Hidden True Crime - BREAKING: Judge in Kouri Richins Trial Recuses Himself While Defense Demands Redo because of Bias

Episode Date: July 2, 2026

Kouri Richins wants her murder conviction thrown out—and now the judge who presided over her trial has stepped aside while another judge decides what happens next. In a sweeping motion for a new trial, Kouri's attorneys accuse the court of judicial bias, claim prosecutors violated pretrial rulings, and argue the jury was unfairly influenced from start to finish. Today, we're breaking down every major argument in the motion, explaining what the defense says went wrong, what the State is likely to argue in response, and whether any of these claims could realistically lead to a brand-new trial. We'll also explain what Judge Richard Mrazik's recusal actually means—and, just as importantly, what it doesn't. Sponsor: Cloaked- See if your SSN is for sale right now. My sponsor Cloaked will tell you for free in 2 seconds here: https://cloaked.com/hiddentruecrime 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

One of my favorite things about getting dressed in the summer is finding those few pieces that somehow work for so many occasions. And lately, Quince's 100% organic cotton waffle stitch open cardigan has become one of my favorite layering pieces. It is perfect when I am headed into an over-air conditioned courtroom or studio, and I have been pairing it with their brown Italian leather sandals, which has, they have become another favorite because they are so comfortable while still looking polished. And that is what I love about quince. They make elevated essentials using premium materials like organic cotton, European linen, and Italian leather without the traditional retail markup. One thing I always say about quince is I love how timeless it is. It is simply timeless. Everybody

knows I like some trendy things. But ultimately, what I like in quality pieces is this sort of timeless look. And their quality is incredible. Everything feels timeless instead of trendy. They also have beautiful pieces for your home from bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and furniture. Make your summer wardrobe feel easier and timeless. Go to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada, too. Yes, Canada, too.

That's quince, Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash hidden two crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. returns quince.com slash hidden true crime. Corey Richens. She was convicted of murdering her husband Eric Richens with fentanyl and trying to poison him weeks earlier with that now infamous Valentine's Day sandwich. But now, wait for it. Now Corey is asking the court to throw it all out and do to what her team is claiming. Judge Braswick has now recused himself from this motion.

Yeah, the man, the myth, the legend. the judge that made us think we were listening to the voice of God while overruling or sustaining objections throughout the trial. I mean, if he wasn't a judge, he could get voiceover gigs. But the guy chose law school, and now he's recused himself from the motion and basically the case for the time being. Corey's defense team has filed a lengthy motion demanding a brand new trial. And in it, they are accusing the court, the prosecution,

The trial itself of serious problems that they say changed the outcome. And they are even arguing about Judge Morazik's conduct. Yeah, again, Judge Marazik, the calmest judge who everyone loved throughout the trial. Well, I should say almost everyone loved him, everyone aside from Corey Richens and probably also a public attendee from Idaho who decided to sketch the jury. Remember that? And then she got kicked out of court. One juror I spoke to later told me the most offensive part, by the way, of that whole incident

was when the court showed the jurors the sketch and how unattractive they looked in the drawing. There's some tea. Anyway, today, we're going through that motion from beginning to end. What Corey's team claims went wrong, what they say the jury should not have heard, what they believe the judge mishandled, and whether any of it could actually be enough to give her, to give Corey's, Richens another day in court. My name is Lauren Matthias and this is hidden true crime. The motion filed on June 30th argues that the defense was treated unfairly throughout the trial and claims a series of errors both large and small that prevented Corey from receiving a fair trial. Her attorneys are also asking for an evidentiary hearing so they can present evidence

supporting those claims and they're requesting that Judge Morazik be removed from handling any further proceedings in this case. So let's go through the motion together and see exactly what the defense is arguing. The motion starts by explaining the legal basis for why Corey's attorneys believe she deserves a new trial. First, they go over the procedural history of the case. They point out that Corey was originally charged with one count of aggravated murder. and three counts of drug possession, right? Before the preliminary hearing, those charges were amended twice. And between the preliminary hearing and the trial, they were amended to more times.

So after the three-week trial, the jury ultimately found Corey guilty of murdering Eric Richens, attempting to murder him with the Valentine's Day sandwich, two counts of insurance fraud, and one count of forgery. The defense then explains the legal standard for granting a new trial. and under Utah law, a judge can order a new trial if error or improper conduct during the proceedings had a substantial negative impact on the defendant's rights. That's true. However, if any mistakes were so minor that they likely didn't affect the verdict, then a new trial is not warranted. They also cite previous court decisions explaining that motions like this are intended to correct errors made during a trial or address

convictions that may have been obtained through unfair or unlawful methods. And then from there, the defense lays out the three main reasons that they believe Corey deserves a new trial. First, they argue that Judge Morazik showed favoritism toward the prosecution while treating the defense differently in front of the jury. Second, they claim prosecutors introduced evidence about Corey's alleged financial misconduct that went beyond what the judge had previously ruled could be presented at trial, unfairly making the jury prejudice against Corey. And third, they argue that even if none of those issues alone would justify a new trial, all of the alleged errors combined, deprived Corey of a fair trial under what's known as the cumulative error doctrine. The motion then

begins discussing that first argument in detail, according to the defense throughout the trial, Judge Mrazik repeatedly interrupted the defense attorneys, corrected them in front of the jury, limited their objections, and at times even assisted the prosecution during objections. This is fascinating to me. I attended the trial. I was media, front row in that trial. This is an interesting sort of perspective I'm seeing. I didn't see that, but I will say we also don't see the sidebars, right, where there's white noise going on. So I'll keep going. They argue that this created the appearance that the judge was citing with the state instead of remaining completely impartial. Again, interesting that this is their perspective.

I saw a fair judge, but let's keep reading. I'm open. I'm open. Change my mind. To support that argument, they cite both the United States and Utah constitutions, which guarantee that every defendant has the right to an impartial judge. True. They also quote several prior court decisions explaining that judges have enormous influence over juries, even small comments, interruptions, or expressions from the judge can affect how jurors perceive the attorneys and ultimately the defendant. I agree with that too. I agree. The defense argues that this wasn't just one isolated incident. Instead, they believe there was a pattern throughout the trial where Morazic was impatient, critical, and hostile

toward the defense, but not toward the prosecution. I mean, to me, to me, that's fascinating. Hostile is a strong word. I did not see Judge Marzik as hostile. But let's keep reading. change my mind. I'm willing to listen, Corey and her team. Let's keep reading. One example that they point to is how often Marzic interrupted the defense by telling them to pause or stay focused. Take a listen. You ruled from the bench just a minute ago that this could be used as an impeachment document. I did not. I said specifically you cannot use it if it's not admissible because there's no foundation for it. Well, then we discussed it further, and you said, go ahead and show it to her and ask her if she remembers it. And then the tax was not in the context of impeachment.

That was in the context of Mr. Bloodworth and his direct using it to refresh a recollection of a witness who may not specifically recall the content. I misspoke. That's what I meant to use it to refresh her recollection. And you ruled that that would be appropriate. Well, then Mr. Bloodworth attempted to change your ruling, which happens a lot, which is what gets me. Well, that's what gets me frustrated. Please stay focused. I think your ruling was appropriate. According to the motion, these interruptions happened much more frequently to the defense than they did to the prosecution.

The defense attached a video clip from day four of the trial that they believe illustrates this point. They also reference specific pages in the trial transcript where they argue Judge Morazick interrupted defense attorney Wendy Lewis by telling her to please pause. They claim that just seconds later, when the prosecution was interrupted, the judge apologized to them. The defense argues that this difference in treatment is significant. So again, let's take a look at what they have presented here. Let's watch. Mr. Bloodworth, if you would please, however it, the form of it, you wanted to admit to the public to the jury and admit it as an exhibit, would you put that form? on the screen.

So we're all talking about the same thing at the same time. Your Honor, it is there now. Okay, so it's the zoom in that we're currently looking at rows 1 through 5. We can back it out so you can see the whole form. Is this the page? Is it one page? It's two. Two pages. So it did say so right. I thought it did.

Please pause. I'm sorry. Okay. You want to, I'm sorry, I don't have control yet. State's Exhibit 2-44 is a two-page exhibit that says Cell Bright extraction report at the top, correct? Correct. And you'd like to admit this two-page extraction report through this witness,

not just the content of the text messages and the metadata regarding to from whatever. Your Honor, the state wants to admit the content. Now, I can see the 244 at the top is labeled, with Celebrites branding. You know, if we were to, for example, redact the labeling, that's fine. But the content.

The distinction, I apologize for interrupting you, so I can just provide a little more context from my question. The motion also references another exchange that happened outside the jury's presence. The defense points to this portion of the transcript where they say Judge Morazik became frustrated with attorney. Kathy Nester during a bench conference. So again, according to this motion, the judge told her to

slow your role, reminding her to reread one of his previous rulings, quote, to help your client avoid plain error. And later commented that they needed to wrap things up because he had a parent-teacher conference to attend and that his son, quote, barely recognizes me. They also write that when Lewis expressed frustration at the court for changing a ruling made at the bench, she was told twice to stay focused, that's in quote, and quote, don't do that, please stay focused. The defense even includes a statistic. Okay, so this is interesting.

A statistic is included to support its argument. They claim that on day four alone, Judge Morazik interrupted defense counsel 24 times. while interrupting the prosecution only 13 times. Okay, interesting. I mean, but who deserved what here? All right. However, they acknowledge that the number of interruptions by itself doesn't necessarily prove bias. Okay. Instead, they argue that it's the nature of those interruptions that matters. According to the defense, they were frequently cut off mid-argument or corrected in front of the jury while interruptions directed at prosecutors were often accompanied by apologies, dealt with scheduling or logistics, or even helped the prosecution during objections.

So at this point, at this point in the motion, the defense isn't just arguing that Morazic interrupted them more often. They're also arguing that the overall pattern of those interactions may have caused the jury to perceive the defense differently than the prosecution, which they believe under my and Corey's right to a fair trial. Today's episode is brought to you by our sponsored Cloaked. They actually dared me to type my phone number into their site to see how exposed my data is. And frankly, I wasn't ready for what came back.

Right there on the screen, Cloaks showed me that my sensitive information was out there for anyone to buy. It really makes you realize how rigged the system is. Data brokers are making billions selling our person. information to spammers and scammers. And while some services try to clean it up after the fact, the real problem is that we create brand new vulnerabilities every single time we sign up for a new app or website. That's why I have been using cloaked. They don't just delete your old leaked data. Their app lets you instantly generate unlimited burner email addresses and phone numbers on the

spot. You can even call and text right inside the app. The data brokers get absolutely nothing useful, completely turning the tables on the industry, yes. Plus, cloaked protects you with dark web monitoring, a built-in VPN, a password manager, and a $1 million identity theft insurance policy. It is time to take your privacy back. Go to cloaked.com slash hidden true crime right now for a free security scan. It takes two seconds to see if your social security number is currently for sale or any sensitive information. The longer you wait, the more of your data gets bought and sold. Go to cloaked.com slash hidden true crime today to get your free scan and save 30% off any plan. The defense continues building on its argument that this wasn't

an isolated incident, but rather a pattern. This is a pattern that continued and it continued throughout the entire trial. They point out that on day one alone, they counted 36 interruptions directed at the defense compared to 20 interruptions directed at the prosecution. Again, the defense acknowledges that judges interrupt attorneys all the time. That's a thing.

They interrupt attorneys all the time. That's part of managing a trial, right? But to them, the problem is the way that those interruptions happened. According to the motion, when the prosecution was interrupted. It was generally to clarify an argument, confirm a fact, or even let prosecutors know they were making a helpful point.

The defense specifically points to several examples in the trial transcript. The defense then compares those exchanges to several comments that they say were directed toward them. They point to instances where the judge reportedly told defense counsel things like, quote, that doesn't track. Quote, move on. Quote, you're jumping the gun. and quote, I think it's premature.

The motion argues that this pattern continued throughout the entire trial and that the judge consistently and constantly treated the defense differently than he treated the prosecution. The defense then moves to another example that they believe demonstrates that difference in treatment. According to the motion, this happened during trial day 10. And what was trial day 10? Trial day 10 was when they were trying to question a witness.

but Eric's prior use of pain medication. The defense argues that Judge Mrazik went beyond just ruling on their objection. Instead, they claimed he repeatedly interrupted them and insisted they use the phrase illicit street drugs, rather than allowing them to discuss prescription pain pills in the way that they wanted to. Take a listen to this. Tell me what you think. Your Honor, it's our position that first of all, when I asked the question it was not objected to by the state. Second of all, I'd like to make the record that this would be for purposes of impeachment.

To deny us this opportunity is a violation of Crawford. It is a violation of our Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine. It is a violation of a due process right to a fair trial. We would be able to call in our case an expert who would testify that Red Devils were in fact PCP. In that period of time, they were not suitor fed. The DEA has a pamphlet on that. We're being denied that option. We're being denied the ability to attack the credibility of someone who has changed.

Respectfully, we disagree with your honor's position on this. We think he absolutely changed his testimony. And we're being prohibited the right to impeach him on the fact he changed his testimony. And I believe that the question I would ask him if I were allowed to go forward would be, did you learn that Eric popped pills in high school? and that would impeach what he said to Mr. Bloodworth, unrebutted and not allowed to be rebutted by me when we know that I can rebut it. And we just, we, on our strongest way possible, we object to this, we would like a continuing objection. We moved to strike all of Cody Wright's testimony, all of the issues that Mr.

You lost me there. On redirect, on redirect, the redirect testimony. Which piece? Where he answered the question. that I'm not now being allowed to impeach him on. We're asking to strike it at the very minimum. All of the things that Mr. Bloodworth just brought up, all go to wait, not admissibility.

What is the non-hearsay route for this witness to testify regarding what he heard if it's coming in for the truth of matter, sir? It's not. It's coming in to impeach that once the court allowed him to answer that question with hearsay to rebut the hearsay that we elisted unintentional. What's the evidence that he heard prior to today, testifying today, that Eric Richens used illicit street drugs? He just testified to it on a stand. That is not true.

Okay. Well, we agree to disagree on that, Your Honor. Have you disclosed that expert that would provide a non-speculative basis that red devils are elicit street drugs? We have disclosed that expert. name is Mr. Kearney. He is on our list. He's been available. We did not know the red devil stuff was coming in until 10 minutes ago because we were told, well, okay, well, that's, that's obvious then. I mean, we did the best we could. We gave him our drug expert that as soon as the red devils

comes in, we can let them talk to him about that because we sure would go into that with our expert that we're now being denied the ability to do that. There is a key question here, Your Honor, if Eric Richens had a drug problem. And if he did, Ms. Richens is innocent. And we are being prohibited from going into that with the one person who knows. And I just think that the veracity of this witness on this topic cannot be underestimated for purposes of the defense. I know you disagree with us. I believe I've made my record.

Yes. He's changed his story. He's now saying he's never heard that Eric used drugs when he knows. in the prelim that he did. And I just think this is just a huge, huge impediment to us to put on a fair trial in this case. And I believe I've made my record. I can't think of anything else I need to say on the record. Thank you for letting me make a proffer.

Okay. Are you asking me to strike Mr. Wright's answer that he's never heard that error accused Alyssa's street on which basis, on what basis? On the fact I'm not allowed to impeach him on it. all know it's not a correct answer. You certainly can impeach him on it if you have any evidence that it's impeachable. No any other way to show it to the court. I don't know what we've already are. Okay. Can I want to be clear. There's just no evidence that Cody Wright believes that red devils are illicit street drugs. But he separated the red devils from the popping pills. He

separated that. No, I with respect. He didn't. Okay. Well, I think the transcript will work Please, share in comments what you think as we show these clips. I really do want to know how you all perceive this. They argue that by doing this, the judge effectively framed the issue in a way that benefited the prosecution because his definition of illicit street drugs excluded prescription pain medication, even though the defense says that definition wasn't supported by expert testimony or evidence presented during trial. They also claim the judge accused attorney Kathy Nestor, of intentionally misusing that definition. The defense attached several video clips from day 10 that they believe support this argument. The motion then listed several more examples where the defense believes the judge spoke to them in a condescending manner

and asks the court to review the following clips. And then on day nine, they claim Judge Morazik accused Attorney Lewis of intentionally ignoring what he was saying. They also argued this is an example of the judge suggesting that if the defense wanted additional testimony, they could simply call their own witnesses, which the defense says improperly then switched the burden onto them on day 11. So what was day 11? Because on day 11, attorney Kathy Nestor made a relevance objection. Okay. So the motion claims that

instead of simply ruling on the objection, the judge responded by saying, quote, you don't see the relevance in what the defense describes as an unnecessarily disparaging and condescending tone. I think that's where they're going with this, by the way. Disparaging and condescending is what I think they're trying to point out the judge is doing. Take a listen. Tell me what you think. However, this is a correspondence between Corey and her brother. and the brother's asking her, did Eric ever talk about suicide?

Right. And she's repeating things that Eric said to her, which would be hearsay. Also, I believe the brother's statements are hearsay. Well, all of the non-corny origin statements are going to be hearsay if they're accepted for the truth of the matter. Right. So that's an issue. Well, but they're specifically trying to admit what Eric said for the truth of the matter. So that's the concern that I have.

She's like double hearsay. I know Corey's statement isn't hearsay, but when she relays what Eric told her, that is hearsay. So that's our objection to this one. Also, we just don't see the relevance. There's no... You don't see the relevance of whether Mr. Richens ever spoke about so.

Also on day 11, the defense argues the judge was again dismissive when Nestor requested a continuing objection. Mr. Bluttereth, any clarification? No, Your Honor. Okay. Any other clarification is, Nestor? No, sir.

We just would like a continuing objection to that one. I don't know what you mean by that. So I don't have to, when they admit it, I won't have to jump up. And you don't under Rule 103 have we discussed anything further around that? No, sir. Day 14, so day 14, during closing arguments, Attorney Lewis attempted to object. And according to the motion, Judge Morazik interrupted her and firmly told her, please be seated. That was a day I was there in court.

Please be seated, he firmly told her. Take a listen. But she returned from somewhere to their bedroom, unlocked her phone, put it on speaker. There's no call detail records showing a call at that time. But she may have called on Wi-Fi. somebody that would not appear in the call detail records it would appear on her phone if her phone had not been deleted objection your honor these are facts that are not please have a seat the defense argues that this last exchange was

especially harmful because it happened in front of the jury during closing arguments according to the motion the jury could have interpreted the judge's response as frustration with the defense or as a signal that defense objections were improper or unwelcome. They go on to argue that after this happened, the prosecution made several additional statements during closing that the defense believes were objectionable, but they were left without an effective way to challenge them in front of the jury. The motion notes that Nestor later made a record of those objections outside the jury's presence after closing arguments had ended. However, by that point, the jury had already heard the statements.

So to support this argument, the defense, once again, they rely heavily on previous court decisions. They cite a Utah case called State v. Beck. And State v. Beck emphasizes that judges have tremendous influence over juries and therefore must be especially careful about how they interact with attorneys during trial. The defense quotes the opinion at length, arguing that even subtle comments or facial expressions from a judge can shape how jurors perceive the lawyers and the evidence. The case also explains that maintaining the appearance of impartiality is essential because even the appearance of bias can undermine confidence in the fairness of a trial. The defense argues that exactly this is exactly

what happened here. The motion states that Judge Morazik joked with a jury throughout the trial, built a positive rapport with them. And because jurors naturally looked to the judge for guidance, his comments and demeanor carried significant weight. The defense claims that when prosecutors raise concerns, the judge often accepted, clarified, or even helped frame their arguments. And by contrast, they argued that when defense attorneys raised concerns,

they were more likely to be interrupted, corrected, met with skepticism, or simply told to move on. I do remember a lot of those moments where he said, on. But I will say, as I watched the judge say move on, I was thinking the same thing to myself, move on already. And then when the judge said, I was like, okay, I'm not the only one. But, again, let's keep going. Finally, the defense argues that the judge repeatedly suggested they could solve certain evidentiary issues by calling their own witnesses. They claim those comments improperly shifted the burden toward the defense because under our legal system, the prosecution,

and not the defendant, has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So to support that point, they jump to more case law. They're bringing in the case law. They cite another appellate case discussing the limits of cross-examination and explaining that trial courts should not apply those limits so strictly that they prevent the defense from presenting an important part of its case. Okay, so to summarize, let's summarize this entire section of the motion. The defense is arguing that when you look at the trial as a whole, there was a consistent pattern. They keep bringing up the pattern of treating the defense differently than the prosecution, and they believe that pattern may have influenced the jury's perception of the case.

The defense then points to another exchange that they believe illustrates the same pattern. So then, again, we go back to this motion. There was a heated disagreement over testimony from Carmen Lauber. Remember Carmen Lauber? Carmen Lauber ended up being a hero to many people watching the trial, including me. She admitted to her past mistakes. She's done her time. She's made mistakes.

She's been an addict. She's come clean. She's saying, I'm telling the truth now. So, the prosecution wanted to introduce additional statements from Carmen Lauber after she had already testified. I remember this day. The defense objected to this. the defense. So the defense argued that instead of ruling in their favor or simply denying the request, Judge Marazick suggested that if they wanted to question Lauver about those statements, they could

simply call her back as one of their own witnesses. Well, the defense specifically directs the court to this exchange on day 11. Take a listen. That should have come in under Carmen. During cross-examination, and it's fully within our right to pick out portions of this interview. But you can recall her, right? I don't think that's our job to recall the state's star witness. They had her on the stand.

I just asked you a yes or no question. Would you start there for me? Could we recall her? Yes, that is something that could be possibly done. I don't imagine what world a defense would do that. And correct me if I'm wrong, you had the transcripts when you cross-examined her, right? Yes, but so did they.

And the appropriate way to do it would have been to try and rehabilitate her on redirect, which would have then given me a chance to go into other statements. They sought to, and I limited their ability to put in the whole 900 pages. That's not how you rehabilitate. You rehabilitate by asking questions. It's not by putting in an entire transcript. Well, you can do it, for example, by admitting prior consistent statements. And so I need you to stay focused on that rule for a moment.

I know I'm interrupting here. Yeah, sure. I don't understand how you think they were supposed to admit prior consistent statements. For testimony. That's not a prior consistent statement. The whole reason we have the prior consistent statement rule is because the testimony goes in a different direction. Or there's a charge of recent fabrication or undue influence. Then you have the prior statement.

coming into substantive evidence. Only while she's on the stand. They didn't even attempt to question her about whether or not pull out these portions to show, oh look at you weren't unduly influenced, look at you said this, you said this, is that correct, is that correct? That's how you would normally see this done. Then I could have cross-examined her.

And I also want to point out that they have taken very small portions of this that, leave out the portions of the interview where they she is being influenced by statements of law enforcement this makes it look like i mean they've cherry-picked what they want and for example i want to pull out the may 10th interview i don't even understand why this would be coming in all they've pulled out is a conversation between miss whistler and miss lauber that miss lauber is supposed to testify before the grand jury that's going to open a hold of speculation and what happened i don't see how that has anything to do with what we're even talking about. And as I go through the transcripts,

it's very much just what the state wants the jury to hear. I mean, if we're going to do this, which I think is completely inappropriate, this is a Crawford problem. This should have been brought in through testimony when Carmen Lover was on the stand, so she could have been cross-examined. They can bring in what they want through still through Detective Odryskel because we still have an opportunity to cross-examine him. But to just send back portions, of a transcript that we've not been allowed to cross-examine on that point out to the jury just what they want the jury to hear is inappropriate. And I apologize, you're jumping around a little bit. So put aside sending transcripts back. I have concerns about that. The motion,

the motion goes on to argue that this wasn't an isolated comment because the defense claims that there are other times when the judge suggests that if they wanted certain information before the jury, they should have simply put on their own evidence. In fact, the defense says that there were even occasions where Judge Morazik suggested they could put Corey herself on the witness stand rather than allowing certain lines of questioning. The defense, the defense argues these statements improperly again shifted the burden toward them. And again, in a criminal trial, the prosecution has the burden to prove the defendant's guilt.

and to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But the defense is arguing that the judge is sort of putting that on them. The defense is never required to present witnesses or have the defendant testify. The motion then moves on to another major complaint. Yeah, we're not done yet, guys. We're not done. The motion keeps going. The motion is going to motion.

Here we go. According to the defense, Judge Morazek actually helped the prosecution by supplying objections that prosecutors hadn't even made themselves. Interesting, right? Huh. Okay, I'm listening. The defense claims that there was at least one occasion where the judge raised an objection on his own initiative and then sustained that objection without the prosecution ever asking. The defense attached several video clips from four different days that they believe demonstrate this happening. The motion ignores. that judges absolutely have the authority to control proceedings. They have the authority to

rule on objections. They keep trials moving efficiently. But according to the defense, the defense argues there's an important distinction between managing a courtroom and appearing to advocate for one side. So, right, I want to know, like, is this real? Did this really happen? So to support the argument, they once again cite several court decisions, case law, stating that judges must remain neutral and avoid creating even the appearance of favoritism because jurors naturally give tremendous weight to everything a judge says or does. Okay, great, case law is good. The defense argues that when the judge supplied objections for the prosecution or sustained objections, that prosecutors had not raised themselves, it may have signaled to the jury that

the prosecution's position had the court's approval and the defense's questioning was improper, even when prosecutors hadn't even objected. The motion sums up this entire section with a strong statement. The defense states that there were times during the trial when it felt like they weren't just opposing the prosecution. They argue it appeared as though they were also battling the judge himself, who they believe repeatedly questioned their credibility, and at times the credibility of defense witnesses. And because of all of this, the defense claims that Corey was denied her constitutional right to a fair trial before a neutral judge.

The motion. Then it goes one step further. If you think they're done, no, one step further, because they're alleging judicial bias. Corey's attorneys argue that Judge Morazik shouldn't even be the one deciding this motion for a new trial. Instead, they argue that this motion should be assigned to an entirely different judge, which is what we mentioned at the beginning of this episode. To support that request, they cite Utah's Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judges should disqualify themselves from any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned,

including situations involving potential bias toward a party or one of the attorneys. The defense also cites several United States Supreme Court decisions explaining that the legal standard isn't necessarily whether a judge was actually biased. Instead, the question is whether an average person could reasonably question the judge's impartiality or whether there was an unconstitutional potential for bias. So based on everything they've argued so far, the defense believes that the standard has been met. They're asking not only for a new trial, but also for Judge Marzik to step aside and allow another judge to decide whether this request should be granted. The motion then moves into its second major argument. This section focuses on the financial evidence

presented during trial because there was a lot of financial evidence. Remember, remember, yeah, the forensic financial witness. According to the defense prosecutors repeatedly introduced evidence of Corey's alleged financial misconduct that went far beyond what the judge had previously ruled would be allowed. Interesting, I'm listening. Okay. Before trial even began, the defense filed several motions asking the court to keep evidence of more than 30 alleged prior bad acts out of the trial. This is, okay, this is interesting to me. These included allegations evolving Corey's business dealings and financial activities spanning several years before Eric's death. The defense explains that on January 7, 26, the court held a hearing specifically to decide

what financial evidence the jury would and would not be allowed to hear. So this motion states that Judge Morazik established what they described as general guardrails designed to limit just how much of Corey's prior financial history, prosecutors could even show a jury and to avoid problems under Rule 404B, which generally limits the use of prior bad acts to prove someone's character or suggest they acted in conformity with that character.

This is interesting to me because I understand the financial elements coming into play for this trial because it shows motive. This really is a case where the motive sort of, I call them the 2020 date line motives, where it's sex, drugs, money, right? And money was the emphasis of this trial that Corey killed Eric for money. Never mind she had a paramour and was having an affair. Never mind she, they alleged that she purchased drugs or she's been convicted of, you know, dosing Eric with Fentner.

sentinel, poisoning him with fentanyl, so that he died. They really emphasized that the number one motive in this case was financial, absolutely. So this is an interesting sort of thing they're claiming that there were supposed to be guardrails on just how much the jury or the or the, or the courtroom was supposed to know about her financial situation, let's call it, a situation in court. And I don't know what those guardrails are. Let's keep learning this together. Let's keep listening. Because according to the defense, even though the judge placed limits on what financial

evidence prosecutors could present before trial, they believe those limits were ignored once the trial began and only once the trial began. So the defense claims that prosecutors went far beyond the pre-trial rulings by calling both Chelsea Barney and Brooke Carrington to testify extensively about Corey's finances and business dealings over several years. So Brooke Carrington spent nearly an entire day on the witness stand, and the defense claims that what she did was discuss allegations that included bounce checks, false bank statements, misleading communications with lenders, poor business management, sloppy accounting practices, improper tax accounting, and numerous other financial issues. Yeah,

that's true. I remember this witness. Meanwhile, Chelsea Barney testified about, she testified about real estate transactions in which she claimed that she lost both her life savings and her home after Corey allegedly mishandled the transaction and lied about what happened. Well, the defense claims they repeatedly objected to this testimony throughout the trial because they believe it violated the judge's earlier pre-trial rulings. However, according to the motion, every one of those objections was overruled. The defense, so they argue that prosecutors didn't just present this financial evidence during the trial. They made it a central theme during closing arguments. And they did talk a lot about it.

You know, it was their motive. It was their motive piece. Prosecutors, according to the motion, prosecutors began their closing argument by reminding jurors that Corey secretly took out a home equity line of credit or a key lock without Eric's knowledge before his death. The defense also points out that roughly seven pages of the prosecution's closing argument focused on the testimony from Brooke Carrington and Chelsea Barney. So what is the defense saying?

The defense is arguing that by repeatedly highlighting these allegations of financial dishonesty. Prosecutors encouraged jurors to view Corey as someone with a history of deceit, rather than focusing solely on the evidence surrounding Eric's death.

And that's interesting. And let me pull out another trial we just covered. And I talked about this with the juror just yesterday. The Samuel Baitman trial that I just experienced in Flagstaff, Arizona. Interviewed a juror just yesterday. You can find that

on YouTube. He kept talking about how contained that trial was. In other words, those who know Sam Bateman from the Netflix documentary, Trust Me, a False Prophet, know that he has some severe federal convictions, that he's serving 50 years for essentially kidnapping and trafficking and abusing young girls. Yet he showed up in a three-day trial in Flagstaff, Arizona, where his crimes were not the sexual abuse and the underage wives that he took. Horrific, horrific, horrific crime, horrific guy. I could hardly stand being in the same courtroom as him. But they did not bring up that abuse. They brought up that trailer, the body cam trailer of Samuel Bateman hauling three young girls in a trailer that put them in severe danger.

And as the juror even stated that I interviewed, they contained that trial to that crime. It was kind of curious to me that there was just women, you know, around this man. And then knowing, you know, knowing the area of Colorado City, having driven through it a few times going, you know, wherever I was going to go up to Utah or whatever to go and recreate. Knowing the history of the area. I was like, I had my suspicions, but I wasn't really, you know, I was more focused on the testimony and what they had brought forward as far as evidence. And really, you know,

just in the evidence alone, and the prosecution did such a good job of compartmentalizing what we got to see and hear. They did. Right. That's why I think I'm so curious to speak to you and to a juror because they really did compartmentalize it. They did not go into anything else he had done or his horrific additional crimes. No.

No, they were really good about it. And they really made sure that that didn't come into play. The jurors did not know who Sam Bateman was for the most part. The jurors did not understand his past convictions and his sexual crimes. It was maybe, they were maybe curious because the guy was surrounded by girls and young girls and women. But they contained it. So the defense is essentially arguing that this case with Corey was not contained. that some financial crimes that she's charged with and real estate fraud was maybe brought up

too much in this murder trial because this trial was supposed to be contained to Corey's charges of murdering her husband. So this is an interesting argument to me. At the same time, I'm going to say that bringing up the financial information was important to the prosecution to show motive, right? Why would Corey want to kill the father of her children? Why would Corey give away this idyllic life that looks lovely? Why would she want to throw it all away? Maybe because she needed his money.

So in that sense, I can also understand why the financial bit was brought up. So let's keep reading this. With that in mind, let's keep reading and learning about this motion and the defense's argument that they feel too much of her deceit and past financial problems or crimes were brought up. Let's keep going. So to support their argument, the defense compares Corey's case to a recent decision involving Alec Murda. Another trial that's been overturned. I mean, it's telling us that that trial being overturned,

having a Alex, having a, Alex, excuse me, having a new trial, I mean, definitely like puts things into perspective. Like it definitely makes us take these appeals more seriously. Okay. So they bring up Alec Murdoch. They point to a decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court issued in May of 2026, not long ago, guys, which they say found it was unfairly prejudicial for prosecutors to introduce years worth of evidence about the defendant's alleged financial misconduct under the

theory that it established motive. Same thing, guys, same thing. They said it was too much. Again, I also understand why the prosecution did it, though. Why would somebody, a family man, kill his wife and son? So they brought it up because it was motive. It was motive and it was important to show in sort of these family cases when when family members are murdering family members. But we also know Alec Murdoch's trial was overturned, so it's kind of a chilling thing to bring up. So the defense argues that Corey's trial suffered from this very same problem. In their view, evidence of alleged financial wrongdoing became so extensive that it unfairly influenced the jury and overshadowed the actual murder evidence.

So whether that comparison ultimately applies to Corey's case, that will be up to the court to decide. But that's the argument the defense is making here. The motion then moves into the final argument, which is known as the cumulative error doctrine. This doctrine, it recognizes that sometimes no single mistake during a trial is serious enough to justify a new trial on its own. That's true. However, when multiple errors are viewed together, when a pattern is established, this combined effect may deprive someone of a fair trial. The defense cites several Utah appellate decisions explaining that before cumulative error applies.

Three things generally have to be true. First, there must have been at least two actual errors during the trial. Second, each of those errors must have had some potential to affect the proceedings. And third, when all of those errors are considered together, they must undermine confidence that the defendant received a fair trial. The defense argues that that is exactly what happened here. So according, again, to this motion by Corey's team, even if the court ultimately decided that none of the issues they raised individually

require a new trial, they believe that all of the alleged problems taken together, all of them together, that creates an unfair proceeding, all of it together. Finally, the defense summarizes exactly what they're asking for the court to do. First, they want Judge Morazik to remove himself from deciding this motion because they believe his impartiality has been called into question. Okay, and that's what Judge Maragic has done. He's removed himself from this motion. Second, they are requesting an evidentiary hearing before a different judge. So at that hearing, they want the opportunity to present testimony evidence,

video clips transcript, legal argument supporting their request for a new trial. And it is important to remember that this is only the defense's motion. These are allegations made. And who are they made by? They're made by Corey's attorneys who believe in her. They made that clear in their closing statements too. They stated, you know, never have they just known that their client is innocent. I mean, they believe in Corey Richens.

And so, again, this motion is not findings by the court and the state is absolutely going to have an opportunity to file a response. I am looking forward to that response. We will cover it here. And ultimately, it will be up to the court to decide whether any of these arguments justify granting Corey Richens a new trial. And it'll be up to a new judge to decide to a judge that isn't Judge Morazic. But until then, it appears that Corey and her team have at least temporarily gotten one of the things they've asked for. Again, Judge Richard Mrazik, he's officially stepped aside from any further involvement in this case, wild emotion for a new trial is being addressed. So not necessarily forever, but now, temporarily. We'll see. I mean, I guess it could be permanent, but right now it's not. In a court filing, Judge Mrazik, he acknowledged that Corey's attorneys accused him of

bias and requested that another judge decide the motion. And he wrote out, here's what he says. Quote, for Judge Marazik, out of an abundance of caution, he is treating that portion of the motion as a formal request for disqualification under Utah's rules of criminal procedure. Rather than ruling on whether he should remain on the case himself, Judge Marazick is essentially certified the issue to the associate presiding judge. Utah's third district court for review, and he also stated that he shall take no further action in this case until the motion is decided, end quote. So what does this all actually mean? Well, it does not mean that another judge has determined Judge Marzik was biased, and it does not mean

that court has been granted a new trial or that she will be. Instead, because the defense formally questioned his impartiality, Judge Marazik has stepped aside while another judge determines how to move forward. And that judge will decide the disqualification issue and will ultimately address the motion for a new trial. So for now, according to the court's latest filing, Judge Marazik will not take any further action in the case until that process is complete. We're going to keep following this closely, bringing you any updates as they come and we are looking forward. I am looking forward to the state's response. And I also am looking forward to your response. Tell us what you think. You know, I started one place.

We've ended another place, right? We've looked at the videos. We've heard their arguments. Let us know what you think in comments. To share anything you might think. Tell us where you are in this case. Until then, we will be waiting and thank you for following Hidden True Crime. Thank you for subscribing. Thank you for hyping this video. Thank you for liking this video. There are many things you can do to support our work that means so much to us that is free. And you can also join our membership to get certain members-only content.

That also helps us if you have that to offer. but just being here, supporting us, hitting hype, liking our videos, and sharing with your friends. Your support means the world. We continue caring about bringing you the latest updates on important cases, as well as entire full backstories on cases as well. We have many in the works and much coming here at Hidden True Crime.