Hidden True Crime - State Rests… Then the Defense Does the UNTHINKABLE | Kouri Richins Trial Day 13

Episode Date: March 13, 2026

Day 13 of the Kouri Richins trial brought a major turning point: after a morning of tense legal arguments, cross-examination of lead detective Jeff O’Driscoll, and a failed defense motion to dismiss the case, both sides rested — and the defense did so without calling a single witness. In this episode, we break down the final day of testimony, including the fight over the so-called suspicious GIFs, the defense’s attempt to introduce evidence suggesting Eric once asked for fentanyl, and the prosecution’s effort to reinforce the strength of its investigation. We also unpack what O’Driscoll admitted investigators still don’t know — including exactly how, when, or in what dose Eric ingested fentanyl — and why the missing hydrocodone bottle remains such a frustrating loose end. But the biggest shock came at the end: after weeks of hinting at alternate explanations, experts, and unanswered questions, Kouri’s defense rested without presenting any evidence at all. Now, with no defense witnesses and no testimony from Kouri herself, the case heads straight into closing arguments. Sponsors: First Day Life Inc.: Our listeners get up to 57% Off AND a Free Gift with code hidden at ⁠https://FirstDay.com ⁠ Jones Road Beauty: Use code HIDDEN at ⁠https://jonesroadbeauty.com⁠ to get a Free Shimmer Face Oil with your first purchase! #JonesRoadBeauty 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. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfront. Che-ching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary.

3.3% base API Y as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to $150,000. $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. A hidden gems. Day 13 of the Corey Richens trial started with the jury out of the courtroom. Surprise. Same way it always starts, but don't be mistaken today was a very, very big day. Very. The trial essentially went from zero to 60 today. But before we get into what happened in court, it is worth talking briefly about where things left off yesterday because the end of the state's case had a pretty big moment, right? Throughout this trial, a lot of text messages have been shown on screen for the jury.

Same with journal entries and other documents. But none of them have really been read out loud in court, right? Well, we've read them here. the jurors can see them and they'll likely have access to them during deliberations but for the most part they haven't been

verbally presented at all it's up for the jurors to read them well that changed yesterday detective o'driscoll was asked to read the walk the dog letter out loud in court and honestly

that felt very strategic by the prosecution if you've watched the trial or been following our recaps, you know that almost nothing has been read aloud until that moment. So when the state suddenly had their final witness read that letter, word for word, it definitely made it stand out more. It's like they wanted the jury to really hear it and remember it. That letter is one of the pieces of evidence. The prosecution clearly puts a lot of weight on.

It also came from the state's final witness, which made it feel like they were saving one of their strongest pieces of evidence for last. And now the defense didn't offer anything to support their idea that the letter came from some sort of longer manuscript for a fictional book that Corey was allegedly writing. Yeah. The defense knew better than to go there. Corey didn't, but the defense did during court. So that argument really didn't get built out. But to be fair, the defense yesterday did score some points during their cross-examination of Detective Adriscoll, the lead detective. There were definitely moments where they poked holes in the state's narrative or highlighted questions that investigators cannot answer.

I think they really brought home that this case, so much of it is circumstantial. And that's something that we'll be discussing, by the way, in our next episode that we have planned for this weekend because in this trial, there have been clear wins for the state, but there have also been unanswered questions that the defense is trying to lean into. And those are all things the jury is going to have to consider after closing arguments. But that brings us to today, day 13. court officially started with an argument between the state and the defense about a photo that Eric sent to Corey on March 3, 2022. Defense attorney Nestor wanted to bring this up because it relates to those gifts, gifts, gifs, gifs, gifs, potato, potato, potato, that were found on the phone. The state has pointed to those jiff gifts as suspicious, almost like Corey was celebrating Eric's death, right? the money gifts. They came out an opening statement even. That's how excited the prosecution was

about these gifts. Money, money, money gifts were rich gifts. But defense attorney Nestor was trying to show that the gifts were actually accessed the day before Eric died. And dude, I always say context is everything. If that's true, that's important to know. Because were they between Eric and Corey, right? About the Midway Mansion? I mean, that could change everything. So Nestor's trying to show that the gifts were actually accessed the day before Eric died. Judge Marzic initially pushed back on that argument. He said that if the defense wanted to address that issue, it should have come up earlier during testimony from the Selbright witness, Cochardimus, not during lead detective O'Driscoll's testimony. But Nesser argued that O'Driscoll had personally reviewed Eric's phone and was aware those gifts were sent the day before Eric died.

So after some discussion, the judge allowed her, Nestor, to ask a Driscoll about it. But he placed very, very specific limits on how the questioning could happen. And then things shifted to a much bigger argument. Nestor brought up her motion to admit statements from a man named David Norris. So who's David Norris? Well, this is a motion that had already been previously denied by Judge Marzick. but according to defense attorney Nestor, Norris, this David Norris, would have testified that in 2019, that he had an encounter with Eric, where Eric asked him if he had any fentanyl. The defense clearly believes that testimony could support their theory that Eric may have been using drugs and could have voluntarily ingested something, right?

But the judge had already ruled that Norris could not testify. And the reason the judge ruled that had to do something called residual hearsay exception. So normally, hearsay isn't allowed in court. The residual hearsay exception is basically a very narrow rule that sometimes allows hearsay statements if they have strong guarantees of reliability and are necessary for the case. Judge Mrazik ruled that Norris' statement did not meet that standard. And so because of that, he rejected the motion and said Norris could not be called as a witness. Nestor then tried another approach, though.

Nestor's never done, right? Where's Judge Boreski when you need them? All right. Anyway. So Nestor said that she wanted to ask O'Driscoll for questions related to what Norris would have testified about. let's listen to those questions because at that point things got a little tense to say the least it is my desire with this witness to ask him the following four questions about his investigation and it touches on mr norris's testimony but it's a separate matter but i just end of a bunch of

of caution, I am giving you a heads up. So the first question is this. You discussed with Mr. Bloodworth yesterday that the way you approached this investigation was to look for evidence based on three possible scenarios, an accidental overdose, a suicide, or a murder, correct? Question number two. And in order to properly investigate whether there was an accidental overdose, certainly any allegations that Eric had a prior history of seeking fentanyl would be potentially relevant and important to look into, correct? Pause there for a second. I got a right.

I'm sorry. I do have these email them to you. No, that's okay. Just give me a moment. No worries. Was it prior allegations that Eric? Any allegations that Eric had a prior history of seeking fentany. would be potentially relevant and important to look into, correct?

And this is the next question. Within the past few months, did your team of investigators become aware that there was an individual contacting the Summit County Sheriff's Department who wanted to share with the investigative team information about an alleged or about an incident where Eric allegedly asked someone for fentanyl. you read that again. And within the past few months, did your team of investigators become aware

that there was an individual contacting the Summit County Sheriff's Department who wanted to share with the investigative team information about an incident where Eric allegedly asked someone for fentanyl. And then there's one more question. Let me know when you're ready, Your Honor. Is their investigative team? Give me the last clause one word time. Who wanted to share with the investigative team information about an incident where Eric allegedly asked someone for fentanyl. And the final question is, did you or anyone else connected to the investigative team ever sit down with this individual and talk to them? Did you make any efforts to see if this individual was credible or had corroborating evidence to back up their claims? And that's it.

No objection to the first question. Objections to the next three. This is a transparent attempt to circumvent the courts 8.07 ruling regarding Mr. Norris by casting some sort of inference that what Mr. Norris would have testified to was, is admissible. This setup has been long in the making. After the court issued its 807 ruling, Mr. Norris called the Summit County Sheriff's Office. Deputies interviewed him, and he said he was calling on behalf of, or he was calling because defense counsel told him he should call.

Maybe just pause here. I understand part of your objection to be a lack of foundation. That is the beginning, Your Honor. I think that's the beginning and the end of the discussion. There's no foundation for the premise of your questions, two, three, and four. I'm sorry, but I don't understand. We have been produced a report from the Summit County Sheriff's Department confirming this call was made and confirmed.

that there was no interview of this individual. It goes not to the credibility of the individual. It goes to the credibility of the investigation that they chose never even speak to him. There is no foundation for the premise of your question. It's as if you could make up any set of facts and put them in the question. If there's no foundation,

it can't be the premise of the question. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by there's no fact. There is validation from the state this call happened. It's not that did you interview a person named David Norris. It's the substance. That is the premise of the question. There is no foundation or the premise that Eric had a prior history of seeking funding. That's not the way the question is worded. The question is worded is someone contacting you asking to give you information about it and you refuse to interview them. That's not the question you asked.

Read the whole question. In order to properly investigate... No, no, no, no, go to number two. That is number two. My apologies. And in order to properly investigate whether there was an accidental overdose, certainly any allegations,

not facts, not nothing, just an allegation, that Eric had a prior history of seeking fentanyl would be potentially relevant and important to look into, correct? Correct? Let me ask you this one. What would your response be if Mr. Bloodworth got off and said, certainly detective, you

investigated whether Hayden Jeffs had done all the stuff that I've excluded in my ruling regarding Hayden Jeffs? Would you be like, no problem. You can say that. Fair question. It would be reversible error for me to allow that question. There were two residual exception rulings in this case. be fair about it. Right. That's absolutely correct. Um, so is there a way if we scrub out the reference

to fentanyl and we don't get into the specifics of exactly what was said because I understand their concern about that and the court's concern, which is why we raise this in advance, which is why I'm trying to do the right thing here. I appreciate it. Um, if we just said that an individual contact them with information about an interaction with Eric involving drugs, illicit street drugs, and they chose not to investigate it at all. It does go to their, they've set forth this hypothesis that, well, we eliminated all other possibilities. And that's just not true. They didn't eliminate all other possibilities because they chose not to interview at least one person that clearly would have supported the first hypothesis

that he ingested it intentionally. So that's all I'm trying to get in. I am trying to get that in. You may be trying to get a little bit more in. Well, as much as I can possibly get him. Fair enough. But I do think it's fair game to say, look, you've got someone coming to your office

saying he tried to buy drugs for me. And I have, I want to be interviewed. And they are like, no, thank you. you. I think I'm entitled to get that in. And I'm willing to do it in the most ethical, careful, reliable, non-inferential way possible. But I do believe that's fair game. And I, I'm open to suggestions. Whatever I need to do. These four questions are not. Mr. Bletworth. You look like you're about to say something. No, Your Honors, I understand the status quo is the courts.

I guess the court has sustained the state's objection to those questions. I have. I think what Ms. Nestor is trying to ward off is another side of objectional questions that are maybe more general, less specific, some version of probing the bounds of the state's investigation of the charges. Your Honor, no. It's the same foundational objection, right? This is all to suggest that there is admissible evidence that Eric Richens saw

fentanyl before. And at bottom, there is no admissible evidence that he saw fentanyl before. And I don't think that there is any good faith basis to suggest otherwise or to suggest that any investigation into it was incomplete because the fact is detectives that mr norse's narrative has been so thoroughly dispatched that there's no good face basis to allude to an improper investigation, much less that there may be admissible evidence. Well, we did a quick poll while watching that.

I think this is really interesting. So I have to share this right now because it's changed since yesterday. 80, where is it? seven percent of you believe that Corey Richards is guilty, Tensee undecided, 3% say innocent. That's interesting. That we were in the 90s yesterday. So I think that proves my point.

I do think the defense did a decent job yesterday. We're going to do another poll and clarify what you I think the verdict is going to be right now as of today. Because I know that some of you might think guilty, but think the verdict will come back. Not guilty. Some of you might think not guilty, the verdict's going to come back. Guilty, we'll see.

But nonetheless, after hearing arguments from both sides, our very patient judge, Mrazik, ultimately ruled that those four questions would not be allowed. He said there's no admissible evidence

showing that Eric ever obtained narcotics other than when he received oxycodone after knee surgery years earlier. Nestor pushed back again and tried to argue for her line of questioning, but the judge reiterated that there are limits on what can be brought into evidence. And this topic simply didn't meet those standards. After conferring briefly with her co-counsel, Nestor said she would respect the court's ruling. And at that point, the judge called for a short five-minute break. And when court resumed,

Judge Marazek did something interesting. I thought it was interesting. He told both sides that he had found a case he wanted them to review. What a great judge. He's like, look, I found some case law to review. And according to the judge, the case might allow the defense to bring in the information about Norris after all, but there was a catch. If that door opened, the state would also be allowed to introduce other statements from potential witnesses. And the judge warned the attorneys to think about this very carefully, because as he put it, the court, as he said, quote, can't unring the bell. In other words, once that kind of evidence comes in, it opens the door to a lot more testimony. Prosecutor Bloodworth responded by saying that if the Norris information is allowed in, the state has other potential witnesses they would want to call as part of their case in chief.

He also made it clear that the state had not rusted their case yet, so they would want to present those witnesses before the defense begins presenting theirs. Nestor then asked for time to meet privately with Corey. The judge told him, that she needed to explain something to Corey that's very important. If the defense tried to bring in the Norris statements, the state could respond by introducing statements from two other people, Hayden Jeffs and Nick Bon Savage. And one of those statements could be pretty damaging. The judge mentioned a recording involving Bon Savage in which he allegedly says that Carmen could buy a PlayStation because she had just made a lot of money sell.

selling street drugs, end quote. Now, that's a big deal quote, right? So clearly, if this door gets opened, things could escalate quickly for both sides. Nestor asked for 30 minutes to talk with Corey privately, and after that meeting, she returned to the courtroom and said they understood what the judge meant. If any of this information comes in, all of it could potentially come in. Nestor told the court that the defense accepted the judge's point that O'Driscoll was not the proper witness to introduce information about Norris. So for now, they would hold off on that line of questioning until they potentially have a foundational witness who could bring it in properly. Before we go any further, a quick ad from one of our wonderful trial sponsors that makes these recaps and nightly lives possible with all of you. One thing about parenting that nobody warns you about is how much mental energy goes into wondering if your kid has eaten, literally anything nutritious that day.

Because if my kid had his way, dinner would be chicken nuggets, snacks, and ice cream every single night. And I know I am not alone. But thankfully, that is where first day daily multivitamins comes in. A lot of kids deal with something called hidden hunger, where they're eating, but they're eating, but, still missing key nutrients for healthy growth. First Day makes clean science-backed gummies with nine essential vitamins and a blend of organic fruits and veggies. And it's yummy and healthy, a parent win and a kid win. For a limited time, our listeners can get up to 57% off and a free gift with code hidden at firstday.com. That's up to 57% off with code hidden at first day.com.

Thank you to our amazing, our amazing sponsor. Yeah, hell yeah, the gummies. I see that. Anyway, once the jury came back into the courtroom, because remember, the jury hasn't even been, you know, in the courtroom very long yet today. So they've left. There's another break.

They came. They left. They came. Once they came into the courtroom, Detective Jeff Odryskel returned to the stand. Finally, we get this day going. And defense attorney Nestor jumped right back into her cross. examination, right where she left off yesterday. She started with those gift gifs that were found on

Corey's phone. Nestor introduced a document from the SELBright phone extraction showing the gift activity. And according to the report, the three gifts were accessed at 829 a.m. on March 4th, 2022, the morning Eric died. But here's where it gets tricky. We heard before that these were called, Well, investigators call them orphaned gifts or orphaned gifs. Basically, that means the data shows the gift files were accessed, but investigators cannot tell which specific text message thread they were attached to. And honestly, to me, that matters. Again, I'm like a context-is-everything girl, right?

Like, who are they being sent to? Why? Anyway, from the defense perspective, they also think this matters, because the state has pointed to these gifts as suspicious, even in their opening statements. Nestor was clearly trying to show that the timing might not mean what the prosecution says it means. I don't think you think it means what you say it means. Then she moved on to text messages that were pulled from Eric's phone.

O'Driscoll said he remembered reviewing them during the investigation, but admitted he didn't remember the exact context of, every message. Nestor then showed him several messages between Eric and Corey and asked if they were from the day Eric died, and O'Driscoll said no. Those particular messages were from March 3rd the day before Eric died. But Nestor pointed out that he may have either died late on the 3rd or the early morning hours of the 4th. I agree. I think it was late on the 3rd, honestly. Regardless, Nestor pulled up more data from the phone. And on the morning of March 4th, investigators found that a photo of the Midway Mansion had been accessed on Corey's phone.

There was also another image showing a farmer in a bottle of champagne. But again, the key point here was that these photos could have been sent the day before, even though they were accessed on the fourth. So the defense was clearly trying to show that timestamps don't always tell the whole story. I kind of agree with them there. It's a good point. Next, Nestor shifted to internet searches that had been found on Corey's device, and she asked O'Driscoll whether all of those searches were made after April 13, 2022.

And then she asked if he had ever spoke with Corey's family to see whether anyone else might have used the device and performed those searches. O'Driscoll said he did not talk to her family about that. And then after that, Nestor moved to the Orange Notebook, which is basically Corey's journal. we read from that yesterday, and one of the pages included a timeline that Corey wrote out for herself, which we also read yesterday. So on one of those dates, the note read, quote, Corey starts counseling. So Nestor asked whether O'Driscoll took steps to verify if she actually was in counseling at that time. And O'Driscoll said investigators did obtain Corey's medical records, but he couldn't remember whether mental health records were included in those

documents. And then Nestor turned to something investigators found in Carmen's bedroom. There was a memory wall in the room and on that wall investigators found Eric's obituary. All right. Remember that? Well, Nestor asked O'Driscoll if he remembered seeing other obituaries on the same poster board and he said he did not particularly notice. Well, Nestor then showed the photo to the jury.

And according to her, the image appeared to show another memorial program on the wall as Well, the implication here seemed to be that maybe Carmen wasn't displaying Eric's obituary because she felt guilty or responsible. Maybe it was just part of a broader memory wall with other memorial items that she kept. And from there, Nestor pulled up another set of text messages. She said we're between Eric and Corey discussing a trust. O'Driscoll said he didn't recall seeing those specific messages and didn't know the context. Nestor asked whether investigators interviewed people or reviewed documents to determine if Corey knew about a trust Eric had created before his death. O'Driscoll said based on everything he reviewed, Corey did not understand how the trust worked or all of its conditions.

Well, Nestor pressed him further and asked a slightly different question. Well, was she aware it existed? O'Driscoll answered that there is evidence suggesting she was aware that the trust existed. even if she didn't fully understand its details. Next, Nestor brought up something that happened on Valentine's Day. Again, Valentine's Day attempted murder day. She asked O'Driscoll, whether he became aware that Eric used an epipen that day. O'Driscoll confirmed that Eric did have epipens and that investigators located some in the refrigerator.

Nestor asked if Eric had been treated for allergies. O'Driscoll said yes, but he explained they were seasonal allergies like trees and grass. She then asked whether investigators contacted Eric's allergy doctor to find out exactly what he was allergic to. And Aldriscoll said Eric had mentioned going to the hospital after the Valentine's Day incident, but he wasn't sure whether Eric actually followed through and went. Well, then Nestor brought up Susan Kohler. Susan Kohler, to remind all of you, was connected to Carmen and also worked for Corey's aunt Doreen Corey. Corey has her mother's maiden name.

So her aunt is Doreen Corey spelled the same way. Hence the spelling K-O-U-R-I. Anyway, Susan was connected to Carmen, worked for Corey's aunt Doreen, cleaning houses. Nestor asked whether investigators ever found evidence that anything Susan sold to Carmen contained fentanyl. Adriscoll said investigators did find a bag of loose hydrocodone pills in the mudroom of the house. Those pills were tested and did not contain fentanyl. Next, Nestor asked whether investigators were able to track Eric's phone movements during a hunting trip to Mexico. O'Driscoll said they were not able to obtain location data for that trip.

At that point, that's interesting too. If there's this idea that Eric could have been buying drugs in Mexico, I'm not saying he was. I'm just saying that the jury might be left wondering if you're pointing out that they never obtained location data for that trip. So at that point, Nestor zoomed out and started asking broader questions about the investigation itself. She pointed out that this investigation has gone on for years, for four years, and that as recently as less than one month ago, investigators were still issuing search warrants. Overall, there were 10 search warrants issued. There were also five multi-day searches conducted by the private investigator, and multiple agencies were involved in the investigation, including the Summit County Sheriff's Office, the Medical Examiner's Office, the private. investigator, the DEA and the U.S. Postal Service.

She also noted that 45 witnesses had been interviewed during the investigation, and then she made a pretty pointed statement. After all of that, she said investigators still haven't found anything physically tying someone to Eric's death. No fentanyl in the house. No stash somewhere. It's true. Woodriscoll responded with a line that definitely stood out, though.

He said, investigators didn't find fentanyl around the house. but there was a boatload in Eric's stomach. Well played. Nestor followed up by pointing out something important about the toxicology evidence. She said investigators cannot say how the fentanyl was administered, what dose was taken, or what time it was taken. She also asked whether investigators know what Eric ingested on Valentine's Day during that earlier incident.

O'Driscoll said they do not have medical reports showing what was in Eric's system at that time. and then Nestor switched gears again and brought up insurance issues. She said the jury has not heard any testimony about statements Corey made to her insurance company. O'Driscoll responded that no statements have been presented, but the jury has heard evidence related to the insurance issue. And finally, Nestor asked about the forgery allegations involving documents signed in Eric's name. she pointed out that the jury

hasn't heard testimony about whether Eric gave Corey permission to sign his name on the documents because that could be one defense O'Driskell though responded and said he didn't believe

permission was necessary to meet the legal definition of forgery under the statute it's not the best answer I mean so you're saying that Eric could have given permission but Nestor pushed the point further even though the handwriting analysis

testified the signatures were probably not written by Eric, the expert also could not say that Corey was the one who signed them. So after that line of questioning, Nestor said she had nothing further for Detective Adriscoll. Now remember, that's important because one of the charges Corey faces it's not just murder and attempted murder, it's forgery. Forgery and insurance fraud with a life insurance. So forgery is one full charge. That charge right there might be flimsy, right? I don't know. That wrapped up the defense's cross-examination and the prosecution stepped back in for a short follow-up. Prosecutor Bloodworth started by asking O'Driscoll to clarify his role in the investigation. O'Driscoll explained that he was the lead investigator for the sheriff's office, but he was not the lead investigator for the county attorney's office.

He said there were a lot of people working on his case and he had a large team helping him. He made the point that he doesn't have authority over the investigators who work for the prosecutor's office. He also told the jury that there is simply too much information in the case for one person to know every single detail, explaining that the investigation included terabytes of data. Ludworth then walked the jury through why outside experts were brought in during the investigation. O'Driscollis said that back in early 2023, the sheriff's office didn't have the technology or capabilities to perform certain types of digital extradivation. extractions themselves. That's why they hired Forensic examiner Cotrademus to conduct the Cell Bright phone extractions. He also said the department didn't have strong forensic

accounting capabilities, which is why they brought in forensic accountant Brooke Carrington to help analyze financial records. She was amazing. Adriscoll explained that the sheriff's office is relatively small, so they had to rely on outside specialists. He added that it was actually the county attorney's office that asked those particular experts to assist with the investigation. Bloodworth then switched gears to something the defense had brought up earlier about interviews with Carmen. And during those interviews, investigators told her she was the biggest piece of the puzzle. Bloodworth asked O'Driscoll to explain what that meant. And O'Driscoll said investigators were laying out everything they knew at that time.

And Carmen represented a key unknown. specifically they were trying to figure out the timeline surrounding the alleged drug purchase. At that point in the investigation, they didn't yet know about other potential motives that later came up. In the case like financial issues or the alleged relationship between Corey Richens and Josh Grossman, so when they told Carmen she was the biggest piece of the puzzle, they meant she had information they were still trying to understand. Next, Bloodworth asked about the empty hydrocodone bottle from 2016 that, have been mentioned earlier in this case. So put a pin in this. Bloodworth asked about the empty

hydrocodone bottle from 2016 that had been mentioned earlier in the case. So Adriskell said he did remember it. But when he started to explain what he had heard about where the bottle ended up, the defense objected on hearsay grounds. The judge sustained the objection. So the jury never heard that answer. Let's take a listen to this because I have some thoughts on this pill bottle that I want to talk about after this. Whether that empty 2016 hydrocodone bottle that went with Eric Rich's body to the medical office, medical examiner's office, was discarded by the medical examiner's office in August of 2022. That's your say. You recall what? You recall what? what happened with the empty 2016 hydrocodone bottle?

Need my objection. It's a yes or no, sorry, yes. Yes. How do you know what happened with the 2016 empty hydrocodone bottle? I was told by other investigators that they're Just saying that here. Okay.

Okay. So what stands out to me about this is that we've heard multiple times throughout the trial that the hydrocodone bottle was never tested. And the investigators aren't even sure where it is. But I could have sworn we previously heard testimony suggesting otherwise. I remember both the morgue clerk, Maggie Mobley and the medical examiner explaining that the bottles recovered from Eric's body bag were placed into an evidence locker at the morgue. Let's, I just want to, let's rewind and listen to those clips because stick with me here. I need to process this with y'all. How about any medications or medication bottles? Yes, we receive those and put those in a locker as evidence. Okay. And are those made available to the medical examiner, doctor who later? Yes. Our investigation will take custody of that. the doctor has access to all that information.

I see. Upon completion of the autopsy, and if it comes to a point where there's no more need for the physical body, in this case of Eric Richens, what happens next to the body? With the body, as you mean as a work clerk? Yes. We would release to a funeral home. In this case, I'm not aware. Okay.

Are the driver's license and those sorts of things released to the funeral home as well? Yes, as long as they were not collected as evidence. I don't have any more questions for this. Mr. Ramos, I think they're very good. Out of the bag, correct? Correct. And I imagine they're in a separate bag? They would be in either a paper bag or a plastic bag.

And do you open that bag? I would not. Okay. Unless there was a driver's license in the same bag. And in this case, do you remember if they were separate? I'm unsure. Okay. But you knew there were medications? Yes. And I imagine the reason, or just tell me the reason, how you knew they were medications?

They're in the photo. You can see them. And which photo was that? Those intake photos. Is it just the one that you just took? Or, sorry, the one that was just shown to you? Is there a different one? I am responsible for taking photos when I received the body. Okay.

So they are with the body. Do you remember the medications in this case specifically? That's not my job to look. Okay. Can I show, I'm going to show you two documents. And just to her, Your Honor. And the first one, I do see your, I believe it's your initial or maybe even your full name. So we're going to start with that one.

Okay. Do you recognize that? I do. Okay. And could you tell me kind of what it is? That looks like a printout of the record that I put the medications in a locker and the chain of custody aspect of it. I'm going to show you another document, okay? So that's where my confusion comes in.

If those bottles were logged and secured in an evidence locker, as Maggie even described as part of maintaining the chain of custody, how does one of them end up unaccounted for later on? And maybe I'm missing something. So that's why I'm throwing it out to all of you too. Because the whole point of that process, you know, that chain of custody process, is to track exactly where evidence goes.

So if that bottle truly was lost or thrown away, that's pretty unfortunate. Being able to test it could be significant for the defense, but it could also have eliminated a potential avenue of reasonable doubt for the state. Either way, having that piece of evidence available would have provided a lot more clarity. Ludworth also asked whether investigators can force people to speak with them during an investigation if they don't want to. Odryskel said no, they cannot. He explained that investigators also cannot see someone's phone without probable cause. And that led into a question about the Walk the Dog letter that had been read in court yesterday.

Bloodworth asked that that letter gave him probable cause to obtain a warrant to seize the phone belonging to Corey's brother. Because he's mentioned in this Walk the Dog letter. O'Driscoll said no. The letter by itself was not sufficient to obtain a search warrant. Finally, Bloodworth asked about one of the gifts that had, had come up during cross-examination. It was the Kevin Spacey Idiots-Idiots Everywhere gif that they showed in opening statements. Bloodworth asked whether that gift came from the TV show House of Cards.

And O'Driscolleckel confirmed that it did indeed come from House of Cards. After that, Bloodworth said he had no further questions. That was really fascinating way to end, right? Her House of Cards comes falling down. is essentially what I think Bloodworth is implying there with Odriscoll at the stand at the very end. The House of Cards comes crashing down. Bloodworth then, again, had no further questions. The defense also declined to ask anything further, and O'Driscoll was released from the stand.

And with that, the judge sent the jury to lunch. While the jury was out, the court turned back to the earlier issue involving the potential testimony about David Norris. So Bloodworth told the judge he needed to know whether the defense plan to pursue that issue. Because right, the judge, again, remember before the jury came in, he said, hey, by the way, I found a case. If you really want to bring this Norris guy in to say that he was going to give Eric some fentanyl back in 2019, if you do, then the prosecution can, you know, share their witnesses and there's going to be some stuff. and, you know, the judge kind of said, so are you guys, you know, are you guys open to this? You need to know whether the defense plan to pursue this issue. And if they did, the prosecution would need to call additional witnesses.

If not, the state was ready to finish its case. So Judge Mrazik said the door did not appear to have been opened on that issue. And then at that point, Bloodworth stood up and simply said the words, everyone had been waiting for. The state rests. Yeah, but that's not all that happened today. And before going on to what happened next, another quick word from our final sponsor for today, another wonderful trial sponsor. Take a lesson.

I used to think good makeup meant a whole routine. Foundation, bronzer, blush, highlight, or 10 minutes later, you're still blending. And honestly, as a busy mom and someone who's constantly on camera, I do not have time for that. especially on trial days. You should see the crazy going on behind the scenes to be in front of the mic on time. There's no extra time for a 30-step makeup routine. But that is why I truly have been loving Jones Road Beauty's miracle bomb. It gives you that your skin but better glow in just seconds. I just tap a little bit on my fingers, work it on as a blush, highlight, even a little tint on my lips. It's quick, natural, and it actually enhances your skin instead of covering it up.

And for a limited time, our listeners are getting a free shimmer face oil with their first purchase when you use code hidden at checkout. Just head to jonesroadbeautcom and use code hidden. And after you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them hidden true crime sent you. It is truly so stressful, by the way, getting ready for these each night. And I have noticed some of your compliments tonight. Thank you. That always makes me feel good. And I'm wearing Jones Road.

That's like, that's it for my cheeks. A lot of people always ask my blushes. I love a lot of blushes. But that is what I'm wearing. It really is amazing. So thank you to Jones Row for your amazing blush. That's so easy. All right.

Trial days, guys. Trial days. Anyway. So before the defense began their case, defense attorney, Alex Ramos, made a motion, and asking the judge to dismiss the case, the entire case. Yes. This is something called a motion to dismiss or rule 29 motion, where the defense argues that even if you take the state's evidence at face value,

it still doesn't prove the charge or the charges in this case. And Ramos argued that the prosecution had not proven its case and laid out several reasons why the defense believes the evidence falls short. Let's listen to his reasonings while the defendant. defense felt that this case should just simply be dismissed because evidence falls short. Your honor, under both Rule 170 as well as 77, 1713, discharge for insufficient evidence, the defense presents the following and moves for a directed verdict. At the conclusion, this is just for the record, Judge, as your honor knows, at the conclusion of the evidence by the prosecution,

which has just been done. The court may issue in order dismissing any information or indictment or any count thereof upon the ground that the evidence is not legally sufficient to establish the offense or offenses charged therein or any lesser included offense. Judge, based on the evidence that has been presented over the past 10 days or so,

including all imprints of course that can be reasonably drawn from the evidence. It is a position of the defense that some evidence exists from which, a reasonable jury could find that some, however, not all of the elements of the crimes that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In terms of the sufficiency of the evidence judge, I'll start backwards, starting with count five. With regards to the forgery, even looking at the all the imprints in favor of the state, we do not

believe that the state has proven a specific intent to defraud as it relates. to the forgery. There's no proof that the signature was done without Eric's authority. And even assuming that the defendant and Ms. Richens signed on behalf of Eric with or without permission, it does not, that itself does not conclusively presume

that because she signed the name of Eric, that a forgery has occurred. The act, in other words, of signing another's name without permission doesn't constitute forgery, again, unless it was done with the intent to defraud, which we don't believe it has been met here. In terms of count four, and forgive me, Judge, the way I'm approaching this is based primarily on the information,

the criminal information, as the facts were laid out there. It was a bit difficult to follow through the testimony as to exactly what the state's position is. According to the criminal information, the basis for the true stage count four insurance fraud is that Ms. Richens or rather True Stage left the voicemail with Ms. Richens requesting a copy of the prescription, any prescription, Mr. Richens had for fentanyl. Then later that same day, Ms. Richens informed True Stage that fentanyl was not prescribed. and that she had no idea how Eric obtained that. I think it's that last clause of that sentence that this is the state's prima facie showing. Do you see it different?

And taking that as their basis, what the evidence has shown thus far has been that Ms. Richens sought and procured oxy from Ms. Lover that, while Ms. Lauber indicated that it was fentanyl, the her source, Mr. Crozier, provided fentanyl. That Mr. Crozier did not provide fentanyl. Rather, he provided prescription-grade oxies. From that moment, from the supplier, Mr. Crozier, to Ms. Lauber, the evidence is that what was provided was oxy.

May I ask a direct question about that? Sure. Why couldn't a jury properly instructed on the law and consistent with the court's duty when considering a motion for directed verdict, drawing all inferences in the state's favor, view the evidence as showing that Robert Clojures, Crozier sold to Carmen Lobber 15 to 30,

bluish pills marked M30. Carmen Lauber provided them to Corey Ritch. and then based upon the testimony of Eric Haskell that during that time frame bluish pills marked M30 likely contained fentanyl two responses one the testimony from mr. Crozier as to the quantity and the amount per pill does not jive at all with the Haskell testimony as to how much was how much was how much was how much fentanyl gray or I guess street level non-prescription pills were going for what was indicated in the evidence was the amount that was paid was consistent with prescription grade oxies so that's how I would answer your honest question okay count three as I understand it is that Ms. Richens, again, according to the criminal information,

had indicated a phone number with an incorrect digit, the signature on the application that purported to be Mr. Richens as a forgery. We've talked about count five. And then in the context, I think it's also the PO box. I imagine they were trying to establish that Mr. Richens didn't have access to that or something to that effect. I don't believe any evidence has been presented to that degree.

Or the P.O. Box or substantial evidence that Eric didn't know about it. Not necessarily. If I view the inferences of the light most favorable to the state. And even with that, Judge, I mean, there was no evidence presented at all that from the Postal Service or anybody saying that Mr. Inchens had no idea that that P.O. box existed. There was a statement and a question made by, I believe, the state, but no. No evidence was prevented to show that that was actually the case. That's how I would answer your honor. Also an interesting point, term life insurance at the moment that she allegedly signed on behalf of Eric and was submitted and was paid from her account, I am not certain that your honor could find

that that term life insurance actually had value. What I mean by that is that there is case law, of course, in the civil process or context, that in the context of term life insurance, Utah courts have specifically addressed whether such policies have value as property. And the Court of Appeals in Beckham v. Beckham, I didn't write down the citation,

I'll provide that, Your Honor, held that term life insurance policies generally have no cash value and therefore no property value. This is, of course, in the context of marital assets. So I bring that up. I think that's an interesting point. Obviously, it was marked for $100,000. But the actual value of that, I don't know, it raises an interesting issue. Doesn't the statute talking about the elements of that particular crime for account three talk about property money or things obtained or sought to be obtained?

Correct. And that was going to be my last point is at that moment, what the state needed to provide or prove put forth evidence is that at the moment that Ms. Richens allegedly signed on behalf of Mr. Richens for $100,000 term life insurance. And at that moment, she knew that she was going to attempt to take her husband's life. And I don't believe they've met that, Judge. That's how to answer that. Okay. With regards to count two and one, most of these arguments overlap, but I will attempt to keep them separate, Judge. as I understand it, in order for them to have met the elements,

in order for Ms. Richens to be found guilty of an attempt, she must engage in conduct constituting a substantial step towards the commission of the offense. Here, information has been, evidence has been presented that she did seek to obtain Oxy. We've had that discussion. Obtaining that oxy just obtaining the oxy itself is mere preparation. There is case law, as I'm sure your honor is aware, in St. v. Johnson, a 21P2D 1150

that indicates that that is not enough. Coupled with the information that we just discussed as to whether it was oxy, whether it was fentanyl, I believe that's even Ms. Richon's case currently is even in a better posture than Ms. Johnson. So with that, if we look at it in the context of the Valentine's Day, there is no evidence at this point that what was obtained was Fetlam, even if it was Oxy and she sought to obtain that, beyond that there's nothing else, no other evidence that indicates that Ms. Ritchin. Richens took those pills, the greenish blue ones, I think at that time, 15 milligrams is what Mr. Crozier said, and did anything else with it. I think the evidence as to Mr. Richens ingesting a sandwich is clear in terms of Ms. Richens picking it up. Absolutely. That his reaction was a result of that and not anything else.

I believe that the evidence is scant. Your Honor has a question. No, I'll follow him. I will say that even in the Johnson case, the evidence was clear that the defendant in that case had actually obtained a specific type of drug, methamphetamine. So even in that case, they knew exactly what was obtained. Here, it's unclear what was obtained.

I will add this before I forget. It relates to all of this in your prior question. In terms of the pills, Ms. Lover testified the amount of pills that was significantly different from what Mr. Crozier had indicated, as well as the packaging. I believe that's important in the court's consideration in terms of what type of pills ultimately were given from Mr. Crozier to Ms. Lover. This same argument, not to rehash it, applies to count one. And it leaves us with the administering of the drug.

Zero evidence has been presented besides that fentanyl was in his system, in his gastric, and it was possibly poorly ingested. There has been no evidence in terms of the administering of whatever it was. judge for those reasons the defense request that your honor exercise your duty under both the rule 17 as well as the code

and we move for directed verdict on those counts judge for those reasons unless your honor has any questions I do not you'll get the last word thank you before I switched to wealth front my APY was probably 0.1

like it was a joke I was literally getting pennies once I switched chit-ching with a wealth front cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wellfront was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest,

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

3.3%, base API Y as of January 30th, 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client 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. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealthfronts. Chiching! Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023.

I lost my job, not having something else. lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest 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. 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 contract. 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 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. Love your comments, everyone.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, you guys clearly weren't necessarily buying his argument. in. And as some of you have pointed out, where's that investor that Corey was allegedly buying the Michael Jackson stuff for? Where's he in all this? Will the investor please stand up?

Let us know who you are. Oh, wait. Well, maybe the defense will bring him up, right? Maybe. Okay. Good tease. All right. After hearing that, Bloodworth asked the judge, if there was anything specific, he wanted

the prosecution to address in the motion. Judge Mrazik said he wanted Bloodworth to respond to the defense's argument about a lack of believable evidence regarding intent to defraud. And again, that issue relates to the $100,000 true stage life insurance policy. The state says Corey Richens fraudulently obtained one month before Eric dies. So soon after, so quickly did Eric die that it was an automatic investigation at the life insurance company. Bloodworth argued that when Corey submitted that Apple, application with Eric's signature, she intended to defraud. He said nothing in the application suggested that Eric even knew the policy existed, everything about the application, including

the contact information, routed back to Corey. And after hearing the arguments, Judge Morazik said he needed about five minutes to gather his thoughts. I appreciate that. I do that too. You know what? I call it regrouping. I got to regroup, give me five minutes. You know, and go head to my bed. Anyway, the judge needed five minutes to gather his thoughts. And or make a cup of coffee either way. When he came back to the bench, he explained his role in this situation. He said the court's job at this stage

is simply to determine whether the prosecution has presented believable evidence that could support the charges. And according to the judge, they had. So he denied the defense's motion to dismiss. All right. So then the court went into a short recess before the defense is supposed to present its case,

And I'm wanting to know. I'm like, oh, great. Like, is the first person they're going to call the investor that Corey was buying the Michael Jackson stuff for? We'll find out. We're just waiting. The defense had previously indicated they had witnesses waiting in the wings who were prepared to testify. I mentioned yesterday on our live show. Oh, yeah, I had heard the defense was going to put on a defense.

That's what I had heard. And they implied, witnesses waiting. Witnesses waiting. So who did they have prepared to testify? So after lunch, the judge prepared to bring the jury back into the courtroom and informed them that the prosecution had officially rested, right? Meaning they're done. They're done, though. Defense's turn. Let's hear why Corey Richens is not guilty defense. But before the jury came in, the judge asked the defense who their first witness would be. And defense attorney Lewis turned to discuss briefly with now. Esther, and she told the judge they had a couple of options. Oh, like, they have so many witnesses. They're deciding. That's what it sounded like, a couple of options. And then something pretty surprising happened.

Lewis stood up and announced that the defense would also rest. Take a listen. Let's watch this together. Mr. Bloodworth, would you like me just to tell the jury when they come back in that the state has rested? Yeah, so that's fine. Okay, we'll do. Ms. Lewis, Ms. Nestor, what's the plan? Ready to go.

Who's defense counsel's first witness? We have just a minute. Yeah? We have a couple of options. Understood. We should probably do that in front of the jury, yes? Right. Okay.

I agree. I just want to make sure consulted with your client about this. Absolutely. Is now an appropriate time to get a waiver of Ms. Richens' right to testify on the record? Yes. Yes. Okay. You consulted with Ms. Richens about her,

or advised Ms. Richens about her right to testify, correct? A link. Okay. Ms. Richens may ask you two direct questions. Do you understand that you have the right to testify at trial? Yes, I do. Are you following your attorney's advice and waiving your right to testify? testify a trial. Yes, I am. I urge you waiver. I find it's knowing and voluntary.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, we're not going to hear from Corey either. Nor are we going to hear from Bryce or his pants. The defense rest. I mean, that wasn't expected. Honestly, it was shocking for me. A lot of people expected the defense to call at least a few witnesses, if not Bryce's pants, maybe experts to challenge the toxicology evidence something, but instead,

after consulting with Corey, the defense is headed not to present any witnesses at all. That means Corey will not testify in her own defense either. Darn it. So the case essentially moved straight from the prosecution resting to the defense resting, and when the jury came back into the room, can you imagine the jury, by the way? How many sidebars have they had now? The amount of time they've gone back and forth, back and forth, they're getting their steps in. They didn't think that they'd be getting their steps in during a long court.

But they are. Can you imagine coming back in after lunch, they come into the room and the state, the judge's the state formally told them that the state had arrested its case. And then Lewis tells the jury that after consulting with their client, the defense also rests. Judge Brasik then instructed the jury that they do not need to return until Monday when they will receive the official jury instructions before closing arguments begin. So the jury has a three-day weekend, which many have talked about, right? What does that mean? How will they be thinking and letting all of this info simmer, right, for three days? And with that, day 13 set the stage for the final phases of trial, meaning on Monday,

It's closing arguments. Whoa, I went yesterday. I went yesterday sitting there saying, you know, this might be a five-week trial. It's going to be long. This defense is going to be a while to now realizing, oh, could we have a verdict on Tuesday? I mean, Monday afternoon, I guess. Technically, technically we could, depending on the jury. How long will the jury take to deliberate? This is a very interesting. case because so many are torn. We just did two polls here. The majority of you think she's going to be found guilty and the majority of you think Corey Richens is guilty. But some of you think she's innocent. Some of you think that she's guilty but will be found not guilty after all of the circumstantial evidence has been presented. Some of you think that she's going to be found guilty even though you're unsure if she's guilty or innocent. You know, this isn't Lori Valo when we were all pretty much in agreeance. This is, this is fascinating. I pinned a lot of things. I want to talk about a lot of things. So Monday, so closing statements, not expected, at least for me. Some of you

were. Some of you pointed out that you didn't think that the defense would be putting something on. Fox Red Mom, you said that. You said, oh, yesterday, I don't think they're going to put on a defense. I thought, nah, nah. And you know, this, this court between defense and prosecution is often a game of cat and mouse, right? If the defense shares certain witnesses, like let's say Corey Ritchin's mother wants to testify and share

how she showed up at the crime scene and how her daughter's innocent, she could give a good story for the defense. She could, but you also have cross-exam from the prosecution and could they impeach her? Could things look really bad?

And so the defense has to weigh their witnesses and decide what they would office head and bring into the trial that maybe they don't want in the trial. One thing is certain in these types of trials, juries never hear all of the evidence. Never. There is certain evidence that just simply is never allowed in that the jury sees. And it could be for one of two reasons, the judge doesn't allow it in, the prosecution doesn't allow it in, or the defense doesn't allow. it in. And the defense could be sitting here thinking and weighing their options and thinking,

you know what, we had a really solid ending with O'Driskell questioning him there. And do we really want to introduce new evidence that we've been able to keep out? You know, do we really want to bring something in that might make our client look worse? You know, maybe we're better off just resting and not calling witnesses and letting the chips lie where they are, you know? So a couple questions I have that I'm going to share. Someone asked me here, Lauren, are you secretly glad it's almost over this trial? I, well, let's not make anything a secret. Unfortunately, not a lot of me as a secret.

I'm kind of an open book. I am going to be glad. It has been very stressful covering this. But I am going to miss hanging out with all of you. It's also been a really wonderful excuse to kind of hang. out at night. So actually, once I get started, so the prep is what I'm not going to miss. The prep for trial, the stress, the getting the recap ready, making sure my son is taking care of. Everything's good to go. That's stressful. Once I'm on and through a lot of it, it's very enjoyable to hang out.

And I feel really lucky that I get to hang out with friends every night. So that part I'm going to miss. I also see somebody asking, Lauren, did you like her outfit today, Corey's outfit? Because yesterday I thought that was a big win for her outfit, right? So much so I left an Amazon review. No. If we're going to talk criminal trial fashion right now, court fashion, not a fan of today's outfit. Nothing wrong with the color. I love yellow.

I like a good yellow. It's bright. It's light. It's not orange. Orange can give like prison chic. Yellow is solid. A light colored jacket is solid. Interestingly, Corey is rarely, if not ever, she's like never repeated any outfit, has she? It was a little baggy. Many of you mentioned a few things that you thought it looked. It just, it wasn't a good fit. I don't know if that was her color scheme. Yeah, not a fan. There you go. Probably a lot of you don't care, but there you go. My opinion. My opinion. opinion. We all have a wardrobe mistake sometimes. Are they overly confident or just planning in appeal? I think what I kind of just shared, I think what they're doing is playing their cards right. They're holding their cards close to their chest thinking, if we call our

witnesses, will there be evidence or questioning that comes into this trial that we don't want? we're probably playing it safe by not calling anyone. Cheryl says, so we have an affair, debt, procured drugs, W, Walk the Dog Letter, life insurance, forgery, lies, lies, lies. We have so much. And it's true, the jury is going to go back there and they're going to have so much evidence to look over.

There is so much. And while I have spent a lot of time the last couple of days because the defense has been questioning, the lead detective O'Driscoll, and it's been a really good question, cross-exam. So we've been talking a lot about what the defense has that's that's, you know, pro-defense, the things that they have going for them, like the fact that there's no murder weapon, and the fact that they can't know where Eric was in Mexico or, you know, a lot of

unanswered questions. One thing I think the state has that's solid that you don't always see is just such a good motive. And you don't need a motive ever. for any murder trial. You actually, you can find someone guilty without knowing their motive. Some people's motives are really confusing. But in this case, even though like Corey doesn't ever say, hey, I want my husband dead because of my motive, she doesn't make it that clear. There are so many motives laid out here that make sense, the money, the affair,

her feeling trapped, the pre-none. her not feeling like she had any other way out. The motives are a plenty in this. Her business failures. So many motives. That I think is going to be a strength for the prosecution. Again, Corey, they don't have Corey confessing to any of that, but I just think logic shows, oh, there is motive here. Definitely.

a lot of people saying the defense barely poked hope Dorito dust the defense barely poked holes and there are mountains of evidence in this case. Yeah. Yeah, there are mountains of evidence. Like we see each day at a time and it's so quick to forget all of the evidence that the jury is now going to go back and look at and piece together. Here's a question for all of you. I don't know what kind of poll we could do for this because I don't even know the answers to the questions, but like how long do you think the jury is? is going to take. And I ask all of you, because this is the thing that I infamously get wrong all the time. I never get it right. So what my intuition tells me with this jury is that they'll take some time. They're going to go through all the evidence together and probably really have to talk this out and take some time and that it won't be a quick verdict. Do I typically get this right? No. But if you want my prediction or what my gut is saying. That's what it says. But I'm definitely not saying I have that right. We'll see. Some people saying six hours, justice pending says two days. Someone else says two days. Someone else says three days. Two days. One day. Ten hours. Three to four days, maybe even a week,

four days. So all of you saying, are you glad it's over? Maybe it won't be for another week. four to five days, two days. Yeah. Yeah. Are you guys asking about Lily? She has been laying next to me this whole time. How Lily girl? I think it's been better because I haven't been saying, oh, that she just stretched.

She heard her name. I haven't said walk the dog today. So I think that's helped. I think that what kind of got her a little wild yesterday is my repeated saying that. Thank you. I'm so grateful that we have over 3,000 people with us right now, by the way. Please hit like. Please hit subscribe. Please support us. Thank you to those at gift memberships. But just something as simple as subscribing, hitting notifications, and liking this episode. If it is helpful to you means so much as we continue to cover trials.

Huh. Huh. All right. Well, I have some more thoughts. about where I think the strength of the defense are, where I think the strengths of the prosecution lie. And I'm going to bring that to you this weekend. So I do plan to do more episodes during this weekend, including tomorrow. So look forward to tomorrow's show. I don't know what time I will share that, but just FYI. We do have some episodes in the works this weekend while we continue to wait for closing statements at Summit County. So with that, have a great way we can thank you everyone for our moderators. We have incredible, incredible trial moderators. And it means so much that they do what they do. And yeah, and they even help do the live stream. Thank you to

Grayson. Thank you to Mrs. Martin. Ms. Martin says, correct count. 1,856 cracks. That's incredible. It's incredible that you counted them, and it's incredible that there's been that many. Sidebars, sidebars, 104 to be exact. So 13 days and 104 sidebars. That's incredible. Incredible. Wow. Wow. Oh, yeah, people also pointing out, you know, Corey has other charges coming up. Let's not forget. She's pulling a Lori Vallow, whereas this isn't her last trial. She has all the mortgage fraud.

Remember the 26 charges he landed for mortgage fraud? Yeah, that's a whole separate trial, guys. So whatever happens here, completely separate from that future trial. Let's do one final thing. I would like to know at the end of all this, I want to know where we are because I want to compare it to next week on Monday after the closing statements because I have a feeling it'll change after we hear the closing statements. It always does. Where does everyone feel the verdict is going to be? I know that some of us feel she's guilty and some of us feel she's not guilty. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for just the verdict. Do you guys think it's going to be hung? I think it's going to be guilty or do you think it's going to be not guilty?

not what you want it to be what you think it's going to be. We're doing it. It's going. Okay, here we go. That went fast. Oh, boy. Okay. Okay. Here we go. 334 votes. We are at 75% think that she will be guilty. I'll end it. It's actually stayed very consistent. 75% thinks she will be guilty, 22% think hung, 3% not guilty. So that's interesting. Very few, I'm actually surprised that it's going to be guilty isn't higher,

but I'm also surprised by very few think it'll be not guilty. A lot of you thinking hung. And then let's keep in mind this. I guess I should have put this into the poll, but, you know, we're going basic. there are multiple charges here. Remember, there's the forgery charge, there's the life insurance fraud charge, there's the attempted murder charge, and then there's the murder charge. So there's a lot happening here. Wouldn't it be interesting if maybe they find her guilty on two charges, but not another? We'll see. We'll see. Thank you, everyone, for being here. I am going to take off. Thank you for your support. Thank you for liking. Thank you for

subscribing. Thank you for sharing your varying opinions on this case. That too has meant a lot because I know that I share my thoughts and feelings as I do these full recaps. And I am grateful for all of you who also share your thoughts and feelings even when they are different than mine because it gives a broad idea of what this jury could be thinking. None of us know. I will say that when I was there, I saw these jurors, a variety of ages. They were all taking notes. They were all taking notes. They were all paying attention. They all seemed to really care. The part where they took the most notes

were the recorded calls with Corey and Chelsea and Bryce. That got their attention, as did it me. All right. We'll see you guys. Have a great night. We'll see you later this weekend. Hit subscribe, hit notifications, because we will be bringing you more. We'll see it. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wellfront.

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, 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. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched, chiching. With a Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wellfrent was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust. Wellfront is taking care of me. earn more on your uninvested cash with a wealthfront cash account no account fees no minimums and no strings attached get started today at wealthfront.com clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest outcomes vary. 3.3% base API why as of January 30th 20th 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks.

0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. These and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.