Law&Crime Sidebar - 5 Fiery Claims in Utah Mom's Poisoning Case

Episode Date: February 19, 2025

Mom-of-three Kouri Richins, who wrote a children’s book about grief after her husband’s death, will soon face a judge and jury for allegedly killing him. But as her trial date quickly approaches, her defense is now accusing the case’s lead detective of perjury. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber takes a look at the latest court filings.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Go to https://surfshark.com/altsidebar and get Alternative Number + 4 extra months of SurfsharkHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Would you agree with me that when you prepared this affidavit that it was clear that Corey Richens was a primary suspect of your investigation? No, I wouldn't agree with that statement. You would not? No. You didn't think she was a suspect at this point? I didn't have definitive information that she was a suspect. In a dramatic twist in Cory Ritchin's case, her defense team is accusing the lead detective of perjury, citing alleged contradictions in his testimony. They argued that his errors could have a major impact on the case, and with a life

sentence on the line, we are going to break it down for you as the legal battle intensifies ahead of her trial set for April. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Corey Richon's defense team is requesting a new hearing, claiming that a key detective perjured himself during a recent pretrial hearing. The legal battle has been a dramatic turn, as defense attorneys for Richens argue that the testimony of the case's lead detective was inconsistent and inaccurate and potentially undermines this whole case. So Richens, who was arrested in May of 2023, she is accused of murdering her 39-year-old husband Eric Richens on March 4th, 2022.

Prosecutors alleged that she administered a fatal dose of fentanyl to Eric. She's also facing charges over an alleged attempt to poison him just weeks earlier using a sandwich laced with a similar substance. And here's where things get really interesting. So in the months leading up to her arrest, Richens, wrote a children's book about grief, a project that many found chilling, considering the circumstances surrounding her husband's death and now what she's accused of. But last week, Richon's defense team, led by attorney Wendy Lewis, filed a motion asking the court to reopen questioning of witnesses.

You see, the defense claims there were issues with Detective Jeff O'Driscoll's testimony, specifically his recollection of events when he took the stand. And this was at a recent pre-trial hearing on January 23rd. So the motion seeks to question four additional witnesses and review cell phone and electronic data. In their filing, Lewis cited the United States Supreme Court case of Giglio v. United States, which mandates that prosecutors have to, by law, disclose evidence that may undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness, impeachment evidence. So to understand why this is so significant, let me just take a quick look back at Giglio v. United States. So in 1966, you have a man named John Giglio, he was convicted of passing forged money orders, but his defense later discovered

that prosecutors had failed to disclose a key fact, that the witness against him had been promised immunity in exchange for his testimony. That would be very important to know, right, goes to credibility. Well, the Supreme Court ruled that this failure violated due process as it was critical to the witness's credibility, and the case set the standard for Giglio information, Giglio material, which requires the disclosure of any evidence that could call into question the honesty or the credibility of a state witness. Now, I've got to say something here, a little sidebar from sidebar. I think it's fair to say that the stories we cover show you that the world can be pretty dangerous, unpredictable, and you need to protect yourself.

And that includes protecting yourself online, particularly your personal information, whether it's spam, identity theft, online stalking, our amazing sponsor, Surfshark offers an incredible solution to these issues with their own. alternative number feature. So this service built right into the Surf Shark app lets you create an entirely new identity complete with a random U.S. phone number, email name. This way you can keep your real number and details completely private. It's great for signing up for services or websites that maybe you don't fully trust ensuring your personal phone number stays free from spam. Also, with alternative number, you don't have to give your real phone number

to strangers while shopping on various marketplaces. So if you're ready to take your online privacy to the next level, check out Surfshark in the description below or visit Surfshark. shark.com slash alt sidebar. Sign up now and get Surfshark's alternative number feature plus four extra months of Surf Shark. So now we go back to Corey Richens case. And her attorneys are raising concerns about Giglio material, Giglio information regarding Detective O'Driscoll's testimony. Specifically, they make the argument that O'Driscoll made mistakes, made errors in handling the statements that Richens had made to him during his visit to her home on April. 14th, 2023. This was before her arrest and that those statements should now be suppressed as

evidence, meaning they shouldn't come in to her trial. Now, additionally, they argue that the prosecution has to disclose further details about O'Driscoll's interactions with Corey Richens, as this information could impact his credibility as a state witness. Now, during the pretrial hearing that I mentioned before, the defense pointed out several contradictions. in O'Driscoll's testimony. One key issue that they highlighted was his claim that he didn't consider Richens a suspect at the time, despite having applied for a search warrant for her phone and computer just one day before the visit. Actually, I'll tell you what, let's go back to that January 23rd hearing and break it all down for you. So O'Driscoll testified that his visit to Cory

Richens' home was part of just a routine introduction after a change in her case management and stated that he wanted to meet her in person and establish contact. Detective Rodrisco, I want to turn your attention to and discuss your interaction with the defendant on April the 14th, 2023. Do you call that day? Yes. At that point in time, what was your relationship with this case? I had just been assigned as the lead investigator on the case. I was not familiar with all the details of the case.

I was trying to get a fresh perspective and pretty much starting from scratch. And as part of your start from scratch, did you want to introduce yourself to the defendant? Yes. I wanted her to know that there had been a change not only in the assignment of the lead investigator on her case, but there had been some supervisory changes to the investigations division as well. And when you say her case, you mean the case at that point in time investigating the death of Eric Richards?

Correct. What was the change to not only you as the lead investigator, but you said, I think, the supervision of the division. There was a new sergeant over the detectives, the investigation division, Sergeant Hoffmeier. So I take it you determined to then personally call on the defendant on April the 14th, 2023. Correct. And why personally instead of over the telephone? It had been a year since Eric's death. I felt it was more professional considering the loss that she had gone through in the family

and felt that it was more appropriate to show up in person to speak with her and to introduce myself than over the phone. Okay. There came a time then when you appeared on the doorstep of the Willow Court home where she was then residing. Is that correct? Correct. And thus began your interaction with her on that day, right? Yes. Did you record that interaction with her?

Yes, I did. How did you record it? I had a audio recorder running, and then later I activated a body cam that I had with me. Okay. Let's talk about the body camera. when did you activate it after we were invited into the home and asked to sit down

and did you activate it roughly contemporaneously with the the point on the body the point on the recording where you say do you mind if I record this interview or something to that effect but according to the defense

the recording of this interview is a pivotal piece of evidence. Because while Detective O'Driscoll claim that he recorded the conversation with Richens' knowledge, the defense argues that he also brought a second recording device that Richens was unaware of, something that we'll actually delve into a little bit later. But we also learned during his testimony that O'Driscoll wasn't alone during the visit. We had another officer, Chad Hoffmeier, was with him as well, and Richen's mother was also present. O'Driscoll described Richens as cooperative, even cheerful. emphasizing that the meeting was meant to be informal.

But the defense contends that the conversation lasted several hours, pointing out that what was supposed to be a casual introduction quickly turned into an intense interrogation. The intent to go to the house was not solely to get an interview. It was mainly to introduce ourselves on the change that had happened with Eric Richens' death investigation. How long would that have taken? I'm sorry how long would what have taken an introduction not long okay how long

were you there three hours right okay so before you went to her house isn't it true that the day before you went to her house you had applied for an affidavit for a search warrant of her phone and a computer I'm not 100% positive on dates your honor can I approach yep can you go to the last date the last page of the affidavit and tell me the date that you executed it says executed on 13th day of April 2023 the day before you interviewed Ms. Richens correct correct and in this affidavit you have multiple pages of why you want to search her phone right It looks like two, basically two pages of facts to support your affidavit.

Yes. Single spaced. And in this affidavit, you refer to things that happened on the night of Mr. Richon's death and things that Corey had told detectives before you, is that right? Yes. And things the toxicology report had recorded, right? Yes. So the defense points out that an introductory conversation with Corey Richens ended up lasting over three hours. And as the defense dug deeper, they noted that the application

for the search warrant for Cory Richon's phone had been issued the day before the interview, filled with very specific details suggesting a strong lead in the investigation, that this was more than just casual. And this led them to ask, if O'Driscoll really wasn't considering Richens as a suspect at the time, why did he have so much information about the case and even apply for a search warrant? So before you interviewed Corey, you had enough information about the case to prepare a two-page affidavit with specific facts that had happened in meetings with Detective of Woody, right? Enough for this affidavit, apparently, yes.

Would you agree with me, sir, that in this affidavit is extremely clear that Corey is a primary suspect of this investigation? I would have to take time to read the whole thing to answer that. Please do. No, I wouldn't agree with that statement. You would not? No. You didn't think she was a suspect at this point?

I didn't have definitive information that she was a suspect. Okay. But you wanted to look in her phone, and you were asking a judge to let you look into a phone, right? Her phone? Correct. And you're asking to look into her phone, by your own words, to see if she tried to obtain fentanyl on her phone? Yes, that's the part that's recalling my memory is at that time,

With the limited information I had, the most important fact that I felt we knew was that Eric died of fentanyl overdose. So the biggest question to me was how the fentanyl got into a system. And in my opinion, there were basically three different ways that Eric could have died of a fentanyl overdose. It could have been an accidental overdose. It could have been a suicide or it could have been a homicide. Now, another major issue brought up by the defense in Mr. O'Driscoll's admission is that he recorded the interview with, as I mentioned, that additional audio recorder but failed to inform Corey Richens about it. And while he did have a body camera visible to her, the defense really

focused in on the fact that he didn't mention that audio recorder. And this became a key point of contention during questioning. All right. So you show up. You don't tell Corey that you just applied for a warrant to search her private information. Actually, what you tell her is that you guys, you all coached soccer together or something? Is that what you said when you came on to the house? Your Honor, let me kind of renew this objection. What he told her is documented in audio and video reporting. There's no dispute.

It's not a game of gotcha. It is what it is. Are you just trying to jog as reckless? lay foundation or can we just move on all three okay thank you um can i just get him to answer that one question you talked about the fact that you all had ties in the community through soccer coaching and things like that right and then maybe she knew your wife or something uh that sounds familiar okay but you didn't tell her you were investigating her for homicide at any point in those three hours no you also didn't tell her you had a hidden recorder in your on your person did you

Can you be specific at which point in time you're talking about? When you first arrive at her house. Thank you, Your Honor. No, the intention was not necessarily to hide it. The audio-only recorder was brought as redundancy in case of failure of equipment technology. Where was it? In my pocket. Okay. Did you tell her those?

It wasn't visible to her. Right. But my intent was not to hide that I was recording her. Okay. Did you know whether Sergeant, it's Hoffmeyer, right, that was with you? Correct. Do you know whether Sergeant Hoffmeier had a hidden recorder on him? So our memories have been a bit confused on this point.

Originally, I thought I had remembered that he had the recorder. The recorder was his piece of equipment tools, but I think, I think after listening to the recording from how far away he sounds from the microphone, I think I had the recorder on me, but it was just the one audio recorder and the one body cam. Now, regarding the audio recorder, it is of course important to mention that this may not really be a gotcha moment for the defense, because the detective revealed earlier in his testimony that he also had a bodyworn camera with him, that he placed well within Richon's view when he was speaking with her, so he wasn't necessarily trying to do something sneaky with the backup audio recorder that was supposedly obscured from view, right?

The idea would one record something that the other wouldn't, but it's this next portion of the questioning work. It's really, really interesting because the defense is arguing that the detective really didn't testify truthfully about key details from his interaction with Corey Richens. They assert that in his effort to show up, and as they argue, interrogate her, O'Driscoll made several critical mistakes and misremembered important facts during the his pretrial testimony. One of the main points of contention is his claim that he didn't know Richens had retained an attorney at the time of his visit. So to highlight that, the defense

walked him through a transcript of his interaction with Corey Richens. Take a listen. When she invited you in, did you Mirandize her? No. Did you know she had a lawyer? No, I did not. You did not? All right, let's look at the transcript for just a moment. I believe it is number exhibit 11 in front of you. Can you go to page 7? Can you read what Corey said to you on line 3 of page 7? So my attorney has been pushing to, you know, obviously we just wanted her off the case because we're not getting any, like, anything done, anything accomplished.

And who's she talking about wanting off the case? I think she was referring to Detective Woody. So minutes into your meeting with her, she advised you she had an attorney. Yes. And you knew that you were going to elicit information from her that could be used against her. Did you not? I didn't know what information she would provide. I just wanted to know the facts surrounding the night of his death.

If she had said, hey, I killed my husband, would you have used that against her? Likely. Okay. So you didn't Mirandize her at that point. You knew she had a lawyer. You knew you were looking for information about her involvement in her husband's death, and you did not Mirandize her, correct? Correct.

So it appears Driscoll said he didn't inform Richens of her rights, which of course raises another serious question. Was this a custodial interrogation? Should her Miranda rights have been read to her? The defense argues that since she was questioned for over three hours and wasn't told she was free to leave, the statement she made should be suppressed. meaning shouldn't come into evidence because she wasn't Mirandized.

If her rights weren't properly explained, the defense contends that everything she said during that time should be excluded from the trial. Now, in general, Miranda rights are required when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation, meaning when they are in custody or not free to leave, they're being questioned by law enforcement officers. If someone is just casually questioned in a non-custodial situation, such as their home and they're free to leave at any time, Miranda warnings may not necessarily be required. Now, the issue here seems to revolve around

whether Richens was in a custodial situation when Detective Odryskel questioned her at her house. If she wasn't told she was free to leave or if the questioning was coercive or restricted or freedom in some way, then perhaps Miranda warnings would likely be required. Now, if she wasn't informed of her right to remain silent or have an attorney, her defense could argue that any statements made during that questioning should be suppressed as evidence. The complexity really comes in in determining whether she was in custody because that is a key factor in deciding if the Miranda warning applies. Now, as for the argument surrounding Richens' attorney, the prosecution contends that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, that hadn't attached

yet to Richens case because there were no formal proceedings such as an indictment or an arraignment they hadn't begun. And Richens was arrested three weeks after this interview on April 14th. So there is something to that. There is case law to suggest that. that the Sixth Amendment doesn't attach until a suspect actually becomes a criminal defendant. But what I will say is this. The defense is primarily focused on the truthfulness of O'Driscoll's testimony. Did he lie or did he perjure himself, right? So if so, the defense would argue that they have the right to use this information for cross-examination

and to challenge his credibility. Summit County Chief Prosecutor Brad Bloodworth was quick to respond. with his own filing, dismissing the defense's motion as, quote, a cheap litigation trick. In his filing, he defended, Detective O'Driscollissel, asserting that the detective had testified truthfully and without malice. Bloodworth specifically wrote, defense counsel's feelings do not matter. Objective facts matter. And he also pointed out that an independent review of the discrepancies by outside attorneys

found no evidence of misconduct or dishonesty in connection with the detective's actions. And in his written response, Bloodworth urged the judge to deny the defense's motion, arguing that the detective was being asked to recall details that were not only insignificant, but occurred nearly two years earlier. Now in a statement to local affiliate KUTV, his office said the detectives involved in the Corey Richens matter have always conducted themselves ethically and testified truthfully. The defense's motion filed last night suggesting otherwise is grounded neither in fact nor a law. The motion suggestion that a particular detective testified untruthfully is irresponsible. The state will respond fully in the record at the appropriate time as provided in the rules. It is highly unfortunate that the defense in this case repeatedly chooses to malign individuals instead of focusing on substance and evidence.

So now, to add on to all this, filings from the prosecution's opposition argue that the defense's approach is, quote, nothing more than defense counsel's latest implementation of current and former defense counsel's longstanding strategy to publicly malign honorable people to influence potential jurors. Now, Richon's defense team has fired back against this opposition, accusing prosecutor Bloodworth of using faux outrage to deflect from underlying issues raised by the defense. Part of the defense's response reads, The prosecution's foe outrage is utterly bewildering as they are the ones who felt compelled to make the disclosure. That disclosure, by the way, is in reference to the investigation that was done in Detective O'Driscoll's testimony.

So the court has yet to schedule a hearing to address this motion. And as for what's next for Corey Richens, while she faces some serious charges, including aggravated murder, attempted murder, fraud, forgery, all in connection with her husband's death. And if convicted, she could face a life sentence. Meanwhile, the focus shifts through upcoming trial in April with the next hearing set for two days from now to discuss jury selection. But that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber.

I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.