Hidden True Crime - GUILTY Verdict | Closing Arguments in the Kouri Richins Trial - Day 15

Episode Date: March 17, 2026

After just three hours of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict in the Kouri Richins trial—guilty on all counts. In this episode, we break down the dramatic closing arguments that led to that decision, from the prosecution’s narrative of a calculated, financially motivated poisoning to the defense’s claims of bias, missing evidence, and reasonable doubt. We walk through the key moments that may have swayed jurors—including the 911 call timeline, digital evidence, financial pressure, and the now-infamous “Walk the Dog” letter—while also examining the unanswered questions that remained. And from inside the courtroom, Lauren shares a deeply personal moment speaking with Kouri’s family just before the verdict was read, offering a powerful reminder that behind every case are real people, real grief, and lives forever changed. Sponsors Blissy: Wake up with clearer skin, smoother hair, and cooler sleep. Use code HIDDEN for an extra 30% off at blissy.com/HIDDEN Gusto: Try Gusto today at https://gusto.com/HIDDEN and get three months free when you run your first payroll. Rula: Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/hidden About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. 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 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 test.

testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base APY as of January 30th, 2026 is representative, 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 and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Hello, everyone. I mean, let's not bury the lead, right?

guilty. Corrie Richens is guilty if anybody missed that tea. There you go. That's the verdict. The jury returned today after deliberating for just a few short hours. Today was the day. Everything came down to a single question. What will the jury believe? Because that's all that matters here, right? And I was there for it all sitting in the courtroom. While the public was banned today, media was allowed in and I was there watching the jurors on the front row, watching their reactions as both sides made that final push. In fact, at the end of this episode, I do have a more personal story and thoughts to share from being in court today. We'll save that for the end though, because after weeks of testimony about drug deals, finances, alleged affairs, deleted messages,

a grief book and the final night of Eric Richens' life, it all came down to today's closing arguments. And honestly, the two sides could not have told more different stories. Prosecutors, they say this was a calculated murder. They argued that Corey Richens poisoned her husband, Eric, with fentanyl, driven by money, financial pressure, and the image she was trying to maintain. The defense, the defense, of course, they paint a completely different picture. They said the case was deeply flawed. They argue investigators focused on Corey from the very beginning and never seriously considered other possibilities.

According to them, the state's case is built on a speculation bias and an incomplete investigation, a lot of unanswered questions, too. So today, the plan for this recap, what we thought, we were going to be doing today is just breaking down those closing arguments. But the day took a turn that I don't think a lot of us expected. I think some of us did. Because after everything this jury heard over the course of the trial, we're talking terabytes of data, dozens of witnesses, binders full of text messages, memes, interviews, interview transcripts, financial records, phone data, location data, and everything else the state presented, the jury did not deliberate for days.

The jury didn't even take one full day. In just a few short hours, they came back with a verdict, which makes it seem like they weren't unsure about much, if anything at all. And I, in Lauren tradition, by the way, in Lauren tradition, I predicted on an interview I did earlier today with KUTV 2 News, because they pressured me into asking, they asked me, well, what do you think is going to happen? So I said, okay, well, I'm often wrong, but I suspect the verdict might take a couple of days if I had to guess.

Again, I did give my disclosure. I said I was known for always being wrong whenever I predicted how long a verdict would take. So I'm glad I got that out there. Today was no different. It took them just three hours, three hours, the lesson, never assume you know what the jurors are thinking or we'll do and never assume that I know. Because only three hours later, Corey Richens' fate was decided. Let's take a listen to the verdict.

Counsel, Ms. Richens, please stand. Count one, aggravated murder. We, the jury unanimously, find that the defendant, Corey Richens, is guilty of aggravated murder. We, the jury unanimously, agree that the prosecution has proved the following circumstance or circumstances regarding count one beyond a reasonable doubt. The homicide was committed for pecuniary gain, and the homicide was committed by means of the administration of any substance administered, any lethal amount, dosage, or quantity.

Count two, attempted aggravated murder. We, the jury unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richens, is, guilty of attempted aggravated murder. We, the jury unanimously agree the prosecution has proved the following circumstance or circumstances regarding count two beyond a reasonable doubt. The attempted homicide was committed for a pecuniary gain. Count three, insurance fraud. We, the jury unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richens, is guilty of insurance fraud. Count four, insurance fraud.

We, the jury unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richens, is guilty of insurance fraud. Count five, forgery. We, the jury unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richens, is guilty of forgery. It's signed by the foreperson. Please have a seat. Madam four person, is this the verdict that the jury reached unanimously? Yes, it is. Okay, you may have a seat.

Ms. Lewis, Ms. Nestor, do you wish the jury to be pulled? Yes, please. All right. Folks, I'll ask you the same yes or no question, one at a time, starting on my left, working this way. Front row first. If you could show me your lanyard number, as I ask you, juror number five, is this the verdict you voted in favor of?

Jury number four is the subvertity voted in favor of? Jury number three, the four person, I just need to ask again, I'm sorry. Jury number two. Yes. Jury number one. Jury number eight? Yes. Jury number seven.

Jury number six. Counsel, is there anything further on this case before the jury is discharged? Mr. Bloodworth? No, Your Honor, thank you. Ms. Lewis? No, Your Honor. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this trial is now finished.

Thank you for your service. The American system of justice relies on your time and your sound judgment, and you have been generous with both. You serve justice by your fair and impartial decision. All of my previous admonitions are now lifted. You may speak about this case with anyone or with no one at all. It is entirely up to you. You might be contacted in the future by the press or by the lawyers.

You do not have to talk with them or with anyone else, but you may, if you would like. The choice is yours entirely. I'm now turning to the attorneys and instructing them to honor your wishes as officers of the court if you indicate that you do not want to talk about this case. If you do talk about the case, please respect the privacy of your fellow jurors. The confidences they may have shared with you during deliberation are not yours to share with others. Thank you, all of you, for your service. Please rise for the jury.

Well, I'll share some things I saw during that verdict. I was right there, just feet from Corey. Right before, again, I was right behind Corey, just right behind it to the left. And I could see that it looked like she was shaking. So I kind of looked it down where she was wearing high heels today along with shackles. It's interesting to see high heels and shackles. And she was tapping her foot, like really fast like this. And it made it look like her whole body was shaking.

But what she was doing was actually tapping her shoe on the ground really quickly. And then at one point she was kind of just slightly rocking back in the office chair, clearly nervous for what the verdict would be and what it was. Yeah, so the few things I noticed. And yes, someone also pointed out she didn't have a tight, her side part today. It was a pulled back bun. But those are the things I noticed. it was very, very heavy, very palpable. Again, realized that everyone in there, for the most part, minus the media on the front row

is either related to the defendant or knows Eric Richards, Eric Richards. And so, you know, it was heavy. I'm going to talk more about that later. Again, some moments I had while waiting for the verdict is what I will share at the end of the show. So that's it, though. The jury found that the state proved its case beyond a reason. reasonable doubt and Corey Richens was found guilty on all counts. And I don't know about you, but it kind of looked to me again, like so Corey was perhaps disassociating there a bit after the

verdict was read. But even though we now know the outcome, I know a lot of you listen to these recaps because you don't have time to sit through hours of courtroom footage. And sometimes it helps to have everything broken down in one place where we can walk through the evidence together, talk about it. So even knowing the verdict, and even though I have a little bit of a cough, thanks for those that stick with me. Let's go back and break down exactly what both sides argued in their closing statements and the key points that led the jury to the decision they made. And there's a lot, I think, that I would really like to process with all of you. Before we do that, a quick word from one of our incredible trial sponsors, Blissie.

I honestly didn't realize how much my pillowcase was affecting my skin and hair until I switched to silk. I just thought frizz and those little sleep creases were part of life, but they're really not. I've been using blissy silk pillowcases, and the difference is actually very noticeable. My hair is way less frizzy in the morning, and my skin just feels smoother and more hydrated. Silk is naturally cooling and so much gentler than cotton or satin. So you're not tugging at your skin or roughing up your hair while you sleep. And these are really high quality, 100% mulberry silk. So they feel lux, but also practical.

Plus, they're machine washable, which is huge. Because you're a listener, Blissie is offering 60 nights risk-free plus an additional 30% off when you shop at blissy.com slash hidden. That's B-L-I-S-S-Y-com slash hidden. And use code hidden to get, an additional 30% off, your skin and hair will thank you. So when the jury came into the courtroom, Judge Marazik first explained some logistics.

He said that when it was time for deliberations, the jury would receive a computer containing the evidence that had been admitted during trial. And I'm not sure how much they actually utilized that given how quickly they came back to a decision, but they did have access to it all. Judge Marazek also explained that the prosecution would go first, the defense would follow, and then the prosecution would be allowed to give a rebuttal closing argument. Judge Morazik told jurors they had two main duties in this case to decide what the facts were based on the evidence presented during trial and to apply the law to those facts and determine whether the prosecution had proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

He told them that if there was a real possibility that the defendant was not guilty, then they were required to return a verdict of not guilty. They also could not consider the fact that Corey didn't testify as evidence of guilt during deliberations. And after that, the judge moved on to explaining the charges. Count one, aggravated murder. For that charge, the state had approved that Corey intentionally and knowingly caused the death of Eric Richens. Count two, attempted aggravated murder. That charge alleges that Corey attempted to intentionally or knowingly cause the death of Eric Richens.

Count three. Insurance fraud, which alleged that Corey with the intent to deceive or defraud intentionally devised a scheme to obtain something of value exceeding $5,000. Count four was another insurance fraud charge, and count five was forgery. After that, Prosecutor Bloodworth stood up to begin the state's closing. He started by talking about Corey's background. Corey Richens feels aggrieved and is thus an intent. immensely ambitious person. She feels aggrieved because growing up her father

was an alcoholic who traded parenting for prison and her mother, a gambler, who traded parenting for a casino. Corey Richens thus worked for her aunt cleaning the homes of rich people in Park City. She was not beneath those homeowners, but she felt that she was. she was. This fueled in her an intense desire to appear privileged, affluent, and successful.

He said she met Eric Richens, who was a successful businessman with money. The two eventually married, and they had three children. And Bloodworth told jurors that from the outside, it appeared that Corey Richens was on her way. But according to the prosecution, that wasn't the reality. Bloodworth argued that Corey was unhappy in the marriage. He told jurors that she wanted to leave Eric, but she didn't want to leave his money because of their prenuptial agreement. If she divorced him, she would essentially walk away without access to his wealth. But Bloodworth then pointed to financial decisions. He said, showed strain in the relationship. He told jurors that Corey had taken $250,000 in equity out of their home without Eric's knowledge so she could

fund her own business and make enough money to eventually leave him. First with Eric's money and then other people's money, Corey Richens carefully curated the facade of a privileged, affluent, successful business owner. Behind the facade, however, Corey Richens was incompetent. She took tremendous risks. She borrowed money by any means necessary at exorbitant rates. She gambled other people's money and lost. Her business was imploding.

All the while, Corey Richens was more interested in spending time with Josh Grossman than Eric. She dreamed of living in the Midway Mansion with Josh. running it as an event center, farming and raising kids, Eric's kids. But she did not have the money to leave Eric or the money to salvage her business. Corey Richens is an intensely ambitious person. She is a risk taker. There was a way forward. Eric had to die.

At that point, Bloodworth displayed the five. charges against Corey on screen for the jury. He told them, but he was going to go count by count, an element by element, to show how the state believed it had met its burden of proof for each charge. Bloodworth argued that the evidence showed Corey caused Eric Richon's death by purchasing illicit street drugs from Carmen Lobber. He began walking through the charges and highlighting pieces of evidence. At one point, he showed the New York life insurance policy and reminded a jurors about testimony, that Corey had changed the beneficiary information on Cody Wright's insurance policy. That's Eric's business partner. And according to Bloodworth, she didn't

understand the policy at first and ended up changing the information back. Bloodworth then moved into the topic of the drugs. He told jurors that Corey had asked two people, Hayden Jeff's, and Carmen Lobber, about obtaining what she referred to as the Michael Jackson stuff. Corey Richens asked two people, Hayden Jeffs and Carmen Lawber, for the Michael Jackson drug. Corey Richens was a suburban mother real estate agent. She does not know a lot about the illicit street drug world. But she knows Michael Jackson died from taking drugs. She doesn't know how to order a street drug, but she knows she wants the Michael Jackson.

Jackson stuff. She knows she wants it because it is lethal, it is fatal, it kills. And she wanted lethal, fatal death. Corey Richens is intensely ambitious. She wanted the perfect life, or at least the appearance of the perfect life.

And for her, that meant Josh Grossman. But first, Eric had to go away. Bloodworth then played part of the jailhouse interview, detectives conducted, with Rob Crozier. The man prosecutor said,

I'd obtain the drugs and passed them to Carmen Lover. He told jurors that digital forensic evidence showed communication between Corey and Carmen about obtaining the drugs. Bloodworth displayed mapping data and a timeline arguing that it showed what he described as an extraordinary amount

of communication between Corey, Carmen, and Rob during the relevant time period. He then argued that the evidence showed Corey ultimately killed Eric by giving him fentanyl in a Moscow, mule and a lemon drop shot. Bloodworth also referenced Corey's orange notebook journal telling jurors that she had written about the drinks there.

He said he would discuss that journal more later in his closing. Next, Bloodworth pointed out that the official cause of death listed on Eric Richon's death certificate was fentanyl toxicity. He told jurors that based on the evidence, Eric ingested the fentanyl either through the Moscow mule, the lemon drop shot, or possibly both. And Bloodworth reminded jurors that all of the medical experts testified that the extraordinary amount of fentanyl found in Eric's stomach indicated oral ingestion, meaning that had been swallowed, rather than being objected, injected, or absorbed another way. He also mentioned that ginger beer had been found in the trash, which he argued

helped corroborate the presence of Moscow mules that night. Bloodworth continued, explaining that the fentanyl found in Eric's stomach pointed to oral ingestion, which he said lined up with a theory that it had been placed in a drink. He reminded the jury that Dr. Christensen had explained this during the recorded phone call with Corey, where he told her that the amount found suggested oral ingestion. Bloodworth also referenced the testimony of Ms. Peterson, who explained that nor fentanyl was found in Eric's toxicology results. And according to her testimony, nor fentanyl is the marker of illicit fentanyl, meaning it did not come from a legitimate prescription source.

It's illicit. Bloodworth argued that this finding tracked with the prosecution's theory that Corey obtained illicit street drugs. Eric's toxicology report also showed the presence of quitaapine, a medication commonly used as an antipsychotic or sleep aid. Bloodworth then played the audio recording of Corey's phone call with Dr. Christensen at the medical examiner's office. The quatyapine in the toxicology for Eric Richens shows that Corey Richens was involved because she was prescribed quatioine. Now, this conversation that she recorded with Dr. Christensen is also very insightful. She pretends to not know what quotaipine is. It's her prescription.

Of course she knows what it is. She pretends to not know what it is to cover up her involvement in putting the quatiopine inside Eric's body. She feigns the ignorance. Luddworth then moved to something else, he said, showed inconsistencies with Corey's story. He pointed out that in her orange journal, and even in the Walk the Dog letter,

Corey wrote that as soon as she realized Eric was cold, she immediately dialed 911, but Bloodworth told jurors that the evidence presented during trial showed that was not what actually happened. He pointed out that Corey had claimed she went into Ashton's room before discovering Eric, but Bloodworth told the jury that there was no evidence showing that actually happened. Instead, according to the phone data, Corey had returned to the bedroom, unlocked her phone,

and put it on speaker. But Bloodworth told jurors that there were no call detail records showing a call at that time. He suggested that it was possible she called someone using Wi-Fi, which wouldn't appear in the call detail records from the phone carrier. However, he argued that those calls could have appeared on the phone itself if the phone data hadn't been deleted. At that point, the defense objected arguing that Bloodworth was referring to facts not shown in evidence, but before the defense attorney could fully finish the objection, Judge Morazik overruled it immediately and told Attorney Lewis to sit down. It was a moment. Bloodworth then continued walking through the phone activity timeline. He told jurors that Corey unlocked her phone multiple times during the time

Eric was unresponsive. According to the data, she unlocked the phone at 308. 310, 315, 319, and 329 a.m. Then, 15 minutes later, she called 911. Bloodworth emphasized that 15 minutes was not immediately. He suggested to the jury that during those 15 minutes, Corey may have been staging the scene. Then he moved into the 911 call itself. Bloodworth reminded jurors that during the call,

the 911 operator asked Corey if she had the phone on speaker so that she could perform CPR. Corey said yes. But Bloodworth argued that the evidence showed the phone was actually on the receiver, not the speaker. So that raises the question. If the phone was not on speaker, how could she have been performing CPR while also holding the phone?

Solid point. Bloodworth really was bringing it home for me. Then Bloodworth told jurors that as they listened to the 911 call again, This was interesting. If they listened to the 911 call again, they should think about something. He asked them to consider whether it was sounded like Corey becoming a widow or a black widow.

I mean, that was a little bit of an eye roll. But Bloodworth argued that almost immediately during the call, Corey began presenting what he described as an alibi narrative. This was the part that I found interesting. Listen to how Corey Richens on the 911 call immediately presents, very soon after the call begins, presents her alibi narrative. Listen to how she tells the 911 dispatcher

where she was when Eric died. She is distancing herself. Rather than he's not breathing, he has no pulse, I have to figure out what to do, I need help. She's saying, hey, look, I was not there. I was in my son's room. That's her alibi. she's distancing herself from the time and the place that she murdered Eric.

Bloodworth also pointed out that when the dispatcher asked Corey to begin CPR, she responded that she didn't know how and couldn't move him. Bloodworth told jurors that in his view, she was not immediately trying to revive Eric. According to Bloodworth, it was six minutes from the time the dispatcher first instructed her to begin CPR until she said she actually started doing it. Before we get into a little bit more, just another quick word from another one of our amazing trial sponsors.

We are so grateful for them. Running a business sounds glamorous until you're the one buried in onboarding docs, payroll, and trying to figure out tax forms late at night thinking, there has to be a better way to do this. And that's where Gusto comes in. Gusto is online payroll and benefit software built for small businesses. It's all in one, remote-friendly, and incredibly easy to use. So you can pay hire, onboard, and support your team from anywhere.

It handles things like automatic payroll, tax filing, direct deposits, and even benefits. So instead of chasing paperwork, you can actually focus on growing your business. And I love that it includes built-in tools for onboarding and HR support, which honestly saves so much time and stress. For I gusto today at gusto.com slash hidden and get free months free when you. you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll at gusto.com slash hidden. One more time, gusto.com slash hidden. And then he pointed out something he said stood out the language she used during the call. Bloodworth argued that Corey had dehumanized Eric. Listen also to her choice of language.

She has dehumanized Eric Richens. When she is talking about removing Eric from the bed and she is protesting and she is saying she cannot, she is not saying I can't move him. She is saying I can't move it. Eric is no longer a him to him. She murdered Eric. Eric is an it. After that, Bloodworth played.

the 911 call for the jury. And as the call played in the courtroom, the countdown clock appeared on the screen showing how long Corey waited before performing CPR. Jurors could hear the dispatcher giving instructions on how to perform CPR and how to get Eric off the bed. At one point, the dispatcher said, we just need to help him now. Meanwhile, the clock continued running. It eventually showed that over five minutes had passed. And the dispatcher repeatedly told Corey she needed to start CPR and get Eric onto the floor. Eventually, Corey said she had moved Eric onto the floor. The dispatcher then began counting with her while she performed CPR. The CPR timer stopped at five minutes and 56 seconds. And while this was going, we're going to listen to it. But while this was

going, the jurors were paying so much attention. And it was a very profound moment in the courtroom as they all listen. So now let's listen with Bloodworth naming these points to listen for. You don't know. I'm going to tell you how to. Are you willing to do CPR? Yeah. Okay. Cipulator available. Send someone to get it now and tell me when you have it. Medic to help you now. Stay on the line and I'll tell you exactly what you do next. Okay. Okay. Listen carefully. Are you able to lay him on the floor or the ground on the floor on the ground.

I think I can't. I can't. You can do it. You can do it. You need to calm down. We need to help them. I can guide you through CPR. You could do breath for me.

I'm, I'm here with you. I'm here with you. I'm here with you. I, we need to get him help. If I, if I, if you need to put me on speaker, put me on speaker. I'm going to guide you through CPR, okay? Okay. Okay, he's on the floor?

He's on the bed. Okay, are you able by any chance to move him on the floor? I'm a chick. You're with you. You're not able to move him to the floor? No, no, go on there. To move him to the floor? Go ahead.

Listen carefully. We should need to get him on the floor. Don't worry about hurting them. Or a blanket under them. Can you loosen it from the mattress? Side of the bed closest to them and remove anything under their head. Okay. Pull the sheets towards you and slide them off the following.

We should need to help him now. Okay. Tell me when he's on the floor. If he has sheets under, pull them to the floor. Don't worry about him. It's on the way. Way to do this, okay? For you?

How old is your husband? Okay, were you able to input to you? We just need to help them now. ambulance on the way. I just need you to do this, okay, so we can get the help for him. Okay. When they arrive, they'll take over. We just need to start CPR now.

You are doing great, okay? I just need you to get from the floor. Okay, broken floor. There's nothing under his, under his head. Is he laying flat on his back? I'll tell you how to do chest. Place the heel of your hand on the breastbone. This is in the center of the chest, right between the nipples.

Put your other hand on top of the, of that two inches deep. I'm with you. One, one, three, four, three, four, two, three, four, two, two, three, four. One, two, three, three. Is there anybody else within the home or is it just you? That's all my kids. Okay. Are you one of them old enough to go and lock the door?

Yeah, it's not. It's on lock now? Yeah, he's very good. Yeah, that was, I don't know why. That was, to me, one of the most profound moments of closing arguments by the prosecution. It wasn't great, and I saw how she was painting that alibi. It was, you know, interesting. after the call ended Bloodworth Astor's to contrast what they had just heard with the text messages Corey later sent to her friend Chelsea Barney.

And in those messages, Corey wrote, I tried so fucking hard to save him his lifeless body on my bedroom floor. I pumped so damn hard, so hard screaming at him to come back to life that I needed him. End quote. Bloodworth told jurors that none of that happened. According to him, those messages were self-serving and part of an effort to cover up her involvement in Eric's death. Bloodworth also said that when Corey called Eric's father and his sister, she began those conversations by saying, I wasn't there. It wasn't me. Bloodworth told jurors that when investigators asked Corey to explain what happened that night, her version of events started with the drinks. This is the written form that Sheriff's deputies gave Corey Richon's early morning of March 4th to write out what happened.

It says, describe in detail what you saw, know, or heard of the incident. Where does she start? Eric and I put the kids to bed around 9 p.m. We had a drink. In Corey Richon's mind, that's when the incident. incident started. It was the drink, and she knew it because she put the fentanyl in the drink. She didn't start with, I walked into the bedroom at 3 a.m. My husband was not breathing and cold. Describe the incident. The incident for her begins around 9.15 when she has the drink, because she knows that is in fact when the incident began.

Then tied the timeline back into what the prosecution argued was her fight, financial motive. And Bloodworth said Corey's plans for the Midway Mansion fit into what he described as her dream of living there with Josh Grossman running it as an event venue and raising children there. But Bloodworth told jurors that Corey didn't fully understand Eric's finances. According to him, she didn't realize the home was in a trust, which meant she couldn't simply sell it. He said she also didn't understand the buy sell agreement or the life insurance structure, which meant that the money went directly, went to the trust, not directly to her. Bloodworth argued that the morning Eric died. Corey already had a plan for how she was going to spend Eric's money without realizing that much

of it was actually controlled by the trust. He also reminded jurors about testimony that after Eric's death, Corey asked Josh Grossman if he had ever killed anybody and how it made him feel. Bloodworth suggested that she asked that question because, well, she was trying to work through her own feelings about killing Eric. Then he brought up the walk the dog letter. Bloodworth told jurors there was a lot to unpack in that letter and isn't there. He argued that by the time Corey wrote it, she had already been arrested for Eric's murder and that investigators knew about the fentanyl. And according to Bloodworth, the letter was an attempt to explain. away the fact that she purchased fentanyl.

And the way she did that, he argued, was by blaming Eric. Corey Richens knows four months after she's been arrested for Eric Richens' murder. A year and a half after she murdered him, she knows that she bought fentanyl. And she has to explain it. And how does she explain it? A year and a half after. murdering Eric Richens,

she blames it on Eric. Oh, I bought it for Eric. That's the sum of the evidence. Her self-serving statement, asking her brother to testify falsely, that she brought it from Eric, for Eric, year and a half after she murdered. Corey Richens did not tell the 911 desk dispatcher,

hey, I just bought some fentanyl for Eric. She didn't tell the paramedics. He might be dying from the fentanyl I just bought for him. He didn't tell the deputies that responded. He didn't tell Detective Woody. He didn't tell Dr. Homer. Didn't tell Christensen. Didn't tell her friends.

Didn't tell her family. All the off-brams she had to, the opportunity to take, to say, hey, I bought the fentanyl for Eric. She doesn't. because it did not happen. She did not concoct this story until a year and a half after she killed him. And it is a story. It's a fake story that she wants her brother to testify to.

He also pointed out what he described as other inaccuracies in the letter. For example, the letter claimed that she lost control and ran to the bathroom to throw up when EMTs arrived, but Bloodworth told the jury that the evidence presented during the trial did not support that version of events. Bloodworth then showed the body camera footage from the responding officers and in the video jurors did not see Corey running to the bathroom. Bloodworth told the jury that when people make up stories, their retelling is often inconsistent. He pointed to an entry in Corey's orange notebook, aka journal, where she wrote that the celebratory drink happened in the bedroom, not in the kitchen. Bloodworth said that detail conflicted with other parts of her story. In the orange note book, Corey wrote that Eric was on the phone when she went into her son's

bedroom around 930 to 9.45 p.m. But Bloodworth, Bloodworth said Eric's phone activity told a different story. According to the phone data, Eric was off the phone before 9 p.m. Bloodworth also pointed out another inconsistency. In the orange notebook, Corey wrote that Eric was awake when she went into her son's bedroom, but in messages to her friend Chelsea Barney, Corey said Eric was asleep when she went into the room. Bloodworth told the jury that her story was inconsistent with the details and argued that this showed much of it was fabricated. He then mentioned the text messages that had been presented during the trial. And we have, before we do that, one last ad break from one of our wonderful trial sponsors. Take a listen.

There have definitely been times in my life where I could have really used therapy, but trying to actually find someone who takes your insurance and is the right fit, that alone can feel overwhelming. That's why Rula stands out to me. Rula is a health care provider group that makes it easier to connect with licensed therapists who actually accept your insurance. They partner with over 100 insurance plans and the average co-pay is about $15 per session, which makes real mental health so much more accessible. And it's not just about affordability. Rula really focuses on matching you with someone who fits you, your goals, your preferences, your situation. No waitless, no endless searching. You can often get an appointment as soon as tomorrow.

Thousands of people are already using Rula to get affordable, high quality therapy. That's actually covered by insurance. Visit Rula.com slash hidden to get started. After you sign up, you'll be asked how you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. Bloodworth pointed out that all of those texts were recovered from other people's phones, not from Corey's phone. He told the jury that was because the messages had been deleted from Corey's phone, and according to Bloodworth, that was part of her attempt to cover things up. Bloodworth then displayed internet searches.

Corey made on her phone on April 13, 2022. He highlighted one particular search that read, If someone is poisoned, what goes down on the death certificate as? End quote. Bloodworth argued that every piece of evidence in the case showed that Eric did not die. by suicide. Now we have to prove that

Corey Richens intended to murder Eric Richens. Which means we have to prove that Eric Richens did not commit suicide. Corey herself says he didn't. No mental health concerns. But the other evidence proves that it was well. Eric had every reason to live.

The first three of which are Carter, Ashton, and Weston. He was a phenomenal father. He protected his boys. He put his money in trust mostly for the benefit of them to protect them. He was a protector. He's not leaving his boys. He was also planning for the future.

He was a successful business person, and he and Cody had future business plans. He had future plans with his sister. They were planning family vacation to do. Disneyland. He was planning on buying a cabin in the Uintas with his father for the family. Every shred of evidence in this case proves that Eric did not commit suicide. This wasn't an accidental overdose. Eric Richens did not use drugs. He did not use illicit drugs. Set aside THC dummies. Quarry Richens said, no, never. The deputy Wynn and

paramedic offer it. These are people that It would have made sense to tell he used illicit drugs to in the moment as paramedic offers trying to save Eric's life. But no. She was honest. Nope, never. Same thing with Dr. Ulmer as they're reviewing the toxicology and trying to explain the fentanyl.

Right? Dr. Olmer's like, well, there's this fentanyl really can't explain it. Did he do illicit drug? No, never. Grossman. She's honest with anybody. she's honest with Grossman.

No, Eric did not use drugs. Her best friend, another person she's honest with. Nope. Life insurance company? No. Chief Medical Examiner? No. And every bit of evidence that came into this case,

everyone who testified in New Eric well, his friends, his family, no, Eric didn't use illicit drugs. Not even prescription drugs. Bloodworth then said that this was a good place to pause and the court went into recess. After the break, Bloodworth continued by moving into the aggravated murder charge. He explained that for aggravated murder in this case, there were two aggravating factors the state was relying on. The first was the why, which he said was money.

The second was how, which involved ministering a substance in the lethal amount. Bloodworth then displayed financial charts for the jury. One chart showed that Corey had accumulated over $359,000, $459,000 in overdraft charges. Another chart showed that when Corey closed on the Midway Mansion, she was carrying nearly $8 million in debt. Bloodworth told jurors that during all of this, she wasn't paying down that debt in any meaningful way. As he put it, she was barely sending her creditors any money. He explained that Corey had taken out loans with extremely high interest rates, including loans from payday lenders. Eventually, according to Bloodworth, payday lenders stopped lending to her

altogether because she was barely making payments. Bloodworth then walked the jury through Corey's real estate venture, specifically her attempts to flip homes. He told jurors that Corey had lost nearly $900,000 flipping homes and that figure did not even include the properties that went into foreclosure. When foreclosures were included, Bloodworth said that she had lost millions more. He reminded the jury that they would have all of the financial documents during deliberation so they could review the numbers themselves. Budworth argued that Corey would borrow money any way she possibly could, according to him. There were six separate instances where she submitted inaccurate bank statements to lenders

in order to obtain loans. He also brought up something the jury had hurt earlier in the trial involving Corey's best friend Chelsea Barney. The next level of financial desperation is taking four. $45,000 of your best friends, hard-earned cash tips from waitressing, telling her that you are going to apply that as a down payment to a mortgage on her house where she lives with her partner and her children. And then diverting it to pay off, diverting part of it to pay off,

fund-fied merchant, a payday lender, and spending the remainder of it, as Brooke Harrington testified, on expenses to rehabilitate homes and servicing existing debt. Then telling your friend, your best friend, since middle school, that you applied the money to the loan, here's the deed, sign the deed, and then not. filing it. You will see, if you review that Brooke Carrington's schedule that had all the property transactions, you'll see that not only did

Corey Richens not filed the deed, she took out another loan on the house. That's the loan that was foreclosed on that resulted in Chelsea Barney, her partner, and their children, getting evicted and losing their life savings.

That is the next level of financial desperation that Corey Richens was in in January 2022. Bloodworth also told jurors that Corey had underreported her expenses from flipping homes to her tax accountant. Ironically, that mistake meant she paid more taxes than she would have if the expenses had been reported correctly.

Bloodworth pointed out that a savvy business person usually tries to reduce their tax liability, not increase it. He argued that Corey was not actually a savvy business person. According to Bloodworth, what really mattered to her was the appearance of success. He told jurors that Corey was focused on looking affluent and successful, even though the reality of her finances told a different story. As he put it, she appeared far more successful than she actually was. Bloodworth then shifted to the jury's attention to the days leading up to Eric's death. He pointed out that two days before Eric died, Corey spent time on the phone with the IRS.

Then Bloodworth displayed a photo of the Midway Mansion on the screen in the courtroom. He told jurors that Corey needed cash immediately when Eric died. According to Bloodworth, she was trying to close on the Midway Mansion and she needed money in order to do it. He told jurors that it did not matter whether Eric might have earned more money in the future. What mattered was that Corey did. needed money right then because the closing for the mansion was scheduled for March 4th. Bloodworth then reminded jurors that Corey actually closed on the Midway Mansion the day after Eric died. He posed a question to the jury. Did she close on the mansion in spite of murdering Eric?

Or because she murdered Eric? Bloodworth suggested that Corey had hedged her bets. According to him, she had originally been scheduled to close on March 4th, but instead she waited until March 5th, after. Eric had died. Bloodworth argued that she didn't want to close until she knew Eric was dead because she believed she would then have access to his money and could move forward with the mansion. Bloodworth then showed jurors another financial figure. He said that when Eric died, Corey's net worth was negative $1.6 million. According to the prosecution, her business was already in serious financial distress and without a major infusion of cash,

it was going to continue collapsing. Bloodworth argued that the infusion of money, was expecting was Eric's. He then told jurors that throughout the trial, they had the opportunity to observe Corey in the courtroom. You have a fortunate perspective during this case and that you get to observe the defendant. You get to observe Corey Richens. And you observe her affect with some, when some witnesses testify, and you observe her affect change when other witnesses testify. You observed that when we played the 911 call during trial, her affect was flat. No emotion. You also observed that when Brooke Carrington testified about the financial distress of her business,

she was exercised because that testimony pierced her facade. It pierced her facade of being a successful, privileged, and affluent person. It was a narcissistic injury. She was bothered because the world saw that she is indeed not a success and not affluent. I knew about investing, but I really didn't know how to go about it. Meet Corey, a Walthfront client. With Welfront, it could put money in and it would automatically distribute it into a diversified portfolio. Then it starts to compound.

The compounding compounds on the compounding. Just let it wrong, and it's great. Over $1 million. clients trust wealthfront. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. Investment management and advisory services provided by Wealthfront Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. Investing involves risk to principle regardless of the strategy used. Task performance does not guarantee future results. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wealthfront.

Chuching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial. creating a conflict of interest outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 20206 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. From there, Bloodworth moved into the alleged earlier attempt to poison Eric on Valentine's Day. He told jurors that Corey tried to poison Eric with the sandwich and that in his words, she learned from her mistake. In each instance, she administered, the substance in a way that Eric would ingest it. On Valentine's Day, it was a sandwich. When she murdered him, it was a drink. Notice that she learned from her mistake.

One can season a sandwich with fentanyl. Eric can eat it. Tell something's wrong. Set the fentanyl-l-laced sandwich aside. You throw a lemon drop shot back. By the time Eric, Eric would notice the shot was in. It was in his body.

Mosque, Emil, just to be good and sure. Another thing Bloodworth argued was that Corey intentionally distanced herself from what he called the dirty deed. He pointed out that when she allegedly attempted to poison Eric earlier, she had left the county. And when Eric ultimately died, she left the bedroom. According to Bloodworth, that allowed her to later call 911 and claim she wasn't even there. when it happened. The prosecution also showed cell phone tower mapping to the jury. This mapping displayed the timing and locations of messages between Corey and Carmen Lopper. Budworth said the evidence showed Carmen obtained the drugs from the Maverick in Draper and that there was also active

communication with Robert Crozier during this time. Bloodworth reminded jurors that Corey had called the IRS twice within the three days leading up to the alleged attempt to murder Eric. He also pointed out that she had called the mere lake diner to order what he referred to as the potentially fatal sandwich. According to the state, Corey ordered the sandwich and then picked it up herself. Bloodworth even pointed out a small detail on the receipt saying her signature was done in a single penstroke, meaning she didn't lift the pen off the paper while signing similar to how that alleged forged signature of Erics, the state believes Corey signed. Then Bloodworth pivoted to something a little more psychological. He suggested, though the timing of Eric's death created the kind of attention that

Corey craved, losing your husband on Valentine's Day or on the day you're supposed to close on a big house, he said, brings extra attention. The prosecution then went back to Eric's phone activity on Valentine's Day. Bloodworth told the jury that after Eric ate the sandwich, all activity on his phone stopped for 87 minutes, which was unusual for Eric in the middle of the workday. A busy workday, nonetheless. And then shortly after activity resumed on Eric's phone, he made a call to Cody Wright, his business partner and best friend. And according to Cody's testimony, he could hear the fear in Eric's voice when he spoke to him. Bloodworth reminded the jury that Eric didn't just confide in one person about what happened on Valentine's Day. He also called

another friend and expressed similar fears about the sandwich and how it made him feel. According to the prosecution, that showed Eric genuinely believed something had happened to him. Bloodworth then brought the jury back to the testimony from Corey's friend Ali staking. She had testified that Eric once joked about Corey trying to poison him. But according to Ali, Corey immediately became defensive during that conversation. Instead of laughing it off, she corrected the story. She said that wasn't what happened and claimed it was just an allergic reaction and that it wasn't dramatic at all.

Ali tried to frame the moment as lighthearted. She said Eric and the others were laughing about it like it was a joke. but Bloodworth argued that Corey's reaction told a different story. In his view, she was trying to control the narrative and cover up the poisoning. Bloodworth also pointed out inconsistencies in what Corey told people about that day. For example, she told Chelsea Barney that she had been home with Eric when he ate the sandwich. But according to the evidence presented in trial, that wasn't true. At the time, she was actually with Josh Grossman and didn't return home until after 6.30 that evening.

Bloodworth then made a comment that honestly made me laugh a little. He said, quote, Corey said that Eric didn't break out in hives and didn't use an epipen after eating the sandwich, which means that Eric did break out in hives and did use an epitome. So basically what he's saying is that when Corey said something didn't happen, it usually means the opposite probably did. Bloodworth continued by reminding the jury that Corey lied to several people about what happened that day. She told people she hadn't put a love note or a sandwich in the seat of Eric's truck,

but the evidence showed that she actually had done exactly that. And then Bloodworth moved into the text messages between Eric and Corey on Valentine's Day. At one point, Eric texted her that he was thinking about going to the hospital because he felt so bad. Instead of encouraging him to go, Corey told him to take a nap and call her when he woke up. According to Bloodworth, that message revealed her intent. His argument was that she was hoping. Eric would take that nap and never wake up. After that message, there was a gap in communication for about two hours. Eventually, Eric woke up and texted Corey asking where she was. Eric had apparently

believe that she was coming home to help him. But Bloodworth pointed out that instead, she was in Provo, waiting for her cabinet guy. At least that was the explanation given. She told Eric she would be home in about 20 minutes, but according to the timeline presented in court, she still didn't show up. up. Two hours later, Eric texted again asking where she was. Bloodworth argued that this delay happened because Eric surviving the poisoning wasn't part of the plan. He told the jury she was trying to figure out what to do next because Eric was still alive. Eventually, at 634, Eric sent another message saying they were headed in and that the food was on the front seat of his truck. Bloodworth told the jury that moment represented the attempted aggravated murder.

According to the state, the poisoning attempt had already happened and Eric had unknowingly been dealing with the effects of it throughout the day. Let's take a listen to this part because I found Bloodworth's analysis of that text from Eric. Very interesting. Let's take a listen. And then at 634, Eric text, we're headed in. there, food is on the front seat of his truck. The same place she left the poison sandwich with the love note. Eric Richens is telling her, I know what you did. That is the attempted aggravated murder.

But that's the attempted murder. Now, of course, we have the two aggravators. They're the same. Same as with the aggravated murder. The money motive, same. Similar financial distress, same. There's also the first start of life motive, right? That hasn't changed a bit.

Josh Grossman is Josh Grossman on Valentine's Day and it's Josh Grossman on March the 4th. Money motive the same, first started life motive. Now the second aggravator, administration of any substance, any substance in a lethal amount. So one thing that I had mentioned in our last video, something I noticed during trial was that it didn't seem like the allergic type reactions to opioids had really been emphasized much, right? But Bloodworth actually did bring that back up during closing. He reminded the jury about Dr. Christensen's testimony during trial. Christensen explained how opioid drugs can sometimes cause reactions that look a lot like

allergic reactions. He explained the most allergic reactions happened because the body develops an immune response to some kind of protein like nuts, pollen, or grass. And that happens, the immune system triggers symptoms that can range from mild allergy symptoms all the way up to severe reactions. And with opioids, he explained that it works a little differently. Opioids don't trigger a true immune system allergy. Instead, the drugs themselves can directly activate certain cells in the body that cause symptoms that look like allergic reactions.

Because of that, some people who regularly take opioids will take medications like Benadryl at the same time to reduce those symptoms if they know their body reacts that way. Christensen testified that most people who take opioids don't have that reaction, but some people definitely do. And when he was asked directly, if someone who didn't know they had that sensitivity could take an opioid and develop hives or similar symptoms, he said yes. Bloodworth used that testimony to reinforce the prosecution's theory of the Valentine's State incident. According to the state, this show that Corey attempted. to administer illicit street drugs or an opioid to Eric in an attempt to kill him.

It just didn't work the first time. From there, Bloodworth told the jury that Corey's motives were simple. He said the motives were money and a fresh start in life with Josh Grossman. After laying that out, he transitioned into the remaining charges in the case, which included insurance fraud and forgery. He displayed several insurance documents for the jury and pointed out changes that had been made to information on those forms. He showed the life insurance application for Eric Richens that had been submitted just weeks before Eric died. According to Bloodworth, Eric did not actually

sign that application. He reminded jurors who had the testimony from the handwriting expert, who said the signature was likely a simulated forgery. Bloodworth argued that the insurance application itself was fraudulent and part of a larger scheme the state believes Corey was carrying out. He also pointed out something he said showed deception on Corey's part. On one hand, she claimed she didn't know where the fentanyl that killed Eric came from. But on the other hand, the evidence showed she had obtained drugs to Carmen Lauber. Then he addressed the forgery charge more broadly and made a comment that stuck out. Ludworth told the jury that Corey was a taker, not an asker, but a taker.

The point he was trying to make was that instead of asking for things directly, she would manipulate situations to get what she wanted. And from there, Bloodworth shifted into another motive the state had presented during the trial. According to the prosecution, Corey didn't just want money. She also wanted a fresh start. To illustrate that, he showed text messages. Corey sent to Josh Grossman the day after the alleged attempted murder on Valentine's Day. In those messages, she told Josh that she wanted.

wanted to marry him. In one message, she wrote that if he could just go away, meaning Eric, life would be better, referring to Eric. Ludworth also showed messages Corey was sending to both Josh and Eric around the same time. Regarding the closing on the Midway property, he pointed out the contrast between the conversations. This graphic shows a juxtaposition between Josh and Eric that is insightful to what Corey thinks about each of them. In each instance, she is texting, well, she is kind of simultaneously texting.

These are laid out chronologically. She is simultaneously texting with both Josh and Eric about closing on the Midway Mansion. And she's so excited with... She is so excited texting with Josh. I can't believe it.

I want to celebrate with you. Love you, love you, love you. Thank you for always being my support, shoulder, and rock. I need you all the time. Some things I could never do without your encouragement. You have no idea how much I appreciate you. Eric tries to reach out and run a shot. Mm-mm, can't.

Sorry, busy. Then right back to Josh Grossman. To me, you're worth millions a year. I'm honored to be your best friend, your lover, your go-to. Life is going to be different. I promise you're one hell of a patient. person. I hate your hard days. I wish I could be there to turn them around for you. Can I try Friday? Give me a few days. Hang in there until then. Please. By Friday, of course, Eric Richens was dead.

Corey had murdered him. She's right. Life's going to be different. She promised him. It was. Bloodworth then talked about Josh Grossman's testimony. He told the jury that Josh loved Corey and believed she loved him too. Bloodworth reminded them that they had seen Josh testify in court and described him as completely devastated. He said it was obvious from the stand that Josh had been gutted by everything that had happened. And before wrapping up, his portion of the closing, Bloodworth reminded jurors of something important. He told them that as they listened to the defense's closing argument, they should only consider the evidence that had actually been admitted during trial. And with that, Bloodworth finished the state's closing argument.

And right after he sat down, defense attorney Lewis asked the judge if they could address something outside the presence of the jury. The judge agreed and excused the jurors from the courtroom. And I do want to say, too, I thought the prosecution did an excellent job. I feel like they connected the dots of the evidence that is mostly circumstantial in this case. This case is based on circumstantial evidence with dots that need to be connected to make sense and to find Corey Richens guilty. I thought they did an excellent job of that. I was looking forward to what the defense has to say.

Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to chit-ching with a well-front cash account. earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust Wellfront is taking care of me. Make your money earn more. Get started 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 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. So the jury was out. Defense Attorney Nester stood up and said the defense wanted to move for a mistrial. and also make a proffer. Take a listen.

Your Honor, could we address something else? I had to close the jury before. Your Honor, at this point, we'd like to make a motion from Ms. Trow and make a proffer on it. First of all, at multiple points in the prosecution's closing, he made efforts to dehumanize the defendant, in fact, calling her a black widow comparing her to his death. at least fighter, calling her a narcissist when there's been no evidence introduced to support that,

no expert testimony, nothing of the nature. Furthermore, it's completely improper for the prosecution to comment on her demeanor while she sat at council table. That's a comment on her failure to testify. Asking the jury to take into consideration, facial expressions, which in his opinion may or may not have happened. I don't know what he's basing that on, but it's improper, and it's our suggestion. That is a comment on her failure to testify by revealing what her response to testimony was, is calling upon her to testify in this case.

Furthermore, in the closing, there was wild speculation on what was in Corey Richon's mind, completely made up by Mr. Bloodworth with no evidence whatsoever to support it. Also, Mr. Bloodworth wrongly told the jury that giving any illicit street drugs to Mr. Richens was sufficient to support aggravated murder. That, in fact, is not true. The only drug that would support aggravated murder would be fentanyl. What he said to the contrary is not consistent with the court's instructions. And we would ask that that be corrected with a curative instruction that they should list. and they should follow the court's instructions on what it takes.

It would not be sufficient if she bought some other type of drug that did not cause his death. That's just not the law. I think that's it, Your Honor. Mr. Bloodwood, I need a little bit more detail as I go through these. Which of these do you want a curative instruction regarding in which of these are you moving for a mistrial? Moving for mistrial in all of it, Your Honor. the curative instruction, I think, is required by the wrongful information that giving him any illicit street drug is sufficient to support aggravated murder. That's just not true.

And that's super important because if they do believe that, there is evidence to make a finding that there was oxycodone. And there was no oxycodone found in his body. So that's just that can't support a jury, I mean a conviction. So that's what I think requires the curative instruction. The rest of it, I don't know any way you can curate, Your Honor. The Utah Court of Appeals disagrees with you regarding the prosecutor's comments. A long line of cases talk about the potential prejudicial effect of an improper comment by a prosecutor only being able to be measured after the defense gives its closing and the state gives its rebuttal. we consider any curative instructions?

What's your alternative position there? I could, for example, instruct the jury that they, that Mr. Bloodworth's observations of Ms. Richens' demeanor are not evidence in there to rely on their observations of Ms. Richens, if any, only. I just don't even think that her demeanor is proper to rely upon because she didn't testify. She burst out in laughter during the showing of the decedent's body. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to tell the jury.

You can't possibly consider that. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I totally trust you, but I have no recollection of any laughter when his body would show. No, it was a hypothetical Ms. Nestor. Oh, thank you. from the bounds of your categorical statement that the jury can never consider the defendant's demeanor. I'm sorry. I thought you were saying she did that and I was just horrified. You stayed focused. I am focused. I just misheard you. So, I mean, is what you're asking me is, do we want a curative instruction now? Do we want to wait until later? Is that what the court is asking?

Court's indulgence for just a moment. Okay, I think we do want it now, if we can get one now. Let's hash that out for a second. Opposed was an instruction that the jury may rely on their own observations, if any, of Ms. Richen's demeanor and trial, but they cannot rely on counsel statements regarding what Ms. Richen's demeanor was. I want to be clear, there were no comments regarding her silence. Well, I mean, it's our position that when you comment on how she look while she remained silent at council table, that is a comment on her silence in our estimation. But I agree that he didn't say anything specifically about silence.

That instruction would be preferable to no instruction, I think. And then the Black Widow comic was connected to comments that were. made by Chelsea Barney, correct? I don't. They came out of his mouth and closing. And he specifically referenced Chelsea Barney's testimony. Is it your position that Chelsea Barney never used that phrase or words? I don't recall her saying that, but it's been a long trial, and I would not want to make that that I 1,000% am sure, but I certainly don't recall that.

It was in the recorded phone call with Bryce Canunton. And then everybody is speculating as to defend its state of mind. It's one of the factual issues that the jury will have to determine according to circumstantial evidence, because as we instruct them, there's no direct evidence of what's in her mind. Why was anything that Mr. Bloodworth said regarding the inferences that can be drawn regarding her state of mind inappropriate? Because they were made up out of whole cloth with no evidence to back it up. You're going to have to be more specific. So he went to great lengths to fantasize about what she was thinking about when there's been no evidence to that.

He could have certainly said, look, she could have been thinking this. She could have been thinking that. He didn't. He gave them what was in her mind, which is just based on things he made up in his own head, not based on evidence. Aren't they all based on his view of the evidence that came in a trial? Was there any references to evidence that did not come in? Well, first of all, calling her a narcissist, I mean, that didn't come in. There was no testimony that she's ever been diagnosed to have a narcissistic personality disorder.

There's no evidence at all about her mental condition. And then when he talked about her putting the reasoning why she picked certain days to get more attention, that nothing about that has ever come in to play ever I mean that's just one of many he went through lots of scenarios about what she was thinking as if it was a fact and it wasn't so I mean I think she can encourage the jury to use circumstantial evidence to try to reach their own conclusions

but he can't say this was in her mind when he doesn't know anything up I think that's it your honor uh mr. Blatworth go ahead sir Your Honor, were there any, I don't know, were there any particular points that defense counsel raised that remain unresolved in the course mind? Any objection to the proposed instruction regarding the jury must rely on their own observations, if any, of defendant's demeanor but cannot consider counsel's statements regarding her demeanor? No objection. Okay. The judge then said he could give a special instruction to the jury explaining that Corey's demeanor should not automatically.

be taken as evidence of guilt. And they also returned to that Black Widow comment that had been mentioned during closing. The judge noted that the phrase had actually come from a testimony during the trial. He pointed out that Chelsea Barney had used the phrase during a recorded phone call with Bryce Knutson that had been played for the jury. A judge then said that realistically, both sides were speculating to some degree about what might have been in Corey's mind. Nestor pushed back on that and said the prosecutor had gone much first. further. In her view, Bloodworth had essentially made up a narrative about Corey's thoughts and

motives that wasn't directly supported by evidence. The judge then asked Bloodworth whether he objected to the special instruction he planned to give. The judge said he would tell jurors that if they noticed anything about the defendant's demeanor, they had to rely on their own observations and not on what the prosecutor suggested about it. Bloodworth said he didn't object to that. Judge Marazek also pointed out that Bloodworth had not directly commented on Corey's decision not to testify, but Nestor disagreed. She argued that pointing out how Corey looked while she sat silently at the defense table was essentially highlighting her silence and therefore improper.

The judge again returned to the Black Widow comment. He said that phrase had come directly from Chelsea Barney's testimony and wasn't something the prosecutor had invented. Nestor said she didn't remember Chelsea Barney saying that, but I actually do remember that coming up during the trial. And Bloodworth reiterated that it was part of the recorded call. with Bryce and the judge agreed with that. The discussion then turned back to the issue of intent and the fentanyl.

Let's listen to the judge explain this issue just a little bit. The statement regarding giving any kind of illicit street drug is sufficient to show the murder count. Talk to me about that. I did catch that comment. They're not making that one up. Now, there was more and in the total course of the state's initial opening, I think you made it clear that you were encouraging

to the jury to make specific findings beyond a reasonable doubt regarding each required element. There was that initial comment, though. I don't think an instruction regarding having trouble crafting a curative instruction that doesn't just, give a theory of the case? What's your view of this? Yeah, and I don't think anything needs to be cured.

The state does not have to prove that the defendant intended to murder Eric Richens with fentanyl. True. The state only needs to prove that the defendant tended to murder him with the illicit street drugs that she purchased from Carmen Lawber.

And that they contained fentanyl. Yeah. Well, I'm sorry, on the second element or the aggravator? because there's a distinction there. I think on both. She has to actually knowingly or intentionally cause the depth for count one. So if she buys something that she thinks is oxycon,

and it tends the giving of the oxycon to kill them. And it turns out that what she got was blue M30s that had fentanyl and that killed them. The difference between aggravated murder and murderism is irrelevant. She is committed an aggravated murder. The distinction I think that I acknowledge is that she, doesn't have to intend to kill him with fentanyl. She has to intend to kill him with poison. Even if she thought she was getting one and got the other. Correct. As long as it worked, she committed the crime. Correct. And I think that's what I said throughout. I think that is the

weight of the argument overall that you made. If there's a particular sentence I said that is different than that, then, you know, I agree we would, we should cure it. But I don't think I say, said anything different? On this one, Ms. Nestor, I think the better course rather than for the court to insert itself at this point is to allow the rest of closing to play out and we can readdress this issue at the end. Okay.

I expect that this issue will get teased out in detail through Ms. Lewis's closing and the state's rebuttal. Give me a moment to collect my thoughts regarding the others. All right. Thank you. Court will be in recess. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Can I just maybe say one thing? Yes, please. The state did not refer to the defendant as a narcissist. The state said that that was a narcissistic injury. After that discussion, the judge said he needed a moment to collect his thoughts before ruling on the issues that had been raised. Court then went into recess.

And after the break, the judge came back, addressed the defense's request for a mistrial as well as their alternative request for a curative instruction. He explained that the defense believes some of the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were so improper that they required a mistrial. So the judge went point by point through the issues that had been raised. First, he addressed the black widow comment. The judge clarified that the statement wasn't referencing an insect. It was referring to the concept. of a woman killing her husband for gain. But importantly, he pointed out that the phrase didn't originate with the prosecutor. It came from testimony that had already been admitted during trial.

Specifically, it was something Chelsea Barney said during a recorded phone call that had been played for the jury. The judge described it as a rhetorical comment and said it wasn't the prosecutor literally trying to call Corey a bug or something like that because the statement came from admitted evidence. He said there was nothing important. proper about referencing it. Next, the judge responded to the defense's objection about bloodworth using the phrase narcissist. The defense had argued that there had been no expert testimony diagnosing Corey with narcissism and that the prosecutor shouldn't have used that kind of label. But the judge clarified that what Bloodworth actually said was narcissistic

injury. And it was actually Bloodworth that clarified that and the judge agreed. It was narcissistic injury. He explained that Bloodworth used that phrase in reference to the moment when Brooke Carrington testified about the reality of Corey's finances and how that testimony challenged the image of wealth and success she presented publicly. The judge said that phrasing was part of the prosecutor's argument about how Corey may have reacted emotionally to that testimony, and he did not find it to be unfairly prejudicial. The judge then moved on to the issue of Corey's demeanor during trial. He acknowledged that jurors are able to observe a defendant while they sit in the courtroom. However, he said he would instruct the jury that if they'd notice anything about Corey's demeanor,

they should rely on their own observations, if any, and not on the prosecutor's statements about what he believed her reactions were. He reminded everyone that statements made by attorneys during closing arguments are not evidence. The judge also addressed the defense's claim that the prosecutor had improperly commented on Corey's decision not to testify. He said he did not believe that had happened. In his view, Bloodworth, did not comment on her silence or her constitutional right not to testify. He then talked about the broader issue of the prosecutor discussing Corey's state of mind. The judge said, it is permissible for the state to argue what they believe the evidence shows about a defendant's intent or mindset, as long as that argument is based on

evidence that was presented during the trial. He said the defense is free to argue different interpretations of the same evidence during their own closing argument. Finally, the judge addressed the defense's concern about the prosecutor's statements regarding the drug involved in the case. He said that if there was any moment where the state's wording created confusion about count one and did not rise to the level requiring a mistrial or even a curative instruction at the time. The judge explained that the state did not have to prove that Corey specifically intended to purchase or administer fentanyl. Instead, the state only needed to prove that she intended to purchase or administer a poison and that the substance ultimately contained fentanyl. He said that point had been made clear throughout the state's closing argument and would likely become even clear during the defense's closing when the state's rebuttal.

And because of that, he decided there was no need for a special instruction to the jury at that moment. moment. And with that ruling, the judge denied the motion for a mistrial. He then brought the jury back in and told them the court would take a recess for lunch before beginning the defense's closing argument. The reason was so the defense would be able to present their entire closing without being interrupted. After lunch, Attorney Lewis stood up for the defense's closing. She began by painting a picture of that morning Eric died in a way that felt human and relationship. She said Corey's world collapsed the moment she realized Eric wasn't just asleep. He was gone. Lewis reminded the jury that reasonable doubt isn't just a slogan. It's the constitutional

protection that stops someone from being punished without proof. She emphasized that it's the state's burden to prove every element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt. And if there's any other reasonable explanation for what happened, the jury must find Corey not guilty. She went through March 3, 2022, painting it as a normal night of celebration. Corey and Eric were happy, celebrating their midway mansion deal. Lewis said Corey believed this deal was the culmination of all of her work, the good, bad, and ugly of everything she'd poured herself into. They had a drink, they went to bed, and then Corey hurt her son crying. She went to lie with him on the floor of his room. The defense said this wasn't an alibi. They said it was the truth. And Corey has never wavered on

detail. When Corey went back to her bedroom, Eric seemed to sleep. Lewis said, they don't know for sure what happened in the next 15 minutes, and the state asked the jury to leap to conclusions. But the defense pointed out that there was no evidence, just assumptions. Maybe she went to the bathroom, maybe grabbed her phone, maybe let the dog out, maybe got a drink. Then she returned to the bedroom and realized that Eric was cold, turned on the light and called 911. Lewis stressed that small gaps in the timeline don't prove guilt, they just leave room for doubt. It's true. A big part of Lewis's argument focused on the grief narrative.

She called out the state for judging Corey's behavior in the worst moment of her life. She reminded the jury that there's no wrong way to grieve. I agree with that too. and pointed out that the state had asked them to interpret her actions how she handled the discovery of her husband's death and telling her children as evidence of guilt. It was contrasted the witch and widow image they showed in opening statements with the reality. Corey on the floor distraught trying to navigate telling her young sons that their father was dead. She asked the jury to consider how impossible it is to measure proper grief, especially under those circumstances. experiences. Lewis also pushed back on the idea that Corey was celebrating Eric's death. She said they were

celebrating his life and trying to keep it light for the kids. She asked the jury, if you can't smile in grief sometimes, pointing out the human nature and experience, say yes, yes, you can. You can, you can smile in grief. Finally, Lewis attacked the investigation itself, calling it sloppy and biased. She said the state had been hunting for evidence up until a few months ago, still trying to find proof to convict because they knew they didn't have enough solid evidence to meet their high burden. Lewis shifted the focus to the investigation itself, starting with private investigator Todd Gabler. She told the jury that this case was a textbook example of confirmation bias. Investigators worked backward from the conclusion they wanted instead of following

the evidence. She said they never asked key questions. She said they never asked key questions. like where the gummies were and didn't even search places where gummies were found a month later. She also pointed out that the scene wasn't properly secured. Corey had given consent for one small area outside the bedroom to be searched, but the defense argued the whole house could have been examined that day and it wasn't. They didn't even ask Lewis said. She questioned the investigator's logic with Corey saying that Eric didn't use drugs. Lewis said, quote,

if she had just killed him with illicit drugs, why in the name of God, didn't she just say yes? If she had, we probably wouldn't be sitting here today, end quote. She reminded the jury that investigators had returned to the house at least 10 times and were still searching for evidence as late as February of this year, but she believed shows how desperate the state was to build a case. Lewis dug into Gables' role further. She said he went in and out of the house numerous times didn't wear gloves, and was calling the police about what he found. Gabor claimed to be fair and unbiased,

but Lewis said he only considered two possibilities, suicide or homicide. He ignored anything that didn't fit those theories like accidents. She pointed out, he tracked Corey's car, Carmen Lobber's car, and other vehicles, but he never followed up on Eric's trip to Mexico shortly before his death or investigated what happened there. Instead, everything he found, he handed off to law enforcement and told him to talk to Carmen. Lewis framed it as the Richon's family leading the investigation from day one, not neutral authorities. She called out the sidestepping of constitutional safeguards. It was mentioned lead investigator detective Jeff O'Driscoll, who in the early days

didn't follow other leads or attempt to corroborate information. She brought up the walk the dog letter saying parts of it were true, but it never went to anyone. It was just thoughts on paper. Lewis also hammered the point that there was no fentanyl found anywhere. There were supposedly 9 to 120 pills somewhere, but investigators couldn't find or test them. She accused the state of feeding Carmen a story designed to confirm their theory while ignoring anything that didn't fit.

After four years of investigation, she said there was a lot O'Driscoll couldn't even remember. She criticized the state for putting an unprepared witness on the stand. O'Driscoll couldn't explain how fentanyl supposedly got into Eric's system. He admitted, well, he ingested it. But there was no evidence. that fentanyl had been put into a drink. Lewis said the state waited until closing arguments to make that claim,

and even then, there was nothing to back it up. Adriscoll hadn't even familiarized himself with the evidence, despite sitting through the whole trial. Lewis then brought up other reasons Corey may have decided to delete her text messages. She said maybe Corey deleted them because she was having an affair or had asked Carmen to buy oxycodone, things she might want off her phone, and things she might not want Eric's family,

knowing about. She also explained Corey's web searches about fentanyl came after Eric's death, and her searches about women's prison were out of fear, not evidence, of having planned a crime. Lewis painted a picture of a woman reacting in shock, confusion, and fear, not someone who committed a premeditated murder. Lewis turned next to the toxicology evidence at the fentanyl and nor fentanyl found in Eric's body. She reminded the jury that the toxicologist said that fentanyl could have been left over from previous use. She also said that the evidence, actually shows that fentanyl wasn't put in a drink because there was no alcohol in Eric's blood. He had taken the fentanyl with alcohol, did both be in his blood.

Lewis told the jury the state was throwing out multiple theories because they don't have one. They don't know what happened. She suggested why no hair follicle test was done on Eric pointing out that investigators were only looking for evidence to confirm their theory, another example of confirmation bias. Lewis challenged that claim that Corey ever bought fentanyl bringing up Carmen Lobber's testimony. She said that while some of Carmen's testimony was painful to hear, Carmen had everything to lose. Her freedom was on the line and she was essentially working for her get out of jail free card. And they showed a get out of jail free card on the screen.

From Monopoly. Lewis reminded the jury that detectives walked into Carmen's interview already expecting her to confirm their story rather than hearing her version. Carmen said she was scared of fentanyl, and Lewis pointed out that the state's whole case rested on her testimony. Lewis also highlighted inconsistencies and lies in Carmen's testimony. For example, Carmen told Lewis she wasn't on anti-anxiety medication, but told Bloodworth she was. She said Nancy Peterson drove to pick up drugs, then later claimed she drove herself. We also never got to hear from Nancy, and Lewis asked the jury to consider why. She also noted that Carmen admitted lying to a judge to get permission to go to Las Vegas.

She reminded jurors that while they could feel sympathy for Carmen, they couldn't take her word as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Lewis contrasted Carmen with Rob Crozier. Grozier had changed his story away from what the prosecution wanted and even told the truth, even risking his immunity. Lewis said his testimony was more credible than Carmen's because he had nothing to gain. She challenged the state's claim that the fentanyl was traced, saying the pills were unaccounted for. She emphasized that Eric wasn't a habitual drug user like Carmen or Crozier, but he did have pain from Lyme disease, knee issues, and back problems, and likely asked Corey for pain pills. Lewis also mentioned that Eric had been in Mexico not long before his death, and the night he died, he was texting friends like Pedro and Scott and calling another friend, all of whom the state didn't call to testify. Louis acknowledged that their opening statement had included things that didn't come into trial,

but she said strategy often changes throughout the trial, and the state is obligated to present evidence, not them. She questioned why the expired hydrocodone bottle with residue was left next to Eric's bed, hinting at the possibility of bringing pills back from Mexico. Let's take a listen to this portion. Okay, so what else do we find on that first day that Eric died? What else do they find? The hydrocodum bottle, whatever happened to that bottle.

Why wasn't it tested? What was kept in that bottle? The bottle is sitting right by the bed on Eric's nightstand right next to his phone and watch that were placed neatly in his charger. An expired prescription bottle with nothing in it but residue. You can see the residue there. Why would that be sitting out? A six-year-old prescription bottle. What might be the best way to bring illegal pills back from Mexico?

Put them in a prescription bottle, put them in your suitcase. What might be the best way to store your illicit oxycodum? Stick them in a prescription bottle, put them by your bed. And now that bottle's gone, and nobody knows where it is, and nobody tested. And you saw that white powder, and you can look back when you, go back, but you saw that white powdery residue on the night stand next to Eric? Nobody tested that either. So what's another explanation? What could have happened?

Eric was about to take his last paint pill out of that bottle that he kept by the side of his bed. He's on the phone with people in Mexico. He's checking how long it takes to drive from Scottsville to Magales. Maybe he knew he was getting fentanyl in Mexico. Maybe he thought it was something else, and he accidentally got fentanyl. fentanyl. Maybe had they tested that bottle, we would know. They didn't. You know what else we know, though? We know he had a prescription for naltraxone. And it appears he wasn't taking it. A drug used to help people control craving for drugs and alcohol. It's not a drug used to treat

Lyme disease. There's a reasonable alternative. Reasonable doubt. All right, I'm going to move to motive, but the state absolutely did not prove that Corey's relationship with Josh Grossman was a motive to kill her husband. Josh and Corey had been seeing each other on and off for about two years. You heard from Josh. He testified that their future together was a fantasy. But that no time did Corey ever lead him to believe that she was going to leave Eric for him. It was clear that Josh loved Corey more than she loved him. You could see it in his face. You could see it in his demeanor. You can look at the text shortly before our guide where Corey was trying to break up with it.

The state wants you to find that the conversation Corey had with Josh about his time in Iraq is somehow evidence for proof of murder. But Josh told you she was grieving that that conversation was about life and death and Eric and bow hunting and the supernatural. That it really didn't even seem that unusual at the time. He only thought it seemed unusual when the private investigator told him, Corey killed Eric. It's not evidence of a homicide. It is a proof of anything. Yes, they were having an affair. Eric was also having an affair, possibly more than one. You heard there was a text about an open relationship. And they can laugh about that, but that's what the text said. And you know what? We do not bring this up to make Eric out to be a bad person. It doesn't matter what he was doing in his personal life. That's not the point. The point is that There were parts of Eric's life that he didn't share with people. Just like he didn't share with Cody that he used marijuana or even that he took prescriptions. The point is we all have secrets and Eric had secrets.

But back to Josh, the best evidence that Josh was not a motive for Corey to kill her husband is that after Eric died, she never did get together with Josh. She didn't show up at the brunch that they planned to celebrate the closing on the Midway Mansion. She didn't go on a vacation with him in April. She never even finished paying for that vacation. Josh told you that Corey changed after her age death. She was grieving. But he saw less of her,

and ultimately she broke things off. And by the way, if Corey was as motivated by money as they would have you think, but she really have killed her wealthy husband to run off with the handyman who lived for free in one of her houses, that doesn't fail with the states there. The state says, look at text. Replace the words in them with different words. They stood here and made up what was

inside people's heads. What they were thinking. The state has to rely on evidence. They have to prove their case, and they can't do that. The state did not prove that Corey killed Eric in order to be with Josh. All right, money. Money's a motive for a lot of things, for a lot of people. Was Corey a brilliant businesswoman? No. Was her business struggling? Yes, it was. Was there fake it till you make it? There seemed to be a lot of that going on. Brooke Carrington testified that money was not a priority to Corey Richards.

She could have used an accountant. She said. She didn't even use QuickBooks. And this is all true. A young mother trying to run a business, like most young mothers, young working mothers. Did her accounting take a back seat to her family? Probably. The state also wants you to believe that Corey was cheating her best friend, but that's not what the evidence showed.

The evidence showed that the $45,000 that Chelsea gave to Corey was not earmarked for closing. Corey could do whatever she wanted without money. All the matter was that when she went to that closing on that house, that she showed up with $45,000. It didn't have to be that $45,000. It could have been $45,000 she expected to come in from another flip. But then Corey was arrested and never got the opportunity to do that. That's why that house foreclosed. But you know what the evidence has shown that Corey, rightly or wrongly,

truly believed that that midway mansion was going to turn everything around. They were celebrating that night. If Corey was going to kill Eric for money, she certainly would not have done it on the night that she believed she had just secured a multi-million dollar property. And if you look at the state's exhibit, 624D, you will see that Corey actually made a profit on every single home that she flick. She had reason to believe that she was going to make a profit on this one too.

All the foreclosures, those were all after her arrest. And something else, they say it would have cost way more money than she had to rehab the mansion to live in it with Josh, which again, Josh said it was fantasy. That wasn't going to happen. But if you don't believe him, look at text. to look at states exhibit 2-17D on page 33. This is where she and Eric are going back and forth on how much it would cost to rehab the mansion. And he says, we can't afford that. We don't even have time for that.

Is she telling him? You can look at it. I don't have it word for word. She tells them, no, we're not doing that. I just need money. I just need to give the numbers to the investors. She didn't intend to rehab that. She tend to flip them after a little cleanup.

All right. I want to talk about the gifts that the state talked about in their opening and throughout trying. Oh, the gifts. She says gifts will go with gifts. Defense says gifts. Lewis addressed the gifts and the Midway Mansion photo. She said the state made too big a deal about the gifts, noting they were accessed on March 4th and tied to a celebration. A photo of the Midway Mansion was sent by Eric the night before, and it's likely the gifts.

were sent then too. She argued that this timeline didn't make sense for a motive of life insurance. Corey spent the life insurance money quickly and was in debt. Lewis said if money were the motive, Eric was worth far more alive than dead. And she reminded the jury that Eric could have taken the pills himself and that the state couldn't prove how he ingested the fentanyl. Lewis told the jury not to do the state's job for them and to insist on facts if they were going to charge. someone with a serious crime. She said, the state hadn't proven that Corey purchased or gave Eric fentanyl. And if the fentanyl was accidentally obtained and Eric died, that's not aggravated murder. She brought up the Valentine's Day, a sandwich incident pointing out Eric's allergic

reaction and nap, saying that didn't equate to attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Lewis also covered the forgery charge, saying there was no evidence Corey committed forgery. she said that the state had tried to paint Corey as a type of person who would kill her husband, but there was no proof. And I do want to, I want to share how the defense ended. And I also want to point out this too. I will say this with the defense. I think they did a good job.

We're going to listen to their ending. I find something interesting that when prosecution started with the memes, do you guys remember the opening statements? we've gone full circle. Opening statements happen, or the gifts, I should say, the gifts, the memes, the gifts, jiffs. I think the actual is jiff. Okay.

The prosecution put those in their opening statement, the money gifts, you know, showing money. After this entire, I thought those were the most damning things in the opening statement. I will say at the end of this trial, understanding that they're ghost gifts, they don't know who they were sent to or now necessarily when. I do think those are less important now. I'll give the defense that. I feel like you never know the context of something. Was it about the Midway Mansion or not?

It made it a little bit more confusing to me. Anyway, let's listen to how the defense concluded. Because as I stand here right now, Cory Ritchin is still cloaked in a presumption of innocence. I don't ever want to walk back to that table. As a defense attorney, that is one of the longest, walks a lawyer can make. This entire case is going to flash before my eyes. And all I will be

able to think about once I sit down is what did I miss. What didn't we miss? What didn't we tell you that you wanted to hear? Did I focus on what you wanted to know? Did we do enough? You're about to go through those doors and into the jury room and start deliberations. Everyone in this courtroom, everyone watching around the world, we all wish we could follow you and listen to. and then. But that room, that jury room is yours. It's sacrosaned. And that room you get to decide. And when you get in that room and you look at the evidence, if you think that Corey Richens might have killed her husband, that she likely killed her husband, that she probably killed her husband, you must find her not guilty. Because maybe, probably, likely, very likely, none of these reach

that extraordinary burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm going to ask you to do a couple of things when you go into that room. First, you might be tempted to go around the room and take a vote for guilty or not guilty to see where you all stand. We ask you refrain from this. Instead, we ask, talk to each other about where you see reasonable doubt. Also, if Kathy or Alex or myself did something to offend you, during this trial, please hold that against us. not against Corey. Now, the state's going to get up and talk to you again because they get the

last word. And the reason they have that last word is because of that heavy burden. But when you filled out that jury questionnaire, we asked you if you would be comfortable making your voice heard in that jury room. Would you stand by your convictions by what you believe? And each and every one of you said yes. So here's my final ask of you. When you're deliberating and something comes up that we didn't respond to, will you be courageous? Courageous. enough to raise your hand and talk about what our response would be. Raise your hand. Raise your hand for Corey because you are the last line between an innocent woman and the state. Be courageous. Courage is what this moment demands, the courage to stand between a member of your community

and the state and demand that they comply with the Constitution, that they comply with their burden. Do not let them fool you. Do not. not fall for red herrings. Corey Richens did not kill Eric Richards. The state did not prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, and you have the courage, have the courage to tell them this and find Corey Richens not guilty. A lot of thoughts about that closing.

A lot of thoughts. I mean, I feel like they did a decent job for what they had, you know, pointing out some holes. But nonetheless, us. After Lewis finished the defense's closing, court took a break before Bloodworth gave the state's rebuttal. In the state's rebuttal, Bloodworth acknowledged right away that a lot of the evidence in this case was circumstantial. He didn't try to shy away from that at all. In fact, he leaned into it. He told the jury, yes, a lot of this case was circumstantial, but that

didn't make it weak. He reminded them that people don't usually feel. filmed themselves committing murder. Nobody records themselves poisoning their spouse. So in cases like this, circumstantial evidence is often exactly what investigators have to rely on. He pointed the jury back to their instructions and repeated something they had already been told. What the lawyer say is not evidence, only the exhibits, the testimony, and what was admitted during trial counts as evidence. He said that was the reason the state carefully cross-referenced everything they talked about during closing with actual evidence from the trial. According to Bloodworth, that's because the state wanted the jury to see exactly where every claim came from. Then he took a shot at the defense

and said there was a reason defense counsel didn't cite the evidence in the same way. Bloodworth then pulled up the widow or which image the defense had used earlier in their argument. He dismissed it completely and told the jury, parlor tricks are not legal standards. In other words, he was saying that visuals and clever

courtroom theatrics don't change what the evidence actually shows. From there, he moved back to Carmen Lover. Ledworth reminded the jury that Corey Richards chose Carmen not the state. That was a pretty good comeback. According to him, Corey was the one

reached out to Carmen because Carmen was the drug dealer, she already knew. He addressed the immunity deal head on to. He said the state granted Carmen immunity because they cared more about solving a murder than prosecuting a drug deal. In his view, that decision was made sense when you're talking about a potential homicide. He argued that Corey chose Carmen specifically because she had some level of control over her. Carmen was dealing with her own legal issues, including drug court, and Bloodworth suggested Corey believed she could use that situation to her advantage. Then he repeated a line that clearly

seemed important to him. Corey Richens chose Carmen Lobber, not me. I actually think that was a brilliant comeback. He also told the jury that Carmen's testimony wasn't standing alone. Much of it, according to the state, had been corroborated by other evidence. Bloodworth said, even if the jury only believed the parts of Carmen's testimony that were supported by outside evidence, that alone would still be enough to convict Corey. He pointed to the digital evidence that tracked Carmen's phone. According to that data, Carmen had only been at the Maverick gas station in Draper three times during the relevant time frame, and each one of those, three times, Robert Crozier's phone data also showed him at the same location.

Bloodworth emphasized that connection, saying that digital records backed up Carmen's story about meeting Crozier there. The state also argued that the fentanyl found in Eric's system wasn't pharmaceutical. It was illicit. That's important. It was illicit. Bloodworth pointed out that this contradicted Crozier's suggestion that the pills might have been prescription medication. According to the forensic evidence, that wasn't the case. Bloodworth told the jury that the testimony from both Carmen Lauber and Robert Crozier mattered in this case. He showed the jury a photo of the Maverick gas station where the two of them had met up during those alleged pill transactions.

Then he displayed a text exchange between Carmen and Corey that had been introduced earlier in the trial. In that message, Carmen wrote to Corey, quote, Please tell me these pills weren't for him. Corey responded and denied it saying no. But Bloodworth pointed out what happened next. Just a few days later, Corey reached out asking Carmen for more pills. He told the jury that was curious.

Why ask for more pills so soon after Carmen had expressed concern about Eric? Bloodworth suggested one possible explanation. Maybe Corey asked for more pills so Carmen wouldn't suspect the original ones had been used on Eric. His theory was essentially that Corey might have thought, if I ask for more, Carmen won't think the first batch was meant for him. Bloodworth said this behavior showed what he called a consciousness of guilt. And then he shifted the focus to the night Eric died and how Corey behaved afterward. Ludworth argued that Corey couldn't face her father in law that night because she couldn't

face the father of the man she had just killed. To illustrate this, he played video clips for the jury. The clips showed Corey's reaction to Eric's death compared with Katie Richon's reaction when she heard the news. Bloodworth highlighted the difference between the two. He described how in the footage, Corey walked away while Katie took the boys upstairs. According to Bloodworth, moments like that reveal how people respond in real life tragedies. He told the jury that in moments of profound sorrow, families usually comfort each other. parents comfort their children and sometimes children comfort their parents.

But Bloodworth argued that wasn't what happened here. Instead, he said Corey hit her face. His interpretation was that she did that because she didn't know how to react. According to him, she wasn't grieving and she didn't want other people to notice that. He went even further and told the jury she wasn't crying because she felt no grief because in his words, she had just murdered Eric. Bloodworth did acknowledge there was one moment where Corey appeared surprised. He said that moment happened when Deputy Nguyen announced that Eric's body was going to be sent for an autopsy.

And according to Bloodworth, that was the point where Corey's reaction changed. And I'll point out, according to Dr. John in his assessment, he too pointed out for this moment. Bloodworth continued by arguing that Corey didn't tell anyone that night that Eric used fentanyl because she believed she was going to get away with it. According to him, that's why the topic never came up initially. But when she had heard that Eric's body was going to be sent for an autopsy, that's when things changed. He also addressed the defense bringing up the empty hydrocodone bottle from 2016. Bloodworth said that bottle was immaterial to this case. and the reason he explained was because Eric didn't have hydrocodone in his system at all.

His toxicology report didn't show any trace of it. The only other reference to hydrocodone was the Ziploc bag of pills that was found in the laundry room. He suggested a possible explanation for that maybe those pills had originally been in that old bottle and Corey removed them and placed them somewhere else to stage the scene. According to the state, that would help create confusion about what Eric may have taken. then Bloodworth moved on to the gifts and images that were accessed on Corey's phone that night. He said there was no good reason for those images to be opened at that exact moment. Eric's body was being wheeled out of the house.

Bloodworth pointed out that there was no evidence Eric sent those images. The defense had suggested some of the phone activity could have come from Eric, but Bloodworth pushed back on that. He acknowledged that Eric had sent an image of the Midway Mansion the night before, but he said that was not not the same image that was accessed when the gifts were pulled up. He reminded the jury again that details matter in a case like this. According to the phone data, those images were accessed on Corey's phone at 829. Ludworth told the jury that was the exact minute deputies signed the log showing they had left the house. He also said the phone was physically rotated when the images were opened, suggesting whoever

accessed them turned the phone sideways to get a better look. Ludworth told the jury they may not know exactly. who sent the images originally, but they did know they were accessed on Corey's phone at that specific moment. And in his words, there was simply no good reason for that to happen right then. He floated a couple possibilities. Maybe she was celebrating the midway property or maybe she was celebrating Eric's death. Either way, he said the timing didn't make sense for an innocent explanation. Ludworth then shifted to the way Corey talked about Eric's death afterward. He argued that she consistently minimized how Eric died because she needed to cover up her involvement.

According to Bloodworth, the worst example of that happened when Corey spoke to Eric's father. After she had already spoken with a medical examiner, blood work said Corey told Eric's father that Eric died partially from COVID and from a lung fungus, the same illness Eric's mother had died from. And Bloodworth told the jury that wasn't true. And he said, Corey knew it wasn't true when she said it. In his view, that statement wasn't just me misleading, it was cruel. He said it was another attempt to hide the real cause of death. He also brought up Corey's interview with Dr. Christensen. Bloodworth said during that conversation, Corey pretended she didn't know what quatapine even was, even though, again, she had prescribed

it herself. He said, she also claimed she didn't know what acetaminophon was and that she acted like she didn't understand the meaning of the word elicit. Bloodworth pointed out that Corey had a master's degree to him that made those claims of confusion even harder to believe. His argument was that she wasn't actually confused instead. She was just pretending not to understand certain things while she talked to Dr. Christensen because she was trying to gather information. According to Bloodworth, she was fishing for details that could help her later shape a defense. Bloodworth said, after Corey learned that fentanyl had been found in Eric's system,

she started telling different people that it was only a trace amount, a trace. He said she also told people that Eric's lungs were shot to shit. And again, he framed that as another example of minimizing what really happened. Then Bloodworth addressed the issue of the manner of death classification. He told the jury that the label, the medical examiner checks on the form is ultimately not what decides this case. He explained that the manner of death box is largely, for statistical purposes. In his words, it's a box

that gets checked for recordkeeping. I don't know. I think that's a little bit of stretch. I think the manner of death is important, but whatever, keep going. Then he turned directly to the jury and told them that they were the ones who would determine the manner of death

in this case. That's true. It would be the jury. And according to Bloodworth, the evidence showed it was murder, aggravated murder. He also discussed. us the medical examiner's decision to list the manner of death as inconclusive.

Ludworth said the medical examiner, Dr. Omer, was retiring and made that determination during the early phases of the investigation. According to him, that was simply the best conclusion she could make at the time before finishing her report prior to retirement. Bloodworth also addressed the defense theory that Eric might have accidentally ingested fentanyl through a THC gummy. He told the jury that theory did not match the evidence. During Eric's autopsy, there was no measurable level of THC found in his system. Bloodworth said that meant Eric likely didn't even take a THC gummy that night at all. Finally, Bloodworth talked about the THC gummies that were eventually found in the master bathroom above the toilet during the

second search of the home. According to him, those gummies were not there during the first search. The jury had seen the body camera footage from that first search, and Bloodworth reminded them that the gummies were not visible in that location at that time. His argument was that those gummies were placed there after Eric died. That's a pretty damning moment. He reminded the jury that those gummets, along with a lot of other items from the home, were sent to the lab for testing, and none of that showed that testing showed any traces of fentanyl. Then he shifted to Corey's plans for the Midway Mansion. Ludworth argued that her plan for the property wasn't grounded in reality. The implication was that the financial pictures surrounding that home didn't make sense and added to the state's theory about motive.

At that point, Bloodworth showed the jury a video taken during Eric's celebration of life. This gathering happened the day after Eric died and took place at the family house. And in the video, adults could be seen joking around and drinking. Bloodworth acknowledged that people grieve differently. Everyone handles loss in their own way. Yes, they do. But he used the video to transition into another point about Corey's behavior after Eric's death. He then showed an image of the cover of Corey's book alongside a photo of her appearing on the TV show

Good Things Utah to promote it. Lederath argued that Corey wrote the book to make money. According to him, she hoped to sell 100,000 copies. He also told the jury that Corey didn't actually write the book herself. Not only did she not write it, he said, but she wasn't a good writer to begin with. We saw that in her journals and walked the dog letter. In his view, she wanted people to believe

she was an author even though someone else did the actual writing. And speaking of the Walk the Dog letter, Bloodworth told the jury that Corey needed to craft her defense around the letter. He said the purpose of the letter was obvious. He argued that it had been written to get her brother Ronnie to testify to a specific narrative that would help explain away the evidence. Bloodworth read several lines from the letter out loud in court. One of the lines he highlighted was where Corey wrote that if Ronnie didn't say certain

things she would be convicted. You continued reading other portions of the letter to the jury and used them to argue that Corey was actively trying to shape the story that would be presented in court. As he wrapped up his closing argument, Bloodworth told the jury that the evidence in this case showed Corey murdered her husband and the father of her three children. He told them there was no other rational explanation for the evidence they had seen throughout the trial. Let's take a listen to how he closed. The entire substance of the defense's argument is based around trying to explain the walk the dog letter. Corey Richens is saddled with this letter and needed to craft the defense around this letter.

It's obvious that the letter was written to get her brother to testify to a narrative that would explain everything. Let's unpack the letter in about 15 or so sentences, not with what Corey Richens wrote, but with what the evidence shows. It's a translation from what Corey Richens wrote to what the evidence shows. First part, here is what I'm thinking, but you have to talk to Ronnie. He would potentially have to testify to this,

but it's super short. What the evidence shows is this says, I'm thinking that if you tell Ronnie to testify to what I'm about to write, it will explain everything and I will not get anything. Ronnie will need to tell this to my lawyer because I just made it up and it will have to come from him, never mind that I was arrested four months ago. I need an excuse for Ronnie and Eric to be hanging out.

Never mind that football season ended a month earlier. I need to explain the fentanyl. and fentanyl must be everywhere in Mexico. Never mind that Eric would have to fly with the fentanyl, and I later say that Eric would not fly with drugs for fear of getting caught. Never mind that I know this story, despite Ronnie never telling you. I need to explain why everyone will testify that Eric never used drugs. This kind of happened once with THC Gummies on a trip to Hawaii.

Hopefully this is enough to corroborate my entire walk the dog story. I need to distance myself from fentanyl. These are my made-up words, but Ronnie can make up his own words. If Ronnie does not say these things, I'm convicted. I need to explain why investigators

never found a trace of fentanyl in my home. Never mind that it doesn't make sense that Eric hid the fentany after asking me to buy it. Don't get caught passing this made-up story along to Ronnie. That would be horrible. Tell Ronnie to keep the story short so that he does not mess it up.

Since his conversation with Eric never happened, tell him that it was only two minutes long. Ronnie needs to do this so that I do not get convicted. I can then extract revenge on Eric's sisters. Remember, I just made this story up so my lawyer does not know it yet. All the evidence in this case proves that Corey Richens murdered her husband and the father of her three children, Eric's Richens. There is no other rational explanation for the evidence. And despite all the evidence,

Corey Richens clings for the facade that has enabled her to get away with so much for so long. And despite all the evidence, Corey Richens doubles down and blames Eric. She is intensely ambitious. See through her facade, check her ambition. Do not let her get away with murder. So that marked the end of the closing arguments.

And after that, the jury was sent out to begin deliberations. And Grace and I continue to hang out at the courthouse, wondering when they'd maybe send us home because the jury said that they were going to sleep on it and then we'd come back in the morning. And again, though, but unlike my typical predictions go, but didn't take them long to return with their decision tonight. But while deliberations were going, so I said you guys at the beginning, they had a little story for you guys.

I just want to say while the deliberations were going, admittedly, I was feeling heavy. I think, like I said, I've explained to you, like you have, you have Corey's family in there, and you have Eric Richens family in there, no public, just people who are highly affected in the deepest ways by this case. And full disclosure, I too is feeling a lot. And I just want to share some personal thoughts. I don't want to offend it. I hope I don't offend anyone by sharing these really honest thoughts. But I went outside while I was waiting for the verdict, not outside.

So I just like outside the court, outside the courtroom, like in the courthouse. Like so like the benches. And while waiting for the verdict, I did speak with Corey's family. The people have supported her every day, attended her trial every day. Some of them couldn't attend every day. She had a brother who had been subpoenaed. So he was just grateful to finally attend that day. It was a private conversation, so I won't share what we talked about, although they did tell me that I could share that Corey is days away from earning her MBA from behind bars.

I, you know, I shared with them honestly where I struggled with things and where Corey frustrated me. Trust me, I was very honest with them, just like I've been with you. You know, you know a lot of the times I've been very honest with my thoughts about Corey Richens. throughout the trial. And I value honesty. And so I didn't sugarcoat it necessarily with them. But I was also able to share some things with them that I learned. I valued about Corey and things I saw on her I admired.

I actually do value ambition. And I valued that she had that and goals. I valued that she seemed to want a better life for herself, an entrepreneurial spirit. I valued hearing from one of her best friends on the stand that still stood by her, Ali Staking, showing me that Corey had some long-term friendships she had fostered. I believe she loves her little boys. I can't imagine those little boys, their grief in losing their dad and now not having their mom because she's behind bars.

Those little boys have lost the most. They're the biggest victims in this. I shared with them how I saw the evidence of circumstantial, which I've shared with all of you, always, always, always. And they clearly had hope for this verdict, right? And it was just a moment that I want to share of humanizing Corey, you know, before this verdict came down. And I appreciated that time before the verdict came down, listening to the people who

love her and have supported her and hope that maybe she could be with her boys again, the people who also want to see the boys again, too. You know, it's always interesting to talk to the people who believe in her and wanted her to have a second chance. And I don't know, I always just say true crime is true. And I feel like, just to be really honest, it's those moments that kind of remind me of that. these are real families and deep heartbreak. So I know that for the past couple weeks, I've made fun of Corey, laughed at Corey,

you know, and it's easy to do. But I learned a lot from listening to them too. And again, like I've realized I've laughed at Corey. I've laughed through a lot of the evidence. I've made fun of Corey. But just before that verdict for a moment, I was sort of invited. into the complexity of who Corey is to the people who love her, which is always interesting.

And as the verdict was read, I saw her mom weep. I saw Eric's sisters weep too, just to row back. I said the room was, it was heavy. It was palpable. You know, everyone in that room, deeply affected today. Corey Richens is now a murderer. Corey Richens murdered Eric Richens with fentanyl. That's ultimately the end to this story, to this trial at least.

At least to the trial, probably not the end of what we'll hear about Corey, but for now. Sentencing is May 13th, Eric's birthday. what would have been his 44th birthday. But he is not here because, as the jury has told us, he is not here because Corey Richens murdered him. So after going over everything here today, I'm really curious what all of you think. This was quite the trial.

This did not lead everywhere I thought it would. I was surprised and taken back by things I learned and things I was confused over and it was interesting for me. It was an interesting, different kind of a trial to follow for me. And I'm really curious what all of you think and wonder if you're sitting on that jury. What would your decision have been? Not even if you think she's guilty or not, but do you think the jury got it right? I think most of you do. I'm pretty sure most of you do.

What do you think, though, was the state's strongest piece of evidence? For me, I mean, there was a lot. There was a lot. But I don't know. Them sort of setting to stage, blood were setting to stage for that 911 call and playing that. That did something for me personally. But I'm curious what you guys think, the strongest piece of evidence is. The thing that really tied the case together, I'm curious what all of you think.

And if you think that the jury got it wrong, if there's a few of you out there that do. why? What do you think the biggest holes in the story were for you? I've seen a lot of people say that even though they personally believe Corey probably did do it, they maybe don't think the state actually proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury disagrees with you. Some people feel like there was still room for doubt and the evidence that was presented. Obviously, again, the jurors did not see it that way. And by the way, the jury ended up being only two women because of all the alternate jurors were women. So there was two women and six men that deliberated.

And at the end of the day, their decision is the one that counts and the one that matters. I have a few things to say. I want to say a few things, too. I want to think mine and John's. producer Grayson. You guys do not see the behind the scene stuff that happens. It's intense. And Grayson's incredible. And it's not always easy. Covering these trials is a lot of work. So thank you, Grayson. Thank you to Mrs. Martin for the final correct count, 1,867. And the final sidebar count 104 that are sweet for you too, I imagine. You are the best, Mrs. Martin. Thank you.

And thank you to Troublemaker Baker, who was always running the live streams and for our mini, many, mini, many, mott's, our incredible moderators. I'm not even going to name them all because I know I'll forget one of them and you guys have all been incredible. Thank you to the people who have gifted memberships. So thank you to all of those. Yeah. For all the new members and for the, for the gifts. Thank you. We're going to go eat.

Grayson, I need to eat. Grayson, you eating a bit? Did you get a bit? Yeah. She did. Yeah. Thank you, everyone. All of your kindness has meant a lot during this trial, especially with my cough, too.

And no, it hasn't always been easy there, too. So thank you for listening and sticking with me. So thank you, everyone. This trial went from zero to 60 really fast. I'll just say that. Yeah, we were listening last week, getting ready for defense and their multiple witnesses, only to now have a verdict today. That was not expected.

Big thank you to Lily Bell, too. Yes, absolutely. We miss her right now while we're traveling. Thank you, everyone. All right. Okay, we'll see you guys. Have a great night. And thanks for staying with me this late so we can process this all together.

We'll see you. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wealthfront. Cheching. Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. I left 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 in.

I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust wealth front is taking care of me. With a wealthfront 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 at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest.

Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API why 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.

Thank you.