WEBVTT - Grief Author Murder Trial: Pill Popping Testimony Leads to Fiery Exchange

0:00:02.120 --> 0:00:06.200
<v Speaker 1>Hey, there hopes. It is Monday, March ninth, and the

0:00:06.240 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>third week of the soul called Grief Author murder trial

0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:13.000
<v Speaker 1>is underway. And whoa, there was some fireworks in the

0:00:13.039 --> 0:00:17.520
<v Speaker 1>courtroom today and the jury wasn't even around to hear it.

0:00:17.640 --> 0:00:19.919
<v Speaker 1>With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.

0:00:20.000 --> 0:00:21.400
<v Speaker 1>Let's start with this first. Do you know what a

0:00:21.440 --> 0:00:24.120
<v Speaker 1>red devil is? When it comes to a pill called

0:00:24.120 --> 0:00:24.680
<v Speaker 1>a red devil?

0:00:24.720 --> 0:00:27.880
<v Speaker 2>You know what? It doesn't sound good, It doesn't sound legal,

0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 2>and it sounds dangerous.

0:00:29.200 --> 0:00:30.040
<v Speaker 1>Does it sound familiar?

0:00:30.200 --> 0:00:32.080
<v Speaker 3>It doesn't sound familiar, ring bells.

0:00:32.120 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 2>No, No, And actually I just googled it because this

0:00:35.159 --> 0:00:38.680
<v Speaker 2>has been a huge source of or a huge topic

0:00:38.720 --> 0:00:44.080
<v Speaker 2>of conversation in the Corey Richins Grief Author murder trial.

0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:47.960
<v Speaker 2>Because yes, the defense is trying to blame the victim

0:00:48.280 --> 0:00:52.879
<v Speaker 2>and trying to establish or is hoping to establish that

0:00:53.120 --> 0:00:58.440
<v Speaker 2>Eric Richins, the father of three who died with fentanyl poisoning,

0:00:59.560 --> 0:01:03.840
<v Speaker 2>was so somehow some illicit drug user and used something

0:01:03.880 --> 0:01:06.200
<v Speaker 2>called red devil when he was in high school.

0:01:06.200 --> 0:01:08.240
<v Speaker 1>When he was in high school, is the key nugget

0:01:08.480 --> 0:01:10.639
<v Speaker 1>when he was in high school? Yes, folks, the third

0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:12.760
<v Speaker 1>week of this trial is underway. I mean, if you

0:01:12.800 --> 0:01:14.480
<v Speaker 1>know the story by now, but this is happening out

0:01:14.520 --> 0:01:18.280
<v Speaker 1>in Utah. Yes, Court Richards wrote a children's book to

0:01:18.400 --> 0:01:21.360
<v Speaker 1>help kids deal with grief, and she wrote it after,

0:01:21.560 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>according to prosecutors, she killed her own husband by poisoning

0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:28.120
<v Speaker 1>him with fentanyl by putting it into his drink. So

0:01:28.400 --> 0:01:31.200
<v Speaker 1>rose the first day of this trial, when they did

0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:36.360
<v Speaker 1>opening statements, you and I did an episode and it

0:01:36.400 --> 0:01:37.840
<v Speaker 1>was one of the first things we say, Oh, we

0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:39.640
<v Speaker 1>see the strategy, blame the victim.

0:01:39.760 --> 0:01:42.880
<v Speaker 2>Ye, it's playing out absolutely, And that is what the

0:01:42.959 --> 0:01:47.360
<v Speaker 2>defense was trying to get into official testimony, trying to

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:52.640
<v Speaker 2>get the jurors to hear. And yeah, she the defense attorney,

0:01:52.680 --> 0:01:54.080
<v Speaker 2>got extremely frustrated.

0:01:54.120 --> 0:01:55.440
<v Speaker 3>It was very contentious.

0:01:55.760 --> 0:01:59.960
<v Speaker 2>I have not heard a defense attorney be that combat

0:02:00.200 --> 0:02:04.520
<v Speaker 2>with the judge in any trial I've ever witnessed or watched.

0:02:04.600 --> 0:02:05.600
<v Speaker 1>Don't know what this gets here.

0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:08.600
<v Speaker 2>It was interesting because, yeah, you don't want to piss

0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:10.720
<v Speaker 2>off the person who is going to have a huge

0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:13.799
<v Speaker 2>impact on what jurors hear, what they don't here gives

0:02:13.880 --> 0:02:17.680
<v Speaker 2>jury instructions and certainly ultimately decides on sentencing if your

0:02:17.680 --> 0:02:21.440
<v Speaker 2>client's found guilty. So it was just an interesting, fairly

0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:22.480
<v Speaker 2>explosive moment.

0:02:23.360 --> 0:02:25.480
<v Speaker 1>She's been like this throughout the trial and some just

0:02:25.520 --> 0:02:28.120
<v Speaker 1>have that. Okay, she's a little more combative at times,

0:02:28.200 --> 0:02:29.880
<v Speaker 1>that's fine. She's pleasant when she needs to be and

0:02:29.919 --> 0:02:32.760
<v Speaker 1>say thank you and she'll smile. But hey, yeah, there's

0:02:32.760 --> 0:02:35.320
<v Speaker 1>no way of denying. So this back and forth happened

0:02:35.360 --> 0:02:38.040
<v Speaker 1>today because of Cody Wright being on the stand. Now,

0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>Cody right, Rose, we talk about Corey Richand's lover being

0:02:42.200 --> 0:02:46.040
<v Speaker 1>a key witness. This guy might be more key than anything.

0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:49.200
<v Speaker 1>He is so important. Cody Wright is a good, good friend,

0:02:49.240 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 1>and he was the business partner of Eric Richins, who

0:02:52.960 --> 0:02:56.360
<v Speaker 1>was allegedly murdered by his wife. C and E is

0:02:56.360 --> 0:02:58.720
<v Speaker 1>the name of their company, Cody and Eric. So you've

0:02:58.760 --> 0:03:00.320
<v Speaker 1>been hearing c and E a lot. That's where it

0:03:00.320 --> 0:03:03.240
<v Speaker 1>comes from. So this guy knows him really really well,

0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:06.520
<v Speaker 1>knows him so well, and he's been testifying Robes that No,

0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:09.200
<v Speaker 1>I didn't know of him using drugs. I never saw

0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:13.960
<v Speaker 1>him using drugs. He never certainly did this around me. Okay,

0:03:14.320 --> 0:03:17.080
<v Speaker 1>that's the basis and the foundation for some of his testimony.

0:03:17.120 --> 0:03:20.480
<v Speaker 1>But then Robes where the defense thought they saw an opening.

0:03:20.520 --> 0:03:24.280
<v Speaker 1>It's because they asked him about drug use of eric

0:03:24.320 --> 0:03:27.160
<v Speaker 1>Richins when he was in high school, and so he

0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:32.360
<v Speaker 1>mentioned he popped pills pop pills. So the defense hears

0:03:32.360 --> 0:03:35.920
<v Speaker 1>that and goes, wait a minute, this guy testified previously

0:03:35.960 --> 0:03:38.560
<v Speaker 1>that he didn't know about him using drugs, and now

0:03:38.600 --> 0:03:41.400
<v Speaker 1>he's saying back in high school he heard about popping pills.

0:03:42.080 --> 0:03:44.040
<v Speaker 1>I thought it was a stretch, but they're trying to

0:03:44.080 --> 0:03:47.320
<v Speaker 1>do their thing. That is the basis for the argument

0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:51.880
<v Speaker 1>that started. The judge he heard her out, but it

0:03:51.920 --> 0:03:55.960
<v Speaker 1>came down to Robes, there's a difference between using drugs

0:03:56.000 --> 0:03:59.360
<v Speaker 1>and using illicit drugs. It really came down.

0:03:59.240 --> 0:04:02.280
<v Speaker 2>To this, accordant to It was fascinating to hear the

0:04:02.320 --> 0:04:06.520
<v Speaker 2>back and forth between whether or not prescription drugs that

0:04:06.800 --> 0:04:12.400
<v Speaker 2>aren't prescribed to you, if you use said drugs, can

0:04:12.440 --> 0:04:17.160
<v Speaker 2>they be considered illicit drugs. The defense was arguing that

0:04:17.240 --> 0:04:22.000
<v Speaker 2>they can be and should be. The judge very aptly said,

0:04:22.680 --> 0:04:26.120
<v Speaker 2>I think there is a difference between an FDA approved

0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:29.920
<v Speaker 2>drug that is taken by someone who it wasn't prescribed

0:04:29.960 --> 0:04:33.359
<v Speaker 2>to versus someone going out on the street and getting

0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:35.760
<v Speaker 2>a non FDA approved drug.

0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:37.799
<v Speaker 3>And that actually really brought it home.

0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:40.400
<v Speaker 1>And it makes sense she wasn't buying it doesn't work

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:43.440
<v Speaker 1>for her client, But isn't that what we're talking What

0:04:43.560 --> 0:04:46.880
<v Speaker 1>is an illicit drug? Is the question correct?

0:04:46.920 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 2>And so ilicit basically means illegal, correctly.

0:04:50.360 --> 0:04:53.800
<v Speaker 1>Legal, something you bought in a dark alley somewhere, something

0:04:54.240 --> 0:05:00.400
<v Speaker 1>not prescribed, something definitely illegal is an illicit drugs? Is

0:05:00.400 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 1>it illicit drugs?

0:05:01.320 --> 0:05:01.560
<v Speaker 2>Yes?

0:05:01.720 --> 0:05:04.160
<v Speaker 1>Do you find it? I mean the argument she was

0:05:04.160 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 1>trying to make, if you stop on that for a second,

0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:10.000
<v Speaker 1>he acquired them in a way that they weren't prescribed

0:05:10.000 --> 0:05:12.880
<v Speaker 1>to him. Therefore that's illicit drug use.

0:05:13.080 --> 0:05:15.440
<v Speaker 2>But the whole point is the defense is trying to

0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:19.200
<v Speaker 2>make some sort of other scenario in which Eric Richards

0:05:19.200 --> 0:05:23.760
<v Speaker 2>could have ingested fentanyl. So, if you are on the

0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:27.479
<v Speaker 2>black market, if you are buying illicit drugs, could they

0:05:28.240 --> 0:05:32.000
<v Speaker 2>be laced with fentanyls. Certainly we've seen cases like this

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:35.120
<v Speaker 2>in this country. So this is what they're trying to establish.

0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:39.320
<v Speaker 2>They're trying to give the jury another version of how

0:05:39.480 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 2>fentanyl could have gotten into Eric Richards's system, and so

0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:46.200
<v Speaker 2>they're trying to establish that by suggesting Eric Richins was

0:05:46.240 --> 0:05:50.720
<v Speaker 2>addicted to drugs, was addicted to painkillers, would go about

0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:53.760
<v Speaker 2>any means in which to acquire them. So they were

0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:55.960
<v Speaker 2>trying to set this up. But the interesting thing about

0:05:56.080 --> 0:06:00.159
<v Speaker 2>Cody Wright is that he is LDS. He is a

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:04.239
<v Speaker 2>practicing Mormon, meaning not only does he not take drugs

0:06:04.240 --> 0:06:08.279
<v Speaker 2>for religious reasons, he doesn't drink, he doesn't drink alcohol,

0:06:08.320 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 2>I should say, he doesn't drink caffeine. All of the

0:06:10.680 --> 0:06:14.440
<v Speaker 2>things we basically know about LDS folks. So her point was,

0:06:14.600 --> 0:06:17.359
<v Speaker 2>even if he were doing those things, he wouldn't do

0:06:17.400 --> 0:06:20.000
<v Speaker 2>them in front of you. He wouldn't tell them about

0:06:20.400 --> 0:06:24.520
<v Speaker 2>tell it about them, sorry, tell it to you. Because

0:06:25.560 --> 0:06:28.840
<v Speaker 2>he respects your religion, he respects how you live your life,

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 2>and so wouldn't it be reasonable that you wouldn't know

0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:36.440
<v Speaker 2>about his drug use or you wouldn't know about something.

0:06:36.480 --> 0:06:38.479
<v Speaker 2>So the whole point is he had to talk about

0:06:38.480 --> 0:06:40.919
<v Speaker 2>what he heard about, which is hearsay, which is a

0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:43.400
<v Speaker 2>whole big no no in a courtroom. So it was

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:46.159
<v Speaker 2>really fascinating to see how she was trying to get

0:06:46.440 --> 0:06:49.960
<v Speaker 2>this testimony into record, or at least let the jury

0:06:50.040 --> 0:06:51.680
<v Speaker 2>hear this suggestion.

0:06:52.240 --> 0:06:52.760
<v Speaker 3>But she was.

0:06:52.760 --> 0:06:56.120
<v Speaker 1>Struggling in it all boils down to she's trying to

0:06:56.160 --> 0:06:59.960
<v Speaker 1>say this witness impeached himself, not perjure, but in peace.

0:07:00.320 --> 0:07:02.000
<v Speaker 1>You said one thing, and now you're coming back and

0:07:02.040 --> 0:07:04.680
<v Speaker 1>saying something else. The reason the judge is shutting that

0:07:04.800 --> 0:07:08.520
<v Speaker 1>down is because, lady, he's not impeaching himself. He saw

0:07:08.560 --> 0:07:12.200
<v Speaker 1>the guy pop a pill that's different from illicit drug use,

0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:14.560
<v Speaker 1>and he didn't even know what the pill was. He said,

0:07:14.600 --> 0:07:17.320
<v Speaker 1>I think they called them red devils. We had to

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:19.280
<v Speaker 1>hear this phrase. We had heard it once, Froze. We

0:07:19.320 --> 0:07:21.400
<v Speaker 1>heard it five thousand times in court today. Red devil?

0:07:21.400 --> 0:07:25.440
<v Speaker 1>What's a red devil? And apparently it's changed over time.

0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:27.600
<v Speaker 1>Back in the sixties and the seventies, is the red

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:29.840
<v Speaker 1>devil was one thing. Back in the eighties and nineties

0:07:29.840 --> 0:07:31.720
<v Speaker 1>it was another, and today it might mean something else.

0:07:33.080 --> 0:07:35.160
<v Speaker 1>This all boils down to a red devil that he

0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:38.560
<v Speaker 1>thought wasn't even an illicit drug.

0:07:39.000 --> 0:07:39.520
<v Speaker 3>Well, yeah it was.

0:07:39.960 --> 0:07:42.400
<v Speaker 2>It was not a high moment for the defense, and

0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:45.880
<v Speaker 2>she pressed him on what he thought red devils meant,

0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:50.280
<v Speaker 2>because if you google it, you'll see that it's an addictive, barbituate, sedative,

0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:53.840
<v Speaker 2>hypnotic bright red pill. Okay, that's what she wanted him

0:07:53.840 --> 0:07:56.640
<v Speaker 2>to say, but instead he said, I think it's sudafed.

0:07:57.240 --> 0:08:00.440
<v Speaker 3>That was a big wamp wall for her.

0:08:00.920 --> 0:08:03.960
<v Speaker 1>The guy was believable in that he was clueless about drugs.

0:08:04.200 --> 0:08:07.360
<v Speaker 1>He was in that regard. He just did in his lane.

0:08:07.480 --> 0:08:09.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, but for him to even go and guess that

0:08:09.800 --> 0:08:12.640
<v Speaker 2>it was sudafed really took the wind out of her sails.

0:08:12.920 --> 0:08:16.720
<v Speaker 2>She wanted it to be much more potent and yes,

0:08:16.840 --> 0:08:20.480
<v Speaker 2>an illegal illicit drug. That's what she was hoping he

0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:22.880
<v Speaker 2>would say that he thought it might have been something

0:08:22.960 --> 0:08:25.680
<v Speaker 2>like that. Instead, he said, suda fed, this is up

0:08:25.680 --> 0:08:27.320
<v Speaker 2>in front of us right now, what do you take?

0:08:27.400 --> 0:08:29.360
<v Speaker 1>I you know, what, what do you take? You've been watching

0:08:29.400 --> 0:08:36.360
<v Speaker 1>closely of her reaction, her not quite emotion, but her

0:08:36.400 --> 0:08:41.520
<v Speaker 1>demeanor and her reactions in court maybe last week and

0:08:41.559 --> 0:08:42.079
<v Speaker 1>even today.

0:08:42.240 --> 0:08:46.120
<v Speaker 2>Corey Richins has does not have a poker face. Let's

0:08:46.160 --> 0:08:49.120
<v Speaker 2>just say that I have seen her many many times

0:08:49.200 --> 0:08:55.000
<v Speaker 2>raising an eyebrow, furrowing her brow, looking puzzled, confused, annoyed,

0:08:55.600 --> 0:09:01.280
<v Speaker 2>and like absolutely reacting to testimony, basically calling it into

0:09:01.400 --> 0:09:02.600
<v Speaker 2>question in her face.

0:09:02.760 --> 0:09:04.760
<v Speaker 3>I can see it, and you know the jury is

0:09:04.800 --> 0:09:09.280
<v Speaker 3>watching her. So she is having many, many, many emotional reactions.

0:09:09.320 --> 0:09:11.760
<v Speaker 2>She'll tilt her head if she doesn't think what they

0:09:11.800 --> 0:09:14.559
<v Speaker 2>said was correct or the way she remembers it.

0:09:14.760 --> 0:09:16.439
<v Speaker 3>She is absolutely expressive.

0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:19.280
<v Speaker 1>Is it just me where it seems like she's gotten

0:09:19.320 --> 0:09:22.199
<v Speaker 1>more expressive as we've gone along, because we along because

0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:25.000
<v Speaker 1>we were staring at her certainly that first week looking

0:09:25.000 --> 0:09:27.360
<v Speaker 1>for anything. Now it's not hard to find something.

0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:30.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, she might be getting more comfortable, you know she's coming.

0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:32.360
<v Speaker 2>This is week three of the trial. She's been listening

0:09:32.400 --> 0:09:36.360
<v Speaker 2>to pretty incredible testimony. And I say incredible because I

0:09:36.440 --> 0:09:40.120
<v Speaker 2>just can't imagine being in that situation hearing people talk

0:09:40.160 --> 0:09:42.960
<v Speaker 2>about what I did, what I said, And if you know,

0:09:43.240 --> 0:09:46.400
<v Speaker 2>look anybody, even if you aren't on trial, you hear

0:09:46.480 --> 0:09:51.040
<v Speaker 2>someone else relay what they think happened in a conversation

0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:54.199
<v Speaker 2>or in a moment, and almost certainly you're not gonna

0:09:54.200 --> 0:09:56.040
<v Speaker 2>remember it in the same way. So you kind of

0:09:56.080 --> 0:09:59.880
<v Speaker 2>you see her reacting to visibly to witness this testim

0:10:00.840 --> 0:10:04.520
<v Speaker 2>and you can see she's in disagreement with a lot

0:10:04.559 --> 0:10:06.439
<v Speaker 2>of what is being said. Now, this is the prosecution

0:10:06.559 --> 0:10:08.520
<v Speaker 2>putting on their case, so it would make sense that

0:10:08.559 --> 0:10:11.680
<v Speaker 2>she would disagree with some of the testimony that's out there.

0:10:11.679 --> 0:10:13.640
<v Speaker 3>But certainly the jurors are watching her.

0:10:14.880 --> 0:10:17.160
<v Speaker 1>But we're talking about here, how big of a deal

0:10:17.720 --> 0:10:19.360
<v Speaker 1>this testimony.

0:10:20.320 --> 0:10:20.440
<v Speaker 2>Is.

0:10:21.320 --> 0:10:23.760
<v Speaker 1>Well, stay here, we'll let you hear how big of

0:10:23.800 --> 0:10:29.760
<v Speaker 1>a deal the defense says. This is in fact, they say,

0:10:29.800 --> 0:10:32.760
<v Speaker 1>if they were able to have their way in court today,

0:10:32.840 --> 0:10:36.679
<v Speaker 1>it would prove that Corey Richins is innocent.

0:10:36.720 --> 0:10:48.920
<v Speaker 2>Stay here, Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We

0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:52.920
<v Speaker 2>are still riveted watching the Corey Richins trial. It is

0:10:53.080 --> 0:10:56.880
<v Speaker 2>day ten in the grief author murder trial. As you

0:10:56.920 --> 0:10:59.719
<v Speaker 2>may remember, we told you but this just can't make

0:10:59.760 --> 0:11:02.199
<v Speaker 2>this up. She wrote a children's book helping her kids

0:11:02.240 --> 0:11:04.600
<v Speaker 2>and other people's kids grieve with the death of a parent,

0:11:04.960 --> 0:11:08.600
<v Speaker 2>and here she stands accused of murdering her husband. And

0:11:08.640 --> 0:11:11.760
<v Speaker 2>it has been a very dramatic day in court to date,

0:11:11.800 --> 0:11:14.320
<v Speaker 2>and a lot of the drama happened outside of the

0:11:14.400 --> 0:11:19.800
<v Speaker 2>juror's ears, where we have heard the defense make or

0:11:19.880 --> 0:11:24.200
<v Speaker 2>take issue with the judge not allowing them to impeach

0:11:24.760 --> 0:11:28.240
<v Speaker 2>Cody Wright, that is Eric Richards's business partner, that was

0:11:28.240 --> 0:11:31.560
<v Speaker 2>one of his best friends. And they think they believe

0:11:31.880 --> 0:11:34.920
<v Speaker 2>he has changed his testimony, that he went from first

0:11:34.960 --> 0:11:37.920
<v Speaker 2>answering a question saying that he had never seen Eric

0:11:38.040 --> 0:11:43.120
<v Speaker 2>Richards his friend or never knew that his friend actually

0:11:43.480 --> 0:11:44.480
<v Speaker 2>had anything.

0:11:44.160 --> 0:11:45.640
<v Speaker 3>To do with illicit drug use.

0:11:45.720 --> 0:11:47.839
<v Speaker 2>And then the defense says, hey, wait a minute, now

0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:51.600
<v Speaker 2>he's talking about red Devil's Red Devil pills. I want

0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:53.720
<v Speaker 2>to go back. The defense wants to go back and

0:11:53.800 --> 0:11:55.520
<v Speaker 2>call him out on it, and the judge said, no,

0:11:55.720 --> 0:11:57.880
<v Speaker 2>he didn't say anything different than what he said before.

0:11:58.200 --> 0:12:01.839
<v Speaker 2>And so the defense is now so basically saying, this

0:12:02.480 --> 0:12:05.960
<v Speaker 2>will be grounds for an appeal if my client is convicted.

0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:09.400
<v Speaker 1>And that's a look that makes the judge pay attention.

0:12:09.880 --> 0:12:12.240
<v Speaker 1>He was starting to get annoyed with the defense attorney's

0:12:12.320 --> 0:12:15.200
<v Speaker 1>round and around. She started throwing things out like this

0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:18.479
<v Speaker 1>is an impediment to a fair trial. You are violating

0:12:18.559 --> 0:12:21.120
<v Speaker 1>our constitutional right to a fair trial to put on

0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:24.839
<v Speaker 1>her defense. If judge wasn't having it. He gave a moment.

0:12:25.160 --> 0:12:30.280
<v Speaker 1>He said, you know what, prosecutor, I'll ask you, would

0:12:30.360 --> 0:12:33.560
<v Speaker 1>you allow me to let her go ahead and do

0:12:33.640 --> 0:12:35.400
<v Speaker 1>what she wants to do on the defense side, and

0:12:35.800 --> 0:12:39.800
<v Speaker 1>maybe this eliminates even the possibility of a particular appeal.

0:12:40.480 --> 0:12:43.760
<v Speaker 1>The prosecution took their time and chatted about it for

0:12:43.840 --> 0:12:44.600
<v Speaker 1>a second.

0:12:46.200 --> 0:12:48.800
<v Speaker 3>And then they came back and said.

0:12:48.880 --> 0:12:52.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, no, no, no, we don't want her to go

0:12:52.120 --> 0:12:53.160
<v Speaker 2>back and ask those question.

0:12:53.200 --> 0:12:55.439
<v Speaker 3>It's not going to happen, not on our watch.

0:12:55.520 --> 0:12:58.160
<v Speaker 2>So they did take a moment, but so they know

0:12:58.360 --> 0:13:01.360
<v Speaker 2>they know that by doing this, the defense is absolutely

0:13:01.400 --> 0:13:04.320
<v Speaker 2>going to pursue an appeal based on this at least this.

0:13:04.679 --> 0:13:07.200
<v Speaker 2>There could be more reasons why they do it, but this,

0:13:07.320 --> 0:13:09.000
<v Speaker 2>they've certainly made it clear. This is going to be

0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:12.120
<v Speaker 2>one of them. But you tease this going into the break,

0:13:12.679 --> 0:13:18.200
<v Speaker 2>the attorney for Corey Richins flat out said if she

0:13:18.480 --> 0:13:22.559
<v Speaker 2>were allowed to question Cody Wright the way she wanted

0:13:22.600 --> 0:13:26.560
<v Speaker 2>to question him, that she could prove that her client

0:13:26.640 --> 0:13:28.920
<v Speaker 2>was innocent. She said, if Eric Richards, if we can

0:13:29.000 --> 0:13:32.400
<v Speaker 2>hear that he absolutely was taking illicit drugs, that he

0:13:32.600 --> 0:13:35.880
<v Speaker 2>was using these pills or had used these pills called

0:13:35.960 --> 0:13:40.520
<v Speaker 2>Red Devils, that would absolutely prove that my client is innocent.

0:13:40.559 --> 0:13:41.840
<v Speaker 1>I thought that was a little bit of a stretch.

0:13:41.920 --> 0:13:45.000
<v Speaker 1>This was high school. He used some pills. He popped

0:13:45.000 --> 0:13:47.520
<v Speaker 1>some pills in high school, so that translates to now

0:13:48.200 --> 0:13:51.880
<v Speaker 1>two decades later than that proves he was a drug

0:13:51.920 --> 0:13:54.840
<v Speaker 1>addict and therefore Corey Richards is innocent. That was a

0:13:54.880 --> 0:13:58.360
<v Speaker 1>bit of a stretch, but she used that phrase, if

0:13:58.840 --> 0:14:04.840
<v Speaker 1>Eric Richards was a drug addict, Corey Richins is innocent. Period.

0:14:05.200 --> 0:14:08.040
<v Speaker 1>They really do, sweetheart. It sounds like they're banking on

0:14:08.200 --> 0:14:11.000
<v Speaker 1>convincing somebody in that jury that this dude, you keep

0:14:11.080 --> 0:14:12.599
<v Speaker 1>hitting them over the head with this guy having a

0:14:12.679 --> 0:14:16.920
<v Speaker 1>drug problem, and they might think he drugged himself.

0:14:17.080 --> 0:14:18.480
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, we kept hearing today.

0:14:18.880 --> 0:14:22.600
<v Speaker 2>In fact, the defense attorney kept asking Cody right about

0:14:23.080 --> 0:14:29.080
<v Speaker 2>Eric's back pain, about Eric's knee pain, about his lime disease,

0:14:29.120 --> 0:14:32.520
<v Speaker 2>and how painful he said it was, how often he

0:14:32.600 --> 0:14:34.720
<v Speaker 2>may have missed work or didn't go to work because

0:14:34.720 --> 0:14:37.200
<v Speaker 2>he was in pain. So, yes, they are absolutely trying

0:14:37.200 --> 0:14:40.760
<v Speaker 2>to establish that Eric Richards was in chronic pain and

0:14:40.800 --> 0:14:45.479
<v Speaker 2>therefore the only way he could function was to alleviate

0:14:45.520 --> 0:14:48.480
<v Speaker 2>the pain by becoming a drug addict, and that is

0:14:48.520 --> 0:14:49.480
<v Speaker 2>what they're trying to establish.

0:14:49.560 --> 0:14:50.920
<v Speaker 1>Las two things I will ask you make sure I

0:14:50.920 --> 0:14:55.920
<v Speaker 1>didn't overlook one. Have they proven, at any point confirmed

0:14:56.240 --> 0:15:01.640
<v Speaker 1>that he ever bought himself pills? No, they got the

0:15:01.640 --> 0:15:02.880
<v Speaker 1>marijuana gumm's everybody.

0:15:02.760 --> 0:15:03.800
<v Speaker 3>They've got the marijuana gummy.

0:15:03.880 --> 0:15:07.800
<v Speaker 1>But have we established yet that he purchased any pill

0:15:07.920 --> 0:15:09.960
<v Speaker 1>anywhere on his own for himself?

0:15:10.040 --> 0:15:11.840
<v Speaker 2>Is that right, Well, I haven't heard that yet, but

0:15:11.880 --> 0:15:14.080
<v Speaker 2>we should say that the defense hasn't put on their

0:15:15.440 --> 0:15:19.280
<v Speaker 2>their witnesses yet. They haven't had their stab at bringing

0:15:19.320 --> 0:15:22.040
<v Speaker 2>people onto the stand and then establishing No. But no,

0:15:22.160 --> 0:15:24.560
<v Speaker 2>so far, absolutely not that it's not been established.

0:15:24.600 --> 0:15:27.560
<v Speaker 1>Secondly, have they established Have they had anybody on that

0:15:27.680 --> 0:15:32.280
<v Speaker 1>stand who says, yeah, I was around Eric he pot pills,

0:15:32.560 --> 0:15:34.560
<v Speaker 1>he was addicted to pills. Has anyone said that.

0:15:34.880 --> 0:15:35.080
<v Speaker 3>No.

0:15:35.240 --> 0:15:39.240
<v Speaker 2>The closest person who they were trying to get anywhere

0:15:39.400 --> 0:15:43.920
<v Speaker 2>with on that about him taking pain pills for being

0:15:44.040 --> 0:15:44.920
<v Speaker 2>like back pain.

0:15:44.880 --> 0:15:45.480
<v Speaker 3>Was his sister.

0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:49.280
<v Speaker 2>And she did say, like, periodically he would take a

0:15:49.280 --> 0:15:51.360
<v Speaker 2>pain pill, but this wasn't something he did every day.

0:15:51.400 --> 0:15:53.840
<v Speaker 2>He tried not to use it, but every now and then, yes,

0:15:54.240 --> 0:15:56.360
<v Speaker 2>he did have to take I believe it was oxy

0:15:56.440 --> 0:16:00.160
<v Speaker 2>cotone for pain for his back. So I know that

0:16:00.240 --> 0:16:04.760
<v Speaker 2>has been established that every now and then he would

0:16:04.880 --> 0:16:05.600
<v Speaker 2>take a pain pill.

0:16:08.520 --> 0:16:12.000
<v Speaker 1>Is It's tough and the family Eric Richmon's family has

0:16:12.000 --> 0:16:14.600
<v Speaker 1>been in the courtroom and we keep an eye on them.

0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:17.000
<v Speaker 1>You could tell even on the stand. The sister that

0:16:17.080 --> 0:16:19.240
<v Speaker 1>was up there, she does not like Katie.

0:16:19.320 --> 0:16:21.120
<v Speaker 3>Oh, Katie does not like Corey.

0:16:21.000 --> 0:16:23.720
<v Speaker 1>And so watching their faces and to hear them have

0:16:23.800 --> 0:16:26.680
<v Speaker 1>to sit through. I mean, their loved one is dead now.

0:16:26.720 --> 0:16:29.400
<v Speaker 1>He is absolutely being attacked as some kind of a

0:16:29.520 --> 0:16:34.920
<v Speaker 1>drug addict, a cheating drug addict who killed himself by

0:16:34.920 --> 0:16:38.960
<v Speaker 1>buying illicit drugs. She's innocent until proven guilty, Robes. But

0:16:39.520 --> 0:16:41.840
<v Speaker 1>that's just tough for the family to hear. This is

0:16:41.880 --> 0:16:43.920
<v Speaker 1>a tough trial in a lot of ways to listen

0:16:43.960 --> 0:16:47.320
<v Speaker 1>to because of those details. But my goodness, Robes, today

0:16:47.400 --> 0:16:49.200
<v Speaker 1>was one of the more explosive days and the jury

0:16:49.200 --> 0:16:49.840
<v Speaker 1>didn't even see it.

0:16:50.000 --> 0:16:51.520
<v Speaker 3>That's true, And you know what I do think.

0:16:51.600 --> 0:16:53.720
<v Speaker 2>Look, we've seen this before, and it is a risk

0:16:53.800 --> 0:16:58.840
<v Speaker 2>the defense takes by trying to make the victim look

0:16:59.160 --> 0:17:01.520
<v Speaker 2>responsible for his own death.

0:17:01.920 --> 0:17:03.240
<v Speaker 3>You do run the risk.

0:17:03.040 --> 0:17:06.239
<v Speaker 2>Of pissing off a jury or pissing off wonder you know,

0:17:06.320 --> 0:17:08.760
<v Speaker 2>to say, how dare you accuse a man who can't

0:17:08.760 --> 0:17:11.760
<v Speaker 2>speak for himself? How dare you accuse a man who

0:17:12.000 --> 0:17:16.159
<v Speaker 2>is no longer here? And the woman who's on trial

0:17:16.359 --> 0:17:18.720
<v Speaker 2>is now trying to point the finger right back at him,

0:17:18.760 --> 0:17:21.480
<v Speaker 2>and he cannot speak, He is not here to defend himself.

0:17:21.600 --> 0:17:25.119
<v Speaker 1>My testimony continuing as we speak here on this Monday

0:17:25.160 --> 0:17:28.080
<v Speaker 1>again third week underway, the last week keeping an eye

0:17:28.119 --> 0:17:30.040
<v Speaker 1>on here. They still haven't taken a lunch break yet

0:17:30.080 --> 0:17:31.760
<v Speaker 1>for the day as of this recording. But they have

0:17:32.119 --> 0:17:34.760
<v Speaker 1>a handwriting expert up there, who you keeping an eye

0:17:34.800 --> 0:17:37.399
<v Speaker 1>on this ropes. He's essentially testifying to what.

0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:41.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there are several documents in question where the prosecutor

0:17:42.040 --> 0:17:45.480
<v Speaker 2>prosecution is trying to establish that Corey Richins forged her

0:17:45.560 --> 0:17:50.119
<v Speaker 2>husband's signature. This is a crime where prosecutors claim Corey

0:17:50.200 --> 0:17:53.080
<v Speaker 2>Richins committed this crime killed her husband not just because

0:17:53.080 --> 0:17:55.960
<v Speaker 2>she wanted to be with her lover, but because she

0:17:56.040 --> 0:18:00.000
<v Speaker 2>needed money and she needed life insurance payouts. She needed

0:18:00.200 --> 0:18:03.480
<v Speaker 2>all sorts of funds to make up for the millions

0:18:03.480 --> 0:18:06.520
<v Speaker 2>of dollars she was reportedly in debt. So yes, they

0:18:06.520 --> 0:18:09.280
<v Speaker 2>are saying that she forged documents in pursuit of this,

0:18:09.400 --> 0:18:12.879
<v Speaker 2>and they have a handwriting expert up there testifying to

0:18:12.960 --> 0:18:13.640
<v Speaker 2>that very thing.

0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:16.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, I don't it sounds crazy, but if I

0:18:17.280 --> 0:18:20.439
<v Speaker 1>just close my eyes and imagine a handwriting expert, this

0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:22.040
<v Speaker 1>is the guy that would come to mind. He just

0:18:22.280 --> 0:18:26.280
<v Speaker 1>he looks bar That's every reason be folks, we're keeping

0:18:26.320 --> 0:18:29.119
<v Speaker 1>a close eye and ear to this trial. Any other

0:18:29.160 --> 0:18:31.479
<v Speaker 1>significant updates. We will hop back on and update two.

0:18:31.480 --> 0:18:33.520
<v Speaker 1>We always appreciate you spending time with us on TJ

0:18:33.560 --> 0:18:36.000
<v Speaker 1>Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robak talks to

0:18:36.000 --> 0:18:36.119
<v Speaker 1>me