by the prosecution about her past being brought up by the defense, it seems like the prosecution wasn't kidding, right? The defense brought up every issue she had in drug court ever. Talk about nitpicking. Take a look. at some of this. And this is just some of it. Let's watch this. You missed therapy and received. Oh, you didn't get a sanction yet.

They waited. Yes. All right. And then November 17th, you came in and you'd missed your drug test that week. Missed a drug test, correct? Okay, yeah. So tell me, now in drug court,

a missed test is considered the same as a positive test. test, right? Yes, but some of those do to working with Doreen coming off the mountain or we're running behind. Sure, that happens. But as a participant in drug court, you are expected to make all your drug tests. Yes, unless you call ahead and say, I'm running behind for more. Can I do it next day? And they sometimes allow that, but it wouldn't show as a missed drug test if you had got permission.

It also comes up as a missed test because you didn't go the day of. It would well you got a sanction. Yes. It was a missed test. Yes. So therefore I mean I went the next day but still receive a sanction for it. It doesn't say that but all right. You continued missing tests in 21 through February. You continued missing your drug tests here this test and treatment. Miss tests you were sanctioned correct? Yes. And on and on and on in anything. that Carmen ever didn't do perfectly in drug court. That literally, by the way, went on for almost 10 minutes. We had about four minutes prepared and I just decided like it's just cut it, but 10 minutes. That went on for 10 minutes. Carmen testified that she had started doing a little bit better before she was arrested though in April, 2023 for driving on a suspended license.

And then after being arrested, she got an order to show. cause in drug court, which is essentially in order for her to appear and explain herself. And from there, they decide whether or not she can remain in drug court, get kicked out of drug court, or be officially charged. Let's take a listen. All through- Ms. Lewis, may we pause for a minute. May we take the document down so the witness is not distracted? We may. Thank you. Sorry about that.

All right. So this continues. The missing drug tests the positive tests sometimes you do well other times you're doing poorly continues all the way up until your arrest of april of 2020 sorry what was the question the question was i we stopped we started talking about we were talking about that you were using all through february and march of 22 and now i'm saying from february and march of 22 until your arrest of of April of 23, you numerous times either missed drug tests, mistreatment or sanctioned, tested positive. You had a lot of missteps between the beginning

of drug court in 2021 until your arrest in April of 2023. Correct? Yes. All right. In fact, you were held back on phases Yes. You were asked to restart phases. Yes.

But you started doing a little better right before you were arrested in April of 23. You were finally moved to phase five. True? Yes. All right. And then you're arrested. Yes. And you are arrested for, well, first of all, there was, there was, all right, let me do this in two parts.

You are arrested for possession of marijuana. Correct? Actually, no, I was arrested for driving on a revoked, suspended license. Okay, that's fair. You were originally pulled over and arrested for driving on a suspended license. And then you were, there was an order to show cause issued in drug court. Yes, right? Now, an order to show cause is a little bit different than an official charge, right?

Yes. So an order to show cause, Can you hold that up, please? Just for me and the witness. So in order to show cause, just so that jury can understand, is when you're in drug court or probation on probation and you're accused of committing a crime, they say, all right, these are the things you're accused of doing.

And you need to come into drug court and explain what happened. And then we will make a decision as to whether you're going to remain in drug court, If you're going to be charged with these crimes officially, if you're going to get kicked out of drug court because you've got new charges. That's what an order to show cause is, right? Yes, correct. Okay. So you got an order to show cause and it was for, I think that's in front of the screen.

Is that look like what an order to show cause looks like? Yes, it is. Yes. And you recognize that is the order to show cause that was issued in May of 2020. Well, you were ordered to April 26, the day of your arrest, 2023. Would you restate the question? Is that the order to show cause that was issued in your case in April of 2023?

Yes. Okay. Your Honor, I'd move to admit and publish defense exhibit 1008. Sure, you're on no objection. Okay, defense, defendants, 1008 is admitted and we will publish it now. All right. So that's just so the jury can see what that looks like. Now, if in drug court, you're found to be in violation, you're found to have committed new crimes. What happens is your plea of variance goes away and you are sentenced on your original two first-degree felonies and your third-degree felony that you pled to, right? Sorry, what was the question? Okay. Can you try to explain so they all understand how this works? If you were to go under drug, court and the drug court found that you had in fact committed new crimes and violated drug court, then you could go back.

Your plea and abeyance would no longer be in effect and a plea of guilty would enter. Your plaintiffance would be revoked. Revoked. So you would be guilty of those crimes and you would go back to your sentencing judge and be sentenced on your original two first-degree felonies and two third-degree, I'm sorry, one-third-degree though. Yes. Carmen testified that in that first meeting with investigators, it was O'Driscoll and Maynard that told her that they believed Corey had poisoned Eric and that he had died of a fentanyl overdose. It was the first time the police had ever brought it up to her, but it was not the

first time that she had heard about it. She had heard when someone drove by and yelled this out at the window to her, to which she testified, she called Corey. And that's when she said, please tell me Those weren't for him, meaning those pills weren't for him. And Lewis honed in on the fact that Carmen had told the detectives that she didn't use or deal with fentanyl, only meth, heroin. And if you oxy's here and there, Carmen admitted that she did say that. And then Lewis brought up, yeah, yeah, Lewis, get this, Lewis brought up her daughter. We're going to listen to this. One reason you didn't tell in fentanyl is you had a daughter who had some problems with fentanyl.

I had a daughter, a couple daughters. You have a daughter. I'm sorry. Not past 10. You still have your daughter. She is doing great. Yes. And I'm happy to hear that.

She had a problem with fentanyl. She had a problem with heroin and it turned into fentanyl, yes. Yeah. And did you tell them she overdosed? I know she survived, but she overdosed, right? My daughter has overdosed a couple of times. So fentanyl scared you? Absolutely.

All right. I really thought bringing up her daughter. Her daughter has nothing to do with. with this case at all. And even worse, Lewis later named her daughter, which we're not going to do here. But I thought that was very uncalled for my opinion and my opinion only. Anyway, back to the cross-exam. She explains that detectives came back on May 7th, came back to Carmen on May 7th and brought a DEA agent with them. and then in that meeting, Carmen was told that she could be looking at distribution resulting in death.

In other words, hey, Carmen, guess what? This is what your charges could be here. Distribution resulting in death. And that carries a minimum mandatory of 20 years in prison. So Carmen agreed that the detectives also told her they would help her out. And that is when Carmen told the detectives that Corey contacted her, saying she had an investor with back pain and asked if Carmen could get her some pills. So Carmen is sharing now. This is what Corey said. Carmen wasn't sure what Corey wanted at that time. And during

that meeting, she couldn't remember the dates of Corey asking for that, just that there was snow on the ground and that she reached out to someone named Susan, who was a coworker and a friend to ask for pain pills because Corey again had asked. Susan had a friend who said, Susan had a friend who sold pills. So Susan was able to get the pills for Carmen to get to Corey. And then this is where Lewis tried to hone in on Carmen's memory. And where Carmen, Carmen became emotional. Again, take a listen, actually. But during that interview, 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 I would ask you share what it is that was a question not a request sorry I apologize but it could be relevant miss Lois miss Lauper if you would please answer the question yes I do have one and what is it It's not the highest education. It's a low grade education. Is that because you struggled in school because you're learning disability? Yes.

All right. There's nothing to be embarrassed about. A lot of people have that. Right. All right. So you go to Susan and did you ask her for Roxies or did she tell you she could get Roxy's? That's what she told me she could get.

Roxy's. And what are Roxies? The hydrochlorant. Are they, and I'm asking, I really, are you okay? Jean, you've got some water there? Ms. Lewis, you pause for one moment. I apologize for nothing. Carmen, when you dab your eyes, which you're allowed to do,

you also cover your mouth. It blocks the sound. If you would just answer the last question again, and if you need Ms. Lewis to rest- Yeah, that's okay. I'm not sure. So you said that Susan brought up the word Roxy's, not you? not you she told me that's what she could get for our friend okay and what are

roxies it is a pain pill is it oxy I'm sorry say that again it is a pain pill it's an opiate it's okay is it oxycodone yes what are roxy 30s do you a break just for a sick yeah we've been at this since about 1230 yeah on news Lewis any injection to a short restroom break no this week of course will not confer with anyone during the break that's fine Folks, please write. So a break there clearly, understandably. And after the break, though, there was an interesting moment where Judge Merazik had to remind the gallery, so sitting in the gallery, the rules of decorum and cora.

Interesting what he said. Take a listen to this. Before the jury comes back in, I just need to remind everyone in the courtroom that there can be no audible reactions to. any of the evidence or any of the events in the courtroom. Just need to sit, be still, listen, no audible reactions to anything. Anyone is unable to follow this instruction on a going forward basis.

I'll need you to step out and the deputies will help you do it. Okay, Mr. Bloodworth, are we ready for the jury? Yes, sir. Ms. Lewis. And is Ms. Lobber, in the wings. Interesting, because the gallery didn't even seem that full today by the looks of it. But nonetheless, no audible noises from the gallery, everyone, according to the judge.

So, moving on. Lewis said that she forgot to introduce an exhibit and then wanted another defense exhibit to be introduced. And Carmen was shown her docket. This was the exhibit. Carmen was shown her docket from drug court, which was entered as the exhibit. But again, it was not published for all of us to see, which is good. Lewis then circled back to when Carmen received the pills from Susan. And take a listen to this.

Let's listen to this. But Susan got you some prescription oxycodone. And when you were interviewed on May 2nd, the interview we're talking about, right now you said that you left those pills in the fire pit at the house in midway remember that no i don't recall can you look at page 41 yes i just okay so at that time you said i left the pills in the fire pit at midway and the money was in the fire pit in midway remember that's correct right correct okay it's different than what you said today though right yes All right. It's hard to say, though, three years ago, you might have remembered a little bit better than you do today.

What happened? Right? Did someone tell you what you said three years ago was wrong? So now you're saying something different today? No, no one of you told me why I said it was wrong. All right. But you did say then that you've left them in the fire pit at Midway. Yes. All right. We'll get back to that. Now, in that interview, you told Detective Maynard, Detective O'Driscoll, and Agent Sortson that you never did a hand-to-hand exchange with Corey. Turn to page 41.

I'm on 41. It says, you never exchanged pills with Corey. Isn't that what you told them then? Yes. So you said, then, I never did a hand-to-hand exchange with Corey, but today you're saying, you gave those pills directly to court. Yes, in my driveway. Okay.

And you said that the pills were $600. Yes. And you fronted the money. That's what you said today, is that you fronted the money. Yes, it's Susan. So you didn't make any money off doing them? No. So you just...

Not this one, no. Did that? It's not a very good drug dealer, correct? Right. All right. So you just took the money, got the pills, paid for them, took them back and forth, risked drug court just to be in, just because. I thought she was a friend.

So at this point in watching with all of you, I was pretty sure the defense was moving towards impeachment, impeachment of the witness. And just to be clear, impeachment in a courtroom, it doesn't mean accusing someone of a crime. Impeachment in the courtroom means trying to challenge their credibility. right? So when an attorney says something is being introduced for impeachment purposes, what they're really saying is, I'm about to show you that this witness has said something different before, or that their memory may not be as reliable, or maybe we should lean into that alleged learning disability. It's a strategic move. The goal isn't necessarily to attack the person. It's to give the jury a reason,

right to question whether they can fully trust what they're hearing from Carmen and then so i'm sitting here thinking that and then if like as if on cue Lewis goes and enters a clip into evidence specifically saying it was for impeachment purposes take a look at this clip so here's where it's that is McKay and your drug court. Okay. They are looking for, and this is going to be upsetting, so let me finish, they're looking to all your drug court deal

and ask for seven years on your two first. Five years for the first, the one felony and then a 40% portion for the second for seven years. The only exception to that and the only thing that they're willing to kind of, help you out with is if you can help us out with this.

And by so, he means like give up the detail that will ensure Corey gets convicted of murder. So that's what they said to you. Yes. Yes. Let me just identify a couple of people here. The first person speaking to you telling you that, or she says I talked to McKay. McKay is the prosecutor in Lassatch County, Drumport, right?

Correct. McKay King. Yes. All right. And that in talking to McKay King, you may be getting seven years in prison on your state case. Correct. If you help them out, that's not going to happen. Correct. And by helping them out, that means you need to give us the details that will ensure that Corey gets convicted, correct?

Correct. And you are willing to do whatever it takes to save yourself from getting kicked out of drug or going to prison. Correct? I'm going to go forward with the truth, yes. And you tell them, I'll do whatever it takes. Yes. That means incriminating me, yes. But then you tell them, but I need a blueprint

about what happened, because you don't know what happened, right? And I just needed, I guess if you want to call it a blueprint, kind of a layout of what was going on. That's right. You said you need to lay out for me what you want, right? they want, layout what had happened or what? Page 80. Page what?

80. You know, during that meeting, O'Driscoll, had asked Carmen to write down everything she remembered for the next meeting. But Carmen said she never did do that. And so then next, you know, Lewis shifted into pills again. Carmen confirmed that in interviews, she had told detectives that after getting the first pills from Susan. the next set of pills she received for Corey were light green.

Carmen and the courtroom were shown pills on the screen, but Carmen said those were darker than the ones that she got. So, you know, then we threw up different pills on the screen. And Lewis pressed on about the different types of pills. In a past police interview detectives had asked her about M30s, which she then told them were either Roxy's or Oxy's, but then Detective O'Driscoll had said in that interview that M30s were fentanyl to which she responded to him. Oh, okay.

See, that is how much I don't really deal with that. And then Lewis then seemed to at least try to get Carmen tripped up a little bit. You know, here, take a listen to this. Corey Ritchens, she never did ask you for fentanyl, correct? No, I had told her what Robbie had. She said, okay, go ahead and get the fentanyl. That's your testimony today? Yes, she did ask for it.

When I told her what I had, that's what she said yes. That's the first time you've said that though, right? No. You told them that Corey never asked for fentanyl. In jail or now I'm confused? Can you repeat the question? You told authorities during the course of these interviews that Corey Richardson's never asked for fentanyl.

Yes. And you kept telling them during this interview that you got Roxy's. The ones from Susan Culler, yes. They tell you that you got fentanyl for Corey Richards, correct? No, when I had reached out to Nicole Cummings, she would reach out to Robbie. Robbie's one to tell me that he can give fentanyl. That's your recollection today? Yes.

That wasn't your recollection then, though, was it? No, like I said, there was a lot of process. I can't remember it was a long time ago. Okay. What you do tell them is not that Corrigan asked for fentanyl, she asked for the Michael Jackson drug. Yes. You tell them that.

And you don't know what that is. No. And you Google it? Yes. And you discover that it's a drug called propopal. Yes. And propapol is not fentanyl. No.

sleeping drug, correct? Correct. Okay. Correct. All right. But then they keep telling you that you must have given her fentanyl, correct? I don't recall them saying that that's what. You turn to page 124.

And while you're looking, let me just so. Up to this point, you've told them you got oxycotton, Roxy's from, I said oxycodone, oxycodone. from Susan that you or Corey asked you for the Michael Jackson drug. You didn't know what that was. And then they tell you it's fentanyl. And you said, well, they tell you M30s are fentanyl. And you said, I didn't know that.

Just to recap. And now at this point, you say, well, I must have asked for fentanyl. Because why else what I have asked, unless Corey told me to ask for fentanyl. Right? Ms. Laura, I need you to speak about it. Correct. Sorry. And as you turn to page 125, you say, I want to say, that is the only way that got in my head.

So you're telling them, well, I guess Corey must have asked for fentanyl because how else, why else would we be talking about fentanyl? When I reached out to Nicole, she gave me Robbie's number. Robbie said that he had a friend, I asked for the fentanyl, or he said he had fentanyl and I had Fettonal and I reached back to Cori and said that he has some Fetano. Okay, we're going to come back to that because this is a new story today that you've never told before. But let's talk about the story you told on this day. This day you said, how else did I get fentanyl in my head?

Right? Correct. Ms. Latter? Isn't it fair to say you got fentanyl on your head from Detective O'Driscoll and Maynard? They're the ones that put fentanyl in your head. No. Really? Yeah. Because up till this point in the interview you said no fentanyl. I don't deal in fentanyl. I didn't get her fentanyl. I got her oxies. I got her oxies. Oh, she asked for Michael Jackson drugs. Oh, I guess I got her fentanyl. How else would fentanyl be in my head? Right? That's what's happened up to this point. Correct. And the only person up to this point was put the word fentanyl in your head are these detectives, correct, Ms. Ober, you're on the stand.

They are the ones that told you it was fentanyl. They're the ones that told me that Eric passed away from fentanyl. They're the ones that put the word fentanyl in your head. They're the ones that told me that that's why Eric passed away from. Okay. So first she locked Carmen into uncertainty, right? February, approximately. The house is mostly empty, not sure of the exact date.

Then she pivoted back to page 213 of Carmen's prior interview, where Carmen had told investigators, her memory was messed up. It was foggy. That's classic impeachment strategy. You remind the jury, the witness admits memory problems, and then you contrast that with very specific recollections about events from years ago. The subtle implication being, how can you forget what you told detectives three years ago, but clearly remember details from four years ago, right? And then Lewis layers in something else, which is the pill purchases. Carmen originally told detectives there were three purchases before Eric died. Later, detectives corrected her and said one purchase happened after his death, and that detectives had to remind her of that. And then Carmen said she hadn't remembered that one.

again, despite all these little things and corrections, the theme, there's one theme, shifting memory. That's the theme here. And then came the quote that may matter more than it seems. At the end of one interview, Carmen said, and I'll read it here, is can you guys write it and I'll sign it? Can you guys write it and I'll sigh it? So Lewis then appeared to argue that this sounded like Carlin. Carmen was willing to sign whatever detectives wrote. And Carmen pushed back, though, saying she

simply didn't want to physically write the statement herself. She wanted them to write it as she spoke, clarifying. Again, context is everything. And Carmen is clarifying the context. She wanted them to write it as she spoke. But here's the important thing. We don't have the full surrounding context of that exchange. We simply don't. And without the sentences before and the conversation before and the sentence is after, it's always going to be difficult to definitively interpret tone or intent. We simply can't know. And then Lewis Sharpened the contrast even further. She pointed out that Carmen seemed to struggle remembering what she had said in those interviews three years ago, yet could recall drug distribution details from four years ago. That's not random questioning,

even though it might feel like it. That's building doubt for the drug. jurors, brick by brick, you know, just keep it coming, keep it coming. And then the pressure increase. Lewis brought up the May 3rd, 20, 23 interview with Detective Maynard, where Carmen was told she would not be charged because she was cooperating. And then during that interview, Carmen said she was, again, willing to do whatever. Willing to do whatever is what Carmen said. Now the defense has introduced just another layer to the jury to consider. Was Carmen motivated to align her story with investigators in order to avoid charges? And finally, Lewis moved into the Nicole Cummings playbook.

Nicole Cummings thread, a Facebook message to talk, which turned into a conversation about what? The Michael Jackson stuff. The Rock C30s, the Blues, which Carmen testified. That blues is street sling for fentanyl. Detectives told her phone records that showed that she did contact Robert Crozier twice. Someone Carmen didn't specifically remember by name until she physically reviewed her phone where his name appeared as Robbie Nicole, you know, an alias, Robbie Nicole. Again, the pattern Lewis was constructing here was clear.

It's memory. That's the thread here. That's the theme. memory, memory gaps, corrections from detectives, incentives for Carmen to cooperate, and inconsistencies about sourcing the pills. And whether the jury sees that as natural human memory under stress or as unreliability, I mean, it's ultimately what impeachment is designed to test, right? Find out what it takes. And honestly, at this point, I truly felt like I couldn't follow the cross. Like I had to go back while I prepared for this and like, what is going on here?

I could not follow the cross. I was confused as hell, honestly, at some points. It felt like the defense was just throwing around dates and people and places and names to confuse the jury and maybe to confuse me on my couch while I watched with Lily. I was like, Lily, are you following this? Are we getting this? I kept going back and then I was like rewatching things and I just kept getting more and more confused. And I was like, anybody else? And so many of you in chat also said you felt like the defense was trying to confuse everyone. And some of your comments said things. I pulled a few of them. Some of your comments in our live stream chat said things like this. I'm certain those dang binders are going to meet me in a nightmare tonight. Yeah. And another one, Einstein could not have kept up

with this flipping around and kept it clear. And then another, if this at turn, so-called knows all the answers, then why is she asking the questions? And another comment in chat. Even the judge is trying to clarify WTF is happening. Yeah. So after a bit more back and forth of having Carmen read from binders and then having to read from another spot and then another, the judge announced court would be going into recess and we would be seeing Carmen again on the stand tomorrow at 8.30 a.m. on Friday to finish her cross examination. She's not done yet, guys. She's not done. And just when we thought, though, that maybe court was adjourned for the day, even though Carmen's not done it. And we'll be there. We'll be there tomorrow for Carmen. We'll be

watching this cross. Come join us in our hidden true crime life feed. Please, we're there. Together. We have some new trial emojis too. Thank you to those that have been. gifting memberships. But just when we thought we were done for the day after the jury was dismissed, right, we'll see Carmen tomorrow at 830. No, no, no, no. The judge wanted to address one more thing. And it was not a small thing. I've actually never seen this. So, apparently a juror passed a note to a bailiff earlier in the day, asking if there were trial attendees, so not media, but the public trial goers in the audience that were sketching members of the jury. And which is startling, right? It's very important that we keep our jurors privacy intact.

And so, but and it turns out the judge tells us that someone was indeed sketching jurors and they were identifying the sketches by juror numbers. So that person ended up, being removed and the sketches were confiscated. Let's, let's, let's watch this. It's interesting. Mr. Bloodworth is Liz, Ms. Nestor. I'd like to make a record regarding the note from the jury, the action we took. Any objection?

No objection. The note regarding the jury. Oh, I understand. Thank you. Not from the jury. I think this was written by a juror. Oh, I did understand. Yeah.

this was passed out from a juror. So during an afternoon recess, a juror passed a note to one of the bailiffs that read, quote, judge, I'm having a little trouble of the handwriting, so bear with me here. Are there members of the audience in the courtroom that are sketching members of the jury? Question mark. Is that allowed without consent? question mark, it is distracting and a concern. Please advise.

In response to this note, court staff confirmed that there was a member of the spectators that was in fact sketching jurors in identifying the sketches by juror number. That sketchbook was confiscated. The sketches of the jurors were removed from the sketchbook. That person has been removed as a spectator, will not be allowed back in.

We cannot have anyone doing anything to identify the jurors in any way. And then the jurors were informed by a bailiff, not by me, that we responded in that way, so they do not have to speculate about whether that's contained. Wow. Well, before we end the day, I did want to show another part of today's trial. I know today was a long recap, but it's been good to be with all you. There was a lot to decompress. I'm glad to be here with all of you.

That helps me to talk about all this at the end of each day. And I want to show this part because I've seen a lot of people say that the defense is coming off is very aggressive. So let's watch this and then I have some things to say. Drug court. They said you had tested positive for methamphetamine. Yes. And you said, no, retested, that's not true. I didn't use.

But then the next minute, we. you came back and you said well actually I did use you don't need to retest it I relapsed which happens well yes working with active users once again with the clean company that you were all still active users well but it was your choice to you absolutely but if you get you keep getting offered and operating as a drug addict yes obviously you're going to relapse you're going to fold and you lied about it yes all right that's what addicts do when you're using that's true addicts lie All right. All right.

Just thoughts from Lauren at the end here. Like, look, now I'm sure the juror questionnaire questions, they ask maybe how the jurors feel about addiction, drug use, et cetera. I did not see jury selection in this case. But I still think that what Lewis is saying here is that all addicts, all addicts, excuse me, are liars. That's sort of how it's coming across to me, and I don't think that was a good look. I think this is really marginalizing things to say when most people either have struggled with addiction or they know someone who has. And so making that generalization, because I really do think that's what she's implying here, right?

I mean, you guys correct me if you're not hearing it the way I'm hearing. I'm hearing all, if you have an addiction, you might be a liar. And I think that making that generalization could turn off some of the jurors, I think. at least it would to me as a juror, but I'm not a juror. So I guess it doesn't really matter. And while Carmen probably is looking out for herself, you know, it's fair. She has immunity. It doesn't mean that all addicts are immoral liars. But again, I want to know how you guys took this. I think that was my biggest issue. I always played that card sometimes. If I were a juror, how would I take this or fail?

And it is fascinating to me how differently we see things and how differently things can hit people. So fair enough, I actually have seen some varying opinions in the chat. Even separate from whether Corey Richens is guilty or not guilty, I'm not sure if the defense is hitting with all of their questions when it comes to Carmen. And I just wonder if some of the jurors are going to pick up on some of those, in my opinion, generalizations that she is making about addicts and those that have suffered. And I do want to say, again, separate from Corey Richens being guilty or not guilty, I want to say that I admire Carmen for being sober for four years, the longest amount of time she says since sixth grade. and I judge her for no learning disability that she has had.

She did her job on the stand today. Of course, her job is not over. So we'll see. We'll see if the defense can poke holes in Carmen's story tomorrow because she certainly, certainly is a key witness in this case. And yes, to that person said, yeah, lawyers also are known to be liars, aren't they? Just a little bit more sneaky in their lies. Huh. Thank you, thank you.

See you right and early tomorrow to watch Carmen. See you guys in chat. We'll see you. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealth fronts. Chuching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the wealthfront cash account. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary.

3.3%. As of January 30th, 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program bank. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank.