Hidden True Crime - Courtroom Erupts: Dealer Turns on Carmen — Judge Cuts the Cameras | Kouri Richins Trial Day 5 Recap

Episode Date: March 1, 2026

Day five of the Kouri Richins trial wasn’t about pills — it was about credibility, motive, and whether the state’s star witnesses are starting to unravel. In this episode, we break down the intense cross-examination of Carmen Lauber, whose timeline of alleged drug purchases shifted under pressure, and the stunning testimony of Robert Crozier, who flatly told the jury he never sold Carmen fentanyl — only oxycodone. From immunity deals and paused drug court to pricing arguments, conflicting affidavits, and whether detectives shaped key details over time, the math suddenly isn’t mathing. The prosecution tried to steady the ship on redirect, but with inconsistent memories, evolving statements, and a second dealer contradicting the fentanyl narrative, the courtroom energy shifted in a way that could change everything. Sponsors: Blissy: Wake up with clearer skin, smoother hair, and cooler sleep—use code HIDDEN for an extra 30% off at https://blissy.com/HIDDEN OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with code hidden at https://oneskin.co #ad 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, u I and c e.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day of returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Today's trial, day five, to be exact, of the Corey Richon's trial. And for those just joining us, Corey Richens, a Utah mother accused of fatally poisoning her husband, Eric Richens. And today, honestly, I'm just going to lay it out here.

It did leave me wondering if the prosecution is in trouble because after our key witness Carmen took the stand, Robbie, he's another drug dealer. He also took the stand. These two testimonies could change everything about this case. And I don't even mean that as like a really cool clickbait headline. This changes everything. I really mean it because these are the star witnesses for the state, right? Their stories are not adding up and we're going to go through everything because the math ain't mathen.

Hidden True Crime has been following this case from the very beginning. And I'm Lauren Matthias. And today, honestly, the courtroom energy completely shifted. First off, it was a packed courtroom, which already gave. the morning a different energy. We had a few days where it wasn't packed. And you could feel that people knew this testimony was really important. People showed back up, except for those that were sketching the jurors, because we don't do that in these cases. So, but everyone else was there. And Carmen Lauber was back on the stand, and defense attorney Lewis picked up right where she left

off with cross-examination. And many of us here at hidden Jew crime, we were, we kind of left off. It was a little intense and intense where it left off right with carman like we didn't really appreciate the questioning for the defense and uh carman of course though to remind though she's the house cleaner or former house cleaner of corey richens who previously testified that corey asked her to buy illicit pills four separate times around when eric richans died 39-year-old eric richans father of three And so Lewis started by backing up and focusing on Carmen's working relationship with Corey. And she asked about communication, whether it was mostly by text. And Carmen said it was both phone calls and text messages.

And then they shifted to the Midway Mansion cleaning job. And Carmen said that she cleaned it for an open house with her friend Nick Von Savage and two other coworkers. Corey paid Nick through Venmo and they were all making $25 an hour cleaning this massive multimillion dollar mansion. Lewis brought up a $1,300 check. Carmen said it was written and picked up on March 9th. Eric died on March 4th. So that was before then. Things got more intense. Honestly, when Lewis turned to Carmen's May 4th, 2023 interview with detectives while she was in jail on a drug court violation. And in that interview,

detectives asked if she had talked to anyone about what was going on. Carmen told them she had not and that she was just telling people she was in jail for a drug court issue. Lewis flat out told her that was not true because she had allegedly been telling people in detail that she was cooperating with law enforcement.

So Carmen and said she did not recall. Lewis specifically brought up Nick Von Savage and a phone call where Carmen allegedly told him she was going to meet with the U.S. attorneys and that she was nervous. Carmen said she did not remember the details. So that was the theme this morning. A lot of, I don't recall. Lewis clearly wanted the jury to see that Carmen may not have been fully truthful with investigators or at least consistent with what she was telling people.

And that, again, makes sense. This is the key witness. If someone truly poisoned Eric Richens, where did that poison come from? And the poison would be fentanyl because that's what was found, five times legal dose in his system. They have got to make the jury question Carmen Lauber. So then we see a text on the screen from Carmen to Nick,

saying she absolutely could not lose her drug court and that she had to work so hard. And that part of me stood, that part stood out to me. It shows how high the stakes were for her personally, right? If she messed up drug court, she could face serious, serious consequence. Lewis then reminded the jury that Carmen was very nervous about meeting with federal agents. and Carmen agreed that she was. Lewis said that on May 10th, 2023, two assistant U.S. attorneys met

and a federal agent met with Carmen in jail and that she had immunity from federal prosecution at that point. Carmen said she had never actually seen any immunity letters and assumed they went to her attorney. And then immunity, of course, always raises questions about motivation. Okay, you have immunity? then what why are you here are you here are you here for for for Eric richard or are you here for somebody for another reason for yourself right it does open the door for questions from the defense

and the defense is clearly planting the idea that Carmen had something to gain by cooperating right so then came the drug use timeline and this is where it got really messy Carmen initially said that she had been clean a little over four years. Lewis pushed back, suggesting February 22 was not correct. And then she said Carmen had told investigators July 2020 was the last time that she'd used. Potato potato, Patato. Carmen said she was not 100% sure. Lewis also asked if Carmen had ever used someone else's urine to pass drug tests.

Carmen said absolutely not. And then Lewis suggested Carmen and Nick may have figured. out a way to rig the random drug testing system, almost like cracking an algorithm to predict when they would be called in. Carmen denied that too and said it was just a random phone call each day. Lewis then asked of Carmen was selling drugs in 2022 to support her habit or skimming drugs from Robert to use or sell herself. Robert's important. Put a pin in Robert, guys, Robert, Robbie, we're going to hear from him. So just wondered. you know, in 22, was she using Robert to help her habit?

Carmen said no, though. And this was all about credibility, obviously, the defense, trying to chip away at whether the jury can fully trust Carmen Lauber. Key witness, Carmen Lauber. They highlighted inconsistencies. They highlighted her fear of losing drug court, possible immunity, and questions, even about her sobriety timeline. So if the jury starts to think she bent the truth before.

They may wonder if she could be bending it now. And guys, that works. I hear oftentimes from people watching trials. Well, if they lied then, or they lie now, you know, they probably lied then. But at the same time, Carmen did not completely fall apart on the stand. She denied the major accusations, and she stuck to her core claim that Corey asked her to buy pills. That's the core claim, and that's what she has stuck to always. been her story. But it was definitely confusing and at times uncomfortable to watch this cross-exam.

I knew it would be. The jury now has to weigh whether her memory lapses are normal human moments under pressure or signs of someone who is not being fully transparent. Things really escalated when Lewis said she needed to play a call to impeach the witness. Again, impeachment, the loss of credibility, trying to make the jury see you can't trust this witness. Prosecutor Bloodworth asked to review the recording first, and the judge sent the jury out briefly so they could get the audio set up. So then when the jury came back in Lewis had Carmen put on headphones to listen to the recordings, and the rest of the courtroom could not hear them yet, but the calls were between Carmen and Nick Von Savage. It was explained that in those calls, Nick says they can't get any more pills, and this would be the last time. Lewis moved to admit the recordings

and Bloodworth did not object so they were played for everyone let's take a listen to this let's hear us well because remember I kept asking like hey text Corey do we need any more and so me and you was the last time we were able to get any because she didn't want any anymore

because remember her guy was out of town or whatever I mean I know that like I kept asking like hey as her guy want more or guy want more so then you're like she'd always say no so like i know you and me was the last time unless you cheated on me and i went with somebody else i never see what you yeah yeah so nick said he's the one that texted but then he said that's the last time you and me could get any of those pills correct that's the last time nick and that was the last time nick and i had gone to the maverick right we listened to the call he said that's the last time you and me could get any of those pills

that's what the call says that's the last time him and i went to the maverick correct I'm going to try and ask the question again. John, objection, ask an answer. It's an evidence. That's what it says. Sustained. Please ask you no question. Sure.

All right. Let's go back to the May 10th interview with Ms. Whistler and the others. From there, Lewis went straight to Carmen's May 10th, 2023 jail interview with investigators, including one named Ms. Whistler. And in that interview, Carmen said she used drugs maybe once. a month. And Lewis flat out said, flat out, that was not true and suggested that she was using more often. And then Carmen did admit that she wasn't honest with investigators at that time. Lewis then walked through more of that jail interview. Carmen had told investigators that money would be left

in a closet and pills would be placed there, right? And then Lewis also dug into Carmen's statements about buying pills from Susan Kohler. And at one point, Lewis was reading directly from the transcript. Bloodworth objected. But Lewis argued the whole point was that Carmen's story back then does not fully match what she is saying now. And it was true. Carmen responded that it was a lot to process, though, at the time. And Lewis pointed out that Carmen's interview with federal authorities happened about a year after the events, whereas now it has been four years.

She asked if Carmen's memory would have been better than it is now, and Carmen said yes. Yes, and that is powerful for the defense, honestly. IMO, in my opinion. They're basically saying, if her story was different, when her memory was fresher, why should we trust her version she's giving today, right? Lewis pressed her on a specific inconsistency, which was a 2023 interview. Carmen said the first pill she got from Susan Kohler were left in the fire pit at the Midway House and today she says that is not correct, correct, not correct, excuse me,

correct, it's not correct. Carmen agreed that is a difference. Lewis then asked if when she was talking to the U.S. Attorney's Office and facing potential mandatory 20-year minimum, she was doing her best to tell the truth. Carmen said yes, but also she said she could have been confused because it was a lot to take in. Again, the defense theme is very clear, and it's been clear since day four, now we're at day five. If she was trying her hardest to tell the truth back then, and her memory was better than why the change now, right?

Because would her memory be better when it was closer to when Eric Richings lost his life? But then Lewis shifted to the second alleged by involving Robert Cross. Also knows Robbie. We'll hear from Robbie later. That's who we've all put a pin in that, that witness. I genuinely did not realize how much my pillowcase was affecting my skin and hair until I switched to Blissy. I always thought frizz and sleep creases were just a part of life, right? Well, turns out, cotton wasn't doing me any favors. Let's see pillowcases, they're made from 100% pure 22 Mommy 6A grade mulberry silk. And yes, you can feel the difference immediately. Silk is a naturally cooling. It's breathable and so much gentler on your skin and hair than even satin

or cotton. And since I started using mine, I've noticed way less frizz in the mornings and fewer sleep lines on my face. And it feels smoother, cooler, and honestly more luxurious. They're dermatologists tested, machine washable, and they come in over 100 colors and designs. And with over three million sold, I'm clearly not the only one who is obsessed. Because you are a hidden gym or a listener, Blissy is offering 60 nights risk-free, plus an additional 30% off when you shop at Blissy.com slash hidden. That's Blissy, B-L-I-S-S-Y dot com slash hidden, and use code hidden to get an additional 30% off. Your skin and hair will thank you. According to her testimony, Corey asked for something stronger, referencing the Michael Jackson stuff. And Carmen said

she wasn't sure what that meant at the time. And in her 2023 interview, she told Whistler that she had to Google it and learn it was, here we go, propoful, propoful. Did I do it guys, right? Propofel? Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct. Propoful. Okay. The drug, that's the drug associated with Michael Jackson's death. Lewison asked a practical question. Can you even buy a propoful on the street? And Carmen said she is not sure. They also went into Carmen's very own opioid history, which she's been very honest about from the very beginning. She told Whistler that she had taken opioids for neck surgery. And at first, they were prescribed, but later she admitted taking pills like Roxy's or Oxy's that were not prescribed. She said her surgery had been about a year before that 2023 interview.

And so then Lewis asked if that surgery lined up with the time, she was getting the pills from Robert Crozier and whether she might have been holding some back. for herself. Carmen said no. And then Lewis circled back to the Michael Jackson stuff. And that's in quote, Michael Jackson stuff. That was the term that was used. Carmen testified, the she told Corey that the streets are not a pharmacy and you cannot just order whatever you want or a stronger dose. Lewis countered that the first pills were prescription oxycodone from Susan Kohler and the second batch involved 30 milligram rock Pills, which are stronger and illicit. Illicit is an important word here. Carmen agreed those were stronger than standard prescription oxycodone.

So Lewis made the point that you could, in fact, get something stronger while still staying within the oxycodone category. So now we're talking categories. And Lewis then asked directly if Carmen ever specifically asked Robert for fentanyl. And Carmen said no. She also, also said she did not remember Corey ever specifically asking for fentanyl. I can't imagine what the jury was thinking during this. And at that point, Lewis pulled the transcript back up again, clearly preparing to confront her with prior statements. And over this whole stretch of testimony, honestly, it felt like the defense tightening these sort of screws. Like they've had nearly, like they've had hours with her at this point, right? The focus was not just on.

what drugs were bought. It was also on whether Carmen's memory had shifted over time, whether she shaped her story while under pressure from federal authorities because of immunity and whether key details like fire pit drops, frequency of her drug use, and even what Corey requested has changed. And so in trying to consider the jury, for the jury, it's got to come down to this. do they see Carmen as someone who was overwhelmed and imperfect but then ultimately truthful? Or do they see someone whose story evolves depending on who is asking the questions and what is at stake, right? There's two ways to see this. I'm actually curious what you think.

Maybe we can even do a poll here while we continue. Do you see someone, do you see Carmen as someone whose story is simply a voice? because, you know, it's of what is that stake, that this immunity issue? Or have you felt that she was ultimately truthful, but perhaps overwhelmed at the beginning and is sort of now honed in on her story and is being truthful for Eric Richens? This next part, though, is where it really started to feel like everyone in the room is trying to keep up with the moving target, honestly. Hold on. Lewis read directly from the transcript of Carmen's 2023 interview with Investigator Whistler. And in that transcript, Whistler asks, when you met with Robbie, did you ask him for fentanyl? And Carmen Lauber answered, yes. Whistler followed up. You used that word, that specific word. Carmen said yes. So then Whistler asked why she specifically asked for fentanyl. And Carmen said,

because that's what was asked for. That was the Michael Jackson drug, right? End quote. That is obviously a big moment because Lewis immediately pointed out the inconsistency. Carmen had already testified that she Googled Michael Jackson drug and found propofal, not fentanyl. So which is it, right? If she learned that it was propoful, why did, why was she specifically asking Robbie for fentanyl? So Lewis kept reading, Whistler asked. So that's what Corey asked you to get. Is that fair? And then Carmen responded that she never came right out and asked specifically for fentanyl. She asked for Michael Jackson stuff. And then Whistler asked if Carmen told her what she was getting was fentanyl. Carmen said yes before the second transaction in her driveway when Corey picked it up.

So now the jury is left trying to sort through this like sort of layers of wording. It's confusing. Did Corey ever actually say fentanyl? And I think that's going to matter to the jury, guys, because what do we all know? What is no one disputing that Eric Richens died from a fentanyl overdose? So, did Carmen interpret Michael Jackson stuff as fentanyl at the time? And if she Googled it and saw Propheaval, why pivot to fentanyl? And this is, again, this is like sort of like this gray area that the defense does want the jury sitting on. So, so well done. Defense, well done. Well played. You know, Lewis then shifted to the number of purchases.

So in her interview with federal authorities, Carmen's interview with federal authorities, Carmen, said she purchased drugs one time from Susan and then two times from Robert, not three times from Robert. And Carmen agreed that is what she said. She described the first Robert buy as light green pills. Okay, so we have light green pills. The second as light blue pills on, you know, I'm going to throw out that fentanyl is often known as a powder blue color. So the second is light blue pills. And then she said she got Robert's number from Nicole Cummings asking for Roxy 30s or blues, picked up $1,000 and met him at Maverick. Lewis pointed out that at $1,000, Robbie was charging more than $30 per pill.

And Carmen agreed. Lewis asked if that was high for oxycodone. And Carmen said, yes, that is high. So then Lewis asked if she knew what fentanyl cells for and Carmen said she was not sure. Lewis suggested fentanyl was really cheap in 2022 and 2023. Carmen said she just went off whatever price Robert gave her, Robert Robbie. So you can see again what Lewis is doing. If fentanyl is cheap and she paid a high price consistent with oxycodone, that undercuts the idea that this was fentanyl. It is a subtle. but important pricing argument. I mean, the timeline then started kind of unraveling again.

Carmen initially said she got oxies from Susan on February 11th, but later said she bought from Robert on that same date. So she also said she picked up money from a house Corey was slipping. Lewis asked if she knew that Corey had already sold that house in January 2022. Carmen said she didn't know that. So I think they're trying to say if Corey didn't own the house at the time, how could Carmen have dropped the drugs off there? And then after picking up the money, she met Robert at the gas station, gave him the cash.

He left to get the pills and then came back. And then Lewis brought up Nancy Peterson. Did Carmen tell Whistler that Nancy drove her? Carmen did not recall. Lewis pulled up a photo of Carmen and Nancy in the car. The lettering on Nancy's hat was backward in the original. backwards in the original image, meaning it was a selfie. Lewis and flipped it to show orientation and pointed out that Carmen was the one actually driving this.

And I felt like Lewis thought this was sort of like the gotcha moment, right? Gotcha. But Carmen explained that Nancy wanted to get high, and so Carmen drove them home. The problem is that Carmen had previously said Nancy drove, right? So again, gotcha. Nancy, you said Nancy drove and now you're driving. So Carmen had previously said Nancy drove because Carmen didn't have a driver's license today. She admitted she often drove without a license anyway, which we know that that was actually an issue,

was driving without a license for her. So now we are left wondering, though, once again, if she regularly drove without a license, why was Nancy supposedly needing to drive in the first place? Maybe she didn't have a car that day. Maybe she did. just adds, again, layers of confusion and really gets away from the whole point. Was there an exchange of drugs? Did Corey ask her housekeeper to get drugs, pills? And this certainly just kind of confuses everyone. Lewis confirmed that the third purchase from Robert was March 9th after

Eric Richens had already died. So she pressed Carmen on how she can now be certain of that date when she was unsure during her 2023 interview and Carmen said her bank records show the check from Corey Richens, which helps anchor the timeline. Lewis also pointed out that during the second and third purchases, Carmen didn't tell Robert she needed something stronger. Carmen agreed. And then the second time she asked for more of the same. So then at this point, it felt like everyone was sort of spinning a bit, like, or, you know, I'm projecting maybe.

In the chat, I could see that it wasn't just. me though who was confused prosecutor bloodworth objected and honestly i was glad because it gave everyone like a second to breathe a little bit uh i mean but maybe the confusion is the point maybe that is the point of the defense maybe they're like we did our job louis is trying to show that carmen's 2023 interview doesn't line up cleanly with her testimony today. But it's hard to track because we're comparing multiple interviews, right? There's so many multiple transactions. There's the first, the second, the third, and there's slightly different wording each time. So originally, Carmen told Whistler, there were three total purchases, one from Susan and two from Robert. She said the first

Robert purchase involved green pills. The second involved more of the same. She said she picked up money from the Midway House. She said Nick went with her on the second purchase. But early in court, she indicated Nick went on the last purchase. Lewis emphasized, you told Whistler, he went with you the second time. Like you could see Lewis getting a little frustrated, which was kind of nice to see, admittedly. I mean, it's tough to make a clean impeachment point when the timeline is muddy, you know, like she was seeing me frustrated. That was good. Carmen keeps saying she doesn't remember or keeps getting confused. And the jury was, I mean, I can't see the jury. I'm assuming they're probably a bit overwhelmed. I mean, you know,

again, maybe that's just me. Lewis finally tried to simplify it. She said, you made really clear in your interviews that there were three total purchases, one from Susan, two from Robert, right? Carmen agreed to that. And then she confirmed the detectives Maynard and Detective O'Driscoll. So Maynard and O'Driscoll, they're important in this whole case. They told her she purchased drugs from Robert on March 9th. She agreed. But even then, she maintained that originally. She said there were only three total purchases. And so then Lewis said, and I know you've now changed your story, but that's what you said originally, end quote. So again, they're trying to show that her version of events has shifted and honestly they're doing a decent

job of it. They are. On the number of buys on who drove, on whether fentanyl was, right, specifically requested on where the money was picked up on what she told investigators when her memory was fresher. The hard part, honestly, is that it, you know, I keep saying this, but it's it's genuinely confusing. And when things sort of get this genuinely confusing, like this tangled, jurors can react one of two ways, sort of like we can, as we're watching this together. Either they think this witness cannot keep her story straight, or they think this was years ago. She was under pressure, and the core story has stayed the same, even if the details are messy. I mean, I appreciate that we did a poll here. While over 80% of you believe

Carmen, that does leave a solid percentage, believing that maybe she isn't telling the whole truth, or this has something to do with her immunity, right? And think of that percentage on a jury. there's also the possibility that the jury maybe doesn't think the attorney is great at their job, right? Like she looks frustrated at times. Right now, I really just think people are just trying to keep up, though, all of us. And look, I know this case well and I'm trying to keep up. At one point, things were so kind of confusing and tangled to me that Judge Marazik called both attorneys up and then had them step into his office during a break. we're not told what we said, obviously. When you're asked to step into the judge's office, we don't know what's going on in there.

But it's like saying, let's go to the principal's office for a second. It's hard to not guess what happened in there. I'm going to guess that he's maybe probably addressing the confusion and telling Lewis to get it together. I mean, that's what I'm trying to imagine happened in the judge's office. But who knows? Who knows? When court resumed, Lewis tried to reset. She asked to summarize the prior interview with the U.S. Attorney's Office and Investigator Whistler before moving on.

Probably a smart move. She went back over it slowly, and in that interview, Carmen said she bought pills one time from Susan Kohler and then two times, two times from Robert, not three times from Robert, too. And she said she bought the same pills from Robert both times. She also said in that interview that pills were left at the Midway House, either in the fire pit or in a cup in the closet. And then Lewis asked a key question. You do not actually know who picked up those pills from the Midway House, correct? And Carmen said correct. She does not know if it was Corey Richens.

She doesn't know if it was Eric Richens. She doesn't know if it was the investor of Corrie's or, or, or, or, you know, or, you know if it was. someone else. And that is important because, again, it undercuts certainty about who physically handled what. Who were those pills intended for? And then Lewis shifted to what happened two days after that federal interview. On May 12, 2023, Carmen called Detective Maynard and asked him to come see her. What makes one skin different isn't packaging or trends. It's real longevity science. The founders, their 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% off OneSkin.com.co with code Hidden. Lewis suggested part of the reason she wanted that meeting was because she was worried about being federally charged. And Carmen said she did not recall. Lewis had her flip through the binder to show where she expressed concern about charges. And then during that meeting, Carmen asked detectives to lay the story out again for her. She said it was easier when they put the puzzle pieces together. And she didn't have to do that. She admitted they had her phone data and that they were explained.

explaining events to her based on that data. That would make her probably very worried. Lewis then made a very pointed argument. She suggested it was detectives who first introduced the word fentanyl into Carmen's narrative. Carmen said she did not recall that specifically, but she agreed that they told her that Eric died from me. fentanyl. No one else. They told her Eric died from fentanyl. So they were the ones who brought fentanyl into the conversation. Carmen also told Maynard. She was worried about all of the charges that she could face. Clearly, they're saying that they have her phone data. She's scared about

charges she could face. Carmen also told Maynard again about the concern she had with the charges and then Maynard told her their goal was to convict Corey of aggravated murder and that the parallel drug investigations were not a priority. So in other words, they were not focused on charging Carmen. He reassured her that they would get her through this so she can move on with her life. And that kind of reassurance, though, can cut both ways. Again, the defense, the defense wants the jury to here and think Carmen had a very powerful incentive to align her story with what investigators believed, right? Not just to tell the truth. Carmen does have a powerful incentive to tell the truth with immunity. Immunity is a powerful reason to tell the truth. But immunity can also be a powerful

incentive to align whatever story the investigators believe happened, right? Go along with us. we got you it's it's a point to sort of drive home again to the jury and the next interview was may 13th 2023 that carman did and so lewis is like let's talk about that in our interview and louis asked if that was when detectives really laid out the march ninth purchase timeline for her Carmen said she did not recall so back to the binder again lewis asked whether maynard Detective Maynard and Detective O'Driscoll, both very important investigators on this case, told her that they had spoken with Nick von Savage about the last purchase he went on with her and that after talking to Nick, they concluded the last buy happened on March 9th, March 9th of 2022. Just a few days after Eric Richens had died. Carmen said yes.

And then came another big moment. Detectives asked her if it was possible. she bought pills four total times. So one's from Susan and then three times from Robert, Robert slash Robbie, Robert Robbie. And in that interview, Carmen said absolutely not. Like that was a definitive. Absolutely not. She said there were only three total purchases. She repeated that more than once, three total purchases. She said she just knew that there were only three. And Lewis, and by by the way, you know, for those just joining this case, there's not just a murder charge on the table. There's also an attempted murder charge, right? Again, Valentine's Day 2022. So three purchases matters here. One then, one right before the murder, and then this one a few days after. Okay. So Lewis made sure the jury heard that clearly. Two days earlier, she told Whistler, there were three purchases. But on May 13th, she again,

there were three purchases. But today in court, she's now saying there are four purchases. Carmen agreed. That is what happened. Okay. So now we have four purchases. And so, you know, again, if we're going through all these charges, what are these? So that is the defense's central point, right? Back when the events were fresher, she was totally sure there were three. Absolutely definitive. No question. Now, four years later, that definitive answer, the absolute answer, has changed. Lewis then moved to the end of that Maynard and O'Driscoll interview with her back then, and the detectives told Carmen Lauber that they would bring her a timeline of everything that happened. they would bring the timeline to her.

And Carmen said she does not remember whether they ever actually did do that or not. Her again, memory is foggy. Memory is hard. Lewis also asked about what happened after those interviews. And Carmen was eventually released from custody on an ankle monitor. Okay. She went before Judge Mabey, who set conditions of her release. Her probation was transferred from Wasatch County to Summit County,

which is where we are now. Summit County. It's where the trial's happening. And then Detective Maynard became her probation officer. Yeah. Detective Maynard, she's released. She has probation. She's transferred from Wasatch County to the Summit County, where this case is, where we are. And Detective Maynard, main investigator, becomes Carmen's probation officer. Yeah, that raised eyebrows in the room. Absolutely. The same detective investigating this murder case is also now Carmen Lauber's probation officer. I mean, if we're going to talk conflicts of interest or conspiracy theories or a jury that's confused, throw that one in the pipe and smoke that one. Lewis pointed out that Carmen had said she only spoke to Maynard a few times after those interviews.

Carmen clarified that she checks in with him daily by text because of probation. He drug tested her in the beginning. She does not remember the last time she was tested. She thinks it may have been more than two years ago. And then she also explained that her drug court is essentially paused until this case is over. So what happens in drug court after this case is over depends on her testimony in this trial. This is a big trial for Carmen Lauver, what she says in this trial. Then Lewis asked the question that probably landed the hardest.

So, if you testify truthfully at this trial, you are not going to prison, correct? Carmen said correct. And then Lewis followed up. And it is the people at the prosecution table, those people over there, they are who decide. whether you testify truthfully. Is that, you know, ask you, is that correct? Carmen's response, sorry for this, Carmen's response is she did not know. Well played, Carmen.

I mean, the defense is building the argument that Carmen's freedom is tied, at least in her mind, to satisfying and making the prosecution happy. Add in federal immunity, paused drug court. a detective who now doubles as her probation officer. Reassurances about not worrying about charges and investigators helping put the puzzle pieces together. And you can't see the picture that Lewis is painting here. I have to admit that. The problem is, though, is it is a lot.

Dates, interviews, numbers of buys, these changing, shifting timelines through the years, probation conditions. It's complicated. it's heavy and it is it is confusing the jury has to decide whether this shows manipulation and a changing story or whether it simply reflects a chaotic period in someone's life who is struggling with addiction and that is what carman has admitted to this was a chaotic period in someone's life she was struggling with addiction she's told us that in the very beginning so the jury's going to decide you know again is this someone just simply struggling with addiction trying to remember events from years earlier, but make no mistake, today was about one thing, though.

Today was about credibility and whether Carmen's version of events have been shaped over time. In the last stretch of cross, Lewis started with Carmen's conditional release paperwork. She asked if there were specific people Carmen was not allowed to have contact with, and Carmen Lauber said yes, and one of those people was Nick Bond Savage. Lewis then pointed out that Carmen has continued talking to Nick over the last three years. Carmen tried to clarify that she believed the no contact rule only applied while she had the ankle monitor on. And Lewis said that it is not what the rules actually said. Carmen read the document and admitted she must have been confused at the rules and that she was not supposed to be communicating with Nick at all.

But the reality is she has been communicating with Nick. And she said he is her best friend. And that does matter because Nick is intertwined in these drug transactions. If they have been in constant communication despite court orders, that could open the door to questions about influencing each other's recollections, influencing her testimony. And then Lewis brought up the letters Corey wrote saying Carmen completed community service hours. Carmen confirmed she was the one who asked Corey to write those letters. That's another piece.

That complicates things because it shows sort of this ongoing relationship of favors being exchanged with Corey. And then we continue. Lewis continues into something a little bit more broad, a little bit more pointed. She basically asks Carmen. So she basically asked Carmen, is it fair to say you do not actually remember what happened in February and March of 2022. Carmen asked, what she means? What do you mean?

Lewis says, so when you're, you were interviewed in 2023, you do not remember what happened. Carmen agreed. It was a lot to take in. So then Lewis continues. She pushes further. So if you did not remember a year later, in other words, a year after Eric Richon's death, then, and you don't remember just a year later, then there's, no way you could really remember now because now it's four years later. Correct? Correct.

And Carmen said yes and no. Lewis said, well, your memory has been laid out for you by someone else, correct? Meaning she's pointing out the prosecution there. You know, they've laid your memory out, haven't they? Carmen admitted that due to the cell phone data and everything else, yes, in many ways, they've laid her memory out because they do have things that are exact, cell phone data, dates, time, right? They have things, texts. And yes, when it came to her cell phone data, the detectives walked her through it, meaning they helped her with her memory. So Lewis framed it this way. So whatever memory you have now is based on what was shown to you and not your own independent recollection. Carmen explained that she has partial memory. She agreed that four years later

it was very confusing. Lewis then reminded the jury that in February and March 2022, Carmen was using and selling drugs. And Carmen agreed. And I'm actually grateful that Lewis brought that up because that matters too when it comes to memory. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Like it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched chiching, with a wealth front cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wealthfront was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in.

I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust Welfront is taking care of me. Earn more on your uninvested cash with a Wealthfront cash account. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Get started today at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30.

of 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. These and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to chitching. With the wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash.

I can trust wealth front is taking care of me. Make your money earn more. started at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials, creating a conflict of interest. How comes very. 3.3%. Base API, 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 Brogeridge LLC, member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. Then came the fentanyl question again. Lewis asked, Corrie never asked you for fentanyl. Did she? Carmen said she told

Corey that Robert had fentanyl. And Corey said, go ahead and get it. Okay. But she admitted Corey never specifically said the word fentanyl to her. Lewis walked through the purchases one more time, prescription oxycodone from Susan, light green pills from Robert in February, and more of the same. And the last trip to Robert happened after Eric Richens died. but Lewis emphasized that in 2023 Carmen repeatedly said she bought from Robert only twice now she's saying three times Carmen agreed that back then she said too

Lewis pointed out that the change now lines up with information detectives later showed her from phone data yeah guys this is rinse and repeat Carmen admitted she does not independently recall that extra purchase then Lewis zoomed out to the cooperation agreement she said after you agreed to cooperate. You were essentially given a big get out of jail free card. You have not been in jail for the past three years, correct? And Carmen said, correct. She has not had to go to drug court. She has just been

waiting to see what will happen with her testimony. She is on probation, but has not been drug tested in a long time. She has been allowed, though, to move to Las Vegas. So Lewis listed it out. So because of your cooperation. Here's what Lewis said to Carmen. It's because of your cooperation in this case. You have avoided drug court. You've avoided prison time. You've moved out of state.

You have not had to serve time for the crimes connected to this case. And Carmen agreed. She said she was in jail for 21 days while getting her story straight with detectives, Maynard, and O'Driscoll. And then Lewis ended with something that I'd call Stark. The pills you bought from Robert. Robert Robbie, you do not actually know what they were, do you? And then Carmen said that Robert told her he had fentanyl,

but she admitted that she did not test the pills. She did not take them. She did not analyze them. She does not truly know what they were. She does not know who picked them up from the house. She does not know who ingested them. Lewis and asked sitting here today, you have no idea then what happened to Eric Richens,

other than being told that he died from a fentanyl overdose. Is that correct? What Carmen say? Carmen said, correct. You have no idea what happened the night he died, correct? You have no idea whether Corey killed Eric. Carmen said she does not. And that is how Lewis chose to end her cross with Carmen Lauber, key witness. So after hours of timelines, rinse and repeat, going over the same questions again and again, right? I'm repeating a lot of them here. All of these shifting dates, shifting numbers,

probation deals, immunity, and inconsistent interviews, the defense boils it down to this. Carmen Lauber cannot say what the pills were. She cannot say who took them. She cannot say what happened that night. And she cannot say that Corey killed Eric. And now the jury has to decide whether Carmen is a flawed but truthful witness who got caught in addiction and confusion. Or whether her story is, has been shaped and molded by pressure, benefits, and hindsight, right?

So, okay. Deep breath. Because, okay. A redirect felt like the state trying to put all the pieces back together after hours across it left. All of us or, you know, a lot of people's heads spinning. So when Bloodworth got up, I'm like, okay, Bloodworth, let's do this. His tone was noticeably calmer and a lot more structured. I noticed that right away.

He started by asking Carmen and she had spent time with the state and her attorney preparing to testify over the last few weeks. And she said, yes. He brought up something she mentioned yesterday, that she has anxiety. He asked if she has seen a doctor for that anxiety. She said not recently, not since the beginning of drug court when she was diagnosed and prescribed medication for anxiety. That, in my opinion, humanizes her a bit. It reminds the jury. She is not just a witness, you know, on the stand and not just someone with a criminal past.

She is someone with mental health struggles on top of addiction history. She's a redemption story, too. And then he zeroed in on the addiction piece, right? From when she entered drug court in September 2021 until she was arrested in April 2022, she was still acting like someone in active addiction. What was she still acting like that? So again, I really value this. She enters drug court September 2021.

until she's arrested April 22, that's after Eric Richon's death. So he asks her, were you still acting like someone at that time in active addiction? Carmen said yes. At that time, she occasionally used. She lied. She would occasionally lie. Ludworth asked if her lies to investigators back then were consistent with someone who was actively using drugs. She said, yes, this is important.

I'm like, okay, okay. The state is reframing all of the defense inconsistencies, not as some calculated deception by Carmen, but as the behavior of someone in active addiction. And this makes sense. This brings her back. This humanizes her. This goes back to who Carmen has always said that she's been.

She's never lied. Someone who has suffered with addiction, someone with a criminal history, someone who has lied, someone who was acting as an addict maybe when they first spoke to her. And this is the behavior of someone in active addiction back then. And remember, she's sober now. He then clarified that she has now been clean for over four years since her arrest. That is also, again, around the time that she learned that Eric Richens died of a fentanyl overdose.

So she's been sober since the time she learned how Eric died. Budworth asked if her memory has become clear now that she has been clean and has had time to process her involvement. And after reviewing phone data and messages, she said yes. She admitted, she admitted there are still times she gets confused. Fair. That's human, right? But overall, things are much clearer now that she is sober. this directly counters like this defense theme that her memory would have been better one year after the events, right?

I see what they're saying. That's like, you know, the math is going to math there. Like, well, if your memory was bad after a year, then it's going to be even worse after two years and three years. But no, this counters that. That her memory would have been better one year after the event. The state is saying, no, a sober mind plus, time to process everything, plus reviewing objective data can actually sharpen memory, right? So it doesn't necessarily equate to, well, your memory gets worse over time. If an addict becomes sober and you review all the data that they're giving you and helping

remind you what happened, and then you have time to process, that can sharpen someone's memory. Then he addressed the planting information idea head on. He asked whether during the six or seven interviews with detectives Maynard and O'Driscoll, they repeatedly stressed that anything she told them had to be corroborated. And she said, yes, meaning they needed evidence to back up whatever she said. He also brought out that she told detectives she loved Eric and he did not deserve what happened to him. And again, Carmen knew Eric. And so that adds emotion to this, emotional weight and lets the jury know she really did

want to do the right thing. He then asked about the big get out of jail free card comment. She remembered the detective said something like that. He asked if she remembered what she said in response. And she did she did not remember it first. So they checked the transcript and in it, she said, even if that were the case, she still felt she needed to take accountability if this is really what happened to Eric Richards. That is a strong rehabilitation moment. This tells the jury, she wasn't, she wasn't just chasing freedom like the defense is painting out. She was taking responsibility. So then Bloodworth asks directly whether she feels detectives were trying to plant information in her memory. The defense objected, saying that calls for speculation. Judge

Mrazik overruled it, which I think is good. They're the ones that started this, the defense. So I thought it was a fair question. Carmen said no. She does not feel they were planting information. He asked if they were trying to help her recall information from her own memory. She said yes. And then he simplified sort of all the facts. Did you purchase drugs at Corey Richens request four times? Yes. Did you deliver drugs to? her either hand to hand or by placing them somewhere four times. Yes. Did you testify truthfully to the best of your recollection? Yes. And then the key question, what do you think happens if you do not testify truthfully? She said everything she has would be revoked and she would go to prison for a long time.

I thought that flips the incentive argument. The defense says she is motivated to lie to protect herself. The state says she's motivated to tell the truth because lying would cost her everything. Then things shifted into a pretty intense legal debate during the break. The state wants to admit all of Carmen's interview transcripts with investigators. According to the defense, get this, it's 932 pages. ages combined. Bloodworth argued that the defense cherry-picked portions to impeach her, they probably did. So the jury should see the full conversations to understand the full context.

He said the transcripts show she was not fabricating recently. There was an evolution, not a sudden change. But Judge Marazik pushed back, he pointed out that those transcripts are out of court statements, which makes them hearsay under Utah rules of evidence. He said the state could call the other people involved in the conversations to testify, but simply admitting 932 pages of transcripts is not automatically just allowed. Ludworth argued they are not offering them for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the progression of the interviews and rebut the idea that detectives planted information. The judge responded that if that is their goal, the state can call those detectives to testify about how the conversations unfolded.

Marazik also made a critical point. Some of the statements in those transcripts are not true. So how does admitting everything, rehabilitate credibility? The truth is what matters. Bloodworth insisted the transcripts show consistency in the, if you put it all together, and the arc of her interviews,

the judge ultimately denied the request to admit the full transcripts into evidence. He said, there may be ways to bring a certain prior consistent statement into play, but not by dumping a thousand pages of interviews into evidence. And with that, Carmen's testimony wrapped up for the day, for the day, because she's still under subpoena. So she could be recalled.

But honestly, redirect felt like the prosecution trying to pull the jury back from hours of confusion. And I thought they did it well. Honestly, they reframed inconsistencies as addiction. driven, you know, inconsistencies was addiction, driven chaos, followed by being sober, and then clarity. They emphasize accountability. They emphasize corroboration.

They emphasize that lying now would destroy her, lying, not going along with what they tell her, but lying. And so now it is up, though, for the jury to decide which narrative makes more sense. Was her story shaped by pressure or benefits? Was it refined over time through sobriety? Or was it refined through the evidence they were convincing her of? Lunch break could not have come soon enough. Post lunch, after lunch, the state called Anna Isbell.

This is interesting. She testified that she has known Corey Richardson's high school and that she was in a relationship with a man named Hayden Jeffs for 13 years before he tragically passed away in a motorcycle accident, a motorcycle crash. Very sad. But this really caught my attention that she has known Corey since high school, because I'll just throw this out too. We don't know that much about Corey's past in her life, and so I really perked up when I understood that this next witness knew Corey since they were teenagers. And it was heartbreaking to hear that she was in this relationship with a man Hayden Jeff's for 13 years

before he tragically was in that was killed in that motorcycle crash. So at the mention of his death, Anna actually became quite emotional on the stand. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably zero point one. Like it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched With a Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wealthfront was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything.

My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust. Wellfront is taking care of me. Earn more on your uninvested cash with a Wealthfront cash account. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Get started today at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their test. testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base APY as of January 30th, 2026, variable, and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boosts 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. These eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wealthfronts. Cheching. Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. I lost my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us.

Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own and I can trust Welfront is taking care of me. With a Welfront cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. No account fees, no minimums and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get started. client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. 3.3% base API 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. Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees, and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. She said Hayden had done handyman work for Corey in the past. and Anna confirmed that she was with Hayden on January 22nd, 2022. The charges for the attempted murder February 14th, and then Eric Richens dies March 4th. So this is January 22nd, 2022.

When Anna was there, she's testifying when Hayden received a phone call from Corey on speakerphone. So speakerphone and Anna testified that she heard Corey asking Hayden for something for a client, describing it as a word that started with a T or a P. T or a P. Interesting. Okay. But neither she or Hayden knew what it was. Anna said she briefly went to the bathroom.

And then when she returned, the tone of the call had completely changed. And she overheard Hayden saying, and this is quote. Quote, what fentanyl? Fuck that client. Fuck that. End quote. The defense objected on hearsay grounds. Judge Marazek instructed the jury that Hayden's statements as relayed by Anna could not be considered for the truth of the matter asserted, but only for context, specifically for understanding Corey's responses.

So Anna said that Corey simply replied to Hayden saying that, okay, thank you. and that she did not hear any further discussion about it. The prosecution had no additional questions. So on cross-examination, defense attorney Lewis began by expressing condolences for Hayden's death. Anna testified that a few months ago, the state repeatedly tried to contact her to prepare her for testimony in this trial. And Lewis then introduced text messages between Anna and Detective O'Brien. O'Driscoll from late December into January. Anna explained that she had screenshoted the conversation to send to someone named Travis because she wanted to document how O'Driscoll was handling himself.

That's unquote handling himself, which suggested, okay, that this interaction was tense. So let's see these texts. Let's see the screenshots. In the text, O'Driscoll sent a text that said, I'm going to read this, you can make your life easier and answer our. calls so we can prep you on what you're going to be asked. Otherwise, next time I knock on your door, I'll have a warrant and a catch pull for your dog." End quote. Wow, that is intense. That's tense. Lewis clarified that he was talking about the fact that they'd reached out to Anna before to get prepped for her testimony. And Anna said, I don't need to be prepped. Give me the time and date, and I will appear. Adriskell replied, quote, it's on your subpoena.

And then Anna said, quote, is there more, is there more an exact date or do I need to be there February 23rd through March 26th with a question mark? And then Odryskel said, quote, we could have discussed that if you ever replied, but since you don't want to, you can just plan on showing up every day at 8 a.m., end quote. Anna replied, quote, I would like it over text message so that I have exactly what you say in writing, end quote. O'Driscoll replied, quote, you're legally obligated to show up on those dates and times on the subpoena, end quote. So when Lewis asked about her reaction, Anna said that she was livid. And she felt the tone was rude and inappropriate, especially since she believed she'd done nothing wrong. And I agree. What?

She just happened to be there for a phone call on speakerphone. She clarified that she never refused to testify, only that she did not. want to meet with them beforehand. She also testified that her dog has never acted aggressively toward O'Driscoll during a prior visit and is protective but is contained behind a fence. I kind of felt that the defense was pointing this out to show that O'Driscoll can be indeed a little pushy and maybe even kind of a little bit of a jerk, honestly. Kind of like if he treats someone who didn't do anything wrong like this, could he have bullied a cool? worst other witnesses. I mean, it was a very strong response. Lewis asked about Anna's personal

history and she confirmed she had recently completed rehab for alcohol use. She's doing well. I noticed that Lewis congratulated Anna about being sober, but didn't congratulate Carmen yesterday, right? I mean, so, I mean, that just could be because of how the witnesses work for the defense, but maybe, maybe, you know, she's also picking up how those watching her felt about her defense. I have to wonder. Anyway, but she congratulated Anna about being sober. Didn't congratulate Carmen. But anyway, when asked whether she'd been drinking the night of that January 22nd call,

Anna said she and Hayden had gone out to dinner and she may have had a drink at the restaurant. Lewis continued by focusing on the nature of the working relationship. between Corey Richens and Hayden. Anna said that Hayden did a number of handyman projects for Corey and described Corey as being good to Hayden. She said that Corey offered advice at times, helped him get insurance and was generally kind. Turning back to the January 22 phone call, Anna reiterated that she only heard parts of it because she stepped away to use the bathroom. And Lewis asked specifically whether she heard Corey ask for the Michael Jackson drug, unquote Michael Jackson drug, and Anna said that phrase was indeed part of the conversation.

But she and Hayden did not know what it meant. She initially assumed Corey might have been referring to a muscle relaxer. Lewis then asked directly whether she ever heard Corey say the word fentanyl. Anna testified that she did not. She only heard Hayden's reaction after her. turning from the bathroom. His statement rejecting fentanyl and the client after that, Anna, was excused. So, okay, interesting testimony, though, right? Next, you ready? Okay, get ready. Trust the process. Next, the state calls Robert Crozier, Robbie, the man that Carmen allegedly obtained the pills from.

This is important. This is a key witness. Prosecutor Blur. Ludworth began by addressing Robert's criminal history up front. Again, let's just get that out in the open, right? Robert admitted he has a distribution charge from December 2022 and two possession charges from 2023. He testified that he began dealing drugs around 2020. He confirms that he is represented by counsel and has received three grants of immunity. So also has immunity. His understanding is that those agreements would be void if he is not truthful. Robert said he knew Nicole Cummings, a woman he lived with for a couple of months at the end of 2021 and 2022, though, Nicole contacted him about a friend who was looking for roxies or oxycodone, that friend who he now knows to be Carmen Lauber, then contacted him directly by phone.

Robert testified that she asked for roxies and oxycodone. And when asked whether she used any other terminology such as blues, blues, this is important, as Carmen had previously testified. What did Robert say? Robert said, no. Hmm. Robert said he arranged to meet her at the Maverick gas station in Draper. That part remains the same as Carmen's story. And he clearly remembers one meeting and said there may have been a second meeting, but he does not believe there was a third meeting. So during the first meeting, he approached her car window she handed him money he gave her pills and they went their separate ways easy peasy handoff and but when asked whether he had to leave to retrieve the pills as Carmen had testified to

Robert said he did not remember doing that okay so just some confusion there he also said he does not clearly remember what Carmen looks like but did believe that she was Mexican he testified he now knows, though, that her name is Carmen Lauber, and he could not recall how much money changed hands, but estimated he sold her approximately 30 to 40 pills. He also said that he supplied pills to about three or four other people during that time, and regardless of a possible second transaction, Robert said he honestly does not clearly remember whether there was one. If there was, he said it would have followed the same pattern. made at the Draper Maverick, exchanged money for pills, minimal interaction.

He testified he never met Carmen anywhere else and only encountered her at that gas station for the purpose of selling pills. So Bloodworth asked Robert if he had had an interview with detectives on May 4th, 2023. That's an important date. Robert said he remembered it vaguely, near the time Corey was arrested, by the way. And he explained that he was in jail at the time detoxing from a lot of drugs at that time and only recalled going into a conference room. He didn't remember much of the discussion. Again, this is right before Corey's arrested. So you can see why they're doing this interview, right? He doesn't remember much of the discussion, though, but Bloodworth asked if the detectives asked whether Carmen asked for blues, blues, fentanyls, or oxies. This is important. And Robert said he had read the transcript and knew that they asked, but he didn't remember himself. At the time, he said he wasn't sure if Carmen had asked for fentanyl or roxies, but whatever she asked for is what she got. Bloodworth pulled up.

up the transcript to help Robert remember because he had been in a rough state during detox at the time. And so then after reading it, Robert said that he probably said she asked for blues. Okay. Explaining that back then, the sling for Roxy's was blues. when Bloodworth asked the detectives and asked, it's not like she was asking for oxies and got M30s. Robert said he didn't remember how he responded. Guys, this is getting, you know,

there's no straight line yet. Are you saying this was no straight, trust the process. I'm trusting the process. There's no straight line to this is fentanyl. So let's keep going. So he didn't remember how he responded, but then he read the transcript again and said that, even though he could see what it said he didn't remember actually having the conversation.

He was about to repeat what the transcript said, which was, she got what she asked for, but the defense objected because he had no actual memory of saying it. Bloodworth asked if he remembered detectives asking, did Carmen know there was fentanyl in the pills you sold her? Robert said he didn't recall the conversation at all, only that it had happened. And when asked if he remembered ever saying to detectives that he sold Carmen Fentanyl, Robert said no.

He said he only told them she got what she asked for. And it seemed like in that conversation the cops were just telling him what he had been doing. I mean, let's listen to this part because it's really interesting to me. And where's the fentanyl, guys? Like where's the straight line to the fentanyl that was found in Eric's system? We still don't know. I mean, no, but I can see what it says, but I don't remember having this conversation,

but when the police asked you, whether she was asking for oxies and got M30s, do you recall how you responded? Yeah, it says no, she would have got what she asked for. Okay. So do you recall whether police asked you if Carmen Lobber knew there was fentanyl, the pills that you sold her?

Again, yeah, it said that... It's a yes or no question. Do you recall it? I don't recall. I really don't recall the conversation with the police at all, other than I had the conversation with it. I don't remember details of it other than what I've read. Do you agree in the interview generally

that you confirmed that you sold pills containing fentanyl to Carmen Lover? No, I said that when I read, I said that she knew what she was, she bought, she got what she wanted, whatever she asked me for is what she, yeah, but I'm pretty sure it was Roxy's, but. And it was, the whole questioning with those cops was, and kind of telling me what I was, what I had been doing. All right. Well, Bloodworth then asked if the transcript was accurate. and Robert said he didn't know. And Nex Bloodworth pulled up an affidavit. Robert signed in September 2025. And in it, he swore that it was true and said he sold drugs to Carmen two times in February

2022 at the Maverick and Draper, though he reiterated that he wasn't sure if it was one or two times. The affidavit said one time that he sold her Roxy30s. And then another time he sold her blues. Robert clarified that at that time, blues were Roxy30s and the terms were synonymous. Bloodworth asked if that was his understanding of blues. And Robert said, yes. If he sold someone blues, they were Roxy 30s.

Put a pin in that because I want to revisit that. He said, if they were blues, his understanding of blues, Robert said, said, if he sold someone blues, they were Roxy30s. Bloodworth admitted a copy of the affidavit, and it stated, quote, I received messages from Carmen Laubert asking to purchase pills. On at least one occasion, she told me she wanted Roxy30s, and on at least one other occasion, she said she wanted blues. I understand this to mean she wanted 30 milligram oxycontin pills. In early 2022, though, I knew blues to mean oxycontin.

I did not associate the term blues with fentanyl until late 2022. The first time I met Carmen in February 22, I sold her 30 pills. The second time, I sold her more than 30 pills, but I don't recall how many. These were the only two times I met Carmen Lauber. I did not know her before she contacted me, and I have not had contact with her since February of 2020, end quote. Interesting affidavit, right? I have some things to say about that. So Robert clarified that whoever drafted the affidavit mistakenly wrote oxycodone instead of oxycodone.

So the document wasn't entirely accurate, but he still signed it. He still signed it. He said that while going over it, they kept crossing words out and he kept saying he meant oxycodone, but they still kept writing oxycontin. He also said he wasn't 100% sure that he met with Carmen two times. Bloodworth asked Robert. Okay. She goes, how he knew what was inside the pills he was selling.

and Robert said he knew because the people he got them from had prescriptions. He added that while he eventually did start selling fentanyl, okay, so Robbie did sell a fentanyl at a time. He said that when he sold fentanyl, it wasn't around the time he sold to Carmen. He said that he was arrested for possession of fentanyl in May of 2023, long after the events in this case. Bloodworth then referenced a pair of from Robert's affidavit. And in it, Robert stated that he did not remember all of the details of a prior interview, but had been told that he agreed he sold fentanyl to Carmen and that blues refer to fentanyl. The affidavit went on to say that he had been detoxing from fentanyl during that

interview. Oh, interestingly, he's actually detoxing from fentanyl during that interview and had then later began selling fentanyl later on. which he had come to know as blues. So then, you know, so he's saying that, yes, blues did become known as fentanyl, just not when Carmen, when he was selling Carmen Blues. Right. I mean, it's confusing. It said he was currently in recovery. He had relapsed, but he had been sober for three weeks.

and then prior to the relapse, he had been cleaned for nine months. The affidavit also stated that he did not sell Carmen Fentanyl in February of 2022. Did not, but sold her 30 milligram oxycontin pills and that he didn't have access to fentanyl at the time. Instead, he sold his own oxycontin prescription, which was 10 milligram or obtained 30 milligram oxycontin from a source if a buyer wanted stronger pills. Robert clarified that he told the person drafting the affidavit that should say oxycodone, but the document still said oxycontin. Bloodworth brought it back around and asked if it was fair to say that on at least one, maybe two occasions, he sold Carmen M30s or Blues and believed at the time that that meant oxycodone. Okay, he's wondering this. This is important. We're going to come back to

this. And Robert said yes. On cross exam, Lewis asked about Robert saying the detectives were just telling me what I've been doing. Well, let me just say this too. Before we keep going. So the last thing, you know, the Bloodworth brought back around again, this is important. So I'm just going to emphasize it. Yes, if it was fair to say that on at least one occasion, maybe two occasions, he sold Carmen M30s or Blues and believed at the time. that meant oxycodone. And Robert said, yes, and that's where the state ended. So let's just talk about this for a second.

Because honestly, I was left feeling very, very confused by this testimony because I thought, where, where's the trail to the fentanyl? Where's the fentanyl? The state doesn't have the fentanyl. Who sold the fentanyl? How did Eric get the fentanyl in his system? Like, that's really important to this case to prove what the state's trying to prove. You know, but I also, admittedly, I'm not familiar.

with the selling and buying of street drugs. I don't understand this world or the buying of selling a prescription drugs. So I did some research, just to try to understand what I'm missing. And so here we go. Here's some things. This is what the World Wide Web tells me. Blue, and you know what, if I'm the last to know this, I'm sorry. I don't know this stuff.

You guys are probably all going to laugh at me. Like, come on, Lauren. Blue most commonly refers to blue M30 pills, which are counterfeit oxycodone tablets that are often laced with fentanyl. Okay. And here is what that usually means in current drug sling. Why they are supposed to be 30 milligram oxycodone tablets, they're imprinted with M30, but what they often actually are, their counterfeit pills made a lot of. look like oxycodone, they're frequently containing fentanyl instead, and they sometimes contain

other synthetic opioids. And in many regions, when someone says they bought or used a blue or blues, they're referring to these counterfeit opioid pills. And fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine. And we get into other facts. Okay. So that helped me understand what I was hearing. but the question is, will the jury understand it?

I didn't. Maybe all of you did, you know? So Robert on cross. Lewis, again, is on cross exam, and Lewis asks Robert saying the detectives were just telling me what I've been doing, and Robert said he didn't really want to get in trouble. He was already in jail and wanted to get out. And he said that the detectives kept telling him he wasn't in trouble and no one was going after him. Still, at the time, he had no idea who anyone involved was besides Nicole. And then

Lewis then asked about a September 2025 interview with the defense when Robert was sober. And then in that interview, he said he thought he sold to Carmen once, maybe twice. The first time was Roxy30s, which are 30 milligrams of oxycodone. And he remembered it was early 2022 around this time of the year and there was snow on the ground. He said he charged $25 or $30 a pill. He wasn't selling fentanyl at the time, but when he did sell fentanyl, it was around the same price. Lewis asked if he was aware that fentanyl was significantly cheaper than oxycodone at that time, and he said yes. Lewis asked if Robert remember telling investigators that one of the times he sold to Carmen, a man came with her. He said, yes. Lewis asked if he was selling Carmen fentanyl pills. Robert said,

I don't believe so, no. That's interesting. Nothing certain. Asked if he was selling Carmen fentanyl pills. He didn't say no. He said, I don't believe so, no. When asked why he was sure that in early 2022, he was selling oxycodone and not fentanyl, Robert explained that everyone was scared of fentanyl in 2021, 2022. People were afraid of dying. It was all over the news and it was hard to get. He had a prescription for 10 milligrams oxycodone and knew other people with prescriptions, and those are the pills he sold to Carmen. Actually, pharmacy pills, he claims, real deal prescriptions.

Robert also remembered meeting someone away from the Maverick one time to get the pills for Carmen. The pills were 30 milligrams. said that in early 2022, he didn't have a fentanyl source and didn't know anyone who sold it. He reiterated again that to him, blues meant roxies. And Lewis asked if he recalled selling any pills to Carmen that were green. And Robert said that if he did, those were just higher dose, higher doses of oxycodone, like pinks are 10 milligrams, greens are 20 milligrams, blues are 30 milligrams. I'm learning so much listening to Robert.

I'm like, okay, I'm starting to understand. Lewis questioned Robert about the mistakes in his affidavit, specifically the mix-up between Oxycontin and Oxycodone. She pointed out that Oxycontin is much stronger than Oxycodone. And then Bloodworth asked for a sidebar with which the judge granted. And then after the sidebar, Lewis continued asking Robert, if he was sober when he met with prosecutors in 2025. So now we're just talking last year.

And it was a big deal, by the way, when he met with prosecutors in 2025, because that's when we all learned that Robert was saying it wasn't fentanyl. We learned that in 2025. We reported that here, I hit into a crime. You can go back and watch that. So Robert, so they're asking him, were you sober when you met with prosecutors in 2025? And he said he was.

And he reiterated that he never sold Carmen Fentanyl. He sold her oxycodone. He said again, he did not have access to fentanyl in early 2022. And when he eventually did start selling it, so he did start selling it, the pills were almost purple, which is notable because Carmen had always described them as blue or green. And if I recall, she did say dark blue once yesterday. I'm pretty sure, which I guess could be confused as purple. I mean, purple, dark blue, same zies, right? you know, I think, at least. Lewis asked if anyone had ever asked him for the Michael Jackson stuff.

Robert said, I'm sorry? And Lewis repeated the question. And Robert said, Carmen never asked for that. She then asked him to look at the jury and confirm, are you telling the truth here today? Robert said, yes, I am. And that concluded Lewis's questions to Robert. Crozier. Bloodworth was back on Stan for redirect, and he was asking about the size of the drugs that Robert had used. Let's get to that in just a second. So Bloodworth asks about the size of the drug bags that Robert used, and Robert said he didn't remember exactly, thought they were Ziplog bags, so the fancy schmancy, the fancy smancy jug bags, the zip blocks. And he asked about Carmen's description of the bags as tiny, like something you might use to hold a spare button on the search

on a shirt, right? Those little buttons that I never save and should and regret never saving story of my life. But, you know, Robert said you couldn't fit that many pills in a bag that small, which is an interesting discrepancy. There were no further questions after that redirect. in Robert was released. The next witness, Eric Haskell, works with the Salt Lake City Police Department. A prosecutor questioned him, his name, okay, let me, I practiced this one while I was busy practicing my drug names.

I was, yeah, Shervinack. Shervinek questioned him. Prosecutor Shervinet questioned him. Haskell said that in September, 2024, he became, Sergeant over special investigations. His unit handles narcotic cases, screens all charging documents in the city, conducts undercover buys, and he investigates long-term narcotic activity.

So Shrubeneck asked him what a street-level drug deal looks like, and Haskell explained that a buyer and a seller meet somewhere, they conduct the exchange quickly, and then they go their separate ways. That's how it happens, guys. That's how it happens. And he added that it's definitely illegal. and that it usually for the reason happens pretty quick. Haskell also said that any street level deal

is part of a chain. The dealer on the street obtained the drugs from someone else, and his unit works the chain as far as they can. The judge then called attorneys to approach. And after the sidebar, he said that recording and streaming must stop until he says otherwise, which makes sense because this witness was an undercover agent. And the next witness on the stand, and that was it, we couldn't even hear anything else. And the next witness on the stand was Marcos Garakachia. Marcos Garakachia. Practice that one, too. I think I got that one right. And Marcus Garakachia works for the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, and he testified that he processed and extracted data from cell phones using the Cell Bright software.

Once he obtained the raw data, it was returned to the Summit County Sheriff's Office. He worked on four phones, one of which was broken. He explained how he repaired the phone, including fixing the screen and removing water damage and debris. He clarified that repairing a phone does not change the data. And then they had no further questions. And just before court ended, the judge had one final thing to say, and it wasn't little. It wasn't a little thing. Left us on a cliffhanger.

Like, after all of that, like, wait, what? So most people had turned off. Our live stream, guys, it went down. This is a recommendation. Stay. Stay for the whole thing. Because we weren't expecting this. Take a listen.

Mr. Bloodworth, anything else on the record today? Ms. Nestor. It doesn't have to happen right now, but I need to create a record on the court's denial of the motion for mistrial at some point. Let's just not let that get lost. Okay. Okay.

All right, we can do that next week. I'll be prepared to do that. Very good. Monday morning, first thing. Let's just get on, get rolling by 830 a.m. on Monday, and then we'll see where we go for that. Okay. So if you were hoping that I'd have the T on more information there, I do not.

That's why I wanted to play that. I have no idea what they're referring to. And I think we are not going to know anything more until Monday or later. But it's certainly, you know, it's interesting, a motion for a mist trials. I mean, that's what I heard. I don't know if it's necessarily unusual. I think that, you know, people always do try for mist trials. and trials and cases.

But nonetheless, it was certainly an interesting way to land the day. You know? Yeah. So that's that. Thanks, everyone. And thanks for your patience. Yeah, we appreciate it. It's good to be live again.

All right. Trust the process. We'll see you guys. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfront. Chuching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest. And I didn't have to do anything. 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 APII 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.