March 9, 2026 • 18 mins
Week three of the Kouri Richins trial began with some fireworks in the courtroom. While the jury was dismissed, Kouri Richins defense attorney tried to convince the judge Eric Richins’ business partner impeached himself regarding Eric’s alleged drug use in high school. After a testy back and forth about “red devil” pills, the judge made his ruling, frustrating the defense, which claimed Eric’s alleged “illicit drug” issue proves Kouri is innocent.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, there hopes. It is Monday, March ninth, and the
third week of the soul called Grief Author murder trial
is underway. And whoa, there was some fireworks in the
courtroom today and the jury wasn't even around to hear it.
With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Let's start with this first. Do you know what a
red devil is? When it comes to a pill called
(00:24):
a red devil?
Speaker 2 (00:24):
You know what? It doesn't sound good, It doesn't sound legal,
and it sounds dangerous.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Does it sound familiar?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
It doesn't sound familiar, ring bells.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
No, No, And actually I just googled it because this
has been a huge source of or a huge topic
of conversation in the Corey Richins Grief Author murder trial.
Because yes, the defense is trying to blame the victim
and trying to establish or is hoping to establish that
(00:53):
Eric Richins, the father of three who died with fentanyl poisoning,
was so somehow some illicit drug user and used something
called red devil when he was in high school.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
When he was in high school, is the key nugget
when he was in high school? Yes, folks, the third
week of this trial is underway. I mean, if you
know the story by now, but this is happening out
in Utah. Yes, Court Richards wrote a children's book to
help kids deal with grief, and she wrote it after,
according to prosecutors, she killed her own husband by poisoning
him with fentanyl by putting it into his drink. So
(01:28):
rose the first day of this trial, when they did
opening statements, you and I did an episode and it
was one of the first things we say, Oh, we
see the strategy, blame the victim.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Ye, it's playing out absolutely, And that is what the
defense was trying to get into official testimony, trying to
get the jurors to hear. And yeah, she the defense attorney,
got extremely frustrated.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
It was very contentious.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
I have not heard a defense attorney be that combat
with the judge in any trial I've ever witnessed or watched.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Don't know what this gets here.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
It was interesting because, yeah, you don't want to piss
off the person who is going to have a huge
impact on what jurors hear, what they don't here gives
jury instructions and certainly ultimately decides on sentencing if your
client's found guilty. So it was just an interesting, fairly
explosive moment.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
She's been like this throughout the trial and some just
have that. Okay, she's a little more combative at times,
that's fine. She's pleasant when she needs to be and
say thank you and she'll smile. But hey, yeah, there's
no way of denying. So this back and forth happened
today because of Cody Wright being on the stand. Now,
Cody right, Rose, we talk about Corey Richand's lover being
a key witness. This guy might be more key than anything.
(02:46):
He is so important. Cody Wright is a good, good friend,
and he was the business partner of Eric Richins, who
was allegedly murdered by his wife. C and E is
the name of their company, Cody and Eric. So you've
been hearing c and E a lot. That's where it
comes from. So this guy knows him really really well,
knows him so well, and he's been testifying Robes that No,
(03:06):
I didn't know of him using drugs. I never saw
him using drugs. He never certainly did this around me. Okay,
that's the basis and the foundation for some of his testimony.
But then Robes where the defense thought they saw an opening.
It's because they asked him about drug use of eric
Richins when he was in high school, and so he
(03:27):
mentioned he popped pills pop pills. So the defense hears
that and goes, wait a minute, this guy testified previously
that he didn't know about him using drugs, and now
he's saying back in high school he heard about popping pills.
I thought it was a stretch, but they're trying to
do their thing. That is the basis for the argument
(03:47):
that started. The judge he heard her out, but it
came down to Robes, there's a difference between using drugs
and using illicit drugs. It really came down.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
To this, accordant to It was fascinating to hear the
back and forth between whether or not prescription drugs that
aren't prescribed to you, if you use said drugs, can
they be considered illicit drugs. The defense was arguing that
they can be and should be. The judge very aptly said,
(04:22):
I think there is a difference between an FDA approved
drug that is taken by someone who it wasn't prescribed
to versus someone going out on the street and getting
a non FDA approved drug.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
And that actually really brought it home.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
And it makes sense she wasn't buying it doesn't work
for her client, But isn't that what we're talking What
is an illicit drug? Is the question correct?
Speaker 2 (04:46):
And so ilicit basically means illegal, correctly.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Legal, something you bought in a dark alley somewhere, something
not prescribed, something definitely illegal is an illicit drugs? Is
it illicit drugs?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Do you find it? I mean the argument she was
trying to make, if you stop on that for a second,
he acquired them in a way that they weren't prescribed
to him. Therefore that's illicit drug use.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
But the whole point is the defense is trying to
make some sort of other scenario in which Eric Richards
could have ingested fentanyl. So, if you are on the
black market, if you are buying illicit drugs, could they
be laced with fentanyls. Certainly we've seen cases like this
in this country. So this is what they're trying to establish.
(05:35):
They're trying to give the jury another version of how
fentanyl could have gotten into Eric Richards's system, and so
they're trying to establish that by suggesting Eric Richins was
addicted to drugs, was addicted to painkillers, would go about
any means in which to acquire them. So they were
trying to set this up. But the interesting thing about
(05:56):
Cody Wright is that he is LDS. He is a
practicing Mormon, meaning not only does he not take drugs
for religious reasons, he doesn't drink, he doesn't drink alcohol,
I should say, he doesn't drink caffeine. All of the
things we basically know about LDS folks. So her point was,
even if he were doing those things, he wouldn't do
(06:17):
them in front of you. He wouldn't tell them about
tell it about them, sorry, tell it to you. Because
he respects your religion, he respects how you live your life,
and so wouldn't it be reasonable that you wouldn't know
about his drug use or you wouldn't know about something.
So the whole point is he had to talk about
(06:38):
what he heard about, which is hearsay, which is a
whole big no no in a courtroom. So it was
really fascinating to see how she was trying to get
this testimony into record, or at least let the jury
hear this suggestion.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
But she was.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Struggling in it all boils down to she's trying to
say this witness impeached himself, not perjure, but in peace.
You said one thing, and now you're coming back and
saying something else. The reason the judge is shutting that
down is because, lady, he's not impeaching himself. He saw
the guy pop a pill that's different from illicit drug use,
and he didn't even know what the pill was. He said,
(07:14):
I think they called them red devils. We had to
hear this phrase. We had heard it once, Froze. We
heard it five thousand times in court today. Red devil?
What's a red devil? And apparently it's changed over time.
Back in the sixties and the seventies, is the red
devil was one thing. Back in the eighties and nineties
it was another, and today it might mean something else.
This all boils down to a red devil that he
(07:35):
thought wasn't even an illicit drug.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Well, yeah it was.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
It was not a high moment for the defense, and
she pressed him on what he thought red devils meant,
because if you google it, you'll see that it's an addictive, barbituate, sedative,
hypnotic bright red pill. Okay, that's what she wanted him
to say, but instead he said, I think it's sudafed.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
That was a big wamp wall for her.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
The guy was believable in that he was clueless about drugs.
He was in that regard. He just did in his lane.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yeah, but for him to even go and guess that
it was sudafed really took the wind out of her sails.
She wanted it to be much more potent and yes,
an illegal illicit drug. That's what she was hoping he
would say that he thought it might have been something
like that. Instead, he said, suda fed, this is up
in front of us right now, what do you take?
Speaker 1 (08:27):
I you know, what, what do you take? You've been watching
closely of her reaction, her not quite emotion, but her
demeanor and her reactions in court maybe last week and
even today.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Corey Richins has does not have a poker face. Let's
just say that I have seen her many many times
raising an eyebrow, furrowing her brow, looking puzzled, confused, annoyed,
and like absolutely reacting to testimony, basically calling it into
question in her face.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
I can see it, and you know the jury is
watching her. So she is having many, many, many emotional reactions.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
She'll tilt her head if she doesn't think what they
said was correct or the way she remembers it.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
She is absolutely expressive.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Is it just me where it seems like she's gotten
more expressive as we've gone along, because we along because
we were staring at her certainly that first week looking
for anything. Now it's not hard to find something.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Yeah, she might be getting more comfortable, you know she's coming.
This is week three of the trial. She's been listening
to pretty incredible testimony. And I say incredible because I
just can't imagine being in that situation hearing people talk
about what I did, what I said, And if you know,
look anybody, even if you aren't on trial, you hear
someone else relay what they think happened in a conversation
(09:51):
or in a moment, and almost certainly you're not gonna
remember it in the same way. So you kind of
you see her reacting to visibly to witness this testim
and you can see she's in disagreement with a lot
of what is being said. Now, this is the prosecution
putting on their case, so it would make sense that
she would disagree with some of the testimony that's out there.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
But certainly the jurors are watching her.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
But we're talking about here, how big of a deal
this testimony.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Is.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Well, stay here, we'll let you hear how big of
a deal the defense says. This is in fact, they say,
if they were able to have their way in court today,
it would prove that Corey Richins is innocent.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Stay here, Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We
are still riveted watching the Corey Richins trial. It is
day ten in the grief author murder trial. As you
(10:56):
may remember, we told you but this just can't make
this up. She wrote a children's book helping her kids
and other people's kids grieve with the death of a parent,
and here she stands accused of murdering her husband. And
it has been a very dramatic day in court to date,
and a lot of the drama happened outside of the
juror's ears, where we have heard the defense make or
(11:19):
take issue with the judge not allowing them to impeach
Cody Wright, that is Eric Richards's business partner, that was
one of his best friends. And they think they believe
he has changed his testimony, that he went from first
answering a question saying that he had never seen Eric
Richards his friend or never knew that his friend actually
(11:43):
had anything.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
To do with illicit drug use.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
And then the defense says, hey, wait a minute, now
he's talking about red Devil's Red Devil pills. I want
to go back. The defense wants to go back and
call him out on it, and the judge said, no,
he didn't say anything different than what he said before.
And so the defense is now so basically saying, this
will be grounds for an appeal if my client is convicted.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
And that's a look that makes the judge pay attention.
He was starting to get annoyed with the defense attorney's
round and around. She started throwing things out like this
is an impediment to a fair trial. You are violating
our constitutional right to a fair trial to put on
her defense. If judge wasn't having it. He gave a moment.
He said, you know what, prosecutor, I'll ask you, would
(12:30):
you allow me to let her go ahead and do
what she wants to do on the defense side, and
maybe this eliminates even the possibility of a particular appeal.
The prosecution took their time and chatted about it for
a second.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
And then they came back and said.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Yeah, no, no, no, we don't want her to go
back and ask those question.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
It's not going to happen, not on our watch.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
So they did take a moment, but so they know
they know that by doing this, the defense is absolutely
going to pursue an appeal based on this at least this.
There could be more reasons why they do it, but this,
they've certainly made it clear. This is going to be
one of them. But you tease this going into the break,
the attorney for Corey Richins flat out said if she
(13:18):
were allowed to question Cody Wright the way she wanted
to question him, that she could prove that her client
was innocent. She said, if Eric Richards, if we can
hear that he absolutely was taking illicit drugs, that he
was using these pills or had used these pills called
Red Devils, that would absolutely prove that my client is innocent.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
I thought that was a little bit of a stretch.
This was high school. He used some pills. He popped
some pills in high school, so that translates to now
two decades later than that proves he was a drug
addict and therefore Corey Richards is innocent. That was a
bit of a stretch, but she used that phrase, if
Eric Richards was a drug addict, Corey Richins is innocent. Period.
(14:05):
They really do, sweetheart. It sounds like they're banking on
convincing somebody in that jury that this dude, you keep
hitting them over the head with this guy having a
drug problem, and they might think he drugged himself.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Yeah, we kept hearing today.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
In fact, the defense attorney kept asking Cody right about
Eric's back pain, about Eric's knee pain, about his lime disease,
and how painful he said it was, how often he
may have missed work or didn't go to work because
he was in pain. So, yes, they are absolutely trying
to establish that Eric Richards was in chronic pain and
(14:40):
therefore the only way he could function was to alleviate
the pain by becoming a drug addict, and that is
what they're trying to establish.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Las two things I will ask you make sure I
didn't overlook one. Have they proven, at any point confirmed
that he ever bought himself pills? No, they got the
marijuana gumm's everybody.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
They've got the marijuana gummy.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
But have we established yet that he purchased any pill
anywhere on his own for himself?
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Is that right, Well, I haven't heard that yet, but
we should say that the defense hasn't put on their
their witnesses yet. They haven't had their stab at bringing
people onto the stand and then establishing No. But no,
so far, absolutely not that it's not been established.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Secondly, have they established Have they had anybody on that
stand who says, yeah, I was around Eric he pot pills,
he was addicted to pills. Has anyone said that.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
No.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
The closest person who they were trying to get anywhere
with on that about him taking pain pills for being
like back pain.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Was his sister.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
And she did say, like, periodically he would take a
pain pill, but this wasn't something he did every day.
He tried not to use it, but every now and then, yes,
he did have to take I believe it was oxy
cotone for pain for his back. So I know that
has been established that every now and then he would
take a pain pill.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Is It's tough and the family Eric Richmon's family has
been in the courtroom and we keep an eye on them.
You could tell even on the stand. The sister that
was up there, she does not like Katie.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Oh, Katie does not like Corey.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
And so watching their faces and to hear them have
to sit through. I mean, their loved one is dead now.
He is absolutely being attacked as some kind of a
drug addict, a cheating drug addict who killed himself by
buying illicit drugs. She's innocent until proven guilty, Robes. But
that's just tough for the family to hear. This is
(16:41):
a tough trial in a lot of ways to listen
to because of those details. But my goodness, Robes, today
was one of the more explosive days and the jury
didn't even see it.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
That's true, And you know what I do think.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Look, we've seen this before, and it is a risk
the defense takes by trying to make the victim look
responsible for his own death.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
You do run the risk.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Of pissing off a jury or pissing off wonder you know,
to say, how dare you accuse a man who can't
speak for himself? How dare you accuse a man who
is no longer here? And the woman who's on trial
is now trying to point the finger right back at him,
and he cannot speak, He is not here to defend himself.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
My testimony continuing as we speak here on this Monday
again third week underway, the last week keeping an eye
on here. They still haven't taken a lunch break yet
for the day as of this recording. But they have
a handwriting expert up there, who you keeping an eye
on this ropes. He's essentially testifying to what.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Yeah, there are several documents in question where the prosecutor
prosecution is trying to establish that Corey Richins forged her
husband's signature. This is a crime where prosecutors claim Corey
Richins committed this crime killed her husband not just because
she wanted to be with her lover, but because she
needed money and she needed life insurance payouts. She needed
(18:00):
all sorts of funds to make up for the millions
of dollars she was reportedly in debt. So yes, they
are saying that she forged documents in pursuit of this,
and they have a handwriting expert up there testifying to
that very thing.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
You know, I don't it sounds crazy, but if I
just close my eyes and imagine a handwriting expert, this
is the guy that would come to mind. He just
he looks bar That's every reason be folks, we're keeping
a close eye and ear to this trial. Any other
significant updates. We will hop back on and update two.
We always appreciate you spending time with us on TJ
Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robak talks to
(18:36):
me
Hey, there hopes. It is Monday, March ninth, and the
third week of the soul called Grief Author murder trial
is underway. And whoa, there was some fireworks in the
courtroom today and the jury wasn't even around to hear it.
With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Let's start with this first. Do you know what a
red devil is? When it comes to a pill called
(00:24):
a red devil?
Speaker 2 (00:24):
You know what? It doesn't sound good, It doesn't sound legal,
and it sounds dangerous.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Does it sound familiar?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
It doesn't sound familiar, ring bells.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
No, No, And actually I just googled it because this
has been a huge source of or a huge topic
of conversation in the Corey Richins Grief Author murder trial.
Because yes, the defense is trying to blame the victim
and trying to establish or is hoping to establish that
(00:53):
Eric Richins, the father of three who died with fentanyl poisoning,
was so somehow some illicit drug user and used something
called red devil when he was in high school.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
When he was in high school, is the key nugget
when he was in high school? Yes, folks, the third
week of this trial is underway. I mean, if you
know the story by now, but this is happening out
in Utah. Yes, Court Richards wrote a children's book to
help kids deal with grief, and she wrote it after,
according to prosecutors, she killed her own husband by poisoning
him with fentanyl by putting it into his drink. So
(01:28):
rose the first day of this trial, when they did
opening statements, you and I did an episode and it
was one of the first things we say, Oh, we
see the strategy, blame the victim.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Ye, it's playing out absolutely, And that is what the
defense was trying to get into official testimony, trying to
get the jurors to hear. And yeah, she the defense attorney,
got extremely frustrated.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
It was very contentious.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
I have not heard a defense attorney be that combat
with the judge in any trial I've ever witnessed or watched.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Don't know what this gets here.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
It was interesting because, yeah, you don't want to piss
off the person who is going to have a huge
impact on what jurors hear, what they don't here gives
jury instructions and certainly ultimately decides on sentencing if your
client's found guilty. So it was just an interesting, fairly
explosive moment.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
She's been like this throughout the trial and some just
have that. Okay, she's a little more combative at times,
that's fine. She's pleasant when she needs to be and
say thank you and she'll smile. But hey, yeah, there's
no way of denying. So this back and forth happened
today because of Cody Wright being on the stand. Now,
Cody right, Rose, we talk about Corey Richand's lover being
a key witness. This guy might be more key than anything.
(02:46):
He is so important. Cody Wright is a good, good friend,
and he was the business partner of Eric Richins, who
was allegedly murdered by his wife. C and E is
the name of their company, Cody and Eric. So you've
been hearing c and E a lot. That's where it
comes from. So this guy knows him really really well,
knows him so well, and he's been testifying Robes that No,
(03:06):
I didn't know of him using drugs. I never saw
him using drugs. He never certainly did this around me. Okay,
that's the basis and the foundation for some of his testimony.
But then Robes where the defense thought they saw an opening.
It's because they asked him about drug use of eric
Richins when he was in high school, and so he
(03:27):
mentioned he popped pills pop pills. So the defense hears
that and goes, wait a minute, this guy testified previously
that he didn't know about him using drugs, and now
he's saying back in high school he heard about popping pills.
I thought it was a stretch, but they're trying to
do their thing. That is the basis for the argument
(03:47):
that started. The judge he heard her out, but it
came down to Robes, there's a difference between using drugs
and using illicit drugs. It really came down.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
To this, accordant to It was fascinating to hear the
back and forth between whether or not prescription drugs that
aren't prescribed to you, if you use said drugs, can
they be considered illicit drugs. The defense was arguing that
they can be and should be. The judge very aptly said,
(04:22):
I think there is a difference between an FDA approved
drug that is taken by someone who it wasn't prescribed
to versus someone going out on the street and getting
a non FDA approved drug.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
And that actually really brought it home.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
And it makes sense she wasn't buying it doesn't work
for her client, But isn't that what we're talking What
is an illicit drug? Is the question correct?
Speaker 2 (04:46):
And so ilicit basically means illegal, correctly.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Legal, something you bought in a dark alley somewhere, something
not prescribed, something definitely illegal is an illicit drugs? Is
it illicit drugs?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Do you find it? I mean the argument she was
trying to make, if you stop on that for a second,
he acquired them in a way that they weren't prescribed
to him. Therefore that's illicit drug use.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
But the whole point is the defense is trying to
make some sort of other scenario in which Eric Richards
could have ingested fentanyl. So, if you are on the
black market, if you are buying illicit drugs, could they
be laced with fentanyls. Certainly we've seen cases like this
in this country. So this is what they're trying to establish.
(05:35):
They're trying to give the jury another version of how
fentanyl could have gotten into Eric Richards's system, and so
they're trying to establish that by suggesting Eric Richins was
addicted to drugs, was addicted to painkillers, would go about
any means in which to acquire them. So they were
trying to set this up. But the interesting thing about
(05:56):
Cody Wright is that he is LDS. He is a
practicing Mormon, meaning not only does he not take drugs
for religious reasons, he doesn't drink, he doesn't drink alcohol,
I should say, he doesn't drink caffeine. All of the
things we basically know about LDS folks. So her point was,
even if he were doing those things, he wouldn't do
(06:17):
them in front of you. He wouldn't tell them about
tell it about them, sorry, tell it to you. Because
he respects your religion, he respects how you live your life,
and so wouldn't it be reasonable that you wouldn't know
about his drug use or you wouldn't know about something.
So the whole point is he had to talk about
(06:38):
what he heard about, which is hearsay, which is a
whole big no no in a courtroom. So it was
really fascinating to see how she was trying to get
this testimony into record, or at least let the jury
hear this suggestion.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
But she was.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Struggling in it all boils down to she's trying to
say this witness impeached himself, not perjure, but in peace.
You said one thing, and now you're coming back and
saying something else. The reason the judge is shutting that
down is because, lady, he's not impeaching himself. He saw
the guy pop a pill that's different from illicit drug use,
and he didn't even know what the pill was. He said,
(07:14):
I think they called them red devils. We had to
hear this phrase. We had heard it once, Froze. We
heard it five thousand times in court today. Red devil?
What's a red devil? And apparently it's changed over time.
Back in the sixties and the seventies, is the red
devil was one thing. Back in the eighties and nineties
it was another, and today it might mean something else.
This all boils down to a red devil that he
(07:35):
thought wasn't even an illicit drug.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Well, yeah it was.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
It was not a high moment for the defense, and
she pressed him on what he thought red devils meant,
because if you google it, you'll see that it's an addictive, barbituate, sedative,
hypnotic bright red pill. Okay, that's what she wanted him
to say, but instead he said, I think it's sudafed.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
That was a big wamp wall for her.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
The guy was believable in that he was clueless about drugs.
He was in that regard. He just did in his lane.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yeah, but for him to even go and guess that
it was sudafed really took the wind out of her sails.
She wanted it to be much more potent and yes,
an illegal illicit drug. That's what she was hoping he
would say that he thought it might have been something
like that. Instead, he said, suda fed, this is up
in front of us right now, what do you take?
Speaker 1 (08:27):
I you know, what, what do you take? You've been watching
closely of her reaction, her not quite emotion, but her
demeanor and her reactions in court maybe last week and
even today.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Corey Richins has does not have a poker face. Let's
just say that I have seen her many many times
raising an eyebrow, furrowing her brow, looking puzzled, confused, annoyed,
and like absolutely reacting to testimony, basically calling it into
question in her face.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
I can see it, and you know the jury is
watching her. So she is having many, many, many emotional reactions.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
She'll tilt her head if she doesn't think what they
said was correct or the way she remembers it.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
She is absolutely expressive.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Is it just me where it seems like she's gotten
more expressive as we've gone along, because we along because
we were staring at her certainly that first week looking
for anything. Now it's not hard to find something.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Yeah, she might be getting more comfortable, you know she's coming.
This is week three of the trial. She's been listening
to pretty incredible testimony. And I say incredible because I
just can't imagine being in that situation hearing people talk
about what I did, what I said, And if you know,
look anybody, even if you aren't on trial, you hear
someone else relay what they think happened in a conversation
(09:51):
or in a moment, and almost certainly you're not gonna
remember it in the same way. So you kind of
you see her reacting to visibly to witness this testim
and you can see she's in disagreement with a lot
of what is being said. Now, this is the prosecution
putting on their case, so it would make sense that
she would disagree with some of the testimony that's out there.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
But certainly the jurors are watching her.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
But we're talking about here, how big of a deal
this testimony.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Is.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Well, stay here, we'll let you hear how big of
a deal the defense says. This is in fact, they say,
if they were able to have their way in court today,
it would prove that Corey Richins is innocent.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Stay here, Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We
are still riveted watching the Corey Richins trial. It is
day ten in the grief author murder trial. As you
(10:56):
may remember, we told you but this just can't make
this up. She wrote a children's book helping her kids
and other people's kids grieve with the death of a parent,
and here she stands accused of murdering her husband. And
it has been a very dramatic day in court to date,
and a lot of the drama happened outside of the
juror's ears, where we have heard the defense make or
(11:19):
take issue with the judge not allowing them to impeach
Cody Wright, that is Eric Richards's business partner, that was
one of his best friends. And they think they believe
he has changed his testimony, that he went from first
answering a question saying that he had never seen Eric
Richards his friend or never knew that his friend actually
(11:43):
had anything.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
To do with illicit drug use.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
And then the defense says, hey, wait a minute, now
he's talking about red Devil's Red Devil pills. I want
to go back. The defense wants to go back and
call him out on it, and the judge said, no,
he didn't say anything different than what he said before.
And so the defense is now so basically saying, this
will be grounds for an appeal if my client is convicted.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
And that's a look that makes the judge pay attention.
He was starting to get annoyed with the defense attorney's
round and around. She started throwing things out like this
is an impediment to a fair trial. You are violating
our constitutional right to a fair trial to put on
her defense. If judge wasn't having it. He gave a moment.
He said, you know what, prosecutor, I'll ask you, would
(12:30):
you allow me to let her go ahead and do
what she wants to do on the defense side, and
maybe this eliminates even the possibility of a particular appeal.
The prosecution took their time and chatted about it for
a second.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
And then they came back and said.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Yeah, no, no, no, we don't want her to go
back and ask those question.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
It's not going to happen, not on our watch.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
So they did take a moment, but so they know
they know that by doing this, the defense is absolutely
going to pursue an appeal based on this at least this.
There could be more reasons why they do it, but this,
they've certainly made it clear. This is going to be
one of them. But you tease this going into the break,
the attorney for Corey Richins flat out said if she
(13:18):
were allowed to question Cody Wright the way she wanted
to question him, that she could prove that her client
was innocent. She said, if Eric Richards, if we can
hear that he absolutely was taking illicit drugs, that he
was using these pills or had used these pills called
Red Devils, that would absolutely prove that my client is innocent.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
I thought that was a little bit of a stretch.
This was high school. He used some pills. He popped
some pills in high school, so that translates to now
two decades later than that proves he was a drug
addict and therefore Corey Richards is innocent. That was a
bit of a stretch, but she used that phrase, if
Eric Richards was a drug addict, Corey Richins is innocent. Period.
(14:05):
They really do, sweetheart. It sounds like they're banking on
convincing somebody in that jury that this dude, you keep
hitting them over the head with this guy having a
drug problem, and they might think he drugged himself.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Yeah, we kept hearing today.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
In fact, the defense attorney kept asking Cody right about
Eric's back pain, about Eric's knee pain, about his lime disease,
and how painful he said it was, how often he
may have missed work or didn't go to work because
he was in pain. So, yes, they are absolutely trying
to establish that Eric Richards was in chronic pain and
(14:40):
therefore the only way he could function was to alleviate
the pain by becoming a drug addict, and that is
what they're trying to establish.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Las two things I will ask you make sure I
didn't overlook one. Have they proven, at any point confirmed
that he ever bought himself pills? No, they got the
marijuana gumm's everybody.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
They've got the marijuana gummy.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
But have we established yet that he purchased any pill
anywhere on his own for himself?
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Is that right, Well, I haven't heard that yet, but
we should say that the defense hasn't put on their
their witnesses yet. They haven't had their stab at bringing
people onto the stand and then establishing No. But no,
so far, absolutely not that it's not been established.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Secondly, have they established Have they had anybody on that
stand who says, yeah, I was around Eric he pot pills,
he was addicted to pills. Has anyone said that.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
No.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
The closest person who they were trying to get anywhere
with on that about him taking pain pills for being
like back pain.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Was his sister.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
And she did say, like, periodically he would take a
pain pill, but this wasn't something he did every day.
He tried not to use it, but every now and then, yes,
he did have to take I believe it was oxy
cotone for pain for his back. So I know that
has been established that every now and then he would
take a pain pill.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Is It's tough and the family Eric Richmon's family has
been in the courtroom and we keep an eye on them.
You could tell even on the stand. The sister that
was up there, she does not like Katie.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Oh, Katie does not like Corey.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
And so watching their faces and to hear them have
to sit through. I mean, their loved one is dead now.
He is absolutely being attacked as some kind of a
drug addict, a cheating drug addict who killed himself by
buying illicit drugs. She's innocent until proven guilty, Robes. But
that's just tough for the family to hear. This is
(16:41):
a tough trial in a lot of ways to listen
to because of those details. But my goodness, Robes, today
was one of the more explosive days and the jury
didn't even see it.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
That's true, And you know what I do think.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Look, we've seen this before, and it is a risk
the defense takes by trying to make the victim look
responsible for his own death.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
You do run the risk.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Of pissing off a jury or pissing off wonder you know,
to say, how dare you accuse a man who can't
speak for himself? How dare you accuse a man who
is no longer here? And the woman who's on trial
is now trying to point the finger right back at him,
and he cannot speak, He is not here to defend himself.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
My testimony continuing as we speak here on this Monday
again third week underway, the last week keeping an eye
on here. They still haven't taken a lunch break yet
for the day as of this recording. But they have
a handwriting expert up there, who you keeping an eye
on this ropes. He's essentially testifying to what.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Yeah, there are several documents in question where the prosecutor
prosecution is trying to establish that Corey Richins forged her
husband's signature. This is a crime where prosecutors claim Corey
Richins committed this crime killed her husband not just because
she wanted to be with her lover, but because she
needed money and she needed life insurance payouts. She needed
(18:00):
all sorts of funds to make up for the millions
of dollars she was reportedly in debt. So yes, they
are saying that she forged documents in pursuit of this,
and they have a handwriting expert up there testifying to
that very thing.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
You know, I don't it sounds crazy, but if I
just close my eyes and imagine a handwriting expert, this
is the guy that would come to mind. He just
he looks bar That's every reason be folks, we're keeping
a close eye and ear to this trial. Any other
significant updates. We will hop back on and update two.
We always appreciate you spending time with us on TJ
Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robak talks to
(18:36):
me
Hosts And Creators
Amy Robach
T.J. Holmes
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Clifford Show
The Clifford Show with Clifford Taylor IV blends humor, culture, and behind-the-scenes sports talk with real conversations featuring athletes, creators, and personalities—spotlighting the grind, the growth, and the opportunities shaping the next generation of sports and culture.