COURTROOM INSIDER — Kouri Richins says judge was unfair and wants new trial

[00:00:00] Nate Eaton: it is july 2nd 2026 thursday thanks for being with us tonight i'm nate eaton so glad you're with us here on courtroom insider hope you're ready for the july 4th weekend to those of you who are not in america thank you for watching i hope you have fun plans for the weekend anyway we are looking forward to this weekend we're going to be down at riverfest in idaho falls we're doing our helicopter rides with east idaho news we still have a couple seats left so if you want to make the drive or fly into idaho falls we'd love to meet you and then we're going to of course watch the massive fireworks show and then i'll be headed down to utah next week for the tyler robinson hearing the preliminary hearing it's going to be four days we'll talk more about that tomorrow tonight though a lot of filings in the corey richard's case well not a lot of filings a big filing with a lot of supplementary filings she says she needs deserves a new trial because judge richard mrazik did not treat the defense fairly that they favored the prosecution they in many ways embarrassed the defense in front of the jury and because of that she deserves a new trial i'm going to go through the whole document with you here in a minute there are supplementing uh examples that the defense uses and then in a moment we'll have rich uh rachel smith here she is a very experienced prosecutor who has tried cases all over the country she helped in lori valo's prosecution here in idaho she's done death penalty cases she's very familiar with these types of things so we will weigh in i posted this last night on my facebook page and many of you weighed in i'll share some of your thoughts here coming up a brief background for those of you that aren't quite familiar with the case cory richards was on trial earlier this year in park city utah accused of killing her husband with fentanyl uh she was also accused of attempting to kill him on valentine's day when he uh ate a sandwich and got very very sick but he did not die a few weeks later he did pass away in their home while their boys were in the house their three little boys and cory richens was was there um she her defense was that she didn't do it that uh well she didn't have a defense they didn't put on a defense they rested when it came time for the defense but uh in the opening statements and the closing arguments and through questioning of other witnesses it was simply that he may have uh some of his thc gummies may have been tampered with fentanyl perhaps or he may have purposely over not purposely accidentally overdosed in the house because he was known they said he was known to get drugs from people they didn't show any evidence of that but that's what they said at the end of the day the jury came back and found her uh guilty on all charges after deliberating for about three hours and then the judge sentenced cory richens to life in prison and um that's where we're at so it is expected that any good defense attorney would file a motion for a new trial and you try to find holes that the judge that holes in the trial whether it's evidence whatever it might be and now it will go forward now alex murdaugh we know is getting a new trial but that's completely different circumstances that was the court clerk doing things she should not have done she influenced the jury and i think almost everybody agrees that yeah that was wrong and yeah he has a new trial uh it's a little different in his case because he's going to be in prison forever anyway with the financial crimes he was convicted of in a separate ordeal uh but we're preparing for that trial that will be next april um but let me go through this uh i get distracted by all these cases let me go through this filing that was just uh put into the record uh last week i believe i'm going to pull this up here so you can follow along with me let me make it a little bit bigger not upside down here we go okay so uh i'm just going to read this i'll try to explain it as we go and hopefully you can see it there on your screen um motion for new trial pursuant to utah rule of criminal procedure and utah rule of civil procedure cory darden richards hereby moves this court to grant a new trial due to irregularities in the trial proceedings and cumulative error and presence to the court and sorry and presents to the court so they're saying we're moving this court to grant a new trial due to irregularities in the trial proceedings and cumulative error we present to this court the attached video clips and documents in support of her request i need a drink statement of facts miss richards was originally charged with one count of criminal homicide aggravated murder in violation of utah code 7652022 and three counts of possession of a controlled substance in violation of utah code says and such prior to the preliminary hearing on august 27th 28th of 2024 the information was amended two times between the preliminary hearing and the trial in this matter the information was amended an additional two times preliminary hearings are the the very first substantial hearing i don't know if i should say that it's a hearing where the prosecution has to present enough evidence and information so the court can say yes we do believe the crime occurred from there the trial is scheduled and it goes forward so this was way back in 2024 two years ago they're saying that at between the preliminary hearing and the trial the information was amended like the charges were changed a three-week trial was held commencing on february 23rd 2026 concluded mark 16th found guilty of one count of criminal homicide aggravated murder attempted criminal homicide aggravated murder two counts of insurance fraud or one kind of forgery pursuant to rule 24 this court may grant a new trial in the interest of justice if there is any error or impropriety which had a substantial adverse effect upon the rights of a party a new trial is not necessary however when an error is sufficiently inconsequential that utah courts conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings and in other words a new trial is not merited where an error is harmless a motion for a new trial is generally permitted for correcting errors made in the trial court and for reviewing a conviction obtained by unfair or unlawful methods so if the errors made likely impacted the effects of of the outcome the jury's ruling then yeah you can have a new trial if they were they were were they were minimal errors that likely would not have changed the the outcome then you're not going to get a new trial that's what they're saying so miss richens this is her attorney's convictions wendy lewis kathy nester alex ramos her conviction should be vacated in a new trial granted for the following reasons one the court's clear demonstration of bias in favor of the state displayed before the jury deprived miss richens of a fair trial two the state's repeated reliance on other crimes wrongs or bad acts and the admission of evidence proving miss richens committed wide-ranging financial crimes over numerous years in several general categories went far beyond the court's pre-trial rulings violated rule 401 402 403 and 404b and resulted in substantial undue prejudice denying miss richens a fair trial and three cumulative cumulative error bottom line the court favored the prosecution the prosecution allowed in stuff they shouldn't have with the financial crimes and three overall error now we'll break it down one throughout trial the court repeatedly interrupted defense counsel corrected counsel in ways that suggested to the jury that counsel was mishandling witnesses assisted the prosecution with its objections and curtailed the defense's objections on at least one occasion the court did so in a manner that made clear to the jury that it was offended by defense counsel this misconduct created an appearance of bias against miss richens and in favor of the prosecution depriving miss richens of a fair trial pursuant to the 14th amendment of the united states constitution and article 1-12 of the utah constitution a defendant has the right to an impartial judge and the the presence of a judge who is not impartial constitutes a structural defect in the trial mechanism that violates the united states constitution and requires reversal and then case law is cited further courts have long recognized that a trial judge's comments and actions carry a great deal of influence with a jury again sorting uh sourcing state versus beck in the state in this manner the court engaged in repeated conduct that denigrated defense counsel both in and out of the presence of the jury the court was often impatient critical and hostile toward the defense and only the defense the court frequently interrupted defense counsel telling them to quote pause or quote focus never was the state told to focus now the source for that i was going to play you the clip but these are it was hard to go through the whole thing um uh so let me go back to to sourcing one at the bench the court angrily criticizes miss nester's objections telling her to slow her role and reminding her so we didn't hear this by the way this was at the bench we didn't hear this this was done on the sidebar at the bench the court angrily criticizes miss nester's objections telling her to quote slow her role and reminding her to quote read the ruling that i issued yesterday to try to avoid a plain error to help your client further the court tells miss nester that she needs to wrap it up because quote i have parent-teacher conference to go to and my son barely recognizes me number two a video clip the court interrupts miss lewis in a demeaning manner saying please pause seconds later the court follows an interruption of the prosecution with an apology when miss lewis expresses frustration at the court for changing a ruling made at the bench she is told twice to quote stay focused and quote don't do that please stay focused so that's the footnote on those two references during day four of the trial the court interrupted defense counsel on 24 separate occasions while only interrupting the state 13 times this normally may not show bias but the interruptions of defense were curt cutting off statements and arguments while interruptions of the prosecution were followed by apologies and arguments uh were were often to help with logistical issues or to aid them with objections this pattern followed throughout the trial on day one alone the court interrupted the defense 36 times as opposed to interrupting the prosecution 20 times interruptions of the prosecution were generally clarifying accommodating or logistical for example at trial day one page 40 in line 17 the court interrupts the state to help clarify their argument and to redirect the state's argument into the court's framing uh then there's other other examples including uh that they say the court uses language such as that doesn't track and move on you're jumping the gun and i think it's premature this is only day one of the trial a full review of the trial transcript demonstrates that this disparate treatment of the defense was persistent prejudicial and well outside the bounds of neutral courtroom management and administration in addition to speaking in a disparaging and condescending manner to the defense the court also reframed would are also reframe arguments in a way to help the prosecution one strong example of this took place on day 10 of the trial when the defense was trying to elicit testimony of the victim's prior use of pain pills not only did the court interrupt the defense but it also continuously continuously rephrased the argument insisting that the defense use the term illicit street drugs defining such drugs in a way that does not include prescription pain pills during this argument the court did more than frame the issue in terms of favorable to the state it affirmatively accused ms nester of knowingly misusing the court's chosen definition a definition unsupported by any expert testimony or evidentiary bias basis and instead supplied by the court itself the defense goes on to sort uh source additional examples when the court accuses ms lewis of intentionally ignoring what the court is saying and informing defense as an answer to the objection that they can call their own witness in the case thereby burden shifting day 11 49 minutes the court simply didn't simply rule on ms nester's objections to relevance but commended commented on the objection in an extremely disparaging and condescending manner saying you don't see the relevance at day 11 57 minute the court was extremely condescending toward ms nester's request for their continuing objection and at day 14 page 14 the court shot down an objection by ms lewis during closing interrupting her in the process and strongly saying please be seated i remember that you may too during the closing arguments he said please be seated he was not going to put up with it now um you know that the defense has gone through every page every example every error every not error every line over the past trial to come up with this document and and that's what they have done uh this is uh uh uh it would be wrong for a defense attorney not to file an appeal a motion for a new trial especially in such a high profile case and so they're trying to find reasons why they can say to the the higher uh the judge that hey this this was wrong the judge treated me wrong continuing here let me grab a drink um this uh after the judge told her please be seated this was particularly prejudicial to the defendant as it was in front of the jury indicating that the court was angry with the defense and making it clear that objections during closings would not be tolerated the state then went on to make several objectionable statements during closing leaving the defense with no remedy in front of the jury uh and then they go on to source again state versus beck a full review of the trial transcript transcript clearly shows that the court was demeaning and condescending to defense counsel and in contrast was friendly to the prosecution often helping them with both their objection and the framing of arguments footnote miss nester did make a record outside the presence of the jury after closing arguments were complete as to the improper comments made in the state's closing although of course by then the jury had already heard the improper arguments much of this conduct took place in front of the jury and as beck stated a trial judge's position before a jury is overpowering trial judges sit high above everyone else in the courtroom they preside and they decide they welcome and protect the jurors accommodate their schedules and make sure they have everything they need the influence of the trial judge on the jury is necessary and properly of great weight and his lightest word or intimation is received with deference and may prove controlling the trial judge often banters and jokes with the jury and this case was no different i don't know if i heard him joke uh the trial the jury looked up to the trial judge laughed at his jokes and engaged favorably with him throughout the trial i guess he did he did he may have made a few jokes a full review of the record makes it clear that the court let it be known to the jury that it favored counsel for the state and their positions when the prosecution raised concerns the court often accepted clarified or helped frame them when the defense raised concerns the court more often responded with interruption correction skepticism or curt demands to move on commands in addition to the court's treatment of counsel a full review of the trial transcript script shows multiple instances where the court suggested that defense objections could be resolved by the defense calling their own witnesses thereby shifting the burden by instructing them to put on a defense the rule quote with respect to the scope of cross-examination continues to be that it is limited to the subject matter of the examination in chief or in more parlance to the limited scope of direct examination while enforcement of this rule generally is within the trial court's discretion in a close case the rule must not be so strictly applied as to deprive the defense of the opportunity to present to the jury a vital element of the defense so what they're saying here is the judge the defense was trying to ask it sounds like that was trying to question certain witnesses with the prosecution it was outside the scope and the judge told them you want to call them and ask them whatever you want you can do it and they're saying then they shifted the burden to us that we then had to respond call them and that we had the burden whereas the burden should have been on the state okay continuing here in a particularly heated debate with defense counsel regarding argument over the state's request to put in additional statements by carmen lauber after she had already taken the stand the court told defense that they should recall miss lauber in their case if they wanted to question her on these statements that the state did not put in during her testimony at times the court went so far to tell the defense to put on to put the defendant on the stand rather than allowing certain lines of questioning in addition to disparaging defense counsel the court repeatedly aided the prosecution by supplying objections the state had not made and on at least one occasion sue saponte objected on the state's behalf and then sustained its own objection although a trial judge may control the courtroom and rule rule on objections the court may not abandon the rule of neutral arbiter and assume the role of advocate for one side the supreme court has long cautioned that the judge's influence over a jury is uniquely powerful and that even slight judicial intimations may affect the jury's view of the parties and the evidence uh utah courts recognize the same principle that a judge must maintain both actual neutrality and the appearance of neutrality particularly in a jury trial when the court supplied sorry i'm just kind of skipping over uh some of the the uh case law uh you can go back by the way read this whole thing it is public when the court supplied objections for the prosecution and then sustained those objections the court did more than manage the proceedings it communicated to the jury that the state's position had the court's approval and that the defense's questioning warranted judicial intervention even when the prosecution itself did not object that appearance of alignment with the prosecution is precisely the type of conduct that can infect the fairness of the trial and requires a new trial overall based on the court's conduct it often appeared that the defendant was not facing a single adversary but rather had to bear the consequence of a judge who at times acted as a second adversary and who appeared to disbelieve either defense counsel or a defense witness as a result the court's repeated prejudicial conduct toward the defense in this case the defendant did not receive a fair trial by a neutral arbiter of justice because miss richens is asserting herein a claim of bias on the part of the judge the court should reassign the consideration of this motion to another judge in compliance with the utah code of judicial conduct the utah court of judicial conduct defines impartiality as the absence of bias even the most scrupulous efforts to keep an objection open mind are near impossible when a judge is being asked to consider whether his or her behavior was prejudicial during trial so i'll explain that in a moment but given the apparent objective uh the actual conflict of interest created by the allegation of the court bias they need to ensure due process disqualification from ruling on this motion is warranted so they're saying judge judge judge morazic behaved inappropriately during the trial he favored the prosecution he laughed with the jury he cracked jokes with the jury he would help the prosecution he was rude to the defense he it swayed it and because he's the center of this objection another judge should rule on it on this motion the judge morazic should not be able to rule on his own motion and we'll talk about in a minute that judge morazic has recused himself from ruling on this so he did do what the defense requested and another judge will hear it so we debate the main issue the defense has is the fact they're saying the judge helped the prosecution and the judge was unfair to them that's issue one and that the judge shouldn't rule on this now the second smaller issue so this is a 14 page document that was how many pages 10. so 10 of the 14 pages well other than the introduction and the background are about judge morazic the second issue they have is this the state relied on other crimes wrongs or bad acts and the admission of evidence proving ms richards committed wide-ranging financial crimes over numerous years in several general categories went far beyond the court's pre-trial rulings so here's the issue we saw it in lori valo and chad daybell lori valo was convicted of or had had been charged with crimes in arizona they did tie into the idaho case the issue was should those crimes be allowed in to the idaho case in front of a jury here because she's not being tried for those crimes here she's being tried for these specific crimes corey richens has been tried with other has been charged with other financial crimes she has yet to go to trial for those so the judge held pre-trial hearings about what information from those cases can be allowed in and he allowed some in and he didn't allow others in 404b is what it's called same with valo that the and in her trial her case the objections are the same they're they're the appellate attorney with her with lori valo's case is saying the judge allowed too much in from arizona he shouldn't have allowed it and the the defense objected in corey richens case to these two and now they're saying prior to trial the defense filed motions in limine seeking to exclude the trial evidence of over 30 other crimes wrongs or bad acts connected to miss richens business and or and or her financial dealings over a period of several years on january 7th of this year the court held a hearing to determine to what extent all of miss richens alleged financial misdeeds spanning years before eric richens death could be admitted at trial the court gave the state uh some general guardrails attempting to avoid 404b issues see attachment in trial the state went far beyond the court's pre-trial rulings and introduced the testimony of chelsea barney and brooke carrington going into great detail about numerous financial misdeeds brooke carrington was the financial wizard the one that brought all of that information i was in court that day it was all about the finances all about corey richens disarray of money um so she was brought on to testify of of of that but remember she was also charged with insurance fraud in this case corey richens was so you could argue that it was applied to that um uh chelsea barney worked for the um the company or i believe she worked for the uh let me check on that she easier either the did i don't know if she was um she had financial dealings with corey richens i want to be sure i'm right on that just stand by sorry you can read the document while i look it up um okay nope sorry i shouldn't work for her she was her best friend that's right she bought the house from corey thought she owned the house but she didn't corey apparently did not use the money for the house and so chelsea barney was evicted from the house miss carrington spent an uh an entire day on the stand testifying about bounced checks false bank statements misleading communication with lenders mismanagement of business affairs sloppy accounting improper tax accounting and on and on and on miss barney testified how she lost her life savings in her home when miss richens mishandled a real estate transaction for her and allegedly lied about it the defense objected to all of the state's attempts to inject allegations of financial and business fraud and or dishonesty into the trial despite the court's pre-trial rulings and each and every objection was overruled by the court the very beginning of the state's closing argument specifically referred to miss richens taking out a heloc home equity line of credit without her husband knowing about it for years before he died seven pages of the state's closing argument focused on the testimony of carrington and barney miss richens case is similar to the case of state of south carolina virtues versus alec murdaugh the south carolina supreme court wherein the supreme court for the state of south carolina held that it was overly prejudicial to allow the state under the guise of proving motive to introduce vast amounts of evidence showing financial misdeeds of the defendant spanning years of time prior to the murders of his family like the murdoch case miss richens was denied a fair trial due to the undue prejudice of financial wrongdoings uh permeating her trial the only appropriate remedy is a new trial so you got we talked about number one the judge number two the finances they're saying it shouldn't have been allowed in and number three the final reason the defense says corey richens deserves a new trial is the cumulative error doctrine which is that when a conviction should be reversed when two or more errors occurred each error standing alone has a conceivable potential for harm and the cumulative effect of those error undermines the confidence that a fair trial was held a court's confidence is more likely to be shaken when the errors work together in a pernicious manner so as to cause more prejudice than the mere sum of the individual errors cumulative error refers to the number of errors when prejudice which prejudice a defense a defendant's right to a fair trial the cumulative error doctrine applies when a single error may not constitute grounds for reversal of reversal but many errors taken to collect taken into collectively should so they're saying there was more than one error there were two errors there were big errors and because of that cumulatively they should be taken so conclusion the court should recuse from consideration of this motion and an evidentiary hearing should be scheduled before the judge assigned to the motion to present evidence and argument in support for richard's request for a new motion of a new trial so they're saying we need to have a hearing on this and we'll present all this evidence now in this in this motion they did have attachments let me pull some of them up i'm again i was i'm not going to play them for you here um because it uh here we go like it's it's stuff like this where they have trial transcripts and these are 10 pages long and um again these are all attachments these are the examples that the uh defense says um show that the case that they uh um here's another one miss nester the court miss lewis this this one is 65 pages so that's the examples that the defense had when they said that the court was was wrong um and unfavorable toward them and like i said i'm not going to play all of those for you but now i do want to show you this this was judge morazic's response filed july 1 yesterday before the court is defendants motion for new trial on pages 10 to 11 the motion states in part because miss richens is asserting here in a claim of bias on the part of the judge the court should reassign the consideration of this motion to another judge in compliance with um i lost my spot in compliance with the utah code of judicial conduct given the apparent objective bias discussed the actual conflict of interest created by allegations of the court's bias and the need to ensure due process disqualification from ruling on this motion is warranted out of an abundance of caution the court interprets the foregoing motions as a motion to disqualify under rule 29b of the utah rules of criminal procedure under rule 29b 2a the court hereby certifies the motion to the associate presiding judge of the third district for review for review the court shall take no further action in this case until the motion is decided end of order so here is his the certification that it was sent to wendy lewis catherine nestor alex ramos margaret olson brad budworth joseph hill byron brewmaster and lindsey um what they're all with the prosecutions team so uh mrazik did decide and mrazik did say he's going to recuse himself from this now does this affect the other case i don't believe so if however the other judge comes back and says yeah this judge aired judge marazik was wrong then i could see the defense very much arguing another motion for a new judge in the financial crime case so we'll see what happens there so what does all this mean is this really a big deal is this procedural what what does this mean um i know many of you have asked me that look at my comments there's like a thousand of them i'll read you a few in a moment for now i want to bring in rachel smith she's the prosecutor i talked about earlier she's prosecuted cases for decades been all over the country she's currently working on several cases herself i wanted to get her take on what this exactly means so please welcome rachel smith all right rachel uh first thing i want to talk with you about tonight is the appeal from corey richens attorneys has been filed and and they're saying she deserves a new trial i guess it's not an appeal it's a motion for a new trial and they're saying that she deserves this because the judge was not fair the judge favored the prosecution during the trial and the judge at one point told the defense attorney to to be quiet or sit down or something like that is this kind of commonplace when when [00:31:50] Speaker 2: these verdicts come down for individuals who are charged with this level of crime that corey richens is charged with yes they they have to file a motion for new trial it is considered ineffective if defense attorneys don't do that so they have to file it and it will always focus on the conduct of the prosecutor and the conduct of the judge occasionally it'll focus on the conduct of the defense attorneys that's um if there's some suggestion that they were ineffective but it's those three buckets that are [00:32:26] Nate Eaton: part of a standard motion uh for new trial a lot of people watching the trial thought the judge behaved appropriately didn't see anything wrong and occasionally maybe i don't want to say lost his temper but got maybe a little short or or you could tell he wasn't going to go there down certain paths um it seemed commonplace so in these cases are the defense attorneys looking making a mountain out of a mole hill because they have to or do you think this is really like oh record that we gotta include that in our motion [00:32:59] Speaker 2: i think it's standard it's business as usual there it is very common for criminal defendants and their defense attorneys to blame the judge i think we've seen it in several high-profile cases i mean the attacks you know by lori valo on the judge down in arizona and some of her motions with judge boyce so it is very common for defense attorneys to latch on often out of context a statement by a judge or an action by a judge for the higher courts what they'll be looking for is is there evidence that the judge abused their discretion that they go beyond what a person in that position would do to apply the law unfairly and um without even hands and so it's pretty typical for the allegations to be made it is not typical for there to be evidence to support the allegations long term um it's kind of the reverse situation you know an accusation doesn't convict somebody a jury does an accusation by a defendant doesn't mean the judge did anything wrong that's going to be up to the judge who hears the motion in the court of appeals and they are not often granted and they're saying in this motion that [00:34:23] Nate Eaton: because the judge clearly favored the prosecution and even helped the prosecution in front of the jury and spoke disparagingly to the defense that it persuaded the jury or persuaded them to think oh the defense is incompetent uh clearly the prosecution knows what they're doing do you think jurors [00:34:42] Speaker 2: really read into that no i have seen once in a while when judges and it's very rare if a judge is extreme and shows personal um response i have seen jurors later comment on that like the judge seemed irritated the judge didn't seem fair but that's very very rare um that it would influence a jury and then the bigger piece on that is it's it's very rare that it's actually true judges are human they will show frustration at one side or another that does not mean that that is inherently unfair it does not rise to the level to deprive somebody of the their right to fair trial the balance that's going to go on is it how strong is the evidence one two did the judge actually engage in this conduct and if they didn't and it's dead in the water if they did then you know what would the jury have found guilty anyway so it's a it is a very large burden for criminal defendants to reach the level of a new trial making accusations without substantive like he took a bribe type evidence to to win in these motions um did i see it correctly reported correctly that the judge has removed himself yeah that i was going to ask you that so [00:36:04] Nate Eaton: would it be common once this thing is filed the judge has recused himself uh as far as reviewing the motion from the defense and then another judge will be assigned to to review that that you know i can't [00:36:20] Speaker 2: say it's common or not common it doesn't happen all the time it certainly is a judge who's paying attention to the record a judge who's trying to make sure like hey you know i want somebody fair and neutral to look at it it's probably giving ms richard's more due process than maybe she's even entitled to but it's certainly a way to create a very clean record on appeal um it's certainly a a real important part of making sure that the courts can't make the trial about the judge or the prosecutor it needs to be about who was taken and who did the harm and by recusing himself that's the judge's way of making sure the focus stays where it should be [00:37:02] Nate Eaton: well and and he still has at least as of now i don't know if this will affect it he still is presiding over a second trial that involves her involving finances down the line and so uh maybe i thought when i saw that he recused himself maybe just to be clean ahead of that one too just as a precaution recuse from this and see what happens and then if i guess they do find that he did error maybe he'll be pulled off that case or he'll recuse himself from that case i i think if the if a court [00:37:34] Speaker 2: found in the motion for neutral that they felt he had been biased against her then i i would expect the judge would take himself off i really i saw bits and pieces of that trial i didn't watch the entire but i got to tell you what i did see i didn't see anything that rose to the level of ooh you know that's not cool on behalf of the judge um he was a judge with a strong character um i equally saw him a couple times frustrated with the prosecutors so um nothing about that is unprofessional nothing about that is inherently unfair um we don't expect the people who wear the black robe to sit up there and be robots right um so and if one side or another is being annoying it's okay to call him on being annoying um it's just you do it in a way that doesn't abides the jury i just would be very shocked if another judge found the comments that this judge made to rise to the level of needing a new trial i'd be even more shocked if the court of the appeals took that up and agreed with any of those [00:38:38] Nate Eaton: sort of findings i know in arizona uh laurie vallow told asked the judge to recuse himself during a hearing he said i'm not going to recuse myself like verbally asked him then she did file a motion i believe on the eve of trial or right at the beginning i mean and and so another judge did pick that up had a had a quick hearing that day or the next day the judge said i have not found that judge beresky erred in any way he will remain on the case and went back to it i would imagine that it's common practice for a lot of defendants not to like the judge if things aren't going their way [00:39:14] Speaker 2: yes yeah absolutely that's a really good point with criminal defendants many of them it's they blame everybody but themselves yeah so this will be a situation where it was the prosecutor's fault it was the judge's fault um it's unusual for a criminal defendant to take that step back and own their responsibility when they've gone to trial um i would be surprised if miss richens did as well [00:39:40] Nate Eaton: and rachel will be back on with me tomorrow night to talk about uh the tyler robinson case tomorrow night we're going to do a deep dive into what will happen next week when tyler robinson preliminary hearing happens in utah it's going to be monday tuesday wednesday thursday i'm going to be there a few days uh the court has allocated 13 media seats we're actually going to be in the jury box and we will um uh we're assigned different days to go and and there's sadly there's no phones in there there's no laptops so we'll still be live streaming posting updates uh minute by minute but when i'm in there my colleague caitlin hart she's going to be live tweeting on my account so you can follow me there follow caitlin um and we'll have all of that information um what i do want to do what i do want to uh read though is some we'll talk more about that in a minute but the reaction for many of you is um quite intense i could say about this ruling from or this motion from the prosecution let me pull it up for you uh i posted this on my facebook page last night and um here is what you said two over 2500 comments just to sampling just at random i've watched a lot of trials and participated in many others as a paralegal and as a juror over my 25 year plus career i don't know if i have ever seen a judge with more appropriate judicial demeanor or a better understanding of case law that was from carrie her comment has nearly 2 000 likes these two attorneys remind me of three-year-olds that don't get their own way and they grab their toy and go home and tell their mom that the other kids were mean to them that was from kent this judge showed overwhelming restraint so many times he had to explain why and how her attorneys needed to do their jobs her only complaint should be with her attorneys they were less than competent although they didn't have much to work with the judge was excellent can you imagine if the judge did comment on her over the top expressions meaning corey's she would say this judge has it out for me guaranteed he did not play along in her games and then someone responded the prosecution gave more faces than the defense i think nestor and lewis are still just pissed off that they got the dog walked by brad bloodworth that they got dog walked by brad bloodworth someone said did we watch the same judge say best judge ever another woman i have been watching trials gavel to gavel since 1992 judge morazic was phenomenal his rulings were spot on and his delivery with his mic drop baritone voice was primo good luck corey this judge was the main reason i watched that court case he was a professional spoke eloquently and was extremely tolerant uh i think it's pretty obvious that anyone that watched the trial that the judge was probably a little frustrated with them because they were misrepresenting facts and being purposely obtuse he was the most professional knowledgeable and unbiased judge i've ever watched good luck to the defense they were all the only embarrassment in this trial on and on and on 2500 of those um this says uh these these definitely aren't the grounds i would have chosen but at the end of the day there are none which entitle her to a new trial kudos to morazic for recusing himself preemptively to avoid additional claims of perceived injustice is she represented by the same trial counsel for this motion yes she would be so her her same attorneys will file this motion you can go and share your comments someone said is she sharing is she taking her cues from lori valo you can go share your comments here on our comments or on my facebook page um uh because i love to hear i love to hear what you have to say there in fact i can tell you that this is where you can find me look at that right there on a graphic i'm wearing the same i don't know if i can do a double box you know what i'm gonna go back and forth i'm wearing the same jacket in tonight that i'm wearing in that image look see on the left there i am same jacket a little darker in this one anyway here's where you can find me facebook instagram uh n.eaton nate news now for x and youtube please subscribe if you haven't subscribed i will give you a fourth of july hug if you subscribe um and if you have not yet visited our youtube channel for courtroom insider look i'm going to show you how to do it you simply well i'll show you what it looks like go to your browser type in courtroom insider and this is what it looks like right here has that at the top this on the side courtroom insider there's other courtroom insiders out there but they're not us and you can see we have our our most recent uh hearings here you see you hit subscribed here and then hit all bing right there underneath subscribe hit all and you will get notifications whenever we go live so if you want to catch up on the uh hearings that you missed you can hit that or all the prior courtroom insiders if you missed last night's with uh about coberger or some of the others you can find them all here under the live tab and other videos are here so uh subscribe we're at 3300 so happy thank you thank you thank you for that and thank you very much for watching as i mentioned we'll be back tomorrow gonna do a deep dive on tyler robinson the man accused of killing charlie kirk uh we'll have all of that for you tomorrow and then details about how you can watch that uh hearing next week as it should be very very interesting guess who else is in that one kathy nester she is tyler robinson's attorney she was cory richard's attorney so we're coming full circle we'll be back with more i hope you have a good night everybody and uh we'll see you tomorrow okay take care [00:46:18] Speaker ?: you