Kouri Richins Trial Sidebars: Kouri ROLLS EYES as judge allows damning evidence in

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-28

[00:00:01]I hope you guys are having a good week.

[00:00:03]Oh man. So, we had the sentencing for Corey Richens last week. She got life without the possibility of parole.

[00:00:09]>> Accordingly, Miss Richens, based on your conviction on count one, first-degree felony aggravated murder, the court hereby sentences you to life without parole.

[00:00:20]You have the right to an appeal.

[00:00:21]>> That was like the max that she was looking at, and that's exactly what she got. It seems like maybe she's confident that there's going to be a new trial or maybe she'll win on appeal cuz it really seems like that didn't really sink into her. You know, she kind of just like sat there looking at the judge, rolled her eyes and just typical Corey Richens fashion. Now, there was also another sentencing that I covered this week on this on this week's video and that one was more I felt like it felt like there was more closure with that case.

[00:00:51]Although I wasn't following it, he was he was in tears. He was upset that he got hit with I think it was like 30 years in prison. However, with Corey, you know, Corey just didn't really get much reaction from her. Just her just being rude as usual. But anyways, you guys haven't seen that yet. Check out that video. But for this week, we are going to continue on with the trial sidebars in Corey's case. So, we left off at day five. And day five was when there was a cross- examination of Carmen Lobber, the housekeeper who also helped get the fentinel for Corey. And unbeknownst to her, she didn't know that Corey was going to use it to poison her husband, Eric Richens. So in the cross- examination, you know, there was confusion with Ms. Lewis doing the cross and even the judge was pointing this out. The judge was like, "Hey, you know, if I'm confused, you got to tell people behind you who might just be just as confused as I am." So, I think it was quite a struggle for Miss Lewis and you know, it it wasn't easy. And then we got to see a little bit more information about why the detective may have threatened a witness with a catch pole for that dog. Um, this was also when Mr. Oh, Croer testified. Uh, Croer was the one who got the drugs, the fentinol, and he sold it to Carmen. Carmen gave it to Corey. But remember, Croer tried to change his testimony and instead of admitting that it was fentinel and that he sold it to Carmen, he tried to retract that and he was like, "Oh, you know, actually when I was being interviewed by, you know, law enforcement, I was just out of it. I don't remember that." So, um, it seems like the jury did not believe that. And then lastly, we got to read the testimony of the undercover agent. You guys were watching on this trial day.

[00:02:38]This is when all of a sudden the court was like, "Hey, cut the feed." And we kind of just sat there in darkness for about an hourish. And then finally, I think the feed came back on later that day. But the undercover agent, uh, he testified saying that, you know, it wasn't uncommon for people to sell these like pills that had M30s on it that were supposed to be oxy, but in fact, they were they were fake. You know, they were really fentinyl. And it's really hard to tell the difference between the two of them. So now in day six, uh we are going to be listening to, you know, there's some testimony by the chief medical examiner. Allison Wright was Corey's friend where Corey had one day divulged, you know, her relationship with her and Eric. Then there was also the testimony of oh Mr. what was his name again? Oh, Culture Demos. I think it was like the forensic uh digital expert guy. Now, he went through Cory's phone and they found this vacation express that Corey was supposed to take with Josh Grossman. And the date that it was set for was a date after Eric had passed away, but they ended up not going that trip. We don't know why, but it's still on there. And then lastly, there's going to be some sidebars about the uh the GIFs. You know, remember um an opening statement when the state had played three GIFs for the jury and they looked really bad because apparently those GIFs were found on Cory's phone and it was 4 hours after Eric had I think like was it was it like no maybe it was like 2 hours after everyone had left the house the day that Eric passed away.

[00:04:27]Yep. All right, let's get into the sidebars, y'all. Oh, but before we start, if you guys haven't already, feel free to hit the subscribe button and it would be nice to see you guys again when we do some live streams, although they are sparse again because there's no ongoing court case that or trial that's happening at the moment. But feel free to hit the subscribe button, you know, that really helps a lot. And I would like to see you guys again sometime soon. You know, definitely stop by the live streams and say hi in the chat. Uh if you guys are completely new here, we also cover other cases as well. And if you guys go to the playlist, you know, we covered like Donald Aden, we covered Murdoch, although some of the cases that we are covering are making a comeback because their convictions have been overturned. So Murdoch's going to happen again. And you know what? I think the state said that they were planning on uh trying him again before the year ends.

[00:05:18]So we'll definitely be live streaming that one. All right, guys. Go back to let's go back to the video. We're currently in the cross examination of the chief medical examiner by attorney Ramos. Now, this is where Attorney Ramos is going to get into fentinel being found in Eric's system and like, "Oh, why didn't you do a hair follicle test?"

[00:05:38]Because I think where Mr. Ramos is getting at is Eric did drugs and had you guys tested for the history of him doing drugs then it would show that our theory that Eric overdose and killed himself was a possibility >> and certainly in this case a hair follicle test should if it had been um requested of your office you would have sent it out >> we would I don't know and I think as I told you I don't know what the literature says around about hair follicle testing for fentinel specifically whether that's a useful endeavor or not I just I don't know >> fair Um, certainly it wasn't an asked of you and certainly you didn't get the results back.

[00:06:12]>> No.

[00:06:13]>> Now, had that been done, had you gotten the results back and it did show long-term that certainly would have played into your determination as to the manner of death. Correct.

[00:06:19]>> Objection calls for speculation. The testimony has been >> Yeah, >> I expected that objection. We're now in sidebar. Mr. Burmeister is going to say something that's inaudible and he is with the state. The court, what's your response to that foundation objection, Mr. Ramos? He indicated that he didn't know if it could have been and I indicated that it had been a hypothetical and had he received information that that would have a play and role in if it would have played a role in how he distinguish it. It's a hypothetical the court. Yeah, but you've got to provide a little foundation Mr. Ramos. Happy to. Okay. So stay provide more information or foundation Mr. Ramos. Just so we don't come back. What more foundation would you like just so I can the court? Well, for example, I mean that's like asking him, you know, the yellow brick road led to you got to provide some foundation that such a test exists. Mr. Ramos, a hair follicle test.

[00:07:16]The court, a hair follicle test that's valid for a drug in question. Here he's saying, Mr. Ramos interrupts, I see what you're saying. Fair enough. The court, right? You just can't make it up. So, they're going to continue on with this line of questioning about the hair follicle test. You are not aware of a hair follicle test in your experience being done for fentanyl.

[00:07:37]>> I am not.

[00:07:37]>> You don't know if it can be done?

[00:07:38]>> I do not know.

[00:07:39]>> Had a hair follicle test just for any drug including fol any just hair follicle test to be sent out to see if there's any type of drug use whatsoever. Your office would have done that. Correct.

[00:07:51]>> Overruled.

[00:07:53]>> Um if we were requested to. That's certainly not something we would ever routinely do.

[00:07:56]>> Absolutely no. And I'm not implying that. Um, and and to be fair, the reason you wouldn't do that is because your office is tasked with what's at hand, which is what do you have in front of you to determine the manner and cause of death. Correct.

[00:08:07]>> Correct. Why? Why?

[00:08:08]>> I don't know if you guys ever done a hair follicle test before where this is usually for employment. I don't know if they still do that, by the way, but I remember when my sister, she was trying to get a job and this was in San Francisco. And dude, San Francisco, they're pretty freaking wild out there.

[00:08:22]But they asked for a hair follicle test, but it wasn't just like you pluck out one hair, okay? They brought her in and they had to like shave off I think this much in the back of her head. It was no joke. They had to shave it off to make sure that she didn't have any history of I I'm assuming like extreme drug use.

[00:08:43]Um, from from what I remembered, it was only like the marijuana stuff, but everything else, you know, like I think they're looking for like hardcore drugs like I don't know, like maybe like coke or heroin or something like that. But yeah, those uh hair tests are pretty freaking gnarly. Have you guys ever done that before? Um, I like I said, I don't even know if they even do that anymore cuz I just feel like it's really it's really evasive. Like [ __ ] >> why is this person dead right now as opposed to some other time?

[00:09:08]>> And in terms of your checklist, the hair follicle just doesn't come in in terms of what you do. Correct.

[00:09:14]>> Um I mean it can or it could in theory.

[00:09:16]Um but yeah, mostly no.

[00:09:18]>> But if it were to be requested of you, you would or could do it.

[00:09:21]>> Objection. I think the answer was for this particular.

[00:09:25]>> What's the objection, Mr. Burme? Asked and answered.

[00:09:28]>> Asked and answered and calls for speculation.

[00:09:31]>> Sustained. I'll ask you a different question.

[00:09:32]>> I'm going to go back with all that in mind.

[00:09:35]Had you sent out a if you send out a hair follicle test, is your practice generally when you receive the results of set hair follicle test to use those said results in your determination of whether or not to change a manner of death?

[00:09:51]>> They would be part of, you know, all the information that we look at to come up with our final cause and manner of death.

[00:09:56]>> Thank you for that, sir.

[00:10:00]>> I thought he was going to keep on objecting.

[00:10:06]Mr. Bur, Mr. >> I see you, Mr. Mustache.

[00:10:09]>> Ask you about the uh sequence of items that were ingested or not ingested. Do you recall that?

[00:10:15]>> Yes.

[00:10:16]>> You indicated that there's simply not enough um information at hand to be able to determine that. Correct.

[00:10:21]>> Yeah. Not just from this case. In in forensic toxicology, generally you can't tell when something was taken just based on a number.

[00:10:28]>> And and that's what I wanted to make clear, whether it was just in this case or just generally.

[00:10:30]>> Generally, you can do that. And that means uh that there are no tests uh or nothing else that you can go back and do to make that determination. Correct.

[00:10:37]>> Correct.

[00:10:38]>> Allison Wright is testifying right now.

[00:10:40]She is Cody's wife. Now, if you guys remember, Cody is the business partner 50/50 with Eric Richens. They both own CE Masonry. So Allison is testifying and she's going to recall a time where her and Corey, you know, they're just like having girl talk, but it seemed like something was really bothering Corey.

[00:10:59]So, of course dulging about her relationship between her and Eric. Now, Miss Nester, Miss Nester actually made me laugh in sidebar, but Miss Nester, she was a little bit fiery about this.

[00:11:10]And I have to say this, out of all the defense attorneys that I've seen in all the trials that I've covered, I feel like Miss Nester would be up there in terms of like if I had to pick up any all those any of those attorneys, I think Miss Nester would be up there in terms of attorneys that I would choose.

[00:11:27]Um, I I think she's just like so passionate and very fervent. And you know, I feel like having someone argue like that and is on your side, it's not so bad after all. But then again, she did not call any witnesses or Cory's defense. And I have a lot of questions about that strategy. Maybe it wasn't her call. You know, maybe Cora is like, "Don't do it." No, because even if clients like tell you what they want, the attorneys, you know, it's their case. Like they they can do it however they want to. So, I don't know. I have a lot of questions about that. Anyways, um I know a lot of people don't like Miss Nester, but I thought she was all right.

[00:11:58]Oh, but I also like Mr. Allessie. I really love his style, but I'm thinking of of all the public defenders that we've seen in all the trials that we've covered so far, um I think yeah, I think Miss Nester is like kind of up there.

[00:12:11]The funniest one, however, sorry, we're going on a tangent right now. The funniest one was Lori Valow's public defender. Oh my god, dude. Like, I could just tell they they [ __ ] they [ __ ] hated her. I think they did.

[00:12:25]>> Was there a time um in February of 2019 that you took a vacation with Eric Richens and Corey Richens and your families?

[00:12:31]>> Yes.

[00:12:31]>> Um no, just the adults.

[00:12:32]>> Just the adults. Okay. No kids were there. And do you remember a conversation during that trip with Corey Richens that stood out to you?

[00:12:38]>> Yes.

[00:12:39]>> Go ahead and describe for the dur what you remember about that conversation.

[00:12:42]Um on our vacation, Cory and I ended up alone for a moment and um we're just talking about our families um life, kids. Um >> your honor, objection. Can we approach?

[00:12:56]>> Yes.

[00:12:57]>> Now, Miss Nester, she's fired up. In sidebar, she says 2019, object to 40143.

[00:13:02]It's been 3 years before his stuff. The court, I'm not even sure what she's going to say, Miss Nester. I don't care what she's going to say. Anything that was said in 2019 is not going to be relevant in this case. The court. Well, we'll see what she's Miss Nester interrupts the judge. Can we vader outside the presence of the jury first just to see what she's going to say? The court. Sure, Miss Nester. Okay. Thank you. So, she's going to do her va. And oh my gosh, do we find a slew information? But I think all of it comes in. Everything that was said outside the presence of the jury is going to be said when the jury comes back in afterwards.

[00:13:38]I'm going to include the rest of the argument. This is that this is the part that we actually did get to listen to.

[00:13:42]Um the reason why is because you know some of you guys may be thinking, okay, 2019, why would a judge allow this conversation from 2019 allowed in? Well, here is a refresher for you guys.

[00:13:53]>> While we were sitting there, we were discussing uh and uh Corey then explained um how things weren't super great in her marriage. Um how she felt trapped. Um she explained to me that there was a prenuptual agreement uh that was put in place and I had never heard of that. Um, she continued to uh say how I think the trapped uh was mostly due to financial is Eric would because of the terms of the financial agreement, Eric would end up bene benefiting financially and continue to live as they currently were where she would uh be in a a different circumstance. Um, she explained how uh she feared that the kids would be drawn to Eric's life and um and felt like she was unhappy in there but feared what it would look like if she uh ended the marriage. According to Miss Mrs. Wright, this conversation took place in February of 2019. Um three years prior more than three years prior to Mr. Richen's death. In the interim in between 2019 and um 2022, the Richens attended marriage counseling um and worked on their marriage and a bunch of water under the bridge. Um this to allow a conversation on a vacation in a situation where two women are just chatting about the condition of their marriage three years. There's certainly no allegation here that Corey Richens was planning to murder her husband three years in advance. outrageously prejuditial due to the temporal um distance in the uh statement that is being made. Um no relevance because it's three years prior. I >> Why isn't it relevant to show that Ms. Richens was aware of the outcome financially that would flow to her uh from a divorce based upon the prenuptual agreement?

[00:15:31]>> She's aware of that when she signs the prenuptual agreement. They've entered the agreement that she signed.

[00:15:34]>> This is Well, I mean, I think you've answered my question. It is relevant to show she's aware of it.

[00:15:38]>> No, sir. The conversation in 2019 certainly isn't relevant. They have introduced a prenuptual agreement that she signed. It's clear that she knew.

[00:15:45]>> I apologize for interrupting you. It's not clear because it doesn't I have no evidence that she read it. I don't have any evidence that she understood it.

[00:15:50]Here I have a witness saying she understood it, was aware of it, was fearful of it, was taking steps to mitigate.

[00:15:57]>> Okay. If that's going to come in over my objection, certainly respect your ruling. We've made our record. But I would ask that all the rest of that conversation be stricken as too far away about being trapped in her marriage, about being unhappy. Everything about that is utterly irrelevant and outrageously prejuditial. and we would ask that it be stricken and only be allowed to say that she discussed her prenuptual agreement and that's it. And we also would like a continuing objection to any questions of this witness about any conversation in 2019.

[00:16:20]We respect your ruling on that.

[00:16:22]>> Okay. So uh defendants objection to the series of questions of Ms. Wright is overruled. The uh testimony that was put on the record through the border requested by defendant is relevant because it shows defendant's uh genuine subjective awareness of what she believed were the financial consequences that would flow to her if the she and her husband divorced. It provides additional proitive value because it shows that she was concerned about uh having less money than her husband if they divorced by virtue of the prenuptual agreement. She was taking steps to mitigate that potential um those p potential financial effects. She was concerned about how her children might associate more with her husband by virtue of the lifestyle that he would be able to maintain in a post divorce financial environment. Uh that is all probitative to the issues in this case and it is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

[00:17:18]>> And quite honestly it it does make sense. All right. Does is it kind of weird that it's have like this tea waving around? I'm just kind of thirsty here. Also, I'm falling asleep a little bit. Um, the reason why the judge wants to have this conversation that yes, it happened many, many, many years ago, but it shows that Corey was aware of what would happen if her and Eric were to split. And Miss Nester, I think she did a pretty good job of bringing it up that like, well, what about the prenup? Corey signed the prenup, but the judge is like, yeah, but it's like I I don't even know if she even understood the prenup.

[00:17:49]This right here shows for sure that in this conversation she for sure understood what was going to happen to her if her and Eric were to split. And that's why it lit a fire in her ass to get a real estate license to go back to school and all that and to try to open her own business and be successful or I guess at least on the surface looked like she was successful. H. Now, Miss Netor is currently doing the cross- examination, and she's trying to get into Allison's role as the bookkeeper of CN Masonry. I'm trying to remember why she would get into this. Maybe it was to show that Corey was on their payroll at some point and not anymore. I don't know. I'm just speculating here.

[00:18:30]>> And do you and your husband uh have joint? Do you share your your marital money or does he keep his business money separate?

[00:18:35]>> Um, we share our marital money for one second. Go ahead. Sure. is outside the building. Correct.

[00:18:41]>> I know Bloodworth seems so amused.

[00:18:43]>> All right. Setting aside your personal financial affairs, you're very aware CN is financial affairs. Correct. Because >> I think he's in disbelief of some of the questions that are coming in from the defense.

[00:18:52]>> Do the bookkeeping.

[00:18:53]>> Correct.

[00:18:54]>> All right. And is still outside?

[00:18:56]>> No, it's not.

[00:18:57]>> Yeah. And please approach. I'm not sure where you're headed here.

[00:19:00]>> Miss Nester, Miss Sharon were both in sidebar with the judge. And Miss Nester is like, "Your honor, Miss Sharpack brought up the bookkeeping. The bookkeeping is on the table and I can talk to her about bookkeeping at CE the court. No, she brought up the bookkeeping to lay foundation for why she would recognize the two checks. Do you have any questions about that, Miss Nester? I have questions about the bookkeeping the court. Then you're going to have to call her in your case and chief. Miss Nester is like, well do. But here's the thing. They end up not calling any witnesses. And I'm like, why? You know, everything that we're watching the trial, it seems like the defense, they had all intents and purposes of calling their witnesses.

[00:19:40]What happened? I want to know so much.

[00:19:42]I'm so nosy. Now, the court's like, "But if you have any questions about the checks, that's within the scope." Miss Nester is like, "Okay, well, we just recall her." I'm asking when we finish with her, she would not be released from her subpoena. So, I wonder if all these people were not released from her subpoenas and then when the defense presented their case and chief, they were like, "Oh, wait. So, we're just held in subpoena for no reason because they am not calling anyone anyways. Oh, man. Before we get into our next sidebar, this is where the judge is going to bring up one of the notes that the jurors gave to him. And it seems like the juror was like, "Oh, oops.

[00:20:16]Somebody testified and I recognized him because I actually had like a business deal with him before."

[00:20:22]>> Ms. Crosswite testified. And after we took that break, um, one of the jurors passed out the following note. I'll read it. I don't think this is an issue, but just letting you know. Quote, "Judge, I have met witness Molly Crosswite professionally. She has done one transaction for a home where I work."

[00:20:38]Any concerns, Mr. Blair?

[00:20:39]>> No. Yeah.

[00:20:42]>> Now, some of you guys are thinking maybe they should have known, you know, cuz I think you're given a list of witnesses and you're asking Vadier if you know any of them. But I think what happened was the witness had her last name changed because she married. The attorneys are all in sidebar. Mr. Ramos is like, "I think it's relevant. It's so he's not an alternate the court. I left out the last two words of that so he wouldn't be identified. Oh, are the last two words his name? Kind of interesting way to phrase it. Miss Nester. So just for the record, he's not not just for the record. Wait, what did she say? Oh, was I'm reading it right. Miss Nester. So just for the record, he's not just for the record, he's not an alternate. Miss Lewis. No, he's not. No. Okay, that's not fair. Miss Louis is not like that.

[00:21:27]It's so hard to No, he's not like that. I think that's okay, right? No, he's not. Mr. Rumls, he's not an alternate. Can we have the lunch to discuss, Miss Nester? Yeah.

[00:21:40]Everyone's like, "Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

[00:21:42]Thank you." So, they're going to discuss over lunch. And I think this juror just ends up being on.

[00:21:48]Yeah, I think he just stayed on. I think he just stayed on. I'm trying to remember what happened. Maybe the defense came back was like, "Hey, maybe we should just remove him." Maybe they just kept him. Do you recognize this?

[00:21:58]>> I do.

[00:21:59]>> What is it?

[00:22:00]>> This is >> generally speaking document you found.

[00:22:02]>> Yeah, this is is a it's a vacation reservation made or that was located inside Miss Rich's device.

[00:22:09]>> I'm going to move to admit um 3-1.

[00:22:15]>> Uh can you zoom out for a second?

[00:22:18]Go back to page one for me.

[00:22:19]>> It's a two-page document. Is that right?

[00:22:21]>> I don't know if there's a third page.

[00:22:22]There's a third page.

[00:22:23]>> $4,000 vacation. Let's go.

[00:22:25]Mr. Authenticity as well as your >> talk about authenticity. Why don't you folks appropriate?

[00:22:36]>> Now we're in Sidebar. Mr. Ramos, he comes up and tells the judge in terms of authenticity is that the document that was found it it didn't indicate where was found on the celebrate report. It doesn't indicate that. By the way, I'm pronouncing it celebrate because if I remember correctly, I think that is how he pronounced it when we heard him in trial. As you can see, it's just it doesn't have any foundation as to where which the court inside the file structure of the device. You mean Mr. Ramos? Correct. Correct. The court.

[00:23:04]Okay. But there's no dispute that it was inside the device. Mr. Ramos, I think there should be a little bit more foundation as to that. The court why, Mr. Ramos? Because I don't think he explained that part of it. But there the proponent is admitting it as document that was contained within the data on Miss Richard's phone. Full stop. Sure.

[00:23:26]Okay. And then and then Miss where Liz, where'd you come from? And then go ahead the court. And then with regard to hearsay, let's back up a little bit and do and examine this piece by piece because I think it'd be better to just kind of break this all down. So initially Mr. Ramos, he his objection, one of them was for authenticity. Now he was saying that well this isn't like produced in a celebrate report so we don't know if it's authentic or not but the judge was like yeah but there's no dispute that it was inside the device.

[00:23:56]So let's move on to the hearsay objection. So this is where Mr. Ramos is going to argue. I think the judge says and then with regard to hearsay mine that's the out of court statement. Well it Mr. Ramos, it's being offered to show that the court, if we're admitting it for the truth, then it's the defendant planned to take this vacation. Oh, wait.

[00:24:20]Did I read that wrong? I did. If we're admitting it for the truth, it's that the defendant planned to take this vacation. I imagine you're going to say it's a business record, Miss Shvanac.

[00:24:29]Again, Miss Sharak is with the state. I mean, it's it comes from vacation express and it's found on her phone. I think the jury can give whatever weight to that. the court. It's not a weight issue. It's an admissibility issue. It's a business record. Mr. Ramos, Mr. Shervin. Yeah. I mean, it's not. Then Mr. Ramos was like, I'm sorry. I don't know if Mr. Ramos is like maybe his mind was busy with something or he couldn't hear what the judge was saying. The court, it's a business record. Mr. Ramos, how do we know that's through this witness? I'm certain they could bring someone else in. He could indicate that he found it and then they could bring it into a witness to show, hey, this is something that's distributed or was sent off in the normal course of business. This is accurate. We've checked our records. This is where it came from. It shows it's on her device.

[00:25:15]Now, remember how typically if there's someone who if there's like an evidence, for example, that's part of like a business record. So, like maybe a receipt at a restaurant, they'll have someone that actually works at the restaurant to authenticate that receipt.

[00:25:28]Or if it's evidence, for example, like a surveillance footage at, you know, like a bar or something, right? They'll have someone that works at the bar to authenticate like, "Yeah, that's our, you know, that's our security camera surveillance system right there." So Mr. Ramos is arguing if it's going to come in as a business record, we need to have someone come in and authenticate it as such. That's my understanding of it.

[00:25:49]Now, the court says, "All right, so why can't the jury consider this not for," bear with me here for a minute, let me use the correct terminology here, why can't it come in for some other purpose such as to show the defendant's state of mind at the time, whether she actually was actually is intending to go, whether she actually went, none of that stuff, but she had a document on her phone that purports to a booking. So, the judge is again going back to, well, let's look at it as a document that was found on Cory's phone. We're not looking at it as a, you know, like a as a document as part of a business record. We're not looking at it as if, you know, there's like authenticity issue, but this is just evidence that was simply just found on Cor's phone, and it shows her state of mind that she was planning on going on this vacation with Josh. Oh boy.

[00:26:39]Okay, that was a mouthful.

[00:26:42]Mr. Ramos says something unaudible, but it's not been shown to that. It doesn't fall under the business record exception one the court. No, it's I'm talking about categor.

[00:26:55]That wasn't me stuttering. That was your internet sitter. Okay, you guys are having internet issues. Fix your internet.

[00:27:02]The judge says it doesn't matter whether she actually intended to go. No, that's not it. What the is it? What the hell?

[00:27:08]Categorical.

[00:27:10]No, it I'm talking about categorical non-H hearsay, Mr. Ramos. Which non-harsay? The court. It doesn't matter whether she actually intended to go.

[00:27:20]It's a document on her phone that purports to show that she was booking a gets interrupted by Mr. Ramos. This doesn't show that she booked it. It shows that it was on her phone. The court, well, she's a contact information.

[00:27:34]Wait, I don't remember what the document looks like. I'm sure I'm going to show you guys what it looks like. Um, but I mean Cory's name is on there. She's a contact information, but Mr. Ramus is like, "Well, how do we know that she booked it?" Yeah, it has her name on it, but still. Maybe someone booked it for Corey. Oh my god, someone gifted Cory a $4,000 vacation with her lover. Nice of them.

[00:27:55]All right, going back to the court.

[00:27:56]Well, she's the contact information.

[00:27:58]Certainly, if you're right about this, you would be right about every single document on the phone. And I don't think that's true, Mr. Ramos. There's no other document that they're seeking to introduce through her phone, the court.

[00:28:10]That's not true. There will be all kinds of web-based search information. Mr. Ramos, those aren't documents. This is a document that was found on her phone.

[00:28:19]And we don't know that she booked it.

[00:28:21]It's simply found on her phone. Yeah.

[00:28:23]You know, tell the jury that and see what they think. The court. Okay. Why can't we just admit it as that? It's a document found on her phone. Mr. Ramos.

[00:28:33]Okay. What's the relevance? The court.

[00:28:36]Well, it shows it shows that somebody with a contact information of Corey Richards was involved with a vacation involving Josh Gman and after the death of his after the date of his death. Oh, I think he's got it mixed up. Vacation involving Josh Gman and then after the date of Eric's death and you can raise all these weight issues, but why isn't this admissible, Mr. Ramos? I would just say it's Robert Gman. The court, it will come in other places. I really don't understand the hearsay. What's the truth that you think this isn't? First of all, this isn't a statement. Second, why do you believe it's a hearsay, Mr. Ramos?

[00:29:14]So, it's not a statement, then it should fall under the business record exception. I don't know, Mr. Ramos a little bit confused here because uh if you look at the the Utah court rules, so there's like hearsay, right? Like, oh, this can't come in because it's hearsay.

[00:29:30]However, the here are the list of exceptions to the hearsay. And one of the exceptions would be like a business record exception. So I'm a little confused why Mr. Ramos is making this argument cuz he's saying it's not a statement. Okay. But since it's not a statement, then it should fall under the business record exception. And then the judge was like, "Wait, what? What are you talking?

[00:29:50]A business record exception is a statement because it is hearsay, but here is the exception that it can come in as Sorry, I don't know that makes sense to you guys." Now, the court, no, that would be a hearsay exception. It has to be an outofc court statement to even be a business record. And the judge again is arguing that this is even a statement. So why are you saying it's hearsay? The court. So what is it being offered under the court? It is offered as a content of her phone during this time period. Mr. Ramos. Okay. So anything during this time period that we want to bring in, we can just say it's on her phone. The court if it's relevant. Miss Lewis. How is this relevant? The court. because it shows a trip that she that would indicate was booked before his death to the vacation after his death. I think the way that's phrased is really confusing, but we get what the judge is trying to say. He's trying to say that we or Cy booked this trip and happened after, you know, Eric died. Mr. Ramos, right? How is that relevant? The court. Well, if she's the one that booked it, it's relevant. Mr. Ramos, correct? And how do we know that she booked it? Okay, we're going in circles here. The court says we don't, Mr. Ramos. Exactly. The court, but I'm not admitting it for that purpose. I'm just admitting it to show the content of the phone. And you through cross-examination, closing arguments can say, if you want to sponsor that argument, can say there's no evidence that she booked this. So again, it's not coming in as a exception to the hearsay through a business record. It's just coming in to just show that, hey guys, we found this on Corey's phone. Um, it's not authenticated. You know, we can't say that she was the one who actually booked it, but either side can argue um, you know, make the arguments for it. So, for the state, obviously, they're going to argue and say, "Well, Corey booked it. Look what we found in her phone, and she's her name is even on there." And then again, the defenses say that, "Well, we don't know who booked it.

[00:31:52]Yeah, it has Cory's name on it. Yeah, it was on Cory's phone, but we don't know if Cory booked it. Maybe it was someone else who did it for her, or maybe someone was gifting her a $4,000 vacation with her lover.

[00:32:05]I'm laughing, but I think, you know, it it is a legitimate argument that the defense um can make, right? All righty.

[00:32:13]I'm getting a little PTSD with uh some people call it gaslighting, some people will call it, you know, or grasping at straws. But again, you know, if there is no actual proof that this person did it, like you saw with their own eyes, you know, like it was caught in surveillance, then the argument could be made, how do you know that Corey booked it? But again, it does feel very gas lady.

[00:32:41]Okay. Um I don't have water here. Oh my gosh, I only have tea here. Oh, my teeth are going to stay.

[00:32:46]>> Mr. Cojim was in analyzing Cory Richen's phone. Did you find documents that were pertinent to this case?

[00:32:51]>> Yes.

[00:32:51]>> And you located those on Corey Richen's device.

[00:32:54]>> Yes. Uh 3-1, a four-page document is admitted.

[00:32:58]>> Do you want to publish?

[00:32:58]>> Yes, please.

[00:33:00]>> Hey, let us see.

[00:33:03]>> And Scott, if we can zoom in on >> Thank you, Scott.

[00:33:10]text messages between Corey and Eric.

[00:33:14]Now, I don't >> think this was really much of a I don't think this was really much. Mr. Ramos wants to give a statement to the jury for purpose.

[00:33:36]So fair reminder, uh, the statements by Ms. Richens on her side of that conversation, you may consider those for any purpose. You may give them the weight you deem appropriate.

[00:33:49]>> Sure.

[00:33:50]>> And the state was like, "Oh, actually, you know what? Maybe we should be a little more specific." So, they're going to go through the text messages. The defense is going to choose which ones they had an issue with. I think for the most part, it was fine. And yeah, not really much happened here, but let's read it.

[00:34:06]Miss Shervinac with the state. I don't know that that was proper hearsay objection to these. I think sorry I'll wait till he comes up here. So I guess Mr. Ramos is like making his way up there. He's now there. I don't know there was a proper hearsay objection to Mr. Richen's statements. The court we've got to be a little specific. Miss Shervinac. Well, his side of this conversation is not hearsay. It's present sense impression. The court not all of it. So, I don't know how deep we're going to go into these, but on this, do you want to be more specific, Miss Shervin? We can be. Yeah. The are you home, Mr. Ramos? What's that? The court. Go ahead. Go on. Miss Shervinac, do you want me to go through it line by line? I mean, I think the whole conversation is present sense impression. the court. I think in asking where she is, are you home wouldn't necessarily, but I don't know that really matters. My greater concern is whether we're going deeper into these missac what do you mean in audible the court with other people? Are there going to be other halves of the conversation between Corey and other people? It's a fair point that we need to be specific.

[00:35:19]Mr. Ramos's suggestion went beyond just this text message. I appreciate the specificity. So, are there portions of this uh Scott toodata? I can't see it.

[00:35:29]22 28 Miss Chevac D the court D that would argue or like for example, are you home is an out of court statement and I'm not sure you're admitting it for the truth anyway. Mr. Bworth, Mr. Where'd you come from? Your honor, inaudible.

[00:35:46]This might be a good time to take a break. The court that's fine, let's do that. Yes, hold that thought. So again, uh, their jury is going to be excused and they're just going through the text messages, making sure everything's good.

[00:35:57]And seems like for the most part, nothing really crazy happens and they all agree and they they move on. So let's go into some of the Oh, let's read some of the messages, I guess, that they were going through.

[00:36:09]>> Green bubble states, are you home? Any objection, Mr. uh Ramos?

[00:36:13]>> No.

[00:36:13]>> Okay. Third bubble says, in the office.

[00:36:15]I've been sleeping out here. That I think is also present sense impression that previously ruled out. Okay. Go to page three, Scott, if there's one. Green bubble. No, it's quiet out here. I think it's the same. Okay. Wish you were here.

[00:36:30]And then a question mark. Mr. Ramos, any objection?

[00:36:32]>> No.

[00:36:32]>> Okay. Go to page six. We are headed in there. Food is on the front seat of my truck.

[00:36:38]>> Any objection, Mr. Ramos?

[00:36:39]>> No.

[00:36:40]>> Okay. So, with respect to 228D, uh, there are no hearsay issues. We've already admitted certain exhibits. And Mr. Shek makes a fair point at sidebar.

[00:36:47]will need to be a little bit uh precise about these going forward. So, we can just slow down. If there comes a time when you need to make a specific objection regarding a specific part of a conversation, just say objection, maybe we approach.

[00:36:58]>> If we can slow through them um and then we'll just >> Yeah, we'll be >> okay. Anything further on that sh?

[00:37:06]>> Yes, your honor. Only that um can you give the jury an instruction now that what you told them before?

[00:37:11]>> I didn't complete the thought, but I can clear that up.

[00:37:12]>> If we could just clarify for them that that blanket rule does not apply to this exhibit. Well, and also I shouldn't call it a blanket rule. So, uh, that they may consider both sides of 228D for any purpose.

[00:37:23]>> Okay.

[00:37:23]>> Thank you.

[00:37:24]>> Thank you. What we'll do is that >> Oh, man. Now we are at the GIFs or GIFs, however you want to pronounce it. I actually like pronouncing it GIF because it reminds me of GIF peanut butter.

[00:37:34]>> Did you also pull um or look at data from Corey Richen's phone from the morning of March 4th, 2022?

[00:37:45]>> Oh, no. Oh, the gifts.

[00:37:48]>> We could show the witness exhibit 3-19.

[00:37:53]>> Not the gifts.

[00:37:56]>> Do you recognize this?

[00:37:57]>> I do.

[00:37:58]>> What is it?

[00:37:59]>> Uh, these are three thumbnails, PNG files recovered from Miss Richen's device.

[00:38:07]>> Does 319 accurately depict the raw data that you analyze from Miss Richen's phone?

[00:38:12]>> Yes. [ __ ] >> Move to admit 3-19.

[00:38:16]>> Yo, guys, here come the gifts. This is This is a few hours after her husband passed away, okay? After she was on the body cam footage on the 911 call crying that something happened to him and she didn't know what happened.

[00:38:29]But these are the three images that were found on Corey's cell phone. So, let's read about the sidebar for this one. We have Mr. Ramos the court and Miss Shervinak here. Mr. Ramos, I'd like to vir the witness in terms of when these were located as well as where they were located in the phone obviously, but I think what's important before they're admitted to the jury is where in the phone they were located, who either sent them or received them, which files are in, whether it is actually that Miss Richens or somebody in the phone accessed it, and how he can show that the court. So, the second two you can do in cross. Would you lay a little more foundation just so we don't have to do this dance on the first several questions? Miss Shervinac, before I admit them, you just want me to ask them the court. Yeah, why don't we let Miss Sharpen? Everyone's like, "Why is everyone interrupting each other?"

[00:39:26]Mrs. Sharpack says something that's inaudible. I didn't write it down where they're located. Mr. Ramos. Yeah, how he how he located them. Mr. Mr. Burmeister.

[00:39:37]How he located them or where? Mr. Ramos.

[00:39:41]Yeah. How he located them. I'm assuming it's going to be somewhere in the extraction report, right? A location, whether it's in the MMS, whether that's temporary storage, whether it's an actual text message going through, whether it was her who received it, her phone, whether it was in a group text. I think I remember in closing that or was it through another witness? Essentially, they were trying to say that, well, we don't know who had access to Corey's phone, someone could have just tooken her phone and done this. Oh, after her husband passed away. Interesting.

[00:40:17]Miss Shervinac. Okay, Mr. Ramos. Just kind of, you know, the court. Yeah, Mr. Ramos. That type of foundation before Miss Shvvenac. So, if I don't do enough, just tell me. The court. Yep. Okay, Mr. Ramos. And while we're up here, I guess assuming they laid enough foundation, the we have an objection under relevance at that point. The court I think I've already ruled on that based on the objection to them being included in the state's opening. And so I'll just for the record note that you reassert defendants objection and the court stand by its 401 402 403 ruling. Mr. Ramos.

[00:40:58]Okay. The court at the time. Mr. Ramos.

[00:41:01]Okay. Thank you. So they're going to continue on with the questioning of this.

[00:41:05]>> So in the image file there's a pathway and so these images were last seen in a SMS. So a text like an iMessage um photo search section is the pathway for those.

[00:41:18]>> Who was she sending this to? She sent this to someone. I feel like that person has to know that she was planning this.

[00:41:26]Why would she send this? Was it her mom?

[00:41:28]Brothers? Who did she send this to?

[00:41:32]meaning it was related to the uh but um and so in the image file there's a pathway and so these images were last seen in a SMS so a text like an iMessage um photo search section is the pathway for those meaning it was related to the uh messaging system inside the device >> in the text message indicated that they were indeed I'm not sure that's what he said, but uh >> if we could get clarification upon that, >> Mr. ask another question about um the I heard the words photo search related to the SMS function, >> right? So, let me uh be a little more precise with my questions.

[00:42:21]>> Okay.

[00:42:22]>> Were these part of a text message >> at some point? Yes. Do you know if that text message um was incoming or outgoing from Miss Richen's device?

[00:42:35]>> No.

[00:42:36]>> Why not? Now, do you want to know why the state doesn't know where these actually originate from? Well, here's why.

[00:42:44]>> Because the original images and the source of these images was deleted from the phone. It no longer exists on the phone. PNG files are what we call ghost or orphaned images. Um, when an image is like when a text is built and you add images to it or when you receive images and you click those, it creates a print of it like basically a thumbnail of it.

[00:43:11]Now, if you send that text or receive that text and then you delete it from your system and the database overwrites it because of time has passed and there's no more room in that file, you'll never know the source of that text, whether it was incoming or outgoing, who sent it, that type of thing. All you're going to see is the remnant of that. And that's what these are, the small PNG files.

[00:43:35]>> Again, move to admit 3-19. Here it comes. We renew our objection. At this point, it seems like it's a what Mr. found is a remnant of something.

[00:43:46]>> I understand defendants's objection. It is respectfully overruled. You can explore these topics during cross-examination.

[00:43:55]>> Uh, states exhibit 3-9 is admitted.

[00:43:59]>> We could publish, please.

[00:44:08]But these are the images you were just describing.

[00:44:10]>> Yes.

[00:44:12]>> So, you're telling me that someone using Cory's phone could have accessed these GIFs on a text message. Okay. Maybe they were the one that sent it. You know, we don't even know if it wasn't even sent on Cory's device or what, right?

[00:44:28]But not only that, well, it seems like somebody also deleted these man. I wonder most likely who would have done both actions. Who was the one that most likely, you know, if it was found on their phone could have accessed it on their text message search bar? Mhm. Looking for memes that could relate to how they're feeling. And then additionally, who would possibly want to delete them on their phone? Man, I just feel like Corey and Corey just seems the right fit right there. I don't know about that.

[00:45:00]What do you guys think? All right, let's jump over to the web search history on Corey's phone. Um, oh man, these search histories were pretty bad. So, you guys remember how there were two devices that were confiscated? Well, not confiscated, but they were taken in and oh my gosh, you would think Corey learned her lesson. They took her phone and they, you know, try to get as much data as they can from it, but she deleted a lot of stuff. However, she bought a she purchased a new phone and they also took that phone away. And you would think that she would be a little bit smarter this time. No, we still had some incriminating things on the second device. Here are some things that she was searching. Can cops force you to do a lie detector test? Not that bad.

[00:45:45]Luxury prisons for the rich in America.

[00:45:48]H death certificate says pending. Will life insurance still pay? If someone is poisoned, what does it go down on the death certificate as? Isn't it kind of interesting she used a key term poisoned, not overdose? H how to permanently delete information from an iPhone remotely. There's this other article that had some other searches that were these were like blurbed out.

[00:46:14]For example, how to undo microlading.

[00:46:17]Good luck with that. What kind of doctor was Dr. Pepper?

[00:46:22]Little Nas X married. Interesting. Um, she also looked up Corey Richen's commas net worth. I wonder if that popped up with any um information back then. H Do you recognize this?

[00:46:37]>> I do.

[00:46:37]>> Are these web searches that were located on that blue iPhone?

[00:46:41]>> Yes.

[00:46:43]>> If you could show uh Scott 3-29D.

[00:46:46]>> Uhoh.

[00:46:48]>> Do you recognize this?

[00:46:50]>> Yes.

[00:46:50]>> These also web searches that were located on the blue iPhone.

[00:46:53]>> Yes. And then Scott also 3-30D.

[00:46:58]Same question. Is this a web search that was located on that blue iPhone?

[00:47:02]>> Yeah, this is a web history.

[00:47:03]>> A web history.

[00:47:04]>> Yes. Which meaning the difference is one one thing is a search, the other is a site visit, >> a website visit.

[00:47:10]>> And do these three exhibits uh 3-2060, 3-2090, and 3-30D accurately depict the raw data that you analyzed for that blue iPhone?

[00:47:17]>> Yes.

[00:47:18]>> I'll move to admit those three.

[00:47:20]>> Mr. dramas.

[00:47:21]>> We don't have an objection to the searches the we have an objection as to how they're going to be presented, meaning that that redaction. My understanding is that Mr. Coin did not make those redactions. So, I'd like to approach and um present um a proposal on how to get it.

[00:47:38]>> Forgive me. Are the redactions is that deleted information or redacted information? Miss Shervinac, I think it was redacted in audible because it's irrelevant. Okay. There are web searches that don't pertain at all to what we're doing here. Can we just tell the jury so they don't speculate? Mr. Ramos. Yeah.

[00:48:00]So, the only thing I was going to and in speaking with Mr. Coach Deeimos, there's those little check marks. He can just reproduce that without the big blue. And I think that's cleaner for the jury that they just have the lines one by one instead of having these big blocks.

[00:48:15]That's my only suggestion because he didn't make those the court. Well, but that would break up Miss Shervinac's presentation of the evidence at the moment. Yes, it would. Mr. Ramos, I I was just going to say to publish it. I don't know if you need to publish it right now. We can just publish it. Give it to the jury but in a different format. the Shervinac. I don't My only problem with that is that this shows there's activity ongoing, not just these searches. And so although they're not relevant, it just shows he did a complete review of everything. The court can we just come back to my point? I any any objection to just instructing the jury that the blue blobs are redacted because they're not relevant. Do not speculate what the nonrelevant information is under the blue blobs. Mr. Ramos. I mean, if your honor feels that's the best problem, the best. No problem. The court, I think that's cleaner. Any objections, Miss Shervin?

[00:49:12]She doesn't have any objections and then they move on from these blue blobers.

[00:49:17]Oh boy, that is all that we got today for the Corey Rich and trial sidebars.

[00:49:21]We'll continue with the other trial dates. Uh, we're just moving along at a at a pretty slow pace. I have to admit, usually I'm a lot quicker with my videos, but honestly, like I said before, editing long format kind of just got the juice just got sucked out of me when I was doing the trial coverage. So, I'm just back to just trying to do like, you know, shorter videos. Although, I think this video might be almost an hour long or maybe 45 minutes. Still kind of long, I guess.

[00:49:46]Anyways, guys, enjoy the rest of your weekend. You guys have a good one. Take care. Again, if you're new here, don't forget to hit the subscribe button. Uh it'll be great to have you guys back.

[00:49:55]you know, stop by, say hi in the live streams whenever we do them. And if you guys enjoyed this video, hit the like button. We also cover other cases as well. Check out our other playlist for Murdoch, for we got who else we got?

[00:50:09]Miss Aden, oh boy. Uh Sarah Boone, you know, look like top three crazy ones right there. Uh Lorie Valow, also another one. But we are also recovering the Murdoch case because his conviction has been overturned. I've got my eyes on the Lex Trazo stuff. waiting on the Supreme Court to finally decide whether or not going to they if they're going to allow key evidence in. For some reason, my gut reaction says no. Based on how the hearing went, I feel like they're not going to let that evidence. Anyway, so yeah, I'll let you guys uh know if I hear anything about that. I'll keep you updated. Other than that, guys, thank you so much for watching. Have a good one. Take care and I'll see you guys later. Bye.

[00:50:47]Did it look psycho when I smile like that? I don't know. It's It still feels weird to speak to a camera. I don't know.