Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Thursday, March twelfth, and we
Speaker 1: just got a major update and maybe even a major
Speaker 1: shocker in the Corey Richins murder trial aka the Grief
Speaker 1: author murder trial aka the poisoned husband murder trial. The
Speaker 1: major update, the prosecution has rested, and ten seconds after that,
Speaker 1: the defense rested without calling a single witness, and with that,
Speaker 1: welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rowe didn't
Speaker 1: see this one coming.
Speaker 2: We did not see this one coming. In fact, as
Speaker 2: early as this morning, the defense suggested that they had
Speaker 2: witnesses to call. Specifically, they indicated they had three witnesses
Speaker 2: that they were going to be calling to the stand,
Speaker 2: So everyone was expecting them to actually put on a defense.
Speaker 2: Of course, they don't have to.
Speaker 3: It is the burden, the burden of proof is on.
Speaker 2: The prosecution, and we've certainly seen this in other trials.
Speaker 2: Diddy's trial probably comes to mind as one of the
Speaker 2: more recent and big trials where we saw this happen.
Speaker 2: But we were actually just thinking we were going to
Speaker 2: hear whether or not Corey Richins herself was going to testify,
Speaker 2: not that no one was going to testify.
Speaker 1: No and Robes, we had very good reason based on, yes,
Speaker 1: watching this entire trial, but we had very good reason
Speaker 1: to think this case was going to go on based
Speaker 1: on what happened today in court. The lawyers have been
Speaker 1: lawyering and arguing over a particular legal issue for the
Speaker 1: past several days, and today they got in court going
Speaker 1: back and forth over getting some particular piece of evidence in.
Speaker 1: So the jury didn't even hear testimony today. They were
Speaker 1: arguing in code outside of the jury road. So the
Speaker 1: defense was fighting, fighting to almost begging the judge for
Speaker 1: certain things to come in because they were getting ready
Speaker 1: to put on their case. The judge even shocked when
Speaker 1: they said we rest.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Everyone was not expecting that, because yes, the defense
Speaker 2: was fiery. They were trying to get in some way,
Speaker 2: shape or form, some way of getting testimony in. That
Speaker 2: indicated this man from twenty nineteen who claimed that he
Speaker 2: had a conversation with the victim in this cake case,
Speaker 2: Eric Richards, who asked about fentanyl. And so when the
Speaker 2: judge basically ultimately, and this was a little surprising, ruled
Speaker 2: that they could bring it into testimony. Except for the
Speaker 2: fact that the prosecution was going to be able to
Speaker 2: bring in other witnesses to rebuke that and to refute it,
Speaker 2: and to perhaps even bring other things into evidence that
Speaker 2: the defense didn't want it. And so basically, after they
Speaker 2: took an hour break to talk with Corey Richins to
Speaker 2: decide what they wanted to do, they came back and
Speaker 2: said defense rests.
Speaker 1: No, they did not start the day when they woke
Speaker 1: up this morning, they did not think they were going
Speaker 1: to rest their case. Something happened and that if something
Speaker 1: whatever development today in court, well and all that back
Speaker 1: and forth and they had to make that call. It
Speaker 1: was fascinating. It was fascinating to watch this lawyering.
Speaker 2: It was so interesting, and the jury saw none of it,
Speaker 2: wouldn't you say the past several days we have watched
Speaker 2: back and forth and more lawyering going on behind the
Speaker 2: scenes without the jury present than we have actually hearing
Speaker 2: testimony occur in front of the jury.
Speaker 1: And even when they are in there hearing testimony, it's
Speaker 1: constant sidebar. Can we approach, judge? You can't get a
Speaker 1: good flow almost even through this trial, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: they have to be frustrated. But now they get to
Speaker 1: go home and sit on this until Monday. Whoo.
Speaker 2: Yes, because here's what happens next Tomorrow, only the defense
Speaker 2: and the prosecution without the jury are going to meet
Speaker 2: up with the judge and go over jury instructions. And
Speaker 2: with the way the back and forth, the fighting that
Speaker 2: has been going on between the attorneys and with the judge,
Speaker 2: this probably will be entertaining as all get out, and
Speaker 2: it usually isn't when you're discussing jury instructions. But I
Speaker 2: have a feeling they won't agree on almost anything they.
Speaker 1: Got the day they got what time already say they're
Speaker 1: back tomorrow, even gave them some like one o'click.
Speaker 2: Not until one pm tomorrow will they be back to
Speaker 2: go over the jury instructions. And then the schedule will
Speaker 2: be that Monday at eight thirty am local time, that's
Speaker 2: Mountain time, there will be closing arguments and the jury
Speaker 2: will get their case.
Speaker 3: They will begin deliberating.
Speaker 2: I have imagined what it must be like to be
Speaker 2: a juror on this case, because, first of all, this
Speaker 2: is this is a court case that has gripped the nation.
Speaker 2: But there's been so many stops and starts, and they've
Speaker 2: been back in this room, sequestered, thinking what the hell
Speaker 2: is going on in the courtroom?
Speaker 3: Without us.
Speaker 2: I mean, they have been not in the courtroom for
Speaker 2: significant chunks of time.
Speaker 1: And they have no idea all this we're talking about.
Speaker 1: They are not allowed to watch coverage. They have no
Speaker 1: idea about what the arguments have been and why so
Speaker 1: much evidence we are as the public, are aware of.
Speaker 1: They will never hear in conversations that I have. This
Speaker 1: is so interesting, So robes. I imagine as you speak on
Speaker 1: the jury, the frustration in when the trial is actually
Speaker 1: going on, Robes, they've been sitting in there. Look, we
Speaker 1: watch a lot of trials, not just recently but over
Speaker 1: the years, roads the constant stop, can we approach judge?
Speaker 1: Can we approach judge? You can't get two questions in
Speaker 1: can we approach judge? Objection? That part has been exhausting,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure the jurors that had to not just
Speaker 1: to go, hey, send me back to the room a
Speaker 1: least like to take a bathroom break. We're sitting in
Speaker 1: here watching it. It's been hard for us to watch.
Speaker 2: And they're not supposed to talk amongst themselves either, so
Speaker 2: they're not even supposed to be guessing what's going on?
Speaker 2: What do you guys think is happening? I mean, none
Speaker 2: of that is actually even supposed to be going on.
Speaker 2: So you're supposed to just sit there quietly, not look
Speaker 2: up the case, not discuss the case, and somehow occupy yourself.
Speaker 2: But look, just to remind everyone, this is a trial
Speaker 2: where Corey Richand's thirty five year old mom of three
Speaker 2: is accused of poisoning her husband to death. She's charged
Speaker 2: with aggravated murder attempted criminal homicide, and that's because prosecutors
Speaker 2: say she tried to poison her husband with a Valentine's
Speaker 2: Day sandwich. When that didn't work, she went back got
Speaker 2: more potent ventanyl pills, and they claim then she laced.
Speaker 3: A moscow mule.
Speaker 2: And all of this while she had a lover waiting
Speaker 2: in the wings. She had multimillion dollar real estate deals
Speaker 2: going on, and she was in debt by multi millions
Speaker 2: of dollars. And oh, by the way, she authored a
Speaker 2: children's book about grief in the middle of all of this.
Speaker 3: So yeah, you can.
Speaker 2: Understand why this has been a case that has gotten
Speaker 2: the nation's attention.
Speaker 1: And the key to this case is where did he
Speaker 1: get the fentanyl that ended up killing him? And Rose
Speaker 1: nobody knows is she going to walk out of that
Speaker 1: courtroom a free woman or maybe facing a mistrial here.
Speaker 1: But Robes, that's key. Are you going to send this
Speaker 1: woman to prison for life for fentanyl that we actually
Speaker 1: do not know how he got it?
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: So we've heard three nearly three full weeks of testimony.
Speaker 2: We've heard from the former housekeeper, Carmen Lauber, who was
Speaker 2: pretty much the prosecution's star witness. We've heard from all
Speaker 2: of the investigators. We've heard from Corey Richan's lover. That
Speaker 2: was a very emotional part of the trial where we
Speaker 2: it spoke to motive in part, but we also ended
Speaker 2: with this leading investigator, Jeff O'Driscoll, and that went on
Speaker 2: for what a couple of days. But the prosecution has
Speaker 2: laid out their case and it is clear, we know
Speaker 2: that Eric Richards died from fentanyl poisoning. But as you
Speaker 2: pointed out, and this is the defense's main strategy here,
Speaker 2: no one can tell the jury how it got in
Speaker 2: his system. No one can prove how it got into
Speaker 2: a system, or at least.
Speaker 1: Nobody can prove how he got it, how he was
Speaker 1: in possession of it. Nobody can say he ever took
Speaker 1: a drug in his entire life. And yet the theory
Speaker 1: from the defense is just that this man had a
Speaker 1: secret drug problem. He kept it from everybody in his life,
Speaker 1: the people he was closest to, nobody knew. She's not
Speaker 1: saying she knew it either, is she.
Speaker 2: She is saying that she knew he like pain pills,
Speaker 2: and she talked a lot about how he did have
Speaker 2: his stash of drugs. Didn't get specific that he would
Speaker 2: put in her suitcases when they traveled, that he needed
Speaker 2: pain medication.
Speaker 1: You remember, they were all with friends and whatnot, and
Speaker 1: all people saw were the marijuana gummies. That's there is
Speaker 1: nobody in this man's life who can put a drug
Speaker 1: outside of a marijuana gummy and a pain pill that
Speaker 1: was prescribed to him in his hand in his entire life.
Speaker 1: That says something ropes. But at the same time, their
Speaker 1: star witness, this Carmen Lawber, who apparently went and bought
Speaker 1: the drugs for Corey Richmonds, she is just throw just
Speaker 1: forget her that they eviscerated her and her character and
Speaker 1: her testimony. They just ripped this woman.
Speaker 2: I wrote, the defense made major inroads in undermining Carmen
Speaker 2: Lauber's credibility and they certainly did.
Speaker 1: Oh could she? They destroyed her to the point I
Speaker 1: felt bad for the woman.
Speaker 2: Yet not only is she a recovering addict, it came
Speaker 2: out that she violated her parole multiple times, that she
Speaker 2: the drug court, Yes, the drug court, sorry, yes, violated
Speaker 2: the drug Court. And also just hearing and we got
Speaker 2: to watch lead investigators talk to her initially about cooperating
Speaker 2: with the prosecution, and you can see the sweetheart deal
Speaker 2: she got. She was looking at seven years in prison
Speaker 2: for violating drug court, and all of a sudden they said,
Speaker 2: but if you help us prosecute Corey Richins, we can
Speaker 2: make that all go away.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you know it well, when the defense says
Speaker 1: it one way, it sounds like, oh, that's a big time,
Speaker 1: And then the prosecution comes back and say it well
Speaker 1: with context that who knows, these jurors have been paying attention.
Speaker 1: I'm always shocked at what jurors end up doing, But
Speaker 1: I would not be shocked if they come back in
Speaker 1: here and say we are deadlocked. Come back here and
Speaker 1: say there's a mistrial because Robes, I'm not a circumstantial
Speaker 1: evidence guy.
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 1: If I was on a jury, I would struggle sending
Speaker 1: somebody to prison the rest of their lives, and I
Speaker 1: don't have a smoking gun.
Speaker 2: It feels like though most of these trials often are circumstantial,
Speaker 2: and clearly we have seen prosecutors be successful in trying
Speaker 2: a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, and there is
Speaker 2: significant amount of it. Remember those searches on Corey Richmond's phones,
Speaker 2: don't those searches always tend to do in a defendant
Speaker 2: how they explained those they didn't.
Speaker 1: I didn't explain, And you're right, this adds up. This
Speaker 1: is one of those things just like in the old
Speaker 1: pair affair murder truck. Correct, It adds up enough that
Speaker 1: you have to ask yourself, wait a minute, I'm not stupid.
Speaker 1: It actually gets to that, and like, oh yeah, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, because the defense did all they could in
Speaker 1: this case Robes by just throwing things against the wall,
Speaker 1: just saying aha, but you know what, he went to Mexico.
Speaker 3: Hmm.
Speaker 1: You know a lot of fennol comes from Mexico. That
Speaker 1: was a lot of their case. Does that work against
Speaker 1: the juror?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: They are planting seeds of doubt. The question is does
Speaker 2: it create reasonable doubt? That's the threshold. I think it's
Speaker 2: fair to say they have absolutely cast some doubt in
Speaker 2: the prosecution series, but is it reasonable doubt?
Speaker 1: Where I struggle. But like we said, it was a
Speaker 1: shock today to see that they absolutely switched things up
Speaker 1: and decided they wanted to rest their case without calling
Speaker 1: a single witness. Well, we have a pretty good theory
Speaker 1: as to why stay here we continue here on Amian TJ.
Speaker 1: This is again not an episode and not an update
Speaker 1: we were expecting today because we were expecting the Corey
Speaker 1: Richard Strokes to continue, but prosecution wrapped up its case today.
Speaker 1: They rested, and immediately afterwards the defense rested to the
Speaker 1: surprise of us, to the surprise of many in the courtroom,
Speaker 1: including the judge, because it didn't look like that's the
Speaker 1: way things were going. I think, road there's no other
Speaker 1: way to put it. Why would you rest your case
Speaker 1: without calling a witness.
Speaker 2: That's only if you believe you proved or poked enough
Speaker 2: holes in the prosecution's case through cross examination that you
Speaker 2: don't need to put anybody else up there. And if
Speaker 2: the people who were on the list, I believe we
Speaker 2: had thought maybe her mother was going to testify, maybe
Speaker 2: her brother was going to testify maybe this guy who
Speaker 2: claims if it had been allowed that Eric Richards talked
Speaker 2: about fentanyl seven years ago. But look, they have to
Speaker 2: weigh the cross examination with the direct questioning, and they
Speaker 2: clearly thought that it would do more harm than good,
Speaker 2: and they felt like through the cross they poked enough holes,
Speaker 2: they created enough reasonable doubt. And yesterday we did say,
Speaker 2: as we watched that whole trial yesterday, and it was
Speaker 2: a long one, Corey Richands' facial expressions changed. Her attorney
Speaker 2: absolutely started scoring points with the investigator with Carmen Lauber
Speaker 2: when she was recalled yesterday. So that housekeeper, the woman
Speaker 2: who is accused of selling the drugs or giving the
Speaker 2: drugs to Corey Richins who purchased them from her, they
Speaker 2: did do a very good job at dismantling a lot
Speaker 2: of her credibility and her testimony. And so they had
Speaker 2: a pretty good day yesterday, and they think it was
Speaker 2: a really good day apparently, And why.
Speaker 1: I messed with that right, very good to go. I'll
Speaker 1: never forget that the prosecutor friend of ours after when
Speaker 1: it happened to Agnefilo did it in the ditty trial, Like
Speaker 1: why would they do this? Big of stakes. Why would
Speaker 1: they do that the response she gave us, because they
Speaker 1: think they already won. That's why you don't put on witnesses.
Speaker 1: There's nothing to do. You've put on your entire case
Speaker 1: just using their witnesses. We have already won this case.
Speaker 1: And to hear something like that, it happened with Agnefhilo.
Speaker 1: I know Diddy's in jail right now, he'll be out soon.
Speaker 2: He won't be in jail for the rest of his life,
Speaker 2: which is what he was facing.
Speaker 3: And then we see what happened with.
Speaker 2: The For those of you us, those of you who
Speaker 2: have followed our trial coverage with the old pair, a
Speaker 2: fair trial. We saw Brendan Banfield take the stand. They
Speaker 2: put on a robust defense with witnesses and testimony from
Speaker 2: Brendan Banfield himself.
Speaker 3: How that go for them? Not so well?
Speaker 1: No, broath, I am jury's I have no idea, and
Speaker 1: most attorneys will tell you as well, Yeah, we can
Speaker 1: guess all day. We try to read the tea leaves.
Speaker 1: Every attorney will tell you we have no idea what
Speaker 1: this jury is going to do. So one of the
Speaker 1: hot ball This is a pretty significant update in a
Speaker 1: trial that we thought would go through next week even
Speaker 1: but it is the jury will be deliberating by Monday.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we thought the big update might be that Corey
Speaker 2: Richins would or would not testify. Nope, We're talking closing
Speaker 2: arguments and jury deliberation, and it's happening next week on Monday.
Speaker 2: Of course, we will continue to monitor all the developments
Speaker 2: from that courtroom in Utah. Thank you, though in the
Speaker 2: meantime for listening to us. We always appreciate you. I'm
Speaker 2: Amy Robot alongside t. J.
Speaker 3: Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.