Testimony Continues in the Kouri Richins Murder Trial

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: When you discovered him, was he on the bed? [00:00:06] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:00:07] Speaker 2: He was just laying on his side like normal. [00:00:11] Speaker 3: I just thought he was cold. It was cold in there, so I put the blanket on him. His body just felt like heavy. [00:00:27] Julie Grant: Live testimony resumes later this morning in the murder trial of defendant Corey Richens. But did her defense team score a small victory with an undetermined manner of death? Plus, Savannah Guthrie and her family announcing a million-dollar reward, upping it for information about her mother's disappearance. So will this new reward amount lead to a break in the case? We'll break down the newest developments in the search for Nancy Guthrie. It's all coming up next for you right here on Opening Statements. Good Wednesday morning to you and welcome to Opening Statements. I'm Julie Grant. I miss you, my friends. It's great to be back with you this morning. We've got a tremendous show planned, so we're going to get it started as we always do. Grab a cup of coffee or tea, whatever you have in this morning. It's time for my opening statement. How about lying, crying Corey Richens? I saw that body camera footage holding her head, pouring on the tears and really selling her side of the story. Let's not forget that she was cheating on Eric at this time. To me, her crying and her apparent heartache was somewhat believable. But all her talking was not. I say pants on fire, Corey Richens. She had way too much to share with the police about how this all went down. She had more answers than she had questions. It felt like an extensive sales pitch. I mean, she was working in sales when this happened. And I think she oversold it here. Maybe because so much was at stake. She owed $4.5 million the day that Eric mysteriously died. And coincidentally, she took out a life insurance policy on Eric two weeks before his passing. Now, it may only be day number three of this trial, but I think the jury has already gotten a sense of what lying, crying Corey Richens is all about. That's my opening statement this Wednesday morning. Let me know if you like it right now. Time for your daily docket. [00:02:45] Speaker ?: I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. [00:02:49] Speaker 5: I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. [00:02:51] Speaker ?: I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. [00:02:55] Speaker 5: I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. [00:03:17] Julie Grant: I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. I'm going to go to the next day. In the trial of Dale Warner, jurors will be seeing key locations relating to the death of his wife, D Warner. That's all set to begin at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time. We begin this hour with your top story. It's happening in the murder trial of Corey Richens in Utah. The mother of three is facing a jury for allegedly killing her husband, Eric. Prosecutors say she poisoned him with a fatal dose of fentanyl back in 2022. On Tuesday, medical professionals took the center stage with details connected to the death of Eric Richens. We've put together the most key moments from the trial. Let's look back. [00:04:28] Speaker 6: Were you given any medications that Eric Richens was taking? [00:04:32] Speaker 7: Yes, I believe she told me it's in my report, but naltrexone for Lyme disease, possibly. She did also say CBD gummies. [00:04:42] Speaker 6: As you are performing these life saving measures on Eric Richens, did you see anything that to you might explain what's going on with him? No. Now, when you've been on the scene for an overdose death or an overdose call in the past, what are some things that you see around the person that might indicate to you what's happening? [00:05:04] Speaker 7: Sometimes you see drug paraphernalia or pill bottles. [00:05:08] Speaker 6: Did you observe any of those things? No. Later, you talked about Eric Richens being dead sometime. What was that observation based on? He was cold to the touch. [00:05:19] Speaker 7: He was cold to the touch. His body was cold to the touch and his heart rhythm, which when we hooked up the monitor showed that he was in a systole. What is a systole? That's flat line. So no heart? No heart. No heart. No heart. Electro activity at all. [00:05:38] Speaker 6: Did that ever change while you were there? No. [00:05:41] Speaker 8: So then they're doing the CPR and you were asked by Ms. Offred, who we just heard from, to check the nightstand for any medication. Is that right? Yes. I noticed you went to the bed stand on that side of the bed. So is your understanding that was the side of the bed that Mr. Richens had been on? [00:06:05] Speaker 9: Yes. [00:06:06] Speaker 8: Did you see the white specks on the nightstand when you were there that night? [00:06:09] Speaker 9: I do not recall it being there. [00:06:11] Speaker 8: Did you gather them or swab them or put them in a little plastic bag to be tested later? [00:06:19] Speaker 9: I did not. [00:06:20] Speaker 8: So as you sit here now, can you tell the jury what those white specks are? [00:06:24] Speaker 9: White specks. [00:06:30] Speaker 10: With the information available to me at the time of the autopsy, the decedent did not have a history of any kind of illicit drug use or prescription medication abuse. So the fentanyl level should have been zero. There should not have been any fentanyl or nor fentanyl present. The fact that I have fentanyl present tells me that fentanyl was obviously ingested at some point recent. [00:07:02] Speaker 9: 15 nanograms per milliliter, is that a toxic range? [00:07:06] Speaker 10: In someone who is not prescribed this medication and taking it routinely, it is toxic. [00:07:16] Julie Grant: Okay, so that was a little look back at some of the most key testimony. Now let's talk about whether the defense team got somewhat of a win with the manner of death for Eric Richens being listed as undetermined. Let me bring in my guest now in the studio. So pleased to have private investigator JP Miller with me. And joining me remotely, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Franz Borghardt. Great to have you both on this this morning. So in terms of whether the defense has an upper hand here, JP, you do a lot of defense investigations. You were just telling me about when you're doing it off camera and you're a busy guy with that. What do you think about this? The fact that we don't know the manner and manner, you know, could be homicide, suicide, natural, undetermined, accidental. So there's a variety, you know, five we have to choose from here. What do you think about the fact that this ME said, we don't know? [00:08:13] Speaker 11: I think it's great for the defense that they didn't list it as a homicide or as a murder or an accidental. They left it in an unknown realm. Another good piece that the defense got out was the pill bottle that was located in the bedroom. That has a date on it. It has an expiration date for years prior. So that shows that the defense can use that for an argument's sake of he was maybe hiding pills within the prescription that he previously had to conceal it, to conceal it from other individuals and let them know that, hey, it's legal, but it's not. [00:08:48] Julie Grant: Yeah, great points. Franz, tell me, looking at this from the position of the prosecution, would you say not so fast? They shouldn't be celebrating any wins just yet. Is this an easy hurdle to overcome in your view? [00:09:01] Speaker 12: I think it's an easy hurdle to overcome if you take it outside the vacuum of that one fact. And facts don't exist in vacuums, right? It's the circumstances as a whole. You would have to ignore the life insurance policy that was just coincidentally purchased two weeks before his death. You'd have to ignore the post-death behavior of this woman. I think it's a good thing for the defense, but I think it's a hurdle that is easily surmountable. I would say it's more like a one-foot hurdle and not like a standard-sized hurdle. Mm-hmm. [00:09:40] Julie Grant: I hear you. I like it. Okay, let's take a look at something else. Let's, you know, talk about how the family has been helpful with offering testimony that Eric Richens did not have a history of illicit drug use. So that's a very favorable fact, as we know, for the prosecution. They called his sister Katie, which, you know, she might have been one of the most impactful witnesses. She was so emotional. Let's look back at some of what she shared now. [00:10:10] Speaker 13: Eric was one of the most likable people. I'm sorry, guys. [00:10:16] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:10:17] Speaker 3: Okay. So, he was one of... [00:10:25] Speaker 13: Sorry, I'm trying so hard. I'm trying. He was one of the most likable people you've ever met. So, Eric was the kind of person that loved everyone. It did not matter who you were, where you came from, where he met you. Everyone thought they were his best friend. If you talked to him, they all said, "I'm Eric's best friend," because that's the way Eric made you feel. [00:10:53] Julie Grant: So, we know Katie and Eric were very, very close. She talked to him the night before. Everything was fine. We do know that Corey Richens has admitted to making him a Moscow mule. This magic drink. Tell me, JP, when you think about all the likely circumstances of what happened here, and you reason through everything, tell me where you go when you think about what happened to this man who was seemingly fine that night before he went to bed. [00:11:27] Speaker 11: So, you definitely have to look at how this was ingested. If there is alcohol involved, especially, you would think they'd be together. So, it's kind of concerning the law enforcement didn't check the cups or check the contents of it or do a more thorough job into looking around the actual scene itself. But, at the same time, they know that he ingested it. So, you kind of want to look at how or why or if this was a regular occurring thing, whether it was through cell phone communications or other type of avenues that law enforcement has now to kind of put this together. [00:12:02] Julie Grant: Mm hmm. Yeah. And how about, Franz? How about the fact that Eric Richens thought that she may be trying to poison him? He had indicated that to some people very close to him. Your thoughts on that and how that may be introduced in this case? [00:12:19] Speaker 12: It's just a coincidence, Jill. I mean, I mean, just a coincidence. I mean, just ignore it. Just ignore it. I know that's a very, that's a very big fact, right? So, whether he overdosed by, by self decided consumption or she poisoned him, the fact that he was actively concerned that she might be trying to hurt him, harm him, kill him, poison him. This is a big fact. Now, you're, you're gonna have some, you're gonna have some confrontation clause hearsay objections that come in, right? That the prosecution may have to argue to, to, to have it come in. But that's a big fact. And if it comes in and you're a juror and you're hearing that and you're like, wait, he thought, he thought she was trying to do him harm and she got the life insurance policy. That doesn't smell right. [00:13:14] Julie Grant: Mm hmm. Right. Because it's not just one fact, as you said, it's the whole big picture, you know, two weeks prior to the death. She's taking this out. She's in a world of debt. I mean, $4.5 million. Oh, I mean, my gosh, you know, and, and so then you add all of these things up and, you know, her talking, I think her talking really did her in worse. What do you think JP? [00:13:40] Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean, so when you're looking at motive, there's several things you look at and this kind of has all of it. You got money, you got sex, you also have drugs. So it kind of hits all every single point from the relationship angle of the affair that she's, she was occurring, the money, the debt that she's in, trying to recoup and get out of that debt. [00:13:59] Julie Grant: It kind of hits it all. Yeah, that's the problem. Yeah, it does. We're not done talking about Corey Richards. Much more to come about her on this show. JP and Franz, stand by, please. Friends at home, go get some more coffee. When we come back, we'll have more on air testimony for you coming up in our next hour. Plus, we're turning our attention to Arizona. Savannah Guthrie and her family now offering a million dollar reward to help find their mother, Nancy. That's next. [00:14:26] Speaker 14: Every hour and minute and second and every long night has been agony since then of worrying about her and fearing for her and aching for her and most of all, just missing her, just missing her. [00:14:53] Speaker 15: This is the story of the Richens. Eric, a father of three, met an untimely end and Corey, his widow, wrote a children's book on grief. [00:15:03] Speaker 6: She's also charged now with his murder. He was faced with betrayal and terror. I know her in a sense. Is their story a tragic romance or a twisted tale of greed? The truth will come out. [00:15:16] Speaker 16: The grief author murder trial. Live coverage weekday mornings, eight, seven central on court TV. [00:15:23] Julie Grant: Well, welcome back now for what's trending in true crime. A new video released by Savannah Guthrie offering a million dollar reward for the location of her mom. It sounds like the family is coming to terms with the fact that Nancy Guthrie might no longer be with us. Hi there. [00:15:47] Speaker 14: I'm coming on to say it is day 24 since our mom was taken in the dark of night from her bed. And every hour and minute and second and every long night has been agony since then of worrying about her and fearing for her and aching for her. And most of all, just missing her is missing her. We know that millions of you have been praying so many people have been praying of every faith and no faith at all praying for her return. And we feel those prayers. Please keep praying without ceasing. We still believe. We still believe. We still believe in a miracle. We still believe that she can come home. Hope against hope. As my sister says, we are blowing on the embers of hope. We also know that she may be lost. She may already be gone. She may have already gone home to the Lord that she loves. And is dancing in heaven with her mom and her dad and with her beloved brother Pierce and with our daddy. If this is what is to be, then we will accept it. But we need to know where she is. We need her to come home. For that reason, we are offering a family reward of up to $1 million for any information that leads us to her recovery. All of the information about this reward and the details is in the caption below. You can call the 1-800-TIPLINE. You can be anonymous if you want. Someone out there knows something that can bring her home. Somebody knows. And we are begging you to please come forward now. We also know that we are not alone in our loss. We know there are millions of families that have suffered with this kind of uncertainty. And for that reason today, we also are donating $500,000 to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. For their work in helping families who are coping with loss and actively looking for those who are lost. We are hoping that the attention that has been given to our mom and our family will extend to all the families like ours who are in need and need prayers and need support. So please, if you hear this message, if you've been waiting and you haven't been sure, let this be your sign to please come forward. I want to thank you for all what you know and help us bring our beloved mom home so that we can either celebrate a glorious, miraculous homecoming or celebrate the beautiful, brave and courageous and noble life that she has lived. Please be the light in the dark. [00:19:49] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:19:50] Julie Grant: Oh, it breaks your heart, doesn't it? 84 year old Nancy Guthrie has been missing for some 25 days now. Investigators still have no leading theory. No identifiable motive. We don't know who took her or where she is. So now the question becomes, can this new video from Savannah Guthrie and the million dollar reward her family is offering help? [00:20:15] Speaker ?: Let's talk about it. [00:20:16] Julie Grant: Still with me in the studio, private investigator JP Miller. Joining us from outside of Nancy Guthrie's residence, the creator and the host of Road Patrol Live, John DiPietro. And crime scene investigator Cheryl McCollum joins us as well. Good morning to you all. John, I want to begin with you. Talk to us, please, about what you're seeing early this morning in Tucson. [00:20:41] Speaker 3: You know, Julie, again, outside the house has been this, you know, growing people as far as flowers and people leaving messages for Nancy Guthrie. But what I really want to stress what I've noticed from being out here from the first week is we really haven't left this general area. The most activity continues to be within a two and a half mile radius of Nancy Guthrie's home here in the Catalina Foothills. Even when there was the SWAT raid, it was two miles away. When they had the helicopter using the sniffer to try to maybe detect the pacemaker, it was within a two mile radius. We really still have not left this area. And Julie, that video that you just played of Savannah yesterday, there was a lot of information there. Early on, the sheriff, when I first got out here, he said, you know, she was plucked from her bed. You know, you heard Savannah reiterate that. It leads us to believe the crime scene literally showed someone taking her from her bed. You also heard Savannah mention contact the FBI. We've heard clashes about, you know, the FBI and the local sheriff not on the same page, not sharing a command center. So that almost seemed to be reiterated. There are flowers everywhere. There's yellow ribbons everywhere. This whole area really has come to a halt. But right now, you haven't seen them raiding a warehouse in Phoenix. You know, there was someone that they went after in the second week, but that was just someone that lived at Rio Rico. Everything has remained right here, basically in a two mile radius of the home of Nancy Guthrie, right here in the Catalina foothills. [00:22:18] Julie Grant: That's helpful information. Let's talk more about the timing of this million dollar reward being offered. Cheryl, I want to go to you, please. What are your thoughts on this offering now at this point in time in this investigation? [00:22:33] Speaker 17: I think day 24 was a great day. Julie, you know as well as I do, once they offered the 50,000 and then the FBI doubled it to 100,000. The phone wasn't ringing. A million dollars? That phone's going to ring. I think it's time that we have moved away from the Silence of the Lambs movie and moved more toward the movie Ransom. The Guthrie family has made it clear. They have put up a million dollars on your head. Yes, they want their mother recovered. But in order to do that, somebody's got to know about her assailant. And that's what they've done here. They have thrown it down and said, here's a million dollars for somebody to tell me about you. And I think that phone's going to ring. [00:23:22] Julie Grant: Yes, boy, we sure hope so, Cheryl. JP, let me ask you, when we think about the grim reality of Nancy Guthrie perhaps not being alive, but it seemed that in this latest video from Savannah, her word choice and some of the things she acknowledged, I mean, saying that she could be in heaven with relatives, she noted her father. It seemed like there was some acceptance there. What do you think about the reality of the situation right now? Do you think that it's more likely that she's deceased? [00:24:02] Speaker 11: I think likely that she is just based off the information that we know. So she was taken from her home. We know that she should have had this medication. Without it. And we don't we don't know. We haven't had any proof of life. We haven't had any communication directly with her. So the likelihood it is there. We're going on almost a month now and still no actual updates or proof of life. So that's concerning to me. And I think it's good that the family is kind of in that acceptance phase. It's healthy. But they are still being hopeful that she still might be out there as well. [00:24:40] Julie Grant: Right. You know, in terms of the family being seen around Arizona, John DiPietro, I want to bring you back in for this, please. Tell me, have there been any media sightings of Savannah or her brother or her sister lately? [00:24:59] Speaker 3: They have not, Julie. I mean, we understand that they are close. This is the home people need to realize. This is the home Nancy Guthrie raised those three children. This is the home that she lived in for 50 years. This is the home that, you know, Savannah grew up in. I think that it's a combination of number one, they're laying very low. They are local. And people are starting to wonder if at some point are we actually going to have some kind of a press conference with Savannah? Because right now, Julie, this is 25 days in and we're still without a motive. You know, who is that person in the mask? And there has been a lot of information where they now believe that this person could have been here as early as January 11th. Why were they going in that house? It's so high risk. And as you, you know, we've talked about it is pitch black around here. You would have to know the area. What was the motive? What would motivate someone to go in there? And 25 days later, we still don't know the who, the why. Why would you abduct an 84 year old, 84 year old woman? And it still remains a mystery. You're right, John. [00:26:04] Julie Grant: Well said. So much of this just doesn't make sense. I have so many more questions for you all. John, Cheryl, JP, stand by kindly, please. We're going to hit a break. When we come back, we'll talk more about Nancy Guthrie. [00:26:30] Speaker 2: Right now, we believe Nancy is still out there. We want her home, our department, the sheriff's department, along with all of our partners at the FBI, have been working around the clock. And we just want her home and find a way to get to the bottom of all of this, just as you do. [00:26:57] Julie Grant: Our coverage of the abduction of Nancy Guthrie continues this morning as we're looking at what comes next in the case investigation. The ring camera footage of a man at her front door has many people wondering if this person visited the home twice. The sheriff says there's no evidence to support that. But photos, look at these, do show differences. Like in one, he's wearing a backpack. In the other one, he is not. The sheriff says there's no timestamp associated with the videos. So what else can we learn from these images? Let's talk more about that. Let's bring back in our guests with me. J.P. Miller, John DiPietro and Cheryl McCollum. Cheryl, let me start with you, please. Your thoughts on those images. Here's the deal. [00:27:43] Speaker 17: The sheriff has already come out and said, hey, we need video starting at January 11th. He's already told us he believes this person has been there before. So it doesn't matter what he's trying to say now. If they want video prior to the night and early morning that the man is seen at her door, then we know that's what they're asking for. And Julie, I don't think anybody has to watch that video and see the odd behavior. And every expert that you have had says this is odd. This is strange. I've never seen it before. You don't have to look past the way he's carrying the weapon right in the middle, a full backpack, and then his manipulation of those flowers. Those flowers to me signify that that person is not well. They have a mental illness of some sort. And I think that's what you're going to see when we move into clearly this isn't about money. Savannah's already offered to pay. The FBI's put up 50 grand, then 100,000. Now the family's put up a million. It's clearly not about money. This again is about revenge. [00:28:52] Julie Grant: I'm with you, Cheryl. I'm with you, my friend. I think this is about torturing the Guthrie family for some reason. J.P. Miller, let me go to you next. You do digital forensic work. You've got a case coming up where you're going to be testifying as an expert witness in some cell phone extractions. Your thoughts on these images. What do you think? Just looking at it with your naked eyes. Are we looking at two different dates here? [00:29:15] Speaker 11: They definitely look like two different dates. We're looking at different visualizations, no backpack, wearing a backpack. But if this was on the same date, you would see where that backpack was or something like that. But this is telling me that this person is casing this residence. So if this was before, and we know from law enforcement that this is a different date, then, yes, I do think it's different times. And what can be helpful with law enforcement with that is creating a timeline. So when you're looking at a certain date that we know this occurred on and then a prior date, you're looking for the same consistencies. Because this person may have went through the same path, possibly utilize the same vehicle, same timeframe. Those are the type of consistencies that you want to look for to create a timeline and a theory. [00:30:07] Julie Grant: Yeah, I appreciate it. John DiPietro, let me go to you, please. When it comes to the public sentiment there, you've been there for so many days now. So many, John, I've lost count, my friend, doing great reporting. Tell me, what's the sentiment of the neighborhood, others in the Tucson area? What are they saying to you? [00:30:32] Speaker 3: Julie, I can tell you in the immediate neighborhood here in the Catalina foothills, the neighbors are nervous. There's many elderly that live alone. This is a very safe area. One thing about the two images is, from what I understand, it was a full moon on February 1st. And when they have a full moon. I mean, there's no street lights here. So you really can see it. People have broken out that the light looks different when that individual is there. But the basic fear is people are terrified to think this wasn't, you know, a robbery. This is someone, whoever that is in the mask, seemingly wanted to come in, abduct her. The blood stops just right after the second step behind me. So the vehicle had to been pulled up. But Julie, something that the neighbors keep asking and bringing up to me and just wonder is, who would know? Who would have knowledge that an 84-year-old woman, Nancy Guthrie, lives alone, no alarm system, no dog? Who's to say she didn't have someone staying over, got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and then could have called 911? It's still the brazenness of it, as if someone just parachuted in and then parachuted out. This area, it's definitely rattled and people talked about, you know, it was kind of relaxed and they used to leave the doors unlocked. No more. I'm also starting to notice, since I've been here, more people are keeping their lights out on around their property. And I see people installing. There's a lot of people around here having, you know, ring cameras put in, more lighting around their homes, more security. So people are still very much on edge. [00:32:10] Julie Grant: I'm sure, John. And those are all great things to do. As you all know, being frequent guests on this show, we always want to talk about how we can keep ourselves safer, what we can do. Those things you mentioned, John, like alarm systems, ring cameras, more lights around the house. Cheryl, let me go to you on that point, please. In terms of, you know, we can't change the past. Obviously, if we could, we would for this family. What can we learn from this? You know, thinking about if there wasn't an alarm system in place, you know, if there were, perhaps the opening of a door might have triggered it to call police and maybe they would be on this person or person's tail sooner. Would you talk to us, please, about some takeaways for anybody watching this about keeping themselves or their elderly parents safe? [00:32:58] Speaker 17: Well, I think one thing, again, we'll go back to the video. He tries the doorknob first. So I think it is important. Lock your door. I mean, that's just one easy thing you can do. Keeping your lights on, getting a dog. All those things are great. Having cameras on the outside, in the inside is wonderful. But one important thing, whether you have a Nest camera or a ring camera, if you have turned your alerts off or at night you turn your volume down so it's not going to wake you up, it's not going to do you any good anyway. The other thing that I think is really important is look out for each other. I mean, I have an elderly neighbor. You know, we check on her. We check on her cars. We make sure we do see lights on or lights off. Is it appropriate? You know, we check in in person with her. I think that's something you should do. The family. I mean, the family dropped her off. So if somebody was just watching across the street, they know that she goes in and out through the garage. You don't have to watch her long to know that she would be alone. So one thing is change it up. Have your, you know, kids not just drop you off, but come in the house with you and stay five or 10 minutes. Make it seem like you've got people there. There's lots you can do. But I think, again, the important thing to remember here. I believe this was targeted. I do not believe that person is coming out and going for anybody else in that neighborhood. However, play the game as though they are. Look out for yourself and look out for your neighbors. [00:34:30] Julie Grant: Most definitely sage advice. Cheryl McCollum, thank you for that. J.P. Miller, John DiPietro, thank you both as well. When we come back here on opening statements, we're going to shift our focus back to the state of Utah and the trial of Corey Richens. This is a high profile case that's been highly anticipated as well. And we're talking about whether a letter from the defendant will tip the scales of justice. We'll be right back. [00:34:57] Speaker 9: The evidence will prove that Corey Richens murdered Eric for his money and to get a fresh start at life. [00:35:09] Speaker 8: 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. [00:35:32] Julie Grant: 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. [00:35:44] Speaker 16: Opening statements with Julie Grant. Weekday mornings at 8/7 Central. Only on Court TV. [00:35:55] Julie Grant: Welcome back. And now for what's tipping the scales of justice in the trial of Corey Richens. Despite all the testimony, all the evidence, could the verdict somehow come down to an unsent letter? Court TV's Kelly Craft explains. [00:36:10] Speaker 18: It's known as the "walk the dog" letter found during a search of Corey Richens' jail cell in September of 2023. A few months after her arrest for allegedly poisoning her husband Eric's cocktail with a deadly dose of fentanyl. The unsent, six-page handwritten letter was intended for Corey's mother and hints at her then-attorney's defense strategy. [00:36:34] Speaker 19: She wants to link Eric getting the drugs and pills from Mexico, so we need some kind of connection. [00:36:40] Speaker 18: A connection to bolster the defense theory, Eric died after overdosing on fentanyl he took himself. [00:36:48] Speaker 19: Here's what I'm thinking, but you have to talk to Ronnie. Ronnie Darden is Corey's brother. He would probably have to testify to this, but it's super short, not a lot to it. A year prior to Eric's death, Ronnie was over watching football one Sunday, and Eric and Ronnie were chatting about Eric's Mexico trips. Eric told Ronnie he gets pain pills and fentanyl from Mexico from the workers on the ranch, but not to tell me because I would get mad. [00:37:14] Speaker 18: Prosecutors say it's an attempt to tell her family how to testify at trial. Corey's mother and brother say that's not the case. There was no witness tampering there, absolutely none. [00:37:27] Speaker 1: It's just bogus. I don't really have that much to say about it. From what Corey explained to me, it was just a fictitious letter. [00:37:38] Speaker 18: Corey's current defense attorneys say the letter is part of a 65-page fictional mystery novel. They argued at a motions hearing that the letter was found in an envelope marked attorney privilege, but jailers testified it was found in a law school entrance exam book, not an envelope. And Richard's former attorney did not initially raise privilege issues around it. In the end, the judge ruled parts of the letter can be used at trial. [00:38:11] Julie Grant: Kelly Craft reporting for us. What do you think about the walk the dog letter? Was it really about walking a dog? Let's bring back in Franz Borghardt and Cheryl McCollum. Franz, you're shaking your head. Let me start with you, buddy. What do you think? [00:38:26] Speaker 12: Why would? Okay, so we don't always get to pick the acts that our clients do. But man, oh man, is that just a horrible letter. Nobody's gonna believe. Nobody is going to believe that version of the story that it was just a part of a fictional novel that she's writing. Everybody who hears that, and in particular, the jury is gonna be like, Yep, this is just par for the course. Life insurance, writing a book, and then this. [00:39:02] Julie Grant: Mm-hmm, right. You know, I think she's lucky she didn't pick up charges for this. I'm thinking obstruction of justice. That's what crossed my mind, and I heard about it. Cheryl, what do you say? [00:39:14] Speaker 17: A hundred percent. It's witness tampering. And listen, who is in prison for a crime they didn't commit, but decides, you know what? I'm gonna go ahead and write a fictional story about it as though I did do it. What is this, OJ again? Remember OJ? You know, if I did it. Right. You know, Corey, you need to quit writing things down. Your book is gonna be used against you. This letter is gonna be used against you. And, you know, her brother needs to be real careful when he's saying things like, well, Corey explained it to me. We know she explained it to you because it didn't happen. [00:39:52] Julie Grant: Right, Cheryl. Right. You know, I think Corey Richards is her own worst enemy, truly. If she would just zip the lip, not talk, not write, and just let her lawyers do their job, she'd be in far better shape. I have a clip for you both. This is Eric's sister, Katie, who you know testified tearfully, very emotionally, very impactfully. Let's take a look at one of the clips from the cross. This is where she's talking about that overwhelming feeling that her sister-in-law was in some way connected to Eric's death. [00:40:29] Speaker 8: You felt it was important that this officer know that your sister-in-law had a motive. What was your reason for telling the officer that information? [00:40:40] Speaker 13: I had an overwhelming feeling come over me that I should let someone know. Why? What was your overwhelming feeling? That I should let someone know. Because you believed it was suspicious? The death? Honestly, at that time, I had no idea what was going on. I just had an overwhelming feeling. I had just barely talked to my brother. He was fantastic. When I talked to him just a couple of hours before, I had an overwhelming feeling. I should tell someone about this. So I did. [00:41:19] Julie Grant: She had that feeling. You know, sometimes people just get an intuition, right? Cheryl, would you speak to that, you know, in the investigation work that you do? You know, how much of it is science and how much of it sometimes is your gut telling you to follow certain things? [00:41:34] Speaker 17: You can't ignore the gut feeling. Listen, Eric had it. Eric told friends, I think she's trying to poison me. He had that gut feeling. He was right, sadly. When you start looking at five times the legal limit of fentanyl, and it's a non-medical grade, which means, y'all, this came off the street. This is street level drugs. They can tell you whether this came in through Mexico or Canada or somewhere else. They were going to be able to track that back to her dealer, which they've been able to do. And the whole Moscow mule, when they looked at that, you know, they said it was like two shaker shawl, you know, salt of fentanyl. That's a ton. That's a ton. When you know one grain could harm somebody. When you take a shaker of salt and dump it out twice, that's a ton of fentanyl. Yeah, sure is. [00:42:28] Julie Grant: Sure is. Cheryl, thank you for that. Franz, tell me, does Corey Richens have a shot here? Put on your defense attorney hat for us. What do you think? Is there a chance that this jury doesn't find enough evidence? [00:42:43] Speaker 12: I mean, if we're trying this case on Mars, she might have a shot. But on Earth, on the planet Earth, she's probably going to get convicted. And look, the defense is doing a good job chiseling away. They chisel away at the cause of death. They will try to create as much reasonable doubt as they can. But this is a tough case to defend. [00:43:05] Julie Grant: Yeah, sure is. She has very good counsel. They're doing a fine job. They've got some very bad facts, as you both know. Always a treat to have you both on this program. Cheryl McCollum, Franz Borghardt, thank you kindly for the great insights. Friends at home, thank you for being with us. If you liked today's episode, watch it again. Share it with your friends. We're here every weekday morning at 8:00 a.m. Eastern for you. And we put the episodes up there on courttv.com.