Rick Chow Acquitted: Shot in the Back, But Not Murder? Let's Talk About It!

本站添加: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]Good day, Crime Talk afficionados. We have another great show for you today.

[00:00:03]First, the man accused of shooting a young black man in the back. He's acquitted. Well, guess what? Even the prosecution had to concede that the young black man pointed his gun at Mr. Rick Chow, the defendant. Uh, the tooth in the Ashes trial begins for the Wisconsin man accused of killing his wife. Sounds like the Patrick Frzy case, doesn't it? Uh, no DNA link found to the stepbrother in the Anna Kapner cruise ship murder. The uh, defense inspects the knives as the Courtourtney Cl murder trial nears. Uh, guess what? What happened on this day in US legal history, our legal quote of the day, and our dumb criminal. You can't make this stuff up, ladies and gentlemen. Let's talk about it.

[00:00:51]>> All right. Lawyer. Lawyer.

[00:00:57]Good day everyone. My name is Scott Rich and this is Crime Talk. Thanks for joining us. You know the drill.

[00:01:02]Subscribe if you haven't. Like if you do, leave me a comment below and make sure you hit that little bell for notifications of when we go live or put up new content. And guess what? Since it's Tuesday night, we are going live.

[00:01:15]But guess what? We're going to go live a little earlier. 5:00 p. p.m. Mountain time tonight. I've got one hour. I have a commitment that I have to go to. So therefore, we're starting a little early, but I wanted to make sure we did it. And guess what? We've going to have a great topic. All right. As you know, we put up our interview with the Gonzalez uh and um a lot of people, it brought out all the pro Cobberger people yet again, and they're all telling me how what an idiot I am that it's obvious that Brian Cobberger has been framed. Uh he didn't do it, and you just need to see the truth. So, tonight 5:00 p p.m.

[00:01:53]Mountain time, all the pro burgers, they are going to get top priority on the callin line. Okay? And you can present to me with legal and competent evidence and the witnesses that you would call at the trial to prove that Brian Cobberger is innocent. Okay. Now, I expect the phone lines will just be on fire tonight. And everybody who thinks that he's innocent and and don't tell me your theory. I want to know what evidence, what witness are you going to call, what expert are you going to call? And not just, well, I would call an expert in this area. No, no, no, no, no, no. I want the name of the witness. Okay? If you think there are other people involved, I want to know the name of the witness that you would call at trial to say there were multiple people there.

[00:02:49]Okay?

[00:02:50]And we need their name because there there has to be somebody with personal knowledge. Now, of course, you may want to say, "Wow, do I really want to get all over the internet with this crazy theory that don't you think if the Cobberger attorneys would have thought it was going to work that they would have gone to trial on it?" Of course, they would have. But I look forward to the call-in show. So, please join us tonight, 5:00 p.m. Mountain time. If you're a pro ber, guess what? You get to first priority.

[00:03:22]You get to convince me that I'm wrong.

[00:03:25]and that Brian Coberger is innocent. I look forward to it. And like I said, we're not talking any cheesy theories of I just know. Oh, no, no, no, no. It is.

[00:03:35]This is the witness I would call and they would come and testify under oath as to personal knowledge. Not something they read, not something that they heard somebody say or speculate about, but they saw with their own two eyes. Okay?

[00:03:54]That's called legal incompetent evidence and they got to testify from their own personal knowledge. You let me know who those witnesses are, what they'll say.

[00:04:01]All right, see you tonight 5:00. I'm not going to remind you to go to crimetaxarch.com because if you've been watching every day, you know it's there.

[00:04:08]You know what to do. Okay, but go down below, hit the link, and check out the merchandise. Okay, we got some great merchandise here for you and it's been selling really well and so I'd like to sell even more of it. So, you know, do us a favor, hook us up, buy some merch.

[00:04:28]We'll leave it at that. First on the docket, Rick Chow is acquitted down to Columbia, South Carolina. So, a jury has acquitted Rick Cow, the convenience store owner, of murder yesterday in the 2023 fatal shooting of 14-year-old Cyrus Carmarmac.

[00:04:48]Now, the verdict followed a week-long trial in Richland County Courthouse there, and prosecutors charged Mr. Chow, who's now 61, with murder after he chased Mr. Carmarmac Belton from the Express Mark Shell station on Park Lane Road and shot him once in the back. Like I said, back in May of 2023, the bullet entered his uh right lower back, passed through the body, and struck the heart.

[00:05:13]This is all according to the uh forensic pathologist Dr. Amy Derso and the Richland County Corridor Nadia Rutherford. Both described the wound path as consistent with the teenager running away. Well, the prosecutor led by solicitor Byron Gibson argued that Chow acted out of anger over a suspected theft of four water bottles. They the prosecution presented evidence that Carmarmac Beltton had not stolen anything and was leaving the store when the pursuit began. Now, multiple witnesses testified they saw no object in the teenager's hand and did not see him point a gun while fleeing. A semi-automatic pistol was recovered at the scene after apparently falling during the chase. Now, Gibson told jurors that Mr. Chow chased a kid down, shot him in the back, and emphasized that no witness outside the Chow family corroborated the claim of an immediate threat. The defense represented by Shaun Kent maintained that Mr. Chow fired only after his son Andy Chow was threatened.

[00:06:17]Andy Chow testified that Carmarmac pointed a handgun at him. Kent framed the case as one of a father protecting his child rather than a response to a shoplifting, stating it was about a father who sees a gun pointed at his son and had to make a decision. Well, after the not- guilty verdict was announced, Carmarmac's family members in the gallery reacted with audible distress.

[00:06:41]The family attorney, Tom Rutherford, expressed strong disagreement with the outcome, saying there is no way that a child who did nothing wrong, who was shot in the back had that the jury can justify that verdict. Well, he described the reaction among supporters as one of palpable anger and urged the community to respond through discussion rather than, you know, violence and things like that. Rutherford stated that a civil lawsuit against Mr. Chow will in fact continue cuz it's always about the money, ladies and gentlemen. Now, Mr. Chow remained seated and silent as the verdict was read before bowing his head.

[00:07:16]Now, the shooting had obviously prompted vigils and protests in the Columbia, South Carolina area, particularly with the uh black community down there. Now, the Express Mart Shell station had been the subject of hundreds of police calls between 2018 and 2023 for incidents including shoplifting, assault, and other disturbances. And in earlier encounters, the same location, Chia had fired at suspected shoplifterss. And those prior incidents were ruled justified by the police. Now, the criminal case is now concluded.

[00:07:49]Obviously, there's going to be a civil action that's going to continue and go on. Now, I watched big chunks of this trial. All right? And I can see how the jury concluded what they did. The defense did a brilliant job in not making this a shoplifting case cuz you can't go around shooting people in the back for not stealing anything, even if you suspected them of stealing something. And I said before the case started, it's going to be a little tough, but maybe they'll split the baby.

[00:08:15]Maybe a reckless manslaughter. No, they went all out not guilty, ladies and gentlemen. And the significance of this is yes, the prosecution had to concede that there was a gun there. And yes, there was a witness that saw the gun. It may have been Mr. child's son. But guess what? He saw a gun. Dad's, you know, self-defense, right? Defense, self-defense of yourself or others. You have a right to defend others as well.

[00:08:41]Now, I think the bigger issue that people need to be talking about before they get too fired up about this young man being shot in the back is what the hell was the 14-year-old doing with the gun in the first place? Now, the people that were all wailing away in the in the gallery, I'm sure, are all upset. They saw the dollar signs going away. But shouldn't somebody be saying, "Where the hell were you when the kid was out running the streets with a gun with a laser pointer on it?" Now, I'm just saying I see this crap all the time in court. Now, honestly, sometimes I most of the time I'm representing the defendant in the particular case where everybody makes out the victim and the other side to be this holier than thou kid when in reality they're just punk.

[00:09:28]And where were all these people? They're all upset when somebody gets killed, but they weren't doing a gosh darn thing when the kid was out running the streets. Just my little something to think about there, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:09:39]Just something to think about. Next, let's go up to Juno, Wisconsin, where jury selection began in the trial of Zachariah Rash, a 44year-old Dodge County man charged with first-degree intentional homicide with domestic abuse enhancers and hiding a corpse in the death of his aranged wife, Crystal Rash.

[00:10:01]Now, the uh trial expected to last about two weeks follows uh uh the June 2024 disappearance of Crystal Rash from the couple's property um back in June of 2024 cuz she was last seen alive in June 11th of 2024 when she and Zachariah Rash went out to eat and some run some errands. The couple was in the process of divorcing and um the state has previously removed their children from the home and terminated parental rights, which takes quite a bit of work to get your parental rights taken away. Anyway, Crystal Rash was reported missing on June 23rd by her stepmother. And uh when officers responded to the rash property, Zachariah Rash was observed near a burn pit. Investigators later discovered multiple burn areas on the property. One pit contained a tooth that matched Crystal Rash's dental records and a skull fragment identified through DNA as the uh Petrus pyramid portion of her skull. This is like Patrick Frzy case all over again. The guy who beat up killed the mother of his child and then burned her out on the family property.

[00:11:10]Well, a Mipishi eclipse registered to Zachariah Rash was found at the family member's property. The front passenger seat, seat belt, and door were saturated with blood that matched Crystal Rash's DNA. Surveillance footage showed Zachariah Rash using his wife's uh debit card after her disappearance, including the purchase of eight 32 oz bottles of drain cleaner and cash withdrawals at multiple locations. I'm sure all legitimate reasons. Anyway, the phone records indicate that Zachariah Rash conducted internet searches in the weeks before the disappearance on topics such as do you die instantly from a gunshot wound to the head and uh widows benefits. Anyway, after the disappearance, searches included cleaning methods, bones vehicle part replacements, uh sulfuric acid, how quickly police can obtain a warrant, and missing person's alerts. I'm sure you have all of those in your search history as of right now. I'm sure you do, but you're a crime talk afficionado. You're not somebody accused of killing your wife, right? Anyway, prosecutors also presented evidence of some unusual text messages sent from Crystal Rash's phone that didn't match her typical communication style and could not be verified through video or phone calls.

[00:12:29]In an opening statement, the prosecutor uh Sean Waller described a deliberate sequence of events telling jurors that Crystal was a dead woman walking and that the evidence would demonstrate a progression of planning and concealment.

[00:12:41]He noted that the message purportedly from Crystal did not sound like Crystal and that the sender refused to verify um identity through live communications.

[00:12:53]The defense attorney, Zachi, Z- AI Zhowi, Ze H A Wii, presented a much different account, stating that Crystal Rash tragically killed herself while handling a gun in front of the defendant. The attorney said that Zachariah Rash believed he would be blamed for the death because it involved his firearm and occurred amid the pending divorce. Now, according to the defense, Rash panicked, made poor decisions, including lying to friends and family, and did not know exactly what happened to his wife beyond what you know that a 9mm firearm that he had in his vehicle discharged while he was driving. See, I told you there was a completely rational explanation for what took place. Obviously, she took her own life. I panicked. I had to burn her body allegedly. I'll take the burning of a, you know, the abuse of a corpse, uh, tampering with evidence, but by God, I did not kill her. That's right. Anyway, Zachariah Rash has pled not guilty to both charges. And, um, obviously, he's entitled to that presumption of innocence. If convicted, however, guess what? Um, the charge of first-degree intentional homicide faces the potential of a life sentence. The jury selection and the presentation of evidence will continue in the Dodge County courtroom.

[00:14:13]All right. Well, guess what? We're bringing you this trial as well, so you can check it out. No DNA, no DNA that links the um stepbrother in the Anna Keaptainner cruise ship murder. It doesn't matter. Hm. Well, in federal court proceedings uh tied to the death of Anna Keaptainner aboard the family cruise ship, an FBI case agent testified that investigators have no DNA evidence directly connecting her stepbrother Timothy Hudson to the affixiation that caused her death. Now, Keaptainner was found with marks and bruises on her neck and forensic examination also confirmed evidence of sexual intercourse. Hudson, however, a teenager, is accused of and killing his stepsister by strangulation while the family was on the cruise. Now, prosecutors have alleged that he placed a quote do not disturb sign end quote on the uh uh stateateroom door and disposed of Keaptainner's phone after the incident. Now, newly unsealed transcripts from the recent hearing show defense attorneys pressing the FBI agent on the absence of DNA recovery from the neck injuries. When asked whether any attempt has been made to lift DNA from areas of Keaptainner's body that might indicate who strangled her, the agent replied, "I'm not sure of that. I'm not sure. No." Anyway, the agent further acknowledged that as the case agent, he would have known about such evidence if it existed. The FBI agent also testified that the assistant medical examiner did not determine whether the person who engaged in intercourse with Kener was the same individual responsible for her death. The cruise uh ship setting, which allowed multiple people access, had been referenced in the proceedings as a factor in the investigation. Now, Hudson's trial is scheduled to begin in September. There's no direct evidence of tying him to the strangulation.

[00:16:04]Prosecutors are expected to rely on circumstantial evidence and the timeline of events surrounding Keeper's death.

[00:16:10]Now, the case is obviously in the pre-trial phases. Both sides are going to prepare for the trial in September.

[00:16:17]What can you do? Do you need DNA on the neck? No. No, you don't. Um, is it possible that no DNA was transferred?

[00:16:24]Yeah, it's possible. Could have been, you know, there were could have been gloves. Uh, could have been, you know, a towel or something over the neck. Who knows? Possibilities, but that's what the defense has. That's what they're going to work with. And obviously, if there's evidence of sexual assault, you know, we'll see if there's any DNA there, uh, which may link it. Now, of course, you know, when you're the last person to see somebody, there's a strong correlation that you're possibly the one that did it, but we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure there's a rational explanation for everything. Clearly, it's alleged that the stepbrother um at most probably had sex with her, panicked, had to leave the room, and then somebody else came in and killed her. Right? You see how all this logically works out, right? Oh, you say, "Scott, that's ridiculous, right?"

[00:17:10]Sometimes you have to demonstrate absurdity with absurdity, don't you, ladies and gentlemen? Next, uh, the trial for Courtney Cenny Ne. That's right. Defense attorneys for Courtney Clinty have inspected the knives at the center of the secondderee murder case against her in the 2022 stabbing death of her boyfriend Christian OMelli.

[00:17:32]as the trial approaches its start in August. Now, Clinty has been held without bond in Miami since her arrest back in August of 2022. She is charged with seconddegree murder in the death of Ombunelli, who was 27, who was stabbed inside the couple's shared apartments.

[00:17:49]Now, Miss Clinty has pled not guilty and maintains that she acted in self-defense. And in a recent pre-trial hearing, Clint's defense team confirmed that it has examined the knives involved in the case. in the inspection comes as attorneys prepare for more than eight scheduled depositions in the coming weeks and uh to respond to pre-trial motions filed by the prosecution. An expert evaluation of Clint is set for June 9th with reports expected not to delay the proceedings. Prosecutors have indicated they intend to move forward without postponement and Clint's attorneys have stated that preparation remains on track for that trial date which is scheduled obviously for August.

[00:18:27]Now, in a 2024 hearing, the defense introduced video evidence showing a man throwing knives at a pig's carcass, which it presented as ill illustrative of its theory regarding the events inside the apartment. The upcoming trial will determine whether the evidence supports the self-defense claim or the prosecution's case that the stabbing constituted murder. The case continues obviously through the pre-trial stage.

[00:18:52]We'll see what takes place. Uh, but let's also remember, ladies and gentlemen, the defense attorney in a case like this are doing their job. Now, maybe they had an expert go and look at the knives. They're not going to get to go throw them at a pig, you know, for their expert demonstration. They got to get the exact same knife. But that's what you do in big cases uh such as this. You go and inspect the the evidence. Um, and normally you take your investigator, not always, if not always, and you take photographs of it. So you can say, "Oh, look. We looked at the evidence." Now, every now and then, sometimes it's it's kind of funny when you go through and you know, they're like, "Oh, they they they stole the wallet." Um, you know, and somebody got stabbed. And then you go and you open up the clothing and the pants and guess what? There's a wallet in there. Uh cuz somebody forgot to take it out and they booked it into evidence uh in the pants.

[00:19:44]Stuff like that happens um occasionally, but for the most part, evidence views are truly uneventful. other than they are slow because the investigator that works for the prosecution office has to check out all the evidence. You go through all the evidence. You look at it, you inspect it, you take pictures of it, you know, you turn it over, you look at the clothing, the blood stained, all that good stuff. And then they have to repackage it all, which means they have to put it back in, put all the evidence tape back on the bag, initial it, etc. it. You don't do it until you're really close to trial unless there's something there because really that's what it's uh boils down to. You just you look at it.

[00:20:25]Usually there's already pictures of it.

[00:20:26]Uh but you go and inspect it to see if there's something there. And next on the docket, a pickup truck strikes a toll booth, killing a longtime attendant before the vehicle ends up across the sand and in the ocean. So Deanna Herrell was driving the truck when it uh hit the booth at approximately 40 mph according to police. Now Tammy Joe Baker, 62, um it was the employee who worked at the uh beach toll for years was killed on impact and she was weeks shy of her 63rd birthday and left behind a family as a grandmother. Now after the collision, Harold drove the damaged truck onto the beach and into the water. Good Samaritans pulled her from the vehicle as she attempted to continue driving.

[00:21:13]She now Miss Baker was pronounced dead at the scene. Now, the uh sheriff stated that the heavy odor of alcohol was noticed from the passenger side of the truck. Harold was taken into custody under a Florida Baker's act for psychiatric evaluation. She's expected to undergo a breathalyzer test and provided a blood sample as the investigation continued. No charges have yet been filed at this time, but the sheriff um did describe the incident as disturbing, noting that Miss Baker had uh reported to work as she had for years when the crash took place. He expressed surprise that additional people were not struck during the sequence of events and obviously it's uh active and uh the investigation is active and we'll kind of see how that goes. Just goes to show you, ladies and gentlemen, don't drink and drive. It's all fun and games until you know what? Somebody gets killed, then somebody's going to prison. Next, this day in legal history, June 2nd, 1924, Calvin Culage signed the Indian Citizenship Act. That's right. That was legislation that granted US citizenship to all Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States.

[00:22:24]Prior to this act, many Native Americans were not recognized as citizens despite the 14th Amendment. While the law marked a major advancement in civil rights, it did not automatically confer voting rights in all states as some continued to impose barriers. That case is actually one of the cases that was being argued before the Supreme Court on the birthright citizenship stuff. Remember when I said, ladies and gentlemen, this stuff never changes. It just gets recycled and it goes around and round and round. You know the old saying, history repeats itself. It does, ladies and gentlemen. Next, uh, June 2nd, 1952, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark 63 decision in Youngstown's Sheet and Tube Company versus Sawyer.

[00:23:09]The court ruled that President Harry Truman lacked constitutional authority to seize and operate the nation's steel mills during a labor strike amid the Korean War. Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion emphasized these separations of power, holding that the president could not take private property without congressional authorization. Um, obviously one of the cases limiting executive power. How about June 2nd, 1969? The United States Supreme Court decided Gaston County versus the United States. In a 7 to1 ruling, the court upheld key provisions of the Votings Rights Act of 1965. It found that Gaston County, North Carolina, could not use literacy tests as a prerequisite for voting because the country had long maintained segregated and unequal public schools that disproportionately disadvantaged black residents. Now, that decision reinforced federal protection against discriminatory voting practices in jurisdictions with histories of racial inequality in education. How about a legal quote of the day? We've heard it all before, right? An I for an I. Well, that principle of retribution justice commonly known as an I for an I originated in the ancient legal code of Hammeri 1750 BC and was later codified in the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament and the most frequent cited formulation appears in Exodus 21:24 also Lev Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21 eye for an eye tooth for a tooth Hand for a hand, foot for a foot, burn for burn, wound for wounds, stripe for stripe. This maxim known in Latin as Lex Talionis, law of retaliation established the concept of proportional punishment in early legal systems, limiting revenge to the harm equivalent to the injury inflicted rather than allowing unlimited retaliation. Well, there's something to think about, isn't it, ladies and gentlemen? How about our dumb criminal of the day?

[00:25:24]When your weapon of choice is a piggy bank and a croquet mallet. H makes you want to think, right? So, in what can only be described as a masterclass in poor decision-making, 32-year-old Ashley Close of Greenfield, New York, has officially earned the title of dumb criminal of the day. Now, according to the police, Miss Close allegedly turned a domestic disturbance into a bizarre homegoods brawl around 1:08 a.m. early Sunday morning. She reportedly threw a ceramic piggy bank at the victim's head because nothing says I'm making my point like weaponizing spare change and then took a swing with a croquet mallet for good measure. She also managed to smash the victim's necklace and a lamp she was uh while she was at it. Now, the real cherry on top. All of this allegedly happened while an active order of protection was in place. Are you telling me people don't abide by protection orders? You've got to be kidding me.

[00:26:23]Anyway, Miss Close now faces charges including assault, criminal contempt for violating that protection order, menacing criminal possession of a weapon, and two counts of criminal mischief. She was arrested, arraigned in Greenfield Town Court, and released on her own recgnissance. Now, presumably so she can reflect on her life choices and maybe invest in less ridiculous household artillery items next time.

[00:26:47]Congratulations, Miss Close. You didn't just break the law. You broke it with a piggy bank and a lawn game. Today's crown is yours. Congratulations. You made it. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all we have for you today. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time. And remember, the Constitution matters.