COURTROOM INSIDER | Prosecutors explosive sentencing memo & what to expect at Richins' sentencing

Added: 2026-05-13

[00:00:00]Heat. Heat.

[00:00:41]Good evening everybody and welcome to Courtroom Insider. I'm Nate Eaton coming to you live from Park City, Utah. Let's see. It's 7:01 on Tuesday, May the 12th. Hope you have had a a good day. Thanks for being here tonight. We have a lot to discuss, including a uh explosive document, you could say, that the prosecution in the Corey Richens trial filed uh in the case. It's 15 pages. We're going to go through it all tonight and talk about it tomorrow. Cory, by the way, as you can see, I'm in my hotel room in Park City.

[00:01:14]We'd love to know where you are tonight and what uh what you're doing, what you're up to, and if you have any questions because here in uh just a couple of minutes, we're going to answer as many questions as we can. Peggy Jeepson, our comment moderator, is with us, and it's good to be back back with you live in a hotel room, I guess you could say. Uh here's what we're talking about tonight again. What to expect at Corey Richen's sentencing. It's going to be happening tomorrow, 24 hours from now. we will know just what her sentence is and we will talk about that. Plus, uh, special prosecutor Rachel Smith, you know her from the Del trial. She's, uh, prosecuted hundreds of cases across the country. She's death penalty certified.

[00:01:56]She's done hundreds of death penalty cases, murder cases. She is no stranger to those types of cases. She will be here to talk about sentencing, about what we can expect tomorrow from the prosecution, from the defense. Will Corey Richens speak? What what type of victims will speak? All of that. Uh we'll break it all down tonight. So before we get to that, why don't we go back two months to when we were sitting at the Summit County Courthouse waiting for a verdict. You might recall uh the jury was given the case. The judge sent them back to deliberate. It happened late in the afternoon, I think around 3:00, and we were all wondering when the verdict would come back and what the verdict would be. We were at the courthouse. I remember I was in the media room off adjacent to the courtroom when uh the someone came out and said, "There's a verdict." And it was like 6:00 at night, so it' been 3 hours. It wasn't long, which isn't good news for a defense attorney. You want them to go long and days and days and days. That didn't happen in this case. In fact, they came back after three hours and uh they had to contact the defense. They had to contact the prosecution. Eric Richen's family. They had to do all of that. In fact, Eric's dad, I believe, was having dinner and and we were all in the courtroom waiting for him. No fault to him. I mean, that that's just what people were doing at 6:00 in the evening. So, he's eating dinner. He comes to the courtroom. Corey Richens, I'll never forget, was shaking in front of of me. I was seated behind her. She was in a white flowered blouse shaking and her defense attorneys, one of the Alex Ramos, had a rosary, I believe, that he was uh praying over and uh nothing was on the table. It was so different from what we see at trial every day with laptops and notepads and notebooks and all that. And the table was empty and it was silent. Just completely silent. Um nothing really happening at the prosecutor's table. And then the judge came in and well actually why don't why don't I just play it. This was the moment Cory Richens learned she was guilty.

[00:04:02]Folks, please have a seat as you come in.

[00:04:12]Please have a seat.

[00:04:18]Ladies and gentlemen, would the four person you've selected please stand?

[00:04:24]May I ask you a yes or no question? Has the jury reached a unanimous verdict?

[00:04:30]>> Yes, we have.

[00:04:31]>> Would you please hand the verdict form to the deputy and you can have a seat.

[00:04:36]Thank you.

[00:04:41]>> I'll take that.

[00:04:48]All right.

[00:05:06]Council, Ms. Richards, please stand.

[00:05:14]Count one, aggravated murder.

[00:05:17]We the jury unanimously find that the defendant Corey Richens is guilty of aggravated murder.

[00:05:26]We the jury unanimously agree that the prosecution has proved the following circumstance or circumstances regarding count one beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:05:38]The homicide was committed for pecuniary gain and the homicide was committed by means of the administration of any substance administered in a lethal amount, dosage, or quantity.

[00:05:53]Count two, attempted aggravated murder.

[00:05:57]We, the jury, unanimously find that the defendant, Corey Richens, is guilty of attempted aggravated murder.

[00:06:07]We the jury unanimously agree the prosecution has proved the following circumstance or circumstances regarding count two beyond a reasonable doubt. The attempted homicide was committed for pecuniary gain.

[00:06:22]Count three, insurance fraud. We the jury unanimously find that the defendant Cory Richens is guilty of insurance fraud. Count four, insurance fraud. We the jury unanimously find that the defendant Corey Richens is guilty of insurance fraud. Count five, forgery. We the jury unanimously find that the defendant Cory Richens is guilty of forgery. It's signed by the for person.

[00:06:54]Please have a seat.

[00:06:58]Madam Ford person, is this the verdict that the jury reached unanimously?

[00:07:03]>> Yes, it is. Okay, you may have a seat.

[00:07:06]Uh, Miss Lewis, Miss Nester, do you wish the jury to be pulled?

[00:07:12]>> Yes, please.

[00:07:13]>> All right, folks. I'll ask you the same yes or no question one at a time.

[00:07:17]Starting on my left, working this way, front row first, if you could show me your lanyard number as I ask you. Uh, juror number five, is this the verdict you voted in favor of?

[00:07:32]>> Yes.

[00:07:34]Juror number four, is this a verdict you voted in favor of?

[00:07:39]>> Juror number three.

[00:07:40]>> Yes.

[00:07:42]>> I can't see your norm. I'm so sorry. The four person. I just need to ask you again. I'm sorry. Juror number two.

[00:07:48]>> Yes, it is.

[00:07:50]>> Juror number one.

[00:07:51]>> Yes, sir.

[00:07:53]>> Yes, sir.

[00:07:55]>> Juror number eight.

[00:07:57]>> Yes.

[00:07:58]>> Juror number seven.

[00:07:59]>> Yes.

[00:08:01]>> Juror number six. Yes. All right. C.

[00:08:05]>> Okay. That was the verdict day. Now, shortly thereafter, the judge within minutes um asked if they said there was a couple of days where Corey Richens could be sentenced and they decided on May 13th, which is tomorrow, which is Eric Richen's 44th birthday. And at the time, the judge didn't mention anything about his birthday. no one did in the courtroom. But if you go back and watch the tape or or the video of when they were discussing the sentencing, uh you can see when the judge says that date that uh Eric's sisters kind of smile like they know that it's his birthday.

[00:08:47]Well, we've since learned that with the very next day, Corey was talking to a family member on the phone and they said, "Is is he re is are you really going to get sentenced on Eric's birthday?" And Corey apparently said, "Well, I've talked to Kathy Netor and I've told her to move it off to the later part of May, and she says she will do that." We learn that because the defense filed a motion asking the sentence be postponed until June, the week of June 15th, for four reasons.

[00:09:17]They said, one, uh, that Kathy Nester, her one of her attorneys, had a death in the family. Two, Alex Ramos, another attorney, had another trial happening this week. Um, three, they needed more time to prepare witnesses, and four, they needed more time to prepare mitigation for the for the uh sentencing hearing tomorrow. Prosecution immediately was like, "No, no, she's got three attorneys.

[00:09:42]If you can't figure it out with the three of you, I'm I'm obviously summarizing. Then, you know, one can do it, whatever. two, the family has held on long enough, Eric Richens family, that Corey Richens can no longer determine what's happening with this thing. And and then the judge decided, oh, another reason they wanted it is they said that the judge had only set aside the morning, tomorrow morning, and that the defense said they likely need more time. So, the judge responded, denied the request, and said, again, Corey Richens has had three skilled attorneys that can do this thing. If Kathy Nester had a death in the family, you've got Wendy Lewis. Same with Mr. Ramos's trial. They could figure it out.

[00:10:23]Also said that the the rights of the victims need to be weighed here. and he said what whatever the prosecution wrote in their document that was redacted part of it was blacked out to the public dealing with juveniles likely Eric's kids was compelling for the judge to say those kids or whoever whatever was in the redacted portion of the of the motion um that had an effect on the judge to to say we're not going to delay this sentencing and he said my calendar is cleared tomorrow So if it goes past lunchtime, the judge is fine with that.

[00:11:03]So judge ruled on that last week or the week before.

[00:11:08]And then today, yesterday I should say, the prosecution filed a sentencing memorandum. Now, I got to be honest with you, I have not seen this before. Um, some prosecutors do this, some don't.

[00:11:25]Uh, many don't. like in the Valow and Del, they didn't do a memorandum or anything like this, but the prosecutor did, Brad Bworth. And I read it this morning and wow. In fact, I want to read it with you so you can see exactly what the prosecutions are arguing and you can kind of get a preview as what we can expect tomorrow. Uh, so why don't I pull up this screen here?

[00:11:54]You should be able to see it unless you're watching on a phone. If then and that's if that's the case, you'll get to hear from me. So, this is written to Judge Richard Morazzic from uh Brad Bworth, the chief prosecutor for the case.

[00:12:09]On Valentine's Day 2022, Corey Darden Richens tried and failed to murder her husband and the father of her three young children, Eric Richens. Over the next 17 days, she did not think, "What have I done?" Rather, she thought, "How can I do better?" And then she murdered Eric in the presence of their children using poison and for money. Such a person should never again lurk among the rest of us. Her children should never worry that they may one day encounter her. Accordingly, the state requests that the court impose a sentence of life in prison without parole. Corey Richens has earned it. Her children deserve it.

[00:12:53]Only this court can order it. Pause right there.

[00:12:58]That's a pretty powerful paragraph.

[00:13:01]There are two options Judge Morazzic will consider tomorrow. one is 25 years to life in prison. Meaning she goes to a minimum of 25 and at 25 years the parole board in the state of Utah, she will go before them and argue that she should be released and then the parole board will make a decision, not the judge and they could say, "No, you need seven more years or you need 10 more years and then she'll go back." Or the other option is life, no parole. She goes away. It's done.

[00:13:35]The prosecutor will argue that, which he clearly does. Back to the document.

[00:13:42]States sentencing request. Count one, aggravated murder. The court should order the defendant to serve life in prison without parole. Count two, attempted aggravated murder. Uh, the court should order the defendant to serve five years to life in prison consecutive to any other sentence.

[00:13:59]Consecutive means after. Concurrent means running at the same time. So they're saying aggravated murder, life, no parole. The attempted murder for the Valentine's Day incident, 5 years to life, but consecutive.

[00:14:16]Obviously, you can't serve a time after your life, but for the purposes of of the court documents, that's what they're saying. Count three, insurance fraud, uh 15 years in prison consecutive. Sorry, one to 15. Same with count four and same on the forgery. It's one to five years consecutive.

[00:14:36]Num. Uh point six. The court should enter a continuous protective order in favor of Eric Richmond's family members that prohibits the defendant from contacting them unless they first initiate contact and prohibits her from maintaining or benefiting from insurance on the lives of CR, A R, and WR.

[00:14:59]Eric Richens family members include CR, A R, and WR. His children, Jean Richens, Katie Richens, Benson, Clint Benson, MB, and LB children. That's why they're going by initials, and I won't say their names tonight. And Amy Richens, and Andrew Swenson. The court should order the defendant to pay restitution to auto own Owners Insurance Company in the amount of 1,17,1849 and True Stage Insurance Company in the amount of $352,56261.

[00:15:40]I know you're saying, "How is she going to pay that back?"

[00:15:44]Well, she's they're asking the court to order her, too.

[00:15:49]Then we have Oh, my screen froze for a moment. Okay, stand by.

[00:15:58]I don't know if that's freezing on your end. Let me try this thing here. Okay.

[00:16:02]Hope hopefully hopefully you didn't lose me. Am I still here? There we go. Let me just make this bigger.

[00:16:10]you know that I have the tech issues every time I'm in a hotel, but but let's pray that that doesn't happen tonight.

[00:16:17]Okay, that's happening. And Jordan, by the way, Photo Talk Jordan, he's here.

[00:16:24]Okay, there we go. Let me make this bigger so you can see it.

[00:16:29]Um, okay. I don't know if you can see that.

[00:16:33]Just one moment. I'm going to I'm going to continue reading this. Um, the court should order the defendant to pay Summit County in the amount of $1.3 million.

[00:16:44]So, they're asking for restitution and they're asking for her to pay it back.

[00:16:49]Now, in some cases, while this just gets while I load up the document again here so I can continue reading it. Um, in some states, like in the Lorie Valow case in Chad Del, they were ordered to pay the victims first before they pay the the uh fees, the fines. So often the judge will order restitution for the victims, and that normally is the first priority, followed by um fines, fees, things like that, and that could be the second priority.

[00:17:20]Clearly, the money here, she's never going to be able to make the one million in in in prison. And we know that she had the $8 million in debt that she owes to outstanding lenders, she's got the civil lawsuit, she's got all sorts of financial issues. Um but I guess should should she inherit a ton of money from somebody who dies or should she you know come upon some some money and uh you know she suddenly has it then it appears that the prosecution is saying first she needs to be able to pay the family before she pays Summit County back for all of the fines or all of the fees that they took prosecuting this. I would imagine when this all comes out that there's going to be um a total cost for this investigation into the millions.

[00:18:07]Lorie Valow's um Idaho one was 3.8 and I think that was before they even went to trial. So these are these are quite expensive. Okay, I think I have my screen back. Here we go. So argument. This is what the prosecution is arguing. Here we go.

[00:18:29]When sentencing, the court is to weigh and consider public safety, punishment, deterrence, incapitation, restitution, and rehabilitation. For consecutive versus concurrent sentencing decisions, the court must consider the gravity and circumstances of the offense, the number of victims, and the history, character, and rehabilitation needs of the defendants. A sentence in a criminal case should be appropriate for the defendant in light of his background and the crime committed and also serve the interests of society which underly the criminal justice system. The court is to examine both aggravating and mitigating factors to include the nature and circumstances of the crime, the defendant's character, background, history, mental and physical condition, the impact of the crime on the victim's family and community, and any other facts in aggravation or mitigation of the penalty. Not all aggravating and mitigating factors are equally important and one factor in mitigation or aggravation may weigh more than several factors on the opposite scale. A few egregious aggravating factors may outweigh several mitigating circumstances claimed by the defendant.

[00:19:37]So they are saying here that the jud that that you could have all sorts of you know aggravating factors that um that are bad basically but those and and and just two or three of those could outweigh all of the good stuff that they might say about her.

[00:19:57]Um, okay. So, continuing, the psychological reality is that aggravating circumstances in first-degree murder cases will virtually always outweigh or be more compelling than the mitigating circumstances because the commission of a capital homicide, i.e. unintentional murder, is one of the most heinous acts known to society. The emotional impact of all the evidence of an unjustified killing tends to overwhelm evidence of mitigating factors in the mind of the sentencing authority. So if you got that basically they're saying thi this is the worst of the worst. This is you can't get it any worse than this. And because of that the judge should give her life. The court whoops wrong button. The court is to consider the totality of the circumstances in imposing a sentence that is proportionate to the crime and the culpability of of the defendant. The court is not to limit it to the circumstances of the crime for which the defendant has been convicted but may consider other factors as well. Evidence that is admissible at the guilt stage may be admissible for the purpose of sentencing. Such information must be reliably reliable and reasonably reliable and relevant. Hence, the state took the death penalty off the table in the early days of this case. Many of you have asked about that. Is it death?

[00:21:18]Accordingly, on count one, the court must sentence the defendant to either life without parole or the indeterminate term of imprisonment for 25 years to life. There's no presumption in favor of either of the two sentencing options. In total, the egregious aggravators outweigh the prefuncter mitigators and require a sentence of life without parole. Okay, so do you got all that?

[00:21:38]That's a lot of legal stuff. Now we're getting into the fact of or the the the facts that the prosecutor says just how bad these these crimes were.

[00:21:49]So, oh, there I am. Here we go. Let me enter full screen, which by the way, um in a minute we're going to have Rachel Smith here and she's going to talk talk about why the prosecutor is uh may have filed this.

[00:22:07]Uh, it's not like, well, maybe we can expect the prosecutor tomorrow to go on and read all of these things during the sentencing, read this whole 15-page document. I don't know if he will. Just one second. The, of course, the update that wants to happen to my computer is happening right now. And what I'm going to do is reset it so that I can be there. I apologize for this. Um, here we go. cancel.

[00:22:36]I should play some hold music. Um, by the way, I'm curious to know, let me just re reboot this in this other program.

[00:22:45]What you think the sentence will be and did the prosecution, you know, present a compelling enough case during the actual trial to ask the judge to do life without parole. and that's what the argument could be tomorrow um for them.

[00:23:06]Uh I know a lot of you are saying absolutely they did. You know, there's no question there. But could the defense come out with the fact that her children need her even though you'll hear in a moment that her children uh it sound like don't really want anything to to do with her. Um and in fact they're scared of her. Um, could they argue could the defense come out and argue uh that she had a rough childhood and that things were rough for her at home? Um, interestingly, as of 10 minutes ago before I came on here or 20 minutes ago, the defense had not filed a sentencing memorandum. I was looking for it and thinking uh they might file one. They could do it tomorrow morning right before the sentencing and or they maybe they maybe they have it ready and then they file it after the sentencing. But um I was expecting for them to respond and they have not. So um we'll see.

[00:24:00]We'll see what they have to say. Okay, back to the document. I think I have it here.

[00:24:05]There we go. Argument. Uh we talked about that. Okay, now we are into the part of Okay. When sentencing, the court is to weigh and consider public safety, punishment, deterrence, incapitation, restitution, and rehabilitation.

[00:24:23]Um, I think I I think I already read this one. Yeah, I did. Sorry.

[00:24:31]Um, here we go. Yep. Okay. One, the court should send the defendant to life without parole on count one. The defendant murdered her husband in the presence of their young children using a poison for money and after trying and failing to murder him 17 days earlier.

[00:24:48]The Utah legislature recognizes that homicidal poisoning and murdering for money are each so heinous uh as an individual warrant as to individually warrant the death penalty. Here the jury found the defendant guilty of both aggravators. The defendant chose poison.

[00:25:06]I'll make this bigger so you can read it. Jurists throughout time have recognized that particularly heinous nature of homicidal poisoning. Of all the species of death, the most detestable is that of poison because it can, of all others, be the least prevented either by manhood or forethought. The Florida Supreme Court has called poisoning a consciousness pitiles crime. The California Supreme Court observed a murder carried out by deliberately giving the victim poison is more cruel and aggravated than other malicious or intentional killings. Both because such a killing involves preparation and planning, and because the killer intentionally deprivives the victim of any chance. The poisoner acts surreptitiously, thus avoiding detection, often betraying the most intimate trust. Here, the defendant betrayed the most intimate trust of her husband and her children. The defendant decided that Eric Richen's money was worth more than his life. Courts have consistently recognized that spousal murders motivated by money are especially egregious. In one such case, the Arizona Supreme Court observed the killing in this case uh did not arise out of a heat of passion, fear, struggle, or attempt to escape. The killing was not just the result of m momentary premeditation, but of defendants's deliberate, carefully conceived, meticulously planned and coldblooded scheme to kill rather than divorce his unsuspecting wife. In that, they're talking about another case. The uh but but the prosecutor here is citing that as precedent.

[00:26:35]Um then the New Jersey Superior Court observed, "These killings do not stem from some powerful visceral emotion, but rather from greed and expedience." Uh few furthermore, few crimes display a more callous disregard for human life than the premeditated decision to seek profit by way of homicide. It evidences an abandonment of all the rules that society has constructed to maintain communal life and warrants the fullest condemnation and retribution.

[00:27:05]Uh this is quite hard uh to read the next few se uh sections. Fathers are not meant to bury sons and losing a sibling is losing a p piece of yourself. But there are no greater victims in this case than Eric's three young boys. The defendant took both of their parents from them. The aggravated murder crime was a crime of domestic violence in the presence of children. Eric Richens was a good husband. He cared and provided for his wife and even protected her from herself. Eric was a good father. He knew that the defendant tried to murder him on Valentine's Day. And he also knew that it was unsafe for his children if he were to leave the home. Eric died protecting his boys and they know it. CR was 9 years old when his mother murdered his father. He is now 13 and wears his father's clothes to school. Following Eric's death, DCFS supported a finding of emotional and physical abuse by defendant against CR.

[00:28:05]He and his brothers have participated in intense therapy since the defendant was arrested three years ago. CR wants the court to know that quote my dad was a good person and very thoughtful and kind and helped whoever needed help and that quote I'm afraid if she gets out she will come after me and my brothers and my whole family. I think she would come and take us and not do good things to us like hurt us. I miss my dad but I do not miss how my life used to be. I don't miss Corey. I will tell you that AR was 3 weeks shy of his 8th birthday when his mother murdered his father. The defendant made AR her alibi, thereby condemning her child to be a material witness. If called to testify at trial, AR would have recalled being put to bed early on Mar this is new by the way that we haven't heard this before. AR would have recalled being put to bed early on March 3rd without bathing, which was unusual for the boys. The television was playing loudly inside his parents' bedroom. And when AR tried to enter, he found he was locked out. AR used a broom to try to dislodge a key from above the door frame, intending to unlock the door and enter the bedroom. AR accidentally hit the wall with the broom, making a noise that attracted his mother's attention. She yelled at AR to go away.

[00:29:24]She later entered his room and asked him what he needed. AR pretended to be asleep because he was angry with her.

[00:29:30]Later during the night, his younger brother WR woke and tried to enter his parents' bedroom to sleep with them, as was his habit. WR also found himself locked out and slept in AR's bed instead. AR would have testified at trial that the defendant did not sleep in his room with him the night she murdered his father. AR wants the court to know that, quote, "My dad can't be my coach anymore and can't be at any of my games. He won't be at my birthdays. he can't teach me how to drive. He won't be at my graduation and he can't take me camping or fishing. And that quote, "I don't want the defendant out of jail because I will not feel safe if she is out. With her in jail, I will be able to continue to feel safe and live a happy and successful life without fear of her hurting me or anyone I love." WR was still in preschool when his mother murdered his father. He has now lived half his life without his father and three years without his mother. His memories of both are limited. He remembers being scared the night of his father's murder and wetting his pants while held in the bedroom before his aunt Katie arrived. WR wants the court to know that quote, "When someone talks about Corey, it makes me feel hateful and ashamed. She took away my dad and that if she got out, I would be so scared. I'd worried that she would take me away. Once she is gone, I will feel happy and I will for feel safer and relaxed and trust more people." That is heart-wrenching.

[00:31:00]I've got two little boys and a daughter and my sons have tried to get into our room every night for the past seven years. You know how it is if you have kids. We're like, "Go away. Go away. You can't come in here." And every night, uh, you sometimes they end up on the floor. We never know. It's musical beds at our house. We never know where anyone's going to be when we wake up in the morning. Um, but my two sons, the one climbs in bed with his brother pretty much every night or 90% of the time. I cannot imagine these kids that night that their dad is is dying, being killed by their mother and they're scared and the one can't leave the room and he wets his pants cuz he's scared until his aunt comes. I mean, this is this is awful. And um I don't think the boys will be there tomorrow. I I I'm pretty sure of that. I don't think they would want they don't want the kids to see their mom. And um I I just can't imagine what they're going through. Um if the defendant sir, continuing on here, if the defendant serves 25 years in prison, she could potentially be parrolled at age 57. Her sons will be 35, 35, and 30, and likely have their own families. The boys deserve finality and should not have to revisit their father's murder at future hearings or worry about the defendant's potential parole. Given the tremendous trauma and upheaval the defendant inflicted upon their childhood, this court should ensure that she does not harm their adulthood. Not only should the defendant serve her life in prison, but she should serve her boys lives in prison. This is the best closure her children can hope for. Only this court can give it to them. Katie and Clint are now raising three boys that require extraordinary love, support, and stability. It is best for the boys, and everyone is thriving. But Katie and Clint never planned for it. Katie never planned to administer an estate and a trust or tactile v or tackle vindictive litigation. Gan never planned to work the family ranch at his age without Eric. Katie and Amy both live with guilt for not doing more to protect their brother from his wife. The aggravated murder's impact extends beyond Eric Richen's family. Josh Grossman, the boyfriend, bears the weight of knowing that he contributed to the defendant's motivation to murder Eric. It has gutted him. Chelsea Barney bears similar weight knowing that the defendant murdered Eric in some measure to salvage Ms. Barney's life savings. It haunts Carmen Lobber, that she unknowingly provided the defendant with the fatal drugs. Cody Wright and Josh Cra Kay's question whether they could have done more to save their friend. Point letter C. The defendant's character is irredeemable.

[00:33:48]By the way, if you're just tuning in, uh we're going through a document filed by the prosecution, Brad Bworth. It's a sentencing memorandum that he wrote to the judge before Corey Richens is sentenced tomorrow. And this is a breakdown of why they are asking for life in prison without the possibility of parole. she'll either get life or she'll get 25 years to life. And they're going through bullet point by bullet point why they argued that. Okay. So, um with there we are on to the defendant's character is irredeemable as is my computer, but it can be redeemed. I think here we're we're more than halfway through here. Let me just go into this other program. I apologize for that.

[00:34:36]Um, and then we'll talk about what will happen tomorrow at the at the sentencing, which by the way, it begins at 9:30 Mountain time. Uh, we'll be start our stream around 8:45 on East Idaho News on wherever you're watching right now, you can watch it or our Courtroom Insider YouTube channel. If you haven't subscribed to that, we have a brand new YouTube channel. It's courtroom.insider.

[00:35:00]You can go there and watch trials there.

[00:35:02]Um, so it's going to start at 9:30 and we'll likely I don't have a list of who's talking or or whatnot. I do know a few people um who are going to be speaking, but I I'm I won't repeat that here, but it's likely that we'll hear from his sisters, uh, from Eric's sisters, probably his father Eugene. Uh, we'll hear likely from, um, others that are close. And then the defense, from what I understand, could call some mitigating witnesses who will basically argue that Corey should um get 25 years to life. And Corey could very well give a statement, too. Um and it could go for 3 hours, it could go for 2 hours, it could go for 6 hours. There's been sentencings that have been 2 days. Um, and I don't think this one will go two days, but the judge has cleared his calendar for that. Okay, back to the document. The defendant's character is irredeemable. Let me make this bigger.

[00:36:09]The defendant is transparent. Evidence of her character is well known from all stages of this proceeding to include her prioritizing a facade of success over everything. Her fraudulent borrowing, her stealing from her best friend's life savings, her persistence in murdering Eric after failing on Valentine's Day, her self-publishing a children's book for money and attention, and the aim of her walk the dog letter, among a slew of other examples. The defendant cannot check her ambition or her sense of entitlement. When confronted, she lies.

[00:36:42]When she feels agrieved, she attacks, and she certainly feels agrieved. She always has. In the immediate aftermath of the guilty verdict, the defendant blamed a corrupt prosecution, a corrupt quote unquote judge, an unfair Summit County jurors. Uh, six weeks following the guilty verdict, the defendant text messaged an admirer. This is new, too. I will in all caps expose this county. the prosecution, the judge, the richens, the investigation, all of it. So, they can lock me away for now. That's fine. It's going to come back on them. It will come back. It will come to an end. Not this year or next. But I'm not going away. I won't be silent. I'm going to expose them all for what they have done to me, my kids, my family, this injustice. They picked the wrong one. They think sentencing is the end. Closure. It's just the beginning. They haven't seen anything yet. Winky emoji. Most telling of her character, the defendant attacked Eric. Within hours of her arrest, she for the first time blamed Eric for his own death. From jail, the defendant and her family engaged in open season on quote, "Eric the dead, releasing what they believe to be damaging information about Eric to the media. During trial, the defendant falsely accused Eric of having an affair with a co-orker and a homosexual affair with one of his best friends. The Richen's children are familiar with the inescapable media coverage of this case. Many of the defendants uh inescapable, sorry, media coverage of this case. Many of the defendants attacks against the Richens family permeate the the record. For example, she throat punched Amy Richens two days after murdering Eric when Amy informed her of Eric Richens living trust. Eric created the trust to protect her and their children. Four days later, she hired counsel to breach the trust.

[00:38:29]She told Gene Richens that Eric died of the same lung mold that killed Jean's wife. Cruel. In the Walk the Dog letter, the defendant instructed her mother to release photographs of Casey's young children to the media and wrote, "Bring me home and then we'll get those damn bitches," referring to Eric's sisters.

[00:38:47]When confronted with the letter, the defendant insisted in the face of all reason that it was part of quote a freaking book, a half-true, half fiction novel about her incarceration. Other of the defendants's attacks against the Richens family are new to the record.

[00:39:02]This is new. For example, when the estates investigator found bank statements with Corey Richens's realy accounts header and CNE's accounts data, the defendant accused Katie and hired counsel to advocate for the criminal prosecution of Katie. While detained pre-trial, she caused her family members to pursue federal firearms charges against Jean for removing Eric's firearms from the Willow Court home for safekeeping. filed false reports with DCFS against Katie and report Amy Richens to the police for marijuana possession. To this day, the defendant maintains insurance policies on the lives of her children. The Richens family will not be safe if the defendant is ever parrolled. The defendant attacks extended beyond the Richens. While detained pre-trial, the defendant caused her family members to file unfounded bar complaints against the Summit County Attorney and chief prosecutor and post a quote day a gay dating profile of the lead detective online. The defendant also made an unfounded criminal complaint to the FBI about Eric Richen's business partner. The defendant's character is evident despite her well-crafted facade.

[00:40:14]Okay, I got to pull up a page two. Um, this is What do you think? I'm interested what you think of this so far of this new stuff that we're learning.

[00:40:27]That is quite astounding. And I imagine the judge will take this into account. Um, and now I think I know why they filed this. Why, you know, I was wondering earlier why they would file this, but I think I know now. I mean, this is this is a lot. The defendant's character is evident.

[00:40:48]Despite her well-crafted facade, Eric's surviving Valentine's Day, three years of pre-trial detention, and a resounding guilty verdict has only amplified the worst of her character. It did not remedy it. She has expressed no remorse and has indeed publicized the opposite.

[00:41:03]The irrational nature and circumstances of the aggravated murder and irreparable impact on Eric Richen's family and others, and the defendant's irredeemable character prove overpowering aggravation. Any mitigation the defendant presents will only be more facade. It is all she has. But even if credited, it cannot outweigh the aggravation. Accordingly, the defendant has earned the maximum punishment short of death, and public safety requires her permanent incapacitation. She is well established that rehabilitation is beneath her. Life without parole combined with the intense publicity cultivated by the defendant and her counsel will also deter would be poisoners from coldly murdering their spouse and their children's parent. Then count uh point two, the court should sentence consecutively as to the remaining counts. The gravity of the aggravated of the attempted aggravated murder is that the defendants learned from her mistakes. She learned to obtain something stronger and to administer in a way that prevented Eric from realizing the poisonous the poison's effects until it was too late. The circumstances of the attempted aggravated murder are identical to the circumstances of the murder. The gravity and circumstances of the fraud and forgery punch above the charges wait because they encompass the defendant's motive for murdering Eric and the uh gain aggravator. The defendant's character as discussed is redeemable is irredeemable. Accordingly, the defendant earned distinct punishment for counts two through five and the court should sentence them consecutive to any other sentence.

[00:42:34]And then three about the protective order in favor of Eric's family members.

[00:42:38]The defendant was convicted of domestic violence, aggravated murder, and attempted aggravated murder. Utah's criminal protective order statute provides that when a perpetrator is convicted of a domestic violence resulting in the sentence of imprisonment that is to be served after conviction. The court shall issue a continuence protect a continuous protective order at the time of sentencing limiting the contact between the perpetrator and the victim unless the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the victim does not have a reasonable fear of the future harm or abuse. The protection may include any order the court considers necessary to fully protect the victim and members of the victim's family.

[00:43:14]Here, Eric Richens is the only victim under Utah's crime victim statute.

[00:43:19]Paradoxically, Eric Richens family members, including his children, are not quote victims. It is evident that Eric Richens does not have a reasonable fear of future harm or abuse, which the criminal protective order statute thresholds uh applies. Inquiry: Thus, the criminal protective order statute yields the absurd result that family members of a domestic violence murder victim are left unprotected when family members of all other domestic violence crimes can be protected. Sounds like there could be a law passed here concerning this. That basically family members of domestic violence victims in other types of crimes are protected, but when it comes to murder, the surviving family members are not. In the state of Utah, this is where the absurdity doctrine comes into play. Courts will apply the absurdity doctrine when the operation of the plain language is so overwhelmingly absurd that no rational legislature could have intended the statute to operate in such a manner.

[00:44:13]This standard is satisfied only if the legislature could not reasonably have intended the result. Um, this standard is satisfied here. Clearly, the legislature could not have reasonably intended to accept the family members of domestic violence murder victims from protection. The defendant's conduct and the victim impact statements firmly establish that it is necessary for the court to protect CR, AR, and WR from their mother, as well as Eric's father and his sisters and their families.

[00:44:39]Anyone can appreciate the family's fear resulting from the defendant maintaining insurance on the boy's lives.

[00:44:45]Accordingly, the court should issue a continuous protective order under Utah code that prohibits the defendant from contacting Eric Richen's family members unless they first initiate contact and prohibits her from maintaining or benefiting from insurance on the lives of CR and WR. Uh, finally, the court should order the defendant to pay restitution.

[00:45:06]Utah Crimes Victim Restitution Act uh requires district courts to determine restitution for any pecunary damages approximately caused by defendants's criminal conduct. Insurance companies are victims under the statutory definition. Additionally, the defendant is a killer within the meaning of Utah's so-called slayer statute, which provides that a wrongful acquisition of property or interest by one who kills another shall be treated in accordance with the principle that a killer cannot profit from the killer's wrong. The defendant received over $1 million from Auto Owners Insurance Company and $352,000 from True Stage Insurance Company as the beneficiary of Eric's insurance uh life insurance. These insurance companies paid out as a result of the defendant committing aggravated murder as a convicted in count one. Moreover, true stage paid out because the defendant committed insurance fraud and forgery as charged in counts three through five.

[00:46:01]Accordingly, the court should order the defendant to pay restitution. Uh final final point five. After Ray Quinny and Nebucher abruptly withdrew from this case in May of 2024, the court declined to require the defendant to complete an affidavit of indenty indenty.

[00:46:20]I can't say that word. Citing fifth amendment concerns. Those were her attorneys. The court found that the defendant was indigent on the sole basis of former council's representation that the defendant does not have access to financial resources sufficient to retain private counsel. Emphasis added. Summit County thus became statutoily obligated to provide defense services to the defendant. The cost of these services will exceed $1.3 million for the defense. If the court learns that an individual provided with indigent defense services is in fact not indigent, the court shall order that individual to pay the indigent defense system the cost of services. The defendant continues to litigate claims to Eric's premarital home and a share of the trust. To the extent any of these assets or any other assets are adjudicated to the defendant's property, the court must order $1.3 million of those assets paid to Summit County as recoupment for the indigent defense services.

[00:47:22]Additionally, the court may order a defendant to pay costs for expenses incurred by a political subdivision of the state for attorney fees of counsel assigned to represent the defendant. To the extent that the defendant or her representatives or assignees receive any money that is not the subject to the profit from notorious criminal activity act, the court should order 1.3 million to be paid to Summit County for indigent defense services. And now the conclusion. Thank you for bearing with me. The court should sentence the defendant to life without parole among the state's other sentencing requests.

[00:47:54]This sentence is appropriate considering the crimes that she committed, their impact on her children and Eric Richen's family, and her irredeemable character.

[00:48:02]This sentence serves the interests of society which underly the criminal justice system. Most importantly, no other sentence can provide CR, AR, and WR the comfort and protection that they need and deserve.

[00:48:18]That is the sentencing memorandum filed yesterday by Brad Bworth of the Summit County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. As I mentioned, we don't have one from the defense. We don't know if they'll file one. They very well could right before tomorrow happens, but um what what a document that is. Um so that kind of gives you a preview, I guess, of what we'll hear tomorrow. Now, I just before we came on here, I zoomed with Rachel Smith. Again, she's the special prosecutor, not connected to this case.

[00:48:54]I want to be clear. She has nothing to do with this case, but she's done several similar cases of spousal murders. And I wanted to get her take kind of on what we can expect tomorrow and what to watch out for and and a couple of other things. So, let me toss over to that interview now with Rachel Smith.

[00:49:15]appreciate your insight. So, night before sentencing, what do you think the prosecution and the defense are are preparing for tonight?

[00:49:24]>> Thanks for having me, Nate. Um I uh the night before sentencing, they are focusing on a couple of different things. They focus on making sure they present persuasive arguments to the court on the areas they think the court will want to hear. They also focus on making sure that the victims and their family get their day in court and that information that might not otherwise come out uh is put in either a sentencing memo or put into their oral argument. So, it's dotting your eyes, crossing your tees, and planning the best arguments in front of the judge.

[00:50:02]>> And we know that the prosecution already filed their sentencing memorandum what they're going to argue for life, no parole. The defense obviously is going to argue 25 to life because those are our only two options based on the convictions. Um, I mean, it seems kind of straightforward with those two options, but is this one of those that the defense is going to go all out and and they could call witnesses and mitigation and really try to persuade the judge to go that way?

[00:50:32]>> It is one of those cases they could and in some respects they should. What it does is it builds an appellet record um trying to establish that the court perhaps had a a sentence that was disproportionate or excessive given her background. So I would expect to see some witnesses. I would expect to see witnesses that are really focused on sort of what sort of person she was, what sort of mother she was, any mental health issues or trauma she might have suffered. Uh it will be they will focus very much on the things that would um in uh get the judge to feel sympathetic or that would show on the record that perhaps the verdict or the sentence is excessive.

[00:51:17]>> Mhm. And meanwhile the prosecution we know is going to go no life is the only option.

[00:51:23]>> Yes. They're going to the prosecutors in this particular case given that somebody who was taken the loss of a parent to the child given the spousal betrayal the prosecution is going to really focus on this isn't a person that has true success or true ability to reform or redeem. So, it's kind of a contest between the defense trying to frame her as somebody who is a victim or capable of redemption um and rehabilitation and then the prosecution showing who was taken, how they were taken, who suffered a loss, and how her her conduct really doesn't really indicates that she is not capable of rehabilitation.

[00:52:08]I've covered many other trials and and I don't recall seeing the prosecution filing a sentencing memorandum the day before sentencing.

[00:52:19]Why do you think they did that? There might be a legal reason maybe in Utah they have to. I'm I'm unaware of that.

[00:52:24]But but is that just to really get it in writing and is that something you think we'll see them read from tomorrow or just reference or how why do you think that is? U prosecutors typically do a sentencing memo for a couple of different reasons. They want to highlight in detail things that they would expect the court to consider that there may not be an opportunity to present in court uh in terms of witnesses or impact statements from people who don't want to speak. So the sentencing memor memorandum allows them to put that information in. The second thing is it allows crystal clarity on what they're asking for and why. And so this way they aren't relying on victim's families to hear it right or journalists to get it right or the court to understand and hear everything. It's in writing their reasons what they're asking for, why they're asking for it supported by evidence. I have often done a sentencing memo. So, it's not unusual, but it's usually for victim impact that you're not sure you're going to be able to h have heard in the courtroom and for crystal clarity for the court, the public, and the family.

[00:53:38]>> Yeah. You know, as the prosecution, you you work with the victims, I imagine, to prepare victim impact statements because you can't just go in there and say whatever you want, >> right?

[00:53:51]>> How do you decide who can speak? I mean, Eric Richens had friends and colleagues and roommates back in the day. You know, who who gets to take the stand? Is it just family? Is it just up to judge by judge?

[00:54:07]>> It's a couple of different factors. One, it will be defined by statute or constitution of the jurisdiction you're in. Some places have a very narrow definition of who is entitled to give victim impact. It's usually next of kin legal next of kin people with close associations and so they start with the statutory uh definition of who has the rights and then they go from there.

[00:54:38]In the past I have not truly limited written victim impact statements. Um the court has presumed to ignore what it can't consider. So there's really no harm in submitting things that are done in writing. And then I stick very clearly to the people who have a legal and statutory right to be there to pres protect the conviction to make make sure that the defense doesn't argue it was an overreach. So I stick to the statutory people who are entitled legally to speak and then I submit on the record things in writing from pretty much anybody else.

[00:55:15]>> I see. So tomorrow the judge could have a stack of victim impact statements that we don't necessarily hear from but he can read and consider that. Do you >> absolutely and those are those those are typically given to the defense attorney either morning of or in advance. I give it in advance because there are some courts appellet courts that scrutinize victim impact evidence pretty closely.

[00:55:39]Um, for example, in the state of Hawaii, they're not even allowed to call the victim a victim um by court orders. So whereas in other places like Idaho, you can define who is a victim and but it's a pretty narrow definition. So prosecutors will typically submit in writing things that the court can consider or say, I'm not going to rely on it. But then in the courtroom, you stick to the things that aren't going to cause you issues on appeal. Right. Do you think, this is pure speculation, the judge has already decided the sentence or in your experience, does what is being said make a difference the day of?

[00:56:24]>> You know, I I do think there are times where judges have been presided persuaded the day of. Um, I most the time I think they have a pretty good idea of what direction they're leaning, but there are I have literally I was on a case a few weeks ago where the verdict was a sort of split compromise verdict and the court had originally indicated sort of in chambers they were leading one leaning one way and we stepped out and really encouraged the the person's grandmother and or mother to speak and then the ADA who arguing the sentencing really hammered on a couple of key points and the judge did not follow what they said in chambers. In fact, gave the state what it was asking for. So, I I do think there are times judges are persuaded by what happens in the courtroom. They are persuaded by the reminder of who was lost and what society and families lost. So it it yes they go into it I suspect having judges who are friends and talk to them with an idea but evidence from either side can persuade them in the moment and and that's where we want it. It the fact that this is so high profile and there's going to be really no public seating because it's going to be family members, friends, and the media. Does that weigh on a judge's mind? Do you think that there'll be perhaps hundreds of thousands, millions watching tomorrow?

[00:58:00]>> I it has to, right? Uh they have to be aware of how the judicial system is viewed. They have to be aware of whether the community thinks justice was served.

[00:58:14]Do I think media pressure makes a decision or public pressure absolutely makes the decision? No. But I think we would be naive to not understand that a judge of course un understands the significance of what they're doing both to the families and the parties but also to the community they serve. Most judges are elected or appointed public officials who serve the community and they will recognize that they are the voice of the community in that instance.

[00:58:50]And so they will be aware of what role they play in um showing that the justice system works.

[00:58:58]>> Some defendants speak. In fact, many defendants speak. Lorie Balow gave her dissertation. Chad Del did not speak. Um does having the defendant speak make a difference, do you think?

[00:59:11]>> I I personally don't. I've only seen it work a couple of times, but never in a violent serious crime. in crimes sort of where the person has substance abuse and is rehabilitated or the where the person has accepted responsibility really deeply and passionately. I've seen that have an impact. But I I'll be candid. I I if I were defense attorney um I would be really encouraging my client to keep their mouth shut other than to say I express true remorse.

[00:59:46]I am very sorry for the loss of life and you know this trauma has affected so many people and I regret that. Uh other than that they they're really better off keeping their mouth shut and focusing on appeal.

[01:00:00]>> Have you ever been in a courtroom where the defendant stands up and is like I didn't do this is like defiant that they had nothing to do with it.

[01:00:08]>> Yes. Absolutely. And and they double down. I mean in some respects that's what Lorie Valow did, right? Um, she not so overtly, but >> she doubled down on why why happened to her was not justice and why she didn't do it.

[01:00:25]>> Right. So, Corey Richens is facing a slew of other charges in another case that has yet to go to trial and a civil matter with the Richens family.

[01:00:38]It, let's say, she's sentenced to life in prison, no parole tomorrow. Does that do you think affect the other case of all the fraud and everything? I mean, we know that Lorie Valow went through it again in Arizona twice. The other charges are still in Utah, same county.

[01:00:53]So, I mean, do you think the prosecutor could say, "All right, she's done her time." Or or do they bring her back in a year and we do this all again?

[01:01:01]>> You I'm a firm believer that you bring her back and do it again. You never know what's going to happen on appeal. Um, you have really solid belief that you did it right. Um, but I have had cases where the courts have changed the jury instruction and decided the instruction was wrong or that they created a whole new instruction that should have been followed. So I am always about if you want somebody to serving time and having that sort of measure of justice then you try them for which you charged. Um, so it is possible that they would drop that case. Um but it it is equally possible that they will decide to go ahead and try it as sort of backup and a second measure of accountability.

[01:01:47]>> Yeah. You've mentioned appeals a few times tonight and and I think so many of us forget that we're focused on the here and now whereas the attorneys have to be focused on >> the day after when when the appeal might be filed or you know three months from now and and you know it continues to go forth. Um, Rachel, always a pleasure. Do you have anything that you want to add?

[01:02:09]>> No, it'll be very interesting to see what the court does in this case. Um, I I I don't think it's much of a contest given the depravity with which she approached her husband's life. I I just I will be shocked. Um, and let's hope I'm not shocked if uh if another verdict comes out, another decision comes out.

[01:02:31]>> Yeah.

[01:02:33]All right. My thanks to Rachel Smith for chatting with me. She's always great to talk to and she's traveling all over the country covering these different cases all over the place. Here is what you need to know for tomorrow. The sentencing starts at 9:30 Mountain time and that is 8:30 Pacific, 10:30 Central, 11:30 Eastern. So, you can log on to this East Idaho News YouTube channel starting at around 8:45.

[01:03:04]We're going to go live. We'll have a standby graphic up. Peggy will be in the chat. You can chat and we will go live.

[01:03:11]And after the sentencing is over, we will go out to the parking lot and we will see if the richens want to speak.

[01:03:18]If they don't, that's okay. You know, totally up to them. Whoever wants to maybe speak to the media, they may have a statement. I I have no idea. and we'll provide um coverage for you there. And then tomorrow night, I'll be back here, same time, same place for courtroom insider breaking down the sentencing of whatever happens tomorrow and who we hear from. So, hope you can tune in for that. And uh I have your questions here, but I want to let you know here's where you can find me. I'll be posting updates tomorrow on my Facebook page, Naton Reporter. Follow me there. I'm on X.

[01:03:50]Instagram is more personal type stuff.

[01:03:53]Uh, and then East Idaho News on YouTube.

[01:03:55]If you haven't subscribed, that would be awesome. Um, also, um, our Courtroom Insider YouTube channel that we just launched, I think it has like 40 subscribers. Thank you to those of you that have done that. Uh, Peggy is going to post a link in the comments because it can be kind of hard, but it's courtroom.

[01:04:15]To find on YouTube because it's a brand new channel. She's posted that there if you want to click there. We'll still be live here, by the way. We we'll still go live. Same stuff here and there, but that's just over time we'll we'll probably have more court coverage on that channel uh versus East Idaho News.

[01:04:32]So, I I just Wherever you are following, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay, we have some shout outs. We have some questions.

[01:04:41]Um here we go. Uh Peggy Fletcher Boy gave us $19.99 to buy a cake in honor of Eric and eat some. That is very cool.

[01:04:51]Thank you, Fletcher. I would say to anybody watching tomorrow if you can take a moment and think about this guy Eric Richens who should be turning 44 with his boys and have an incredible cake and it's it's the weather here in uh Summit County in Park City is beautiful and I can just see um spring soccer and baseball and all the summer sports and camping and fun. I mean, this is the time of year to be here. So, anybody watching tomorrow, take a moment and think of Eric and um and him. Um it it is it is sad that he won't be here.

[01:05:33]And you know, I'll if I meet him one day in the afterlife, I'll just say, Eric, thanks for giving me an excuse to have cake because, you know, I like I like my sweets. But, um thank you, Fletcher Boy, for that. Kim Brown. Hello to Kim. Rhysa Greenwood, Shirley Baker, Dustin Smith, Clint call Sornson, who's driving the Uber along the Wasatch Front in Utah.

[01:06:00]Thank you. I hope you're listening, not watching while you drive the Uber. But if you are watching when you're pulled over, thank you for watching. Jerry Berdick, Joy Moore, Cindy Jacobs, Dustin Smith, thank you all. We have people watching tonight in Costa Rica, uh, San Francisco, Ammon, Idaho, Yuba City, California, Afton, Wyoming, Okala, Florida, Burley, Idaho, and San Diego.

[01:06:23]Uh, thank you all so much for being here. Um, okay, questions. Why did no one address that it was impossible for him to be cold to the touch in 4 hours?

[01:06:33]He was undercovers in a warm room. It wasn't possible he was cold to the touch. Good question there. Um, I don't know why they didn't address it. Maybe it was too much room for questions. I mean, that that whole timeline, it makes you wonder now that that in this sentencing document, the the son says that his mom was never in his room and the room door was locked and then he went back to bed in his brother's bed.

[01:07:04]What really happened that night? She said they had the drink around 910ish, 8ish somewhere in that time and then he went to bed. I mean, maybe he died hours earlier. You're right. He was cold to the touch. And it says 4 hours. It could have been longer. I don't know. There's a lot of questions. Will there be a victim impact statement? If so, do you know who's on the list and can you share it? We talked about that briefly. There will be victim impact statements. I don't know who's on the list. Uh I know I've been in uh cases before where they're finalizing it up until right before where some some victims are like, "Yeah, I'm going to do it." And then they show up and they're like, "No." And some are like, "I'm not doing it." And then they get to court and they're like, "I'm doing it." I've covered both cases.

[01:07:48]Uh in fact, there was one case I covered years ago where the woman was so fired up. She she showed me her statement and it was it was powerful and she was scheduled to go toward the end and the other victims went and when she got up there she said I I don't think I want to say anything and sat down she said enough had been said so we'll see the order. Let me grab a jean.

[01:08:15]Are the Richen's kids officially adopted? I don't I don't know to be honest with you. I I would doubt it. And I think that um one of the reasons just me speculating is is they're waiting for tomorrow.

[01:08:31]They're waiting for tomorrow for the sentencing to happen. And maybe legally that will they can then go to the court and say, "Listen, their mom's been not only convicted of murder, but she's serving life in prison. We need to officially adopt." so many legal things likely happening, you know, behind the scenes that we don't know know about and should be kept private. Um, so I don't I don't know the answer to that question.

[01:08:53]Is she making money off of her kids book? No, I don't believe she is. I don't even think you can buy it. I think you can buy a few copies maybe on eBay or something. Someone emailed me the other day and said that they found one for like $1,000 on eBay. Something foolish or I don't know, but I think they pulled it down. Will there be a time delay in the trial tomorrow? No, it will be live live. When I say that, there may be a 10-second delay, but but you will see it live and I will be posting updates. If you can't watch and you want to read the written updates like I did during the trial, I'll be doing that as well.

[01:09:26]Has anyone heard from Corey's Corey's boyfriend? Is he okay? And what about Carmen? Is she still okay? Nate, will you please interview them?

[01:09:37]Uh, I would love to interview them. I would love to talk to them off the record. I have tried to reach them. Uh Eric uh Grossman um Josh has has he's hard to catch. If anyone has a connection, let me know. I I'll talk to him off the record. I know many of you have concern about if he's okay. Carmen would love to talk with her, too. Uh and I know some of the questions too coming in tonight are what happened with her immunity deal if that's been finalized.

[01:10:06]I don't know all the details on that. It may have taken up until the sentencing tomorrow for that to then get processed and pushed through. I know she uh there was talk that she had moved to Vegas. I don't know if that's still true, but I would love to talk with them. I'd love to talk with Eric's siblings, of course, and his friends. I've reached out to many people. Um some have said that they're, you know, we still have this other trial coming up. Corey Richens has a bunch of other charges in the other trial that I talked about with Rachel.

[01:10:34]Uh, and so some of these people might be witnesses in that trial and some of these people might just want to wait for that. Others might want to talk and and I I'm fine. You know, I I can understand if people don't want to talk, but I would like to speak with them, too. A while back, you ate at the same little cafe or deli that was where the infamous sandwich came from, the Mirror Lake Diner. What did you order there? It was so good. I think it was like the turkey club.

[01:11:02]And Jordan, my photographer, got the burger and he said it was really good.

[01:11:06]They had good fries. We're going to try to go there while we're here. We're here uh all week. So, I want to try to go back to the Mirror Lake Diner and and talk with them. Um, does she have any good appellet issues? Well, I don't know if she does. Her attorneys will look for everything and and try to, you know, include those in their filing, and we'll see when they issue their filing. Does anyone know if Lorie Valow's appeal has gone through? So, her attorneys have filed the appeal the appeal um and then the state responded. It went back and forth and now the Supreme Court of Idaho has agreed to hear her case and that has not yet been scheduled but it will be likely um this fall maybe or in the spring this year sometime I believe. And that will be unlike a it's not like a normal trial. What will happen is the defense will get I look like I'm hunching. I'll sit up straight. Um, the defense will get 20 minutes and the prosecution will get 20 minutes and then the Supreme Court of Idaho justices will ask some questions and that'll be it.

[01:12:12]And uh, then they'll issue their ruling whenever. They could issue it a week later or a month later or a year later.

[01:12:18]I don't think it'll be a year. Remind us what time the sentencing will be. It will be 9:30 tomorrow, Mountain Time.

[01:12:24]That's 8:30 Pacific, 11:30 on the East Coast. And if you can't watch it live, you can watch it after the fact. Again, we'll have it on our YouTube channel.

[01:12:33]Will the sentencing memo be read in court tomorrow? I doubt it. I think that the sentencing will um the the judworth will reference it and then add to it.

[01:12:48]But I and maybe say, you know, we filed our memorandum. You can read it and then and then that that will be it. But maybe he'll read it. I don't know.

[01:12:58]Nate, we got a twinkle bed and we love it. How are you going to sleep in your hotel room without it?

[01:13:04]Uh, that's funny. That's from Dustin.

[01:13:07]Uh, I don't know. Probably not very well. I'm I um the bed's over here. I purposely didn't shoot this to show you the bed. Um, for those of you wondering, uh, I my wife and I have had issues for years. We My wife has a a vascular malf for her back. This is this she's divulged this publicly. I'm I'm not speaking out of turn. And we actually right before we got married 2011, she had a little tiny like bump on her back and she went to the doctor and they said, "Oh, we'll cut it out. It's like a a tumor or a cyst or something. Not cancerous. We'll go in and cut it out."

[01:13:45]So about a month before our wedding, she goes in. They go in. I was with her in the waiting room. She did the the surgery and the doctor comes out and says, "I cannot take that out. If I take that out, she will bleed to death." He he had cut into her and it was it was a gnarly blood vascular malf for like blood veins and arteries all tangled up.

[01:14:08]We go to we're sent to Duke University.

[01:14:11]We were living in Richmond and uh Erica ended up um sorry this is a tangent.

[01:14:17]You're probably like, "What's what does that have to do with the knee?" Uh, Erica ended up she was so worried about her wedding dress because she had a huge gash. She still does across all her back. Um, you know, luckily it wasn't an issue with her dress, but she's like, "Great." It was swollen and yucky. And we ended up going to Duke and they're like, "Here's how we'll treat it. We'll inject it with alcohol and it will shrivel up slowly and you'll come multiple times and eventually it will shrink."

[01:14:46]So, we go the first time. It's okay. We go the second time. During the procedure, they puncture her lung.

[01:14:55]She's awake during this. They've numbed her, but but when she gets up, she's like, she couldn't breathe. She's like, "I'm so far out of breath." They're like, "Oh, we put on we wrapped the the bandage around you so tight. That's why just loosen it." We go home to our house in Richmond. The next day, she's like, "I can't breathe." She's like out of breath. Finally, she's like, "We got to go. I don't know what's wrong with me.

[01:15:16]We go to the do the ER and they're like, "You have a collapsed lung." She's admitted to the hospital. If you've had a collapsed lung, they had to cut right here and inflate it again. Hurt like crazy. She stayed in the hospital for two days and she's like, "I'm never getting that thing treated again."

[01:15:34]We did go back one other time to Duke.

[01:15:36]They were very apologetic.

[01:15:38]Anyway, fast forward. That was all 2011.

[01:15:41]She never went back. the vascular malf for has grown. We've been through 10 mattresses because it's so painful for her to sleep. And I like a really firm mattress. She likes the mattress more soft. And last year, a year ago, I wrote on my Facebook page how we were just having the worst time with our mattress.

[01:16:02]We bought one, a really expensive one, and got it and it was awful. We tried it for three nights and thank goodness they were we were able to return it. And the kind folks at Twinkle Beds here in Utah where I am, family-owned business made in America, Heidi reached out and said, "We want you to try one of our beds, and if you don't like it, send it back. We work with chiropractors to make the bed work." So anyway, we went I drove was driving home from Lorie Valow's Arizona trial. I went in, I lied down on the bed in the showroom. I'm like, "We'll try it." It arrived a week later. Eric is like, "This is amazing." And we've had the bed ever since. And it's it's worked. In fact, my parents just got one and my mom who's I won't tell her age.

[01:16:44]She loves it. I love it. So, it actually I kid you not, am I getting old because when I go to hotels and sleep in their beds, I wake up with a sore back. I'm not getting paid by Twinkle to say any of this, but they are doing their Memorial Day sale. It starts this weekend. And if you order a mattress, you get all sorts of free stuff like sheets and pillows and blanket. All a sweet like $600 package. you. And you also get 30% off if you use the promo code night Nate. Nit nit na t. They've been huge supporters of East Idaho News of Courtroom Insider or they watch. So I'm happy to to shout them out. Uh you can go check out their website if you want and um see if there's a mattress that you might like. And you get like a 90-day policy, I think, to try it out.

[01:17:28]Um okay, other questions. Nate, when is Lori uh Corey's other trial? I don't know. It hasn't been scheduled yet that I know of. I think they were grading through this one. Will she have the same attorneys? Another good question. I don't know if the court is going to grant her three attorneys on this next one as it's not like anywhere near a death penalty case. She'll probably be given one. She could settle. I know many of you were asking could she settle and and she very much well could. Uh let's see.

[01:17:54]Nate, will you be going live in the morning? Uh we'll go live. I I might go live on the way to the courthouse. Um just stay tuned. It's bad reception of over by the courthouse. It's like a cell phone hole. You can't get any signal, but if we can, I'll go live and and Jordan will be with me. And Nate, do you plan to do anything fun while you're in Park City? I plan to work. This is We got here uh this afternoon and it was I through one thing after another and I hope I hope to do some interviews like I said. So, tomorrow night we'll be here with Courtroom Insider again um reacting to the sentencing. I'll be playing giving you a recap like we have before.

[01:18:30]And then on what's tomorrow? Wednesday.

[01:18:31]Thursday hopefully I'll have some fresh interviews for you with people connected to the case along with Friday night. So plan to do uh plan to be here all night with me if you can and then next week have some fun stuff too. Many of you asked about Nick Edwards. He's the day investigator uh who went on to lead the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force in Idaho. He recently lost his not lost his job, left his job. He didn't lose it. He resigned to start a new position and he's going to come on here and talk about the Del case for the first time. He hasn't talked about it.

[01:19:04]He testified in it and he's also written a book about his career. So that will be I think next Monday. So anyway, we got programming set for the next week. I apologize. I have this cap here that I'm playing with off to the side and I'll stop doing that. Uh anyway, uh thanks again for being here. Again, here's where you can find me. Facebook X, Insta, YouTube. We went long tonight.

[01:19:24]and I appreciate your patience. Tonight we remember Eric Richens. We think about him on the eve of his 44th birthday, all the good he did in the world when he was here and all of the good he could be doing if he was still here. But hopefully tomorrow each of us can think about him for a moment or two as the woman accused of murdering him learns her fate and we hear from those who loved Eric and we hear the good things about him. Everybody, thank you so much for watching. I'm Nate Eaton. Have a good night. We'll see you tomorrow.