Speaker 1: Hey, there hopes. It is Monday, March ninth, and the
Speaker 1: third week of the soul called Grief Author murder trial
Speaker 1: is underway. And whoa, there was some fireworks in the
Speaker 1: courtroom today and the jury wasn't even around to hear it.
Speaker 1: With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 1: Let's start with this first. Do you know what a
Speaker 1: red devil is? When it comes to a pill called
Speaker 1: a red devil?
Speaker 2: You know what? It doesn't sound good, It doesn't sound legal,
Speaker 2: and it sounds dangerous.
Speaker 1: Does it sound familiar?
Speaker 3: It doesn't sound familiar, ring bells.
Speaker 2: No, No, And actually I just googled it because this
Speaker 2: has been a huge source of or a huge topic
Speaker 2: of conversation in the Corey Richins Grief Author murder trial.
Speaker 2: Because yes, the defense is trying to blame the victim
Speaker 2: and trying to establish or is hoping to establish that
Speaker 2: Eric Richins, the father of three who died with fentanyl poisoning,
Speaker 2: was so somehow some illicit drug user and used something
Speaker 2: called red devil when he was in high school.
Speaker 1: When he was in high school, is the key nugget
Speaker 1: when he was in high school? Yes, folks, the third
Speaker 1: week of this trial is underway. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: know the story by now, but this is happening out
Speaker 1: in Utah. Yes, Court Richards wrote a children's book to
Speaker 1: help kids deal with grief, and she wrote it after,
Speaker 1: according to prosecutors, she killed her own husband by poisoning
Speaker 1: him with fentanyl by putting it into his drink. So
Speaker 1: rose the first day of this trial, when they did
Speaker 1: opening statements, you and I did an episode and it
Speaker 1: was one of the first things we say, Oh, we
Speaker 1: see the strategy, blame the victim.
Speaker 2: Ye, it's playing out absolutely, And that is what the
Speaker 2: defense was trying to get into official testimony, trying to
Speaker 2: get the jurors to hear. And yeah, she the defense attorney,
Speaker 2: got extremely frustrated.
Speaker 3: It was very contentious.
Speaker 2: I have not heard a defense attorney be that combat
Speaker 2: with the judge in any trial I've ever witnessed or watched.
Speaker 1: Don't know what this gets here.
Speaker 2: It was interesting because, yeah, you don't want to piss
Speaker 2: off the person who is going to have a huge
Speaker 2: impact on what jurors hear, what they don't here gives
Speaker 2: jury instructions and certainly ultimately decides on sentencing if your
Speaker 2: client's found guilty. So it was just an interesting, fairly
Speaker 2: explosive moment.
Speaker 1: She's been like this throughout the trial and some just
Speaker 1: have that. Okay, she's a little more combative at times,
Speaker 1: that's fine. She's pleasant when she needs to be and
Speaker 1: say thank you and she'll smile. But hey, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: no way of denying. So this back and forth happened
Speaker 1: today because of Cody Wright being on the stand. Now,
Speaker 1: Cody right, Rose, we talk about Corey Richand's lover being
Speaker 1: a key witness. This guy might be more key than anything.
Speaker 1: He is so important. Cody Wright is a good, good friend,
Speaker 1: and he was the business partner of Eric Richins, who
Speaker 1: was allegedly murdered by his wife. C and E is
Speaker 1: the name of their company, Cody and Eric. So you've
Speaker 1: been hearing c and E a lot. That's where it
Speaker 1: comes from. So this guy knows him really really well,
Speaker 1: knows him so well, and he's been testifying Robes that No,
Speaker 1: I didn't know of him using drugs. I never saw
Speaker 1: him using drugs. He never certainly did this around me. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's the basis and the foundation for some of his testimony.
Speaker 1: But then Robes where the defense thought they saw an opening.
Speaker 1: It's because they asked him about drug use of eric
Speaker 1: Richins when he was in high school, and so he
Speaker 1: mentioned he popped pills pop pills. So the defense hears
Speaker 1: that and goes, wait a minute, this guy testified previously
Speaker 1: that he didn't know about him using drugs, and now
Speaker 1: he's saying back in high school he heard about popping pills.
Speaker 1: I thought it was a stretch, but they're trying to
Speaker 1: do their thing. That is the basis for the argument
Speaker 1: that started. The judge he heard her out, but it
Speaker 1: came down to Robes, there's a difference between using drugs
Speaker 1: and using illicit drugs. It really came down.
Speaker 2: To this, accordant to It was fascinating to hear the
Speaker 2: back and forth between whether or not prescription drugs that
Speaker 2: aren't prescribed to you, if you use said drugs, can
Speaker 2: they be considered illicit drugs. The defense was arguing that
Speaker 2: they can be and should be. The judge very aptly said,
Speaker 2: I think there is a difference between an FDA approved
Speaker 2: drug that is taken by someone who it wasn't prescribed
Speaker 2: to versus someone going out on the street and getting
Speaker 2: a non FDA approved drug.
Speaker 3: And that actually really brought it home.
Speaker 1: And it makes sense she wasn't buying it doesn't work
Speaker 1: for her client, But isn't that what we're talking What
Speaker 1: is an illicit drug? Is the question correct?
Speaker 2: And so ilicit basically means illegal, correctly.
Speaker 1: Legal, something you bought in a dark alley somewhere, something
Speaker 1: not prescribed, something definitely illegal is an illicit drugs? Is
Speaker 1: it illicit drugs?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Do you find it? I mean the argument she was
Speaker 1: trying to make, if you stop on that for a second,
Speaker 1: he acquired them in a way that they weren't prescribed
Speaker 1: to him. Therefore that's illicit drug use.
Speaker 2: But the whole point is the defense is trying to
Speaker 2: make some sort of other scenario in which Eric Richards
Speaker 2: could have ingested fentanyl. So, if you are on the
Speaker 2: black market, if you are buying illicit drugs, could they
Speaker 2: be laced with fentanyls. Certainly we've seen cases like this
Speaker 2: in this country. So this is what they're trying to establish.
Speaker 2: They're trying to give the jury another version of how
Speaker 2: fentanyl could have gotten into Eric Richards's system, and so
Speaker 2: they're trying to establish that by suggesting Eric Richins was
Speaker 2: addicted to drugs, was addicted to painkillers, would go about
Speaker 2: any means in which to acquire them. So they were
Speaker 2: trying to set this up. But the interesting thing about
Speaker 2: Cody Wright is that he is LDS. He is a
Speaker 2: practicing Mormon, meaning not only does he not take drugs
Speaker 2: for religious reasons, he doesn't drink, he doesn't drink alcohol,
Speaker 2: I should say, he doesn't drink caffeine. All of the
Speaker 2: things we basically know about LDS folks. So her point was,
Speaker 2: even if he were doing those things, he wouldn't do
Speaker 2: them in front of you. He wouldn't tell them about
Speaker 2: tell it about them, sorry, tell it to you. Because
Speaker 2: he respects your religion, he respects how you live your life,
Speaker 2: and so wouldn't it be reasonable that you wouldn't know
Speaker 2: about his drug use or you wouldn't know about something.
Speaker 2: So the whole point is he had to talk about
Speaker 2: what he heard about, which is hearsay, which is a
Speaker 2: whole big no no in a courtroom. So it was
Speaker 2: really fascinating to see how she was trying to get
Speaker 2: this testimony into record, or at least let the jury
Speaker 2: hear this suggestion.
Speaker 3: But she was.
Speaker 1: Struggling in it all boils down to she's trying to
Speaker 1: say this witness impeached himself, not perjure, but in peace.
Speaker 1: You said one thing, and now you're coming back and
Speaker 1: saying something else. The reason the judge is shutting that
Speaker 1: down is because, lady, he's not impeaching himself. He saw
Speaker 1: the guy pop a pill that's different from illicit drug use,
Speaker 1: and he didn't even know what the pill was. He said,
Speaker 1: I think they called them red devils. We had to
Speaker 1: hear this phrase. We had heard it once, Froze. We
Speaker 1: heard it five thousand times in court today. Red devil?
Speaker 1: What's a red devil? And apparently it's changed over time.
Speaker 1: Back in the sixties and the seventies, is the red
Speaker 1: devil was one thing. Back in the eighties and nineties
Speaker 1: it was another, and today it might mean something else.
Speaker 1: This all boils down to a red devil that he
Speaker 1: thought wasn't even an illicit drug.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah it was.
Speaker 2: It was not a high moment for the defense, and
Speaker 2: she pressed him on what he thought red devils meant,
Speaker 2: because if you google it, you'll see that it's an addictive, barbituate, sedative,
Speaker 2: hypnotic bright red pill. Okay, that's what she wanted him
Speaker 2: to say, but instead he said, I think it's sudafed.
Speaker 3: That was a big wamp wall for her.
Speaker 1: The guy was believable in that he was clueless about drugs.
Speaker 1: He was in that regard. He just did in his lane.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but for him to even go and guess that
Speaker 2: it was sudafed really took the wind out of her sails.
Speaker 2: She wanted it to be much more potent and yes,
Speaker 2: an illegal illicit drug. That's what she was hoping he
Speaker 2: would say that he thought it might have been something
Speaker 2: like that. Instead, he said, suda fed, this is up
Speaker 2: in front of us right now, what do you take?
Speaker 1: I you know, what, what do you take? You've been watching
Speaker 1: closely of her reaction, her not quite emotion, but her
Speaker 1: demeanor and her reactions in court maybe last week and
Speaker 1: even today.
Speaker 2: Corey Richins has does not have a poker face. Let's
Speaker 2: just say that I have seen her many many times
Speaker 2: raising an eyebrow, furrowing her brow, looking puzzled, confused, annoyed,
Speaker 2: and like absolutely reacting to testimony, basically calling it into
Speaker 2: question in her face.
Speaker 3: I can see it, and you know the jury is
Speaker 3: watching her. So she is having many, many, many emotional reactions.
Speaker 2: She'll tilt her head if she doesn't think what they
Speaker 2: said was correct or the way she remembers it.
Speaker 3: She is absolutely expressive.
Speaker 1: Is it just me where it seems like she's gotten
Speaker 1: more expressive as we've gone along, because we along because
Speaker 1: we were staring at her certainly that first week looking
Speaker 1: for anything. Now it's not hard to find something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she might be getting more comfortable, you know she's coming.
Speaker 2: This is week three of the trial. She's been listening
Speaker 2: to pretty incredible testimony. And I say incredible because I
Speaker 2: just can't imagine being in that situation hearing people talk
Speaker 2: about what I did, what I said, And if you know,
Speaker 2: look anybody, even if you aren't on trial, you hear
Speaker 2: someone else relay what they think happened in a conversation
Speaker 2: or in a moment, and almost certainly you're not gonna
Speaker 2: remember it in the same way. So you kind of
Speaker 2: you see her reacting to visibly to witness this testim
Speaker 2: and you can see she's in disagreement with a lot
Speaker 2: of what is being said. Now, this is the prosecution
Speaker 2: putting on their case, so it would make sense that
Speaker 2: she would disagree with some of the testimony that's out there.
Speaker 3: But certainly the jurors are watching her.
Speaker 1: But we're talking about here, how big of a deal
Speaker 1: this testimony.
Speaker 2: Is.
Speaker 1: Well, stay here, we'll let you hear how big of
Speaker 1: a deal the defense says. This is in fact, they say,
Speaker 1: if they were able to have their way in court today,
Speaker 1: it would prove that Corey Richins is innocent.
Speaker 2: Stay here, Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We
Speaker 2: are still riveted watching the Corey Richins trial. It is
Speaker 2: day ten in the grief author murder trial. As you
Speaker 2: may remember, we told you but this just can't make
Speaker 2: this up. She wrote a children's book helping her kids
Speaker 2: and other people's kids grieve with the death of a parent,
Speaker 2: and here she stands accused of murdering her husband. And
Speaker 2: it has been a very dramatic day in court to date,
Speaker 2: and a lot of the drama happened outside of the
Speaker 2: juror's ears, where we have heard the defense make or
Speaker 2: take issue with the judge not allowing them to impeach
Speaker 2: Cody Wright, that is Eric Richards's business partner, that was
Speaker 2: one of his best friends. And they think they believe
Speaker 2: he has changed his testimony, that he went from first
Speaker 2: answering a question saying that he had never seen Eric
Speaker 2: Richards his friend or never knew that his friend actually
Speaker 2: had anything.
Speaker 3: To do with illicit drug use.
Speaker 2: And then the defense says, hey, wait a minute, now
Speaker 2: he's talking about red Devil's Red Devil pills. I want
Speaker 2: to go back. The defense wants to go back and
Speaker 2: call him out on it, and the judge said, no,
Speaker 2: he didn't say anything different than what he said before.
Speaker 2: And so the defense is now so basically saying, this
Speaker 2: will be grounds for an appeal if my client is convicted.
Speaker 1: And that's a look that makes the judge pay attention.
Speaker 1: He was starting to get annoyed with the defense attorney's
Speaker 1: round and around. She started throwing things out like this
Speaker 1: is an impediment to a fair trial. You are violating
Speaker 1: our constitutional right to a fair trial to put on
Speaker 1: her defense. If judge wasn't having it. He gave a moment.
Speaker 1: He said, you know what, prosecutor, I'll ask you, would
Speaker 1: you allow me to let her go ahead and do
Speaker 1: what she wants to do on the defense side, and
Speaker 1: maybe this eliminates even the possibility of a particular appeal.
Speaker 1: The prosecution took their time and chatted about it for
Speaker 1: a second.
Speaker 3: And then they came back and said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, no, no, we don't want her to go
Speaker 2: back and ask those question.
Speaker 3: It's not going to happen, not on our watch.
Speaker 2: So they did take a moment, but so they know
Speaker 2: they know that by doing this, the defense is absolutely
Speaker 2: going to pursue an appeal based on this at least this.
Speaker 2: There could be more reasons why they do it, but this,
Speaker 2: they've certainly made it clear. This is going to be
Speaker 2: one of them. But you tease this going into the break,
Speaker 2: the attorney for Corey Richins flat out said if she
Speaker 2: were allowed to question Cody Wright the way she wanted
Speaker 2: to question him, that she could prove that her client
Speaker 2: was innocent. She said, if Eric Richards, if we can
Speaker 2: hear that he absolutely was taking illicit drugs, that he
Speaker 2: was using these pills or had used these pills called
Speaker 2: Red Devils, that would absolutely prove that my client is innocent.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a little bit of a stretch.
Speaker 1: This was high school. He used some pills. He popped
Speaker 1: some pills in high school, so that translates to now
Speaker 1: two decades later than that proves he was a drug
Speaker 1: addict and therefore Corey Richards is innocent. That was a
Speaker 1: bit of a stretch, but she used that phrase, if
Speaker 1: Eric Richards was a drug addict, Corey Richins is innocent. Period.
Speaker 1: They really do, sweetheart. It sounds like they're banking on
Speaker 1: convincing somebody in that jury that this dude, you keep
Speaker 1: hitting them over the head with this guy having a
Speaker 1: drug problem, and they might think he drugged himself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we kept hearing today.
Speaker 2: In fact, the defense attorney kept asking Cody right about
Speaker 2: Eric's back pain, about Eric's knee pain, about his lime disease,
Speaker 2: and how painful he said it was, how often he
Speaker 2: may have missed work or didn't go to work because
Speaker 2: he was in pain. So, yes, they are absolutely trying
Speaker 2: to establish that Eric Richards was in chronic pain and
Speaker 2: therefore the only way he could function was to alleviate
Speaker 2: the pain by becoming a drug addict, and that is
Speaker 2: what they're trying to establish.
Speaker 1: Las two things I will ask you make sure I
Speaker 1: didn't overlook one. Have they proven, at any point confirmed
Speaker 1: that he ever bought himself pills? No, they got the
Speaker 1: marijuana gumm's everybody.
Speaker 3: They've got the marijuana gummy.
Speaker 1: But have we established yet that he purchased any pill
Speaker 1: anywhere on his own for himself?
Speaker 2: Is that right, Well, I haven't heard that yet, but
Speaker 2: we should say that the defense hasn't put on their
Speaker 2: their witnesses yet. They haven't had their stab at bringing
Speaker 2: people onto the stand and then establishing No. But no,
Speaker 2: so far, absolutely not that it's not been established.
Speaker 1: Secondly, have they established Have they had anybody on that
Speaker 1: stand who says, yeah, I was around Eric he pot pills,
Speaker 1: he was addicted to pills. Has anyone said that.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: The closest person who they were trying to get anywhere
Speaker 2: with on that about him taking pain pills for being
Speaker 2: like back pain.
Speaker 3: Was his sister.
Speaker 2: And she did say, like, periodically he would take a
Speaker 2: pain pill, but this wasn't something he did every day.
Speaker 2: He tried not to use it, but every now and then, yes,
Speaker 2: he did have to take I believe it was oxy
Speaker 2: cotone for pain for his back. So I know that
Speaker 2: has been established that every now and then he would
Speaker 2: take a pain pill.
Speaker 1: Is It's tough and the family Eric Richmon's family has
Speaker 1: been in the courtroom and we keep an eye on them.
Speaker 1: You could tell even on the stand. The sister that
Speaker 1: was up there, she does not like Katie.
Speaker 3: Oh, Katie does not like Corey.
Speaker 1: And so watching their faces and to hear them have
Speaker 1: to sit through. I mean, their loved one is dead now.
Speaker 1: He is absolutely being attacked as some kind of a
Speaker 1: drug addict, a cheating drug addict who killed himself by
Speaker 1: buying illicit drugs. She's innocent until proven guilty, Robes. But
Speaker 1: that's just tough for the family to hear. This is
Speaker 1: a tough trial in a lot of ways to listen
Speaker 1: to because of those details. But my goodness, Robes, today
Speaker 1: was one of the more explosive days and the jury
Speaker 1: didn't even see it.
Speaker 3: That's true, And you know what I do think.
Speaker 2: Look, we've seen this before, and it is a risk
Speaker 2: the defense takes by trying to make the victim look
Speaker 2: responsible for his own death.
Speaker 3: You do run the risk.
Speaker 2: Of pissing off a jury or pissing off wonder you know,
Speaker 2: to say, how dare you accuse a man who can't
Speaker 2: speak for himself? How dare you accuse a man who
Speaker 2: is no longer here? And the woman who's on trial
Speaker 2: is now trying to point the finger right back at him,
Speaker 2: and he cannot speak, He is not here to defend himself.
Speaker 1: My testimony continuing as we speak here on this Monday
Speaker 1: again third week underway, the last week keeping an eye
Speaker 1: on here. They still haven't taken a lunch break yet
Speaker 1: for the day as of this recording. But they have
Speaker 1: a handwriting expert up there, who you keeping an eye
Speaker 1: on this ropes. He's essentially testifying to what.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are several documents in question where the prosecutor
Speaker 2: prosecution is trying to establish that Corey Richins forged her
Speaker 2: husband's signature. This is a crime where prosecutors claim Corey
Speaker 2: Richins committed this crime killed her husband not just because
Speaker 2: she wanted to be with her lover, but because she
Speaker 2: needed money and she needed life insurance payouts. She needed
Speaker 2: all sorts of funds to make up for the millions
Speaker 2: of dollars she was reportedly in debt. So yes, they
Speaker 2: are saying that she forged documents in pursuit of this,
Speaker 2: and they have a handwriting expert up there testifying to
Speaker 2: that very thing.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't it sounds crazy, but if I
Speaker 1: just close my eyes and imagine a handwriting expert, this
Speaker 1: is the guy that would come to mind. He just
Speaker 1: he looks bar That's every reason be folks, we're keeping
Speaker 1: a close eye and ear to this trial. Any other
Speaker 1: significant updates. We will hop back on and update two.
Speaker 1: We always appreciate you spending time with us on TJ
Speaker 1: Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robak talks to
Speaker 1: me