Colin Gray Trial: Closing Arguments Expected Today

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: The evidence will prove that Corey Richens murdered Eric for his money and to get a fresh start at life. [00:00:13] Speaker 2: To this day, the medical examiner, the professional that's the head of declaring how people die in the state of Utah, has never been able to determine the manner of Eric Richens' death. The Richens family hired a private investigator and they paid that investigator to spend every waking minute digging up as much dirt as he possibly could. [00:00:37] Julie Grant: Digital forensics will take center stage this morning in the murder trial for Corey Richens. So can the state's cell phone analyst tie the defendant to her husband Eric's death? We have a preview of the day ahead and a look back at Richens' alleged deadly drug transaction. Plus, it's closing day in the trial for Father Colin Gray. He took the stand in his own defense on Friday. But was it enough to avoid a conviction for the crime of second-degree murder? And is Colt Gray's mother Marcy culpable as well? We'll talk about that. It's all coming up next for you right here on Opening Statements. Good Monday morning to you, my friends. Welcome to Opening Statements. I'm Julie Grant. Are you ready for some coffee and some court? It's that time where we get you all warmed up and ready to go for the big day ahead on Court TV Live. It is a big day and we've got a big show to start us off. So let's get to it. Grab that cup of coffee right now. It's time for my Opening Statements. Irresponsible actions can have deadly consequences. Allowing Colt Gray to have access to a firearm when he exhibited mental health difficulties and a proclivity for violence was just like playing Russian Roulette. Only a matter of time before something deadly happened. And it did. Two students and two teachers were murdered. Several other students were injured. The whole campus traumatized. And Father Colin Gray explained to the jury that he was only trying to get Colt away from his screens, his devices, his video game time. And that he simply wanted Colt to get outdoors and start hunting. Okay, Papa Gray, that's understandable. You want your child to go enjoy some sunshine, fresh air, move around, get some exercise and pick up a hobby. And when you go together right on hunting trips, you can bond that makes sense. But what makes zero sense is that when you got numerous warning signs that your child was deeply disturbed and exhibiting violent behavior, you not only didn't get him psychiatric help, but you allowed him to still have access to that firearm. This was a disaster waiting to happen that sadly did happen. Christian Angulo, Mason Schirmerhorn, Richard Aspinwall and Christina Irimi should be alive today. This tragedy should have been prevented. Papa Gray had a responsibility to take that gun away from his son. Just because he gave it to him for hunting shouldn't have meant that he gets to keep it under any circumstances. Things change. Circumstances change. And sadly, this tragedy can't be changed. May God bless and comfort those victims and may justice be served with this trial. That's my opening statement on this Monday. Let me know if you like it right now. Time for your daily docket. [00:03:57] Speaker 4: He said he's a good kid. You know, he wasn't perfect, nor was I. But to do something that heinous, like I don't know if anybody could ever see that kind of evil. [00:04:22] Julie Grant: In Georgia, we've got the closing arguments set to begin today at noon eastern time. We've got a charge conference that will be up first around 9 a.m. eastern time before the jury returns to hear those all-important closing arguments. And then we're going to go on a verdict watch together. Then in Michigan, we've got testimony resuming in the murder trial for defendant Dale Warner. This is the first witness of the day set to take the stand at 9 a.m. eastern. That is what we're told. So we're going to go there and monitor things for you throughout the morning. And in Utah, we've got the state's case against Corey Richens set to continue later on this morning. The jury is expected to return at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. And that is your top story this morning. The murder trial of Corey Richens. The Utah mom facing a jury for allegedly murdering her husband Eric by poisoning him with a fatal dose of fentanyl back in 2022. The state's expected to call a cell phone expert once court starts up today. On Friday, the focus, though, was drawing a link to Corey Richens' involvement with the fentanyl found in her husband Eric's body. Let's take a look back together at those key moments. [00:05:29] Speaker 5: Carmen, isn't it fair that you really don't have a memory about what happened in February and March of 2022? [00:05:45] Speaker 6: What do you mean by that? [00:05:46] Speaker 5: Well, when you were interviewed in 2023, you didn't remember what had happened, correct? Correct. It's a lot to take in. It's a lot to take in. And you didn't remember it a year after the fact. So you really don't even remember now what happened in 2022. It's been laid out for you by someone else, correct? Due to data and cell phone data and everything, yes. All right. So whatever memory you have is what was -- you don't have a personal memory. It was shown to you. No, I have partial memory. You have a partial memory. You have a partial memory. I have memory, yes. Fair to say your memory was better one year after the fact than four years after the fact, right? It is confusing later on. Years later, yes. Okay. And you were using and selling that whole time in drug court. I was not using and selling the whole time. The whole period we're talking about of February, March of 2022. Yes. Corey never once asked you for fentanyl, correct? I had told her that that's what Robbie had. And she said, okay, go ahead and get it. All right. Let me ask the question again. Corey never asked you for fentanyl, true? Yes. And the last time you went back was after Eric Richens died, correct? Mm-hmm. I'm not sure. You know Eric died on March 4th, correct? It was March 5th he passed away? Well, I think it was March 4th. But either way, the pills were after he passed away, correct? Correct. And again, year after the fact, you said numerous times, I bought pills for Mr. Crozier twice, correct? Correct. Now you're saying three times, four years later, correct? Correct. Because that's been told to you because of some data you saw, correct? Yes, correct. But you don't remember that? [00:07:27] Speaker 7: No, I don't know. [00:07:32] Speaker 1: Do you remember how many times you agreed to meet her at the draper? Like I said, it was four years ago. I remember once, clearly, maybe twice. Could there have been a third time? I don't think so. [00:07:43] Speaker 5: At that time in early 2022, you would not have been telling Carmen Lauber, here, these are fentanyl. [00:07:50] Speaker 6: No, I didn't. I didn't have a fentanyl plug at that time. I mean, I didn't know anybody that sold fentanyl at that time. I told them that I'm pretty sure that I sold her Roxy's and not fentanyl. [00:08:07] Speaker 5: You told them basically the same thing that you said in September of 2025 and what you're saying today in your testimony. [00:08:15] Julie Grant: All right, so what do you think? Do you believe that Corey Richens got fentanyl from the housekeeper who got it from her dealer? Or do you think Eric Richens ingested it on his own? That's what the defense team is saying. They're saying that he put the drugs in his own system. And they're claiming that his family is trying to frame Corey Richens in this. Let's talk about it. Let's bring in our analyst guests with me. Retired NYPD detective Tom Smith and criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Mario Gallucci. Good morning to you, gentlemen. Mario, I'll begin with you. What did you think of the testimony on Friday? What picture were you left with with what went down? [00:09:03] Speaker 8: So I thought the cross was was excellently done. I think it was over four hours of cross examination over two days. You know, her credibility is at issue, which is which is always a big thing. We have an immunity agreement that she was given. So it goes right to her credibility, but also her drug use and and a consistent drug use and that she used drugs and sold drugs throughout the time she was supposedly in rehab. So I don't think she did very well on cross examination and that's going to help the defense in this case. She was consistently wrong on her timeline and and it's going to go right to the defense argument that she did not provide this fentanyl and that the was ingested by the decedent on his own. [00:09:46] Julie Grant: Mm hmm. Yeah, fair points. Mario is defense had a good I'd say good two days Thursday and Friday. They did very well at the end of the day. Is it possible that there was fentanyl in what drug dealer guy thought was oxycodones? You know, that was something that also came out. You know, he says, I'm pretty sure it was Roxy's, you know, oxycodone that I gave to housekeeper. And so then the state is relying on the argument. And they're getting in through police witnesses, Tom Smith, that at the time, if you have street drugs like that, who knows what's in them? What do you say about this time? [00:10:26] Speaker 9: Yeah, whenever you put criminals with a with a past on the stand, you're rolling the dice, because you don't know what their memory is going to be. You don't know what their recollection is going to be. And guess what their story changes and it's happened on numerous occasions with other cases cases I've been involved with. So you're running your risk of doing that. And as Mario said, I don't think it went well when you have a jury looking at what they want. They want a story. They want a consistent story about what they're hearing. And when you start getting inconsistencies and breakups and I don't remember, that's not a good day for them. [00:11:07] Julie Grant: Yeah, you're right, Tom. And let's talk about how often it is in criminal court that we see witnesses like Ms. Housekeeper. I mean, how often do you have somebody with a criminal past, current criminal problems? You know, it came up so many times that she's in the drug court program. How often, Mario, would you say that someone like her is your witness versus someone who's never, ever been in the system for any reason and this is all brand new? [00:11:36] Speaker 8: It happens all the time. I think in just about every murder case I have, either somebody flipped or there's somebody that's a witness that comes in with baggage. And you know, as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, when I was a prosecutor, you needed to corroborate all of the statements that they were given with other evidence. And in this case, I don't know if they necessarily have been able to corroborate what she's saying on the stand with a lot of the other evidence. So this this was a very good two days for for the defense. [00:12:09] Julie Grant: Yeah, it really was, Mario. Um, Corey Richards has very good counsel. She she really does. They are solid and they're going right where they need to go. Um, can we talk about the common sense aspect of this? So, Tom, let me go to you on this point. We know that there's there's memory problems. We have the testimony from the dealer questioning, you know, whether there was even fentanyl sold to the housekeeper. Uh, Tom, taking a step back and thinking like the jury thinks. Um, do you think what we heard was enough for the jury to believe that Corey Richards was asking this housekeeper for fentanyl and did, in fact, obtain it from her? [00:12:55] Speaker 9: No, I think as we stand here today. No, and Mario brought up a great point with collaboration with with linking things together. You can't just go on one line. We have this and that's it. That doesn't work that way. You have to get more evidence to substantiate that in a courtroom because you can't just lay it on by itself. And and I don't think they did that. As Mario stated, you have to get more evidence into the line of thinking. And juries are smart. Juries can put A and B together. And if C is there, great. If it's not, they're going to know it. [00:13:32] Julie Grant: Yeah, really appreciate it. Uh, Mario final words from you, please. So going into this week, what would you say the state needs to do? Uh, if you could advise them on this again, it's their burden. We all know they've got the burden. They brought the charges, made the allegations. What do you think they need to impress upon the jury most in week two? [00:13:53] Speaker 8: So I think we're going to hear evidence from the cell phone analyst and the cell phone testimony is critical here. There's a problem with the 911 call. Uh, I believe Corey said that she wasn't on her phone, but there's this. They're going to be testimony that she was on her phone eight times in the amount of time that she was supposedly not on her phone. There's over 800 deleted text messages. There are communications between her and her boyfriend talking about going on Caribbean vacations. And I believe that's going to come out that she was, you know, that, that, that was 15 days after the death that she's planning a Caribbean vacation with a paramour. So the, the, the, the cell phone analyst is going to be a crucial piece of the prosecution, uh, this week. Big, big, big witness. Yeah, you're right, Mario. [00:14:37] Julie Grant: That big context, as you're saying, there are other things going on, uh, besides in the messy situation, going for the pills or not getting the pills, whatever the situation may be. Uh, great insights from you both, Mario, Tom, you're sticking around. Do the same at home, my friends, please. Here's what's next for you on opening statements. [00:14:55] Speaker 10: "My little girl just texted me. [00:14:59] Speaker ?: She's in middle school. She said, we're in lockdown. I'm like, yeah. [00:15:02] Speaker 10: I don't mind. Please help me. I don't know why you did that." "Well, we're trying to get him into counseling. He just didn't check in last year at high school. So we're going to do online school. Uh, we brought him back into just going to normal school this year, and he's going okay." [00:15:24] Julie Grant: It's a big day in the murder trial for the father of the alleged Appalachee High School shooter. The closing set to begin today. Is the second-degree murder charge, though, a sure thing for the state? We'll talk about it with our analysts. Plus, we've got the very best moment from Colin Gray on the stand. And live testimony rolling on this morning in the murder trial for defendant Corey Richett. Could her alleged deadly drug transaction tip the scales of justice? I've worked hard all my life. I learned the secret to success is speaking in your authentic voice. And I bring that lesson to my show every morning. [00:16:10] Speaker 11: Opening Statements with Julie Grant. Weekday mornings at 8/7c, only on Court TV. [00:16:17] Speaker 12: Corey has paraded around, portraying herself as widow and victim, while trying to profit from a book about his death. I never knew evil like this existed. [00:16:25] Speaker 11: The Grief Author Murder Trial. Live coverage, weekday mornings, 8/7c, on Court TV. [00:16:35] Julie Grant: Welcome back. And now for what's trending in true crime. The trial for the father of accused school shooter Colt Gray is winding down. And we expect closing arguments later today. Defendant father Colin Gray took the stand in his own defense on Friday and told the jury that he gave his son a rifle for Christmas, hoping it would bring them closer through some hunting trips and time at the gun range. But Colt Gray is accused of using that firearm at Appalachee High School to carry out a massacre that took the lives of two students and two teachers. [00:17:12] Speaker 13: Is there any, if you can remember any red flags or anything that Colt did that would make you believe that he would ever be capable of doing this act? No, I struggle with it every day. [00:17:26] Speaker 4: No, I struggle with it every day. I've never seen that video until yesterday. You know, he's a good kid. [00:17:45] Speaker ?: You know, he wasn't perfect. [00:17:46] Speaker 4: Nor was I. But to do something that heinous, like I don't know if anybody could ever see that kind of evil. And I, like the Colt I knew, the relationship I had, there's this whole other side of Colt I didn't know existed, so, no. [00:18:19] Speaker 13: Was everything you did for Colt, did you try to placate him and try to make him okay? I did. [00:18:26] Speaker 4: I just wanted him okay. [00:18:28] Julie Grant: Okay, so we know that Colt Gray has no burden of proof here. He didn't have to testify. He chose to. So let's recognize the burden always stays with the state of Georgia. They're the ones bringing the allegations, like we were just talking about in the Richards case. Here, we have a defendant in this case that chose to take the stand and tell his story. So the jury's going to be weighing his testimony. Was he convincing enough for them to find him not guilty for his son's alleged crimes? Let's talk about this. Let's bring in former prosecutor and sled agent Tommy Pope and retired NYPD detective Mike Alcazar. Good morning to you both. Tommy, I'll begin with you. Was he convincing enough to walk away from the allegations? [00:19:17] Speaker 14: Unfortunately, I didn't get to see the entirety, but I think he didn't do anything but help himself. I think the devil's going to be in the details. I think the nature of the charges. You know, we talked early on about the reckless aspect versus an intentional aspect, according to the different level of the charges. So I think he, you know, came across that even just a little clip you showed, you know, legitimately remorseful. And I think it couldn't hurt. You know, so many times we talk about should they, shouldn't they? I think it helped their case. [00:19:52] Julie Grant: You know, yeah, this is one of those cases where he had nothing to lose, right? It's already bad enough. Nothing is changing the facts of what happened on that dreadful day in September of 2024. Detective Alcazar, what did you think of dad? Were you believe in what he was saying? [00:20:12] Speaker 15: I didn't buy it. I didn't buy his crocodile tears. This was foreseeable and preventable. He knew police were concerned about his son. He knew his son had a mental illness. You know, he didn't secure the weapons. He kept buying him weapons. You know, if I knew that police were concerned about my kid and the online content he's posting, I would absolutely get rid of the guns. So no, I didn't buy it. [00:20:37] Julie Grant: Mm-hmm. Yeah, let's talk about that, getting rid of the guns. When you want your child to develop a habit, like a hobby, rather, like hunting, oh, okay, that's fine. The problem I see with this is that things were very unstable with this child. Mentally, he was unstable. So unstable, they were medicating him with mom's medication. So they knew he was having mental health difficulties. And so not only did they not get him treatment, but they continued to allow him access to the firearm. Tommy, when you look at those photos from the crime scene analysts and you see just how, I mean, it was a mess in that house and just a mess in the closets, firearms everywhere, ammunition everywhere. Tommy, would you speak to how responsible gun owners don't keep their guns like that? Because Julia, I think you hit it on. [00:21:30] Speaker 14: It goes back. I keep hitting on our, you know, what it would have been our involuntary or reckless disregard for the safety of others. I thought about the Christmas gift. I respect the bond. I respect having difficult children. You can take someone hunting without giving them the guns. You know, in other words, we can go hunting with my guns that I keep control of, that I lock in my safe, that we use for the trip and take back. You know, again, I just think it's full bore recklessness. And I do agree with Mike. I think the father, you know, was convincing, but I don't think it'll be enough. [00:22:09] Julie Grant: Right, right. Yeah. How about how he denied seeing the poster of Nicholas Cruz in the bedroom or knowing who that was? Let's take a listen back to exactly what he said. [00:22:22] Speaker 13: Did he ever talk to you about any obsession that he had with school shooters? No, sir. We've seen this big poster of newspaper articles and photographs of various and sundry people. Did you see that in his room at any time? [00:22:45] Speaker 4: I did not see that poster. There was one point in time where I went into his room originally. So, typically, his room was usually always dark. He had a room of darkening shade on him even for the daytime. Lights were off. His monitor screens were usually the only, you know, light in the room. I had gone in there to take him dinner one night and there was a picture on the wall. It's a young kid. I don't, I don't, I didn't know who it was. I, we had been talking about, we always talked about bands and different things. And he always would say I was old and I would tell him the band members we talked about their kids are starting bands. And I thought, I was like, man, who is that? He was like, you don't know who that is? I'm like, no. I said, I said, I think that's that kid's son from Green Day, like the band. And he laughed. I've never seen that picture before. Didn't know who it was at all. And that's kind of where the conversation ended. [00:23:53] Julie Grant: Detective Alcazar, you buying it? Let's take a look at the shrine here while you give us your answer. Your thoughts, please. [00:24:02] Speaker 15: Yeah, yeah, I didn't buy it. I don't believe he's that clueless. He admitted himself that he saw the poster that he, you know, he was trying to figure out who it was. If he had that curiosity, go figure out for yourself who that guy is. Just don't, you know, entertain his answers and his responses. That he's laughing when he misidentified the person. You know, I just don't believe it. You know, as a parent, you're always aware. You should be aware of what your kid's interests are. Why is this picture of this individual on the wall? Identify who that is. That's just responsible parenting. Yeah, exactly. [00:24:37] Julie Grant: You know, and if you think it's a musician, is a clue that he's not holding a musical instrument? And maybe something you could think about? No microphone, you know? I mean, come on now. Tommy Pope, your thoughts? [00:24:53] Speaker 14: I think it's time to throw the light switch on while he's at school. You know, maybe I'm old to get it. Yes. Search and seizure guy. But at some point, it's time to, you know, as part of parenting, as a part, particularly with all the blips on the radar we had concerning behavior and medication and all of these things. I mean, for your child's safety. You would look, you know, you would look and see, you know, again, trying to respect their privacy, but you've got a greater responsibility. And, again, I think that brings it back to recklessness. I think that, you know, not doing the basic steps, as Mike said, are, you know, tantamount to recklessness again. Mm-hmm. [00:25:33] Julie Grant: Yes, I agree with everything you said, Tommy. And I love how you put it. Search and seizure. Do it, parents. Do it. Go in your kid's bedroom. Look around. Look around. Know what's there. We're going to see what happens when this case closes today. Great insight from you both. Tommy, Mike, stand by, please. My friends, we've got to hit a break as we're coming up at the bottom of the hour. Here's what's next for you on opening statements. [00:25:56] Speaker 16: Cole, he damaged a lot of things while he was there. Again, he was just, you could tell that he was just, he had a lot of anger and just yuck inside of him. [00:26:15] Julie Grant: The fate of Father Colin Gray could be in the hands of the jury by this afternoon. We've got closings to get through first. And as the trial comes to an end, we're wondering, what about mom? Is she culpable here? We'll talk about it. Plus, in Utah, live testimony rolling on this morning in the murder trial for Corey Richens. Could her alleged deadly drug transaction tip the scales of justice? Welcome back, my friends. In our spotlight this morning, we're shining in line on the behavior of the mother of the accused Apalachee school shooter, Colt Gray. So should mom have done more to help her son? Well, Marcy Gray testified that her son's behavior was, quote, alarming when he came to live with her in 2023. She said that Colt damaged flat screen TVs inside the home, broke windows, carved things on surfaces with knives, and wrote things on the walls. The incidents led to Marcy Gray's father contacting the police twice, which eventually led to Colt moving back in with his dad. Marcy said that, you know, she knew that Colt was fascinated with school shooters. [00:27:30] Speaker 7: You talked a lot about things that happened in different years, 2022, 2023. And we heard that, for example, you were aware that Colt was interested in school shooters. Yes. You knew he researched them online. [00:27:49] Speaker 5: Yes. [00:27:50] Speaker 7: You knew he followed them. What do you mean by followed them? Just was interested in them. Sure. Gathering research on them. Yes. [00:27:57] Speaker 16: That's a good way to put it. Research. [00:27:59] Speaker 7: Okay. You had information that he was at least trying to communicate with one school shooter. [00:28:05] Speaker 16: Yes. [00:28:06] Speaker 7: And you did not share that information with Mr. Gray. [00:28:10] Speaker 16: Probably not if we were not living together. [00:28:14] Speaker 7: Okay. This didn't raise a concern to you such that you would have reached out to law enforcement, for example. No. You wouldn't have tried to immediately intervene with mental health treatment at that point, based on that. No. [00:28:35] Speaker 16: Just based on that. Yeah. He wasn't talking about it from what I could tell in any kind of serious manner. [00:28:42] Julie Grant: So she doesn't reach out to dad to flag that her son was actively trying to reach out and get in touch with a school shooter. Shortly after this, Marcy Gray, who, by the way, had an open CPS case against her, failed a drug test. And the other two children were sent back to live with Colin and Colt. So does mom bear some responsibility here? Let's talk about it. Let's bring in our guests, Mario Gallucci and Tom Smith standing by. Okay, Tom, I'll go to you first, please. What do you say? [00:29:12] Speaker 9: Yeah, she holds that responsibility. And I hated her answer of, well, we weren't living together. That doesn't neglect you from the responsibility you have as a mother. And, you know, if we look at society today, researching school shooters when you know your son is already not at a good mental level should be an indication to alert someone. And the excuse of, well, we weren't living together is horrible. And, you know, they needed to look at her a little bit more. I get that. But I think the whole gun thing is what tipped the scale. But she certainly has a responsibility to tell people what was going on in that house with her son. [00:29:53] Julie Grant: Yeah, most definitely, Tom. Well said. Mario, what do you think, please? [00:29:57] Speaker 8: So I agree with Tom. I don't think that she's going to win the mother of the year award. As a matter of fact, she's probably going to win the worst mother of the year award. But, you know, she didn't buy the gun for him. She didn't provide unsecured access to the gun for him. She wasn't even living in the home with him. So although she's a really bad mother and, you know, she's got her own criminal past, I don't think that she could be charged criminally for this event. You know, she had, like I said, she didn't buy the gun. She didn't provide unsecured access. And Tommy Pope said it in the last segment where, you know, you got to turn the light on and go in the room. You know, there's, what's going on in this house that your son's got these posters up on the wall and you're ignoring it and you sit in a dark room. And you have all of this evidence that this kid is seriously has some sort of mental disease, a defect, and nobody's doing anything about it. This could have been completely, completely preventable if either parent was just awake and paid attention to this kid. [00:31:02] Julie Grant: Yeah, you're exactly right, Mario. Look up. Yeah, turn the lights on and go in there and look around. Come on. I mean, some of those answers, oh, I thought he was a musician, really, didn't have a microphone, didn't have a guitar, wasn't on a stage. Yeah, he's not Harry Styles, as I've said before. Tom Smith, let me go to you here, please. Your thoughts on, you know, this idea that we can all take away from this case and learn from it, that parents should take some initiative and search their kids' rooms and get in there and look around. And mom should have done it, too, here. [00:31:40] Speaker ?: Talk to us, Tom. [00:31:41] Speaker 9: Oh, 100%. We used to tell parents all the time, you know, when I was working, you don't need a search warrant for your kid's room. So go in and rip it apart and look in every situation, every drawer under the bed that you can if you have a suspicion about something. Whatever it is, whether it's something to this magnitude of this horrible level, drug use, anything that's going on, you don't need permission. All right, everyone wants to be, you know, your kids' friends. Well, you're not a friend. You're a parent. And your responsibility is to take care of that kid. And if it's going through that room, and like we've all said, turn the light on and take a look around and see what's going on in your kids' lives, that's where it's going to be. It's going to be in their bedroom, in a book, in a drawer, in a closet or something, and it's your responsibility to find it. [00:32:30] Julie Grant: Amen. Amen, Tom. Let's take a look at a clip of Marcy, and she's talking about Colin wondering about what kind of a kid his son Colt was. [00:32:43] Speaker 16: There were multiple occasions where I tried to talk to him about it, and his initial reaction was always, well, what if there's nothing wrong with him? What if he's just messed up? What if he's just a piece of crap person? Then what are we going to do? At any point, kind of over the years, have you been supportive of trying to get Colt into therapy? No. And why not? Different reasons. I mean, nothing that really I felt was a valid reason. I think, in general, the defendant just didn't want to deal with it. Oh, put it on him. [00:33:42] Julie Grant: Put it on the defendant. Mario, how about these two? The two of them together were medicating the kid with her prescription. These two are so lazy and negligent that instead of taking the poor child to a doctor, you know, because of the voices he's hearing and all the difficulties he's having, they just pop some pills in his mouth and he'll, which is illegal, by the way. Isn't it, Mario? Your thoughts? [00:34:06] Speaker 8: It is illegal. And Julie, you're right on target here. I mean, this is what we're seeing here is just mind boggling to me. This was a completely preventable thing. If any parent would have just stepped up and taken charge, like Tom said, you don't need a search warrant to search your child's room. I'm the father of three children. I knew there's a balance. You got to give them some privacy. But you know what? If I thought there was something going on in there, I was, you know, the minute they left for school, I was in that room going through their drawers, making sure that they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. And if they were not, I would call them out on it. And if I thought they had an issue, I would deal with it. So these two are medicating them, and it really is just mind boggling that they would do what they did here. [00:34:54] Julie Grant: Mario, you're right. I love how you put it, because it is mind boggling. You're exactly right. When you look at this case and these facts, it really is. It's hard to believe that we're here, especially after we all saw the Crumbly case and all those warnings. And that everybody in America was on notice, people from the world were on notice that you will be prosecuted if you enable your child by giving them a firearm when you know they're unstable and need help. So this is, it's hard to feel sorry for either of these parents, in my view. Friends at home, hit us up on social media. Let us know your thoughts. Noon is when the closings will begin. A great insight. Mario Gallucci, Tom Smith, thank you both so much. We're going to hit a break, my friends, when we come back in Utah. Live testimony rolling on this morning in the trial of Corey Richens. We're talking about her alleged deadly drug transaction. Is it going to tip the scales of justice? I worked hard all my life. I learned the secret to success is speaking in your authentic voice. And I bring that lesson to my show every morning. [00:36:02] Speaker 11: Opening Statements with Julie Grant. Weekday mornings at 8/7 Central. Only on Court TV. [00:36:09] Speaker 12: Corey has paraded around portraying herself as a widow and victim while trying to profit from a book about his death. We never knew evil like this existed. [00:36:17] Speaker 11: The Grief Author Murder Trial. Live coverage weekday mornings, 8/7 Central. On Court TV. [00:36:24] Speaker 6: When you discovered him, was he on the bed? [00:36:31] Speaker 17: Yes. He was just laying on his side like normal. Okay. I just thought he was cold. It was cold in there, so I put the blanket on him. Yeah. His body just felt like heavy. [00:36:52] Julie Grant: Now, for what's tipping the scales in the murder trial of Corey Richens. Accused of killing her husband, Eric, with fentanyl. A key prosecution witness, the family's former housekeeper, testified that she had purchased illegal drugs at Corey Richens' direction on multiple occasions. And as expected, the defense wasted no time on Friday hammering away, cross-examining her. Did they succeed? Let's watch. [00:37:19] Speaker 5: Now recall, you said, but I just know totally there were only three total. Yes. All right. So again, back on March 13th of 2023, I'm sorry, May 13th of 2023, you told the detectives more than once, not for purchases. I know total three purchases for Corey. [00:37:41] Speaker 11: Correct. [00:37:42] Speaker 5: You told them that two, three times, correct? Yes. You told that to Ms. Whistler with U.S. Attorney's Office two days prior, correct? Yes. We talked about that. Yes. Yes. Okay. But today you're saying there were four purchases. Correct. Even though you were totally sure in 2022 there were three, your testimony now is that there were four? Yes. Okay. So you don't actually physically go to drug court because it's on pause until this case is over, right? Correct. I go in front of Judge, maybe every three months. Okay. And every time you go in front of Judge, maybe, well, you tell me, what happens when you go in front of Judge, maybe? They just put it out another three months. Do they say, do they ask you when the trial in this case is going to be? They never have asked me. All right. But they're putting it off until the trial's over, right? [00:38:39] Speaker 16: Correct. [00:38:40] Speaker 5: Because what happens is going to depend on if you testify at this trial, correct? Correct. And if you testify truthfully at this trial, then you are not going to go to prison, correct? Correct. And it's the people here at this table that decide if you've testified truthfully, correct? Objection. Well, who makes the decision if your testimony was truthful? [00:39:11] Speaker 16: I have no clue. [00:39:14] Speaker 5: So if you got up here and testified today, I never bought pills from Robbie, I never gave pills to Carmen, would you? I'm Carmen. I'm sorry. I never gave pills to Cory. Would you still be not charged in drug court? Everything would be fine. You'd just be done? [00:39:35] Julie Grant: I don't know. [00:39:36] Speaker 5: Okay. I don't know the answer to that one. [00:39:40] Julie Grant: What'd you think? Let's bring in our analysts, see what they think. Former prosecutor and former SLED agent Tommy Pope is with us. So is retired NYPD detective Mike Alcazar. Okay, detective. I'll start with you here, please. Your thoughts. Are you believe in the housekeeper? [00:40:00] Speaker 15: I did believe the housekeeper. I don't know if anyone else did, but I thought she was pretty credible. Maybe, you know, she misremembered the transactions. I found the defense a little bit confusing. You know, she kind of like rambled on a little bit, but I mean, I get it. She's attacking her credibility, the housekeeper and her motivation. And she probably succeeded with that. She probably put a question in the jury's mind. So I'm still kind of up in the air, but yeah, I believe I do believe the housekeeper. [00:40:30] Julie Grant: Mm-hmm. Tell me, tell me, do you believe the housekeeper? [00:40:35] Speaker 14: I think overall, yes. [00:40:40] Julie Grant: Oh, we got your signal frozen, Tommy. I'm going to jump in until we get you unfrozen. I believe her as well. She struck me as exactly the kind of defendant because, you know, she is. She's a drug court defendant right now that you see. Like, she has issues. She does. It's really sad when people have substance abuse issues and find themselves in the system. And I know she was not a perfect witness, not by any stretch. But what she was saying made sense to me, and it fits in the story. Was she perfectly accurate? No. Mike Alcazar, you know, this is what you get in criminal court. Am I right? This, you know, you don't find a lamb in a pig pen, as I like to say. [00:41:23] Speaker 15: Yeah, I mean, you do the best what you have. You know, you interviewed as witness. I'm sure the defense talked to her beforehand to find out what she was going to say. And they went with it. And, of course, the defense job is to challenge her testimony, her memory, her recall, the events that happened. And, you know, the jury's going to have to decide if the defense did that or if the prosecution is doing a pretty good job. [00:41:52] Julie Grant: Right, Mike. Mike, I have a clip I want you to take a look at. This is the dealer who sold some pills to the housekeeper. [00:42:00] Speaker 5: Did you tell them then that you never did sell fentanyl to Carmen Lager? [00:42:07] Speaker 6: I told them that I'm pretty sure that I sold her Roxy's and not fentanyl. And not fentanyl. Okay. [00:42:17] Speaker 5: So you told them, excuse me, you told them basically the same thing that you said in September of 2025 and what you're saying today. Yes. Yes. In your testimony. And did you sign a sworn affidavit that that, in fact, happened? [00:42:36] Speaker 6: I did. [00:42:37] Speaker 5: All right. And were you sober when you met with the prosecution in 2025? I was. To tell them that I never sold her fentanyl. I sold her Roxy 30s. Yes. Oxycodone. [00:42:50] Speaker 6: Oxycodone, yeah. Okay. [00:42:52] Julie Grant: So Detective Alcazar, is it possible that the Roxy's the oxycodone that he sold contained fentanyl? [00:43:02] Speaker 15: Yeah, this guy doesn't work at CVS. This guy's at a pharmacist. He doesn't know what he's selling, right? I like how she clarifies that he was not intoxicated during this interview. So pretty, pretty funny response there. [00:43:15] Julie Grant: Yeah, exactly. And I love that point you made. You know, we're not getting things scientifically measured appropriately. as you would at a pharmacy. These are, you know, drugs being made on the street, for sale on the street. So you don't know how much you're getting. And even the pills can differ. I'm sure you've seen this, Mike. In case the pills can differ in the amounts that they have, you know, to each other. Unlike, you know, a pharmacy where everything is standardized. A great point. Detective Alcazar, thank you so much. Always a pleasure having you. We'll see you soon. Friends at home, thanks for being with us for this episode of Opening Stamets. If you liked it, tell your friends about it. You can watch it again, go to courttv.com, just click on that show stand.