October 7, 2025 • 27 mins
Did the state just turn the case on its head? Defense claims the drug dealer who sold the middle woman the fentanyl that killed Eric Richins told prosecutors in April of this year that he didn't sell her fentanyl, but oxycodone. He claims he was detoxing when he made his original statement and was "out of it"
Defense says the state did not inform them of this & has known for months.
We break down the 2 affidavits by the witness/drug dealer, a new request for bond, and the defense wanting all communications the state has of any and all information from setting up the interview to summaries of the April meeting. The defense says now the state's entire case is in jeopardy because their case hinged on Kouri getting the fentanyl from the middle woman who in turn got it from the drug dealer.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
Defense says the state did not inform them of this & has known for months.
We break down the 2 affidavits by the witness/drug dealer, a new request for bond, and the defense wanting all communications the state has of any and all information from setting up the interview to summaries of the April meeting. The defense says now the state's entire case is in jeopardy because their case hinged on Kouri getting the fentanyl from the middle woman who in turn got it from the drug dealer.
- ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout - NEW STYLES
- Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all)
- PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibis
- Venmo - @prettyliesalibis
- Buy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesr
- Cash App- Prettyliesandalibis
- All links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibis
- Merch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis
- (Weekly lives and private message board)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let's you know, Alibyers.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Welcome to another episode of Pretty Lies and Alibis. I'm Gigi,
good to have you here. It's Tuesday, October seventh. You
guys are going to have to excuse my voice. I
have had a cold for the last few days, but
I really wanted to get this episode in today and
early because I tend to lose my voice after about lunchtime.
So what's going on in the world of Corey Richins.
(00:23):
Well a lot right now, including one of the main
witnesses for the state flipping his story and saying that
he never sold the housekeeper, Carmen Lauber, fentanyl. And he
gave two different affidavits on September tenth about this, So
let's jump in. It says my name is Robert Krozer,
(00:44):
and I'm currently residing in the Davis County Jail. I'm
over the age of eighteen and have personal knowledge of
all facts stated herein unless otherwise so stated. I've been
identified as a witness in the above stated manner. In
that capacity, I've been in interviewed on two separate occasions
by individuals associated with.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
The prosecution of Corey Richins.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I've been told that the first interview was on or
about May fourth, twenty twenty three. It was conducted by
two officers from the Summit County Police Department at the
Davis County Jail. I've been told that the first interview
was on or about May fourth, twenty twenty three. It
was conducted by two officers from the Summit County Police
Department at the Davis County Jail. I do not know
(01:29):
the names of the officers who interviewed me on May fourth,
twenty twenty three. I've been in jail for a short
time and was detoxing from drug use. I do not
have any personal recollection of the details of that interview,
although I've since been told that I agreed I had
sold Fentannyel to Carmen Lauber in twenty twenty two. On
two occasions, in early April twenty twenty five, I was
(01:51):
asked to meet with two people from the Summit County
Attorney's Office. I believe that both individuals were prosecutors, and
they told me they were prosecuting Corey Richins. I believed
that one of them was Brad Bloodworth. I cannot recall
the name of the other individual who was at the meeting,
but it was a man with a beard. I was
sober at that meeting and had been sober for over
(02:13):
three months. We met at Starbucks Coffee in downtown Salt
Lake City. Mister Bludworth and the other individual asked me
if I had sold fentanyl to Carmen Lauber. I told
them no. I sold oxy cotton to Carmen Lauber on
two occasions in early twenty twenty two. I told them
I met her at the Maverick in Draper both times
(02:33):
to sell her the pills. They asked why I had
previously told officers that I had sold her fentanyl. I
told them I did not remember saying that, and that
I had been detoxing during the interview and was out
of it. I told them I was certain that I
had sold Carmen Lauber oxy cotton thirty milligram pills otherwise
known as Roxy's or Roxy thirties. They asked me several
(02:56):
times if I was sure, and I told them yes,
I was sure I sold her oxy conton. I was
told at that meeting that I would be called as
a witness in this case and the Summit County Attorney's
Office would be putting me up in a hotel near
the courthouse. I certified that this statement is true, and
again this is dated September tenth of this year. The
(03:17):
same day there was another Affidavid that was submitted by him,
so let's read through that one. In early twenty twenty two,
I was contacted by my friend Nicole Cummings telling me
that a friend of hers by the name of Carmen
Lauber was looking for some pills and would be contacting me.
Soon after, I received messages from Carmen Lauber asking to
(03:38):
purchase some pills. On at least one occasion, she told
me she wanted roxy thirties, and on at least one
other occasion she said she wanted blues. I understood this
to means she wanted thirty milligram oxy conton pills. In
early twenty twenty two, I knew the term blues to
mean oxy conton. I did not associate the term blues
(03:59):
with finn until late twenty twenty two. I met with
Carmen on two occasions. In February twenty twenty two at
the Maverick in Draper and sold her oxy Conton the
first time I sold her thirty pills. The second time,
I sold her more than thirty pills, but I can't
recall how many. These were the only two times I
met Carmen. I did not know her before she contacted me,
(04:21):
and I have not had contact with her since February
twenty twenty two. I began selling fentanyl at the end
of twenty twenty two. In May twenty twenty three, I
was arrested for possessing fentanyl and was in Davis County
Jail at that time. Two officers from the Summit County
Police Department interviewed me. I do not remember their names.
(04:42):
I was very confused during this interview, as I was
detoxing from drug use and was very out of it.
At first, I did not remember Carmen, but after they
reminded me, I did remember that I had sold pills
to her and that she was a friend of Nicole Cummings.
I don't remember the details of that interview, but i've
since been During that interview, I agreed that I'd sold
(05:02):
fentanyl to Carmen Lauber and that blues refer to fentanyl.
It is my belief that I agreed i'd sold Carmen
fentanyl because I was personally detoxing from Fittonyl during that interview,
and by then I had been selling fentanyl, which I
had come to known as blues. I am currently in recovery,
and although I relapsed during my recovery, at this time,
(05:24):
I've been sober for about three weeks. Prior to my relapse,
I'd been cleaned for nine months. I did not sell
Carmen fentanyl in February twenty twenty two, but sold her
thirty milligram oxyconton pills in early twenty twenty two. I
was not selling fentanyl and I did not have access
to fentanyl. Rather, I was selling my own oxyconton prescription,
(05:45):
which were ten milligram pills. If a buyer wanted stronger pills,
I had a source who provided thirty milligram OxyContin, which
is what I sold to Carmen. Roxys or roxy thirties
refer to thirty milligram OxyContin pills. To my knowledge, Blues
also referred to oxyconton until late twenty twenty two, when
I came to know the term is also being used
(06:06):
for fentanyl. I did not acquire a source for fentanyl
until the end of twenty twenty two. The fentanyl pills
that I began selling at that time were very dark blue,
almost purple. In April twenty twenty five, I was interviewed
by prosecutors with the Summit County Attorney's Office and told
them that I had sold oxy conton to Carmen and
not fentanyl. And then the last part says I certified
(06:29):
the statement is true. The next motion that was filed
was a motion to appoint council for witnesses, and it
says the States provided in discovery the statements of several
potential witnesses relating to their participation in the alleged unlawful
distribution of controlled substances. These witnesses have also been identified
as likely witnesses at trialed due to their inclusion, at
(06:52):
the state's request, in the jury questionnaire. To date, the
defense is only aware of one of these witnesses being
granted any sort of immunity. The remaining witnesses face potential
state and or federal criminal liability if they take the
witness stand at trial and testify consistently with their statements
produced during discovery. In order to protect their liberty interests,
(07:14):
these witnesses should be appointed counsel to advise them of
their Fifth Amendment rights. Defense counsel are not in a
position to do so due to their conflicts of interest.
It is important for these witnesses to be appointed council
prior to trial in light of the Utah Supreme Courts
ruling that a lawyer conducts himself unprofessionally when, for the
(07:35):
purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the
claim of privilege, he calls a witness to testify when
he knows the witness will claim a valid privilege not
to testify, and they cite State versus Travis. Without the
assistance of independent defense council advising these witnesses, there is
no way for defense counsel to avoid this trap. Furthermore,
(07:57):
defense council may be entitled to assert unavailable ability of
the witnesses if they have advanced knowledge of the witness's
intent to assert their Fifth Amendment right and con then
subpoena the witness to appear before the trial judge to
assert said right and they cite State versus White. An
unavailability determination may lead to pretrial admission of otherwise inadmissible
(08:19):
hearsay critical to the case. Appointing council prior to that
procedure will serve the best interests of judicial economy by
avoiding having to come back for a second appearance after
the appointment of counsel and an opportunity for counsel to
consult with the witnesses. The particular witnesses that issue include,
but may not be limited to, Nick Bond Savage, Susan Kohler,
(08:44):
Robert Krozier, Nicole Cummings, and Sheila Peterson. They ended with
the defense respectfully moves this Honorable Court to appoint indefendant
defense counsel to advise the five witnesses listed above that
their Fifth Amendment rights with respect in testimony about their
alleged participation in criminal activity that was submitted by Catherine Nestor,
(09:07):
one of Corey's attorneys. And of course, the next motion
is a motion to reconsider bail and conditions of release.
This was filed October second. It says Corey Richins buy
and through undersigned Council hereby moves this Court to reconsider
setting bail and ordering conditions of release pursuant to Utah Code,
(09:28):
which provides in part that a party may move to
modify a pre trial status order at any time upon
showing that there has been a material change in circumstances.
This motion is based on the following. The first section
is history of proceedings. The matter of bail has been
brought before this Court on two occasions. First, on June twelfth,
(09:49):
twenty twenty three, this Court conducted a detention hearing and
considered exhibits, testimony, and arguments submitted by the parties. At
that time, Miss Richards was facing a potential death penalty
on the aggravated murder charge and was not entitled to
bail as a matter of right pursuant to Utah Code.
The Court did, however, go on to find that there
(10:09):
was substantial evidence to support the charge and clear and
convincing evidence that the defendant would pose a substantial danger
to the community if released on bail. At that time,
the Court made no findings of risk of flight. On
October twenty second, twenty twenty four, Miss Richids, through Council,
filed the motion to reconsider bail, arguing that there had
(10:31):
been a material change of circumstances since the prior detention hearing.
The Court found that a material change in circumstances did exist,
and on November twelfth, twenty twenty four, a hearing was
held on the motion. After the oral argument, the court
ruled from the bench that there was still substantial evidence
to support the charge and clear and convincing evidence that
(10:52):
the defendant would pose a substantial danger to the community
and further was a flight risk. Miss Richins has now
been held in pre trial custody for twenty eight months.
The next section material change in circumstances since November of
twenty twenty four hearing. The following circumstances have changed since
the previous detention hearing and call for a renewed review
(11:15):
of bill and or conditions of release. In this case
number one, new evidence has come to light that goes
to the heart of the state's allegations that Miss Richins
poisoned her husband with fentanyl. The state's case is based
on statements made by Carmen Lauber that she procured fentanyl
from mister Robert Crozier on two occasions and sold it
(11:35):
to Miss Richins. The defense has recently learned that in
April twenty twenty five, mister Crozier met with prosecutors for
Summit County and informed them that this was not true.
Mister Crozier told members of the prosecution team that he
did not sell fentanyl to Miss Lauber, but rather sold
her oxyconton. In a footnote, it says this statement is
(11:56):
also consistent with Miss Lauber's original statement that she saw
only oxyconton to Miss Richins. Although the state failed to
disclose this exculplatory statement to the defense as required under
Brady and Giglio, the defense learned of it independently when
they interviewed mister Crozier on September third, twenty twenty five,
(12:16):
at which time he relayed this exculplatory information number two.
Mister Crozier has now informed both the state and the
defense that he sold only oxyconton to Miss Lauber on
two occasions in early twenty twenty two, and it says
see attached affidavid of Robert Crozier. He further told both
the state and the defense that he did not recall
(12:38):
previously telling Summit County detectives that he had sold fentanyl
to Miss Lauber, and at the time of the previous
interview he had been detoxing and was out of it.
Mister Crozier, who is now sober, states that he is
certain that he sold Miss Lauber thirty milligram oxy conton
pills on both occasions. Moving on to the argument, Utah
Code provides that one an endo Vidal charged with or
(13:01):
arrested for a criminal offense shall be admitted to bail
as a matter of right, except if the individual is
charged with a felony where there is substantial evidence to
support the charge and the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the individual would constitute a substantial danger
to any other individual or to the community, after considering
(13:23):
conditions of release that the Court may impose if the
individual is released on bail, or the individual is likely
to flee the jurisdiction of the court if the individual
is released on bail. Although the Court has previously found
that there is substantial evidence to support the charges against
Miss Richins, mister Crowzier's recanting of his previous statement changes
(13:46):
the landscape to a degree that cannot be ignored. In
order to continue to hold Miss Richins without bail, court
must first find that there is substantial evidence to support
the charge and that simply no longer exist. Our Supreme
Court has explained that the purpose of the substantial evidence
standard in the bail context is to ensure that the
(14:09):
quantum of evidence presented by the state sufficiently justifies the
denial of the defendant's right to freedom from pre trial incarceration.
In this matter, the state's entire theory of criminal liability
is that Corey procured finanyl from her housekeeper, Carmen Lauber,
which she caused to be unwillingly ingested by her husband
(14:29):
in some unknown way, directly causing his death. There is
no physical evidence of this, but only the statements of
Carmen Lauber, and these statements are wholly dependent on whether
or not Laubert procured fentanyl from Robert Crozier. None of
these so called fentanyl pills were found nor tested. Loubert
only believes she sold Corey fentanyl because she believed that
(14:51):
is what Crozier gave her. There's a footnote here that
says Carmen Lauber's original statement was that she never sold
fentanyl to Miss Richins and that Miss Richards never asked
her for fentanyl. Only later did she change her story
to say that she did get fintanyl from Crozier and
then gave it to Qurey. If Robert Crozier did not,
(15:12):
in fact self fentanyl to Lauber. There can be no
credible argument that substantial evidence of guilt exists, and since
in criminal cases a jury must find a defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, the substantial evidence standard is met
when the prosecution presents evidence capable of supporting a jury
finding that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
(15:35):
Even though the prosecution's cases need not be air tight,
and the defense must do more than have poked holes
in the state's case, there must be evidence that supports
the element of the crime charged. That is not the
situation before this court. If the state could not place
fentanyl in the hands of the defendant, the state has
no case. Mister Crozier's statement doesn't just poke holes in
(16:00):
their case. It throws a grenade into the middle of it,
leaving them with nothing but speculation and conjecture, getting them
nowhere near the realm of beyond a reasonable doubt. It
says he also Randolph versus State of Utah, a district
court may not deny a defendant bail unless the facts
adduced by the state, notwithstanding contradiction of them by defense
(16:24):
proof warrant the conclusion that, if believed by a jury,
they furnish a reasonable basis for a verdict of guilt,
and they cite Chenowith versus Larsen without substantial evidence to
support the charge of aggravated homicide or attempted aggravated homicide.
The analysis ends and Miss Richings should be released for
(16:45):
the reasons stated herein Miss Richins respectfully moves this Honorable
Court to reconsider its previous detention ruling and grant her
the privilege of pre trial release. And the last filing
is from October two as well is a request for
order compelling disclosure of exculplatory evidence. It says prosecutor says
(17:05):
she mixed a lethal dose of fentanyl into his drink.
They link in the footnotes a couple of different articles
Corey Richards's housekeeper allegedly sold her fentanyl pills prior to
her husband's poisoning, and in the footnotes there is a
link to a YouTube channel and that link goes to
Law and Crime Trials YouTube page from the preliminary hearing
(17:27):
that Corey had. Corey Richins, the Utah mom who allegedly
poisoned her husband with a finanyl lace cocktail. In the footnotes,
there's links to these articles. Prosecutors alleged she gave Eric
Richards a lethal dose of fentanyl on the night of
his death. Eric's family suspects she placed the fentanyl in
that Moscow mule. Investigators now say a woman accused of
(17:48):
fatally poisoning her husband asked multiple people if they could
procure fentanyl for her. Prosecutors previously have said she acquired
fentanyl through a woman who cleaned houses for her business,
both in the months before and shortly after her husband's
death in March of twenty twenty two. A search warrant
granted earlier this month, however, indicates investigators believe the woman
(18:11):
was not the only person Richins went to for fentanyl.
All these headlines stemmed from the allegations that miss Richins
procured oxy codone and ultimately fentanyl, from her relationships and
connections with Carmen Lauber, Robert Crozier, Nick von Savage, and
Susan Kohler. Initially, Miss Laubert informed investigators that fintanyl was
(18:32):
never procured, and it says see transcript of Carmen Laubert
interview from April twenty seventh, twenty twenty three. The investigating
officers subsequently interviewed Miss Laubert again on May third, twenty
twenty three. It was at that meeting when Miss Lauber
indicated she got fittanyl from Robbie otherwise known as Robert Crozier.
See transcript of Carmen Laubert interview May third, twenty twenty three.
(18:57):
Mister Crozier was interviewed in May twenty three. During his interview,
he confirmed he had sold fentanyl to Miss Lauber on
two occasions. Sometime in April of this year, mister Crozier
was interviewed by two members of the Summit County prosecution
team at a Starbucks in Salt Lake City. The prosecution
team asked if he had sold fentanyl to Miss Lauber.
(19:18):
He told them he had not sold fentanyl. He specified
he had sold oxy conton to Miss Lauber on two
occasions in early twenty twenty two. He told the prosecution
team he met Miss Lauber at the Maverick in Draper
both times to sell her the pills. The prosecution team
asked why mister Crozier had previously stated he had sold
miss Lauber fentanyl. He specified he did not remember saying
(19:40):
that he had sold fentanyl and told them he had
been detoxing during that interview and was out of it.
He told the prosecution team he was certain he sold
miss Lauber oxy conton thirty milligram pills also known as
Roxy's or Roxy thirties. The prosecution team asked him several
times if he was sure, and he told them he
was sure he sold Miss Lauber oxycont The prosecution has
(20:03):
been aware of this exculplatory evidence since April of this year.
They did not inform the defense of this information. No
press release was issued, no reports, nothing. The prosecution just
kept quiet. In preparation for trial, defense council located and
interviewed Robert within the past thirty days. It was during
(20:25):
this interview that the meeting and the exculplatory information became
known to defense counsel. There's a footnote that says defense
looked within discovery folder provided by the prosecution after the
discovery of this information and prior to the filing of
this request and could not find anything related to this interview.
The prosecution is required to disclose to the defendant the
(20:49):
following material or information directly related to the case which
the prosecution team has knowledge and control. Evidence that must
be disclosed under US and Utah constitutions, including all evidence
favorable to the defendant that is material to guilt or punishment.
Their duty to disclose is a continuing duty as the
(21:10):
material or information becomes known to the prosecutor. Rule three
point eight of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct prescribes
duties specific to the unique role of a prosecutor. It
requires a prosecutor in a criminal case to make timely
disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known
to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of
(21:33):
the accused or mitigates the offense. The timelessness of a
prosecutor's disclosure of exculplatory evidence is a matter governed in
Utah by our Rules of Criminal Procedure. By rule, a
prosecutor must make all disclosures as soon as practicable following
the filing of charges and before the defendant is required
(21:55):
to plead. The court highlighted the distinction between the procedural
rule and its ethical counterpart. The requirement of timely disclosure
is important. It is aimed at allowing the defendant to
adequately prepare his defense, and our ethics rule has the
same evident focus. Rule three point eight D of the
(22:16):
Utah Rules of Professional Conduct requires more than just disclosure.
It requires a timely disclosure. This distinction is critical because
without its ethical counterpart, a prosecutor would rarely face a consequence,
because it could hide behind the wide latitude and continuing
obligation provided by Rule sixteen. If the prosecutor's possession of
(22:38):
exculplatory evidence is uncovered at trial, a subsequent admission of
that fact may be somewhat mitigating at the sanctioned phase,
but the emission is not itself a fulfillment of the
Rule three point eight D duty of disclosure. If that
were enough, the rule would be rendered practically toothless, as
any savvy prosecutor could avoid an ethical violation by a
(23:01):
simple expedient of an after the fact mission of a
prior failure of disclosure once it is exposed by someone else.
A prosecutor cannot conflate the Brady standard with the prosecutor's
ethical duty under Rule three point eight D. The two
standards are distinct. The question under Brady is a matter
of due process of whether the prosecution's failure to disclose
(23:24):
exculplatory material so undermines our confidence in the verdict that
we should order a new trial. But Rule three point
eight d's disclosure is different. It is aimed not only
at assuring a fair trial by articulating a standard for
emotion for a new one, but also at establishing an
ethical duty that will avoid the problem in the first place.
(23:46):
In stating that duty, our rule requires timely disclosure by
the prosecution. That duty cannot be fulfilled by a prosecutor's
merit mission of the existence of exculplatory evidence made after
a whisiness first uncovers it. In addition to the timeliness
of disclosure, the prosecution's state of mind relating to the
(24:07):
disclosure is paramount in determining an appropriate sanction.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
Here, the prosecution failed to disclose.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Evidence that not only negates miss richards guilt but completely
eviscerates the prosecution's own theory that miss Richins procured the
fentanyl that ultimately killed her husband. The prosecution's failure to
disclose and continued concealment of exculplatory evidence that Miss Richins
did not procure fentanyl inflicts ongoing harm on miss richins,
(24:36):
the public and the integrity of our legal system. This
is precisely the type of misconduct Rule three point eight
was designed to prevent. By withholding this evidence, the prosecution
abandons its duty to seek justice and undermines the assurance
of a fair trial. No doubt there will be an
attempt to talk this up to an oversight, perhaps as
(24:59):
an oversight that should be excused as nothing more than carelessness.
But this was not an oversight. This was a continuing
and knowing concealment. It is not a blemish on the fruit.
It is wrought at the core, poisoning the whole harvest
of justice. The next section, it says, covenants without the
sword are but words, and that's Thomas Hobbs. Courts have
(25:20):
long trusted the prosecution to discharge its duty without supervision.
But when that trust is broken, when evidence negating guilt
is withheld, trust alone no longer suffices. In this case,
words like timely and becomes known suddenly demand a deadline.
Council moves this Court for a standing order imposing a
(25:40):
three day deadline on the prosecution to disclose the following
to the defense. Number one all evidence, including emails, text messages,
phone messages, recordings, video footage, or any other form of
correspondence involving the prosecution teams or any law enforcement official
and Robert Crozier, including correspondents about setting up a meeting,
(26:04):
and any sort of summaries of the meeting. Number two,
all notes correspondents or reports prepared by law enforcement officials
or any member of the prosecution team discussing Robert's interview
in April and or any other dates. Number three, any statements, recordings, reports,
or notes in whatever medium, including emails and texts, that
(26:28):
tend to negate guilt. Furthermore, the defense respectfully requests this
Court require the prosecution to disclose on the record or
to reduce to writing, and provide to the defense all
oral statements delivered when interviewing witnesses that tend to negate
guilt or contradict prior statements made by the witnesses, and
that was dated just October second. My opinion is that
(26:51):
I don't think this affects her getting out on bail.
I mean, at the end of the day, she is
still charged with the murder of Eric Richards. I think
the bigger issue is going to be whether or not
it's proven that the state withheld exculplatory information from the defense,
which could have professional ramifications for the prosecution, and it
(27:11):
could affect things not coming in at trial. As far
as the drug dealer recanting his statement and going in
the opposite direction, It's going to come down to who
the jury finds the most credible, the drug dealer or
the housekeeper. Carmen Lauber. Just my opinion on all this.
It'll be very interesting to see how this plays out.
Whenever there is an update on any of these issues,
(27:33):
I will bring it to you as soon as I can.
But that is it for today. I hope you guys
have a good arrest of your afternoon and we will
see you soon
Let's you know, Alibyers.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Welcome to another episode of Pretty Lies and Alibis. I'm Gigi,
good to have you here. It's Tuesday, October seventh. You
guys are going to have to excuse my voice. I
have had a cold for the last few days, but
I really wanted to get this episode in today and
early because I tend to lose my voice after about lunchtime.
So what's going on in the world of Corey Richins.
(00:23):
Well a lot right now, including one of the main
witnesses for the state flipping his story and saying that
he never sold the housekeeper, Carmen Lauber, fentanyl. And he
gave two different affidavits on September tenth about this, So
let's jump in. It says my name is Robert Krozer,
(00:44):
and I'm currently residing in the Davis County Jail. I'm
over the age of eighteen and have personal knowledge of
all facts stated herein unless otherwise so stated. I've been
identified as a witness in the above stated manner. In
that capacity, I've been in interviewed on two separate occasions
by individuals associated with.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
The prosecution of Corey Richins.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I've been told that the first interview was on or
about May fourth, twenty twenty three. It was conducted by
two officers from the Summit County Police Department at the
Davis County Jail. I've been told that the first interview
was on or about May fourth, twenty twenty three. It
was conducted by two officers from the Summit County Police
Department at the Davis County Jail. I do not know
(01:29):
the names of the officers who interviewed me on May fourth,
twenty twenty three. I've been in jail for a short
time and was detoxing from drug use. I do not
have any personal recollection of the details of that interview,
although I've since been told that I agreed I had
sold Fentannyel to Carmen Lauber in twenty twenty two. On
two occasions, in early April twenty twenty five, I was
(01:51):
asked to meet with two people from the Summit County
Attorney's Office. I believe that both individuals were prosecutors, and
they told me they were prosecuting Corey Richins. I believed
that one of them was Brad Bloodworth. I cannot recall
the name of the other individual who was at the meeting,
but it was a man with a beard. I was
sober at that meeting and had been sober for over
(02:13):
three months. We met at Starbucks Coffee in downtown Salt
Lake City. Mister Bludworth and the other individual asked me
if I had sold fentanyl to Carmen Lauber. I told
them no. I sold oxy cotton to Carmen Lauber on
two occasions in early twenty twenty two. I told them
I met her at the Maverick in Draper both times
(02:33):
to sell her the pills. They asked why I had
previously told officers that I had sold her fentanyl. I
told them I did not remember saying that, and that
I had been detoxing during the interview and was out
of it. I told them I was certain that I
had sold Carmen Lauber oxy cotton thirty milligram pills otherwise
known as Roxy's or Roxy thirties. They asked me several
(02:56):
times if I was sure, and I told them yes,
I was sure I sold her oxy conton. I was
told at that meeting that I would be called as
a witness in this case and the Summit County Attorney's
Office would be putting me up in a hotel near
the courthouse. I certified that this statement is true, and
again this is dated September tenth of this year. The
(03:17):
same day there was another Affidavid that was submitted by him,
so let's read through that one. In early twenty twenty two,
I was contacted by my friend Nicole Cummings telling me
that a friend of hers by the name of Carmen
Lauber was looking for some pills and would be contacting me.
Soon after, I received messages from Carmen Lauber asking to
(03:38):
purchase some pills. On at least one occasion, she told
me she wanted roxy thirties, and on at least one
other occasion she said she wanted blues. I understood this
to means she wanted thirty milligram oxy conton pills. In
early twenty twenty two, I knew the term blues to
mean oxy conton. I did not associate the term blues
(03:59):
with finn until late twenty twenty two. I met with
Carmen on two occasions. In February twenty twenty two at
the Maverick in Draper and sold her oxy Conton the
first time I sold her thirty pills. The second time,
I sold her more than thirty pills, but I can't
recall how many. These were the only two times I
met Carmen. I did not know her before she contacted me,
(04:21):
and I have not had contact with her since February
twenty twenty two. I began selling fentanyl at the end
of twenty twenty two. In May twenty twenty three, I
was arrested for possessing fentanyl and was in Davis County
Jail at that time. Two officers from the Summit County
Police Department interviewed me. I do not remember their names.
(04:42):
I was very confused during this interview, as I was
detoxing from drug use and was very out of it.
At first, I did not remember Carmen, but after they
reminded me, I did remember that I had sold pills
to her and that she was a friend of Nicole Cummings.
I don't remember the details of that interview, but i've
since been During that interview, I agreed that I'd sold
(05:02):
fentanyl to Carmen Lauber and that blues refer to fentanyl.
It is my belief that I agreed i'd sold Carmen
fentanyl because I was personally detoxing from Fittonyl during that interview,
and by then I had been selling fentanyl, which I
had come to known as blues. I am currently in recovery,
and although I relapsed during my recovery, at this time,
(05:24):
I've been sober for about three weeks. Prior to my relapse,
I'd been cleaned for nine months. I did not sell
Carmen fentanyl in February twenty twenty two, but sold her
thirty milligram oxyconton pills in early twenty twenty two. I
was not selling fentanyl and I did not have access
to fentanyl. Rather, I was selling my own oxyconton prescription,
(05:45):
which were ten milligram pills. If a buyer wanted stronger pills,
I had a source who provided thirty milligram OxyContin, which
is what I sold to Carmen. Roxys or roxy thirties
refer to thirty milligram OxyContin pills. To my knowledge, Blues
also referred to oxyconton until late twenty twenty two, when
I came to know the term is also being used
(06:06):
for fentanyl. I did not acquire a source for fentanyl
until the end of twenty twenty two. The fentanyl pills
that I began selling at that time were very dark blue,
almost purple. In April twenty twenty five, I was interviewed
by prosecutors with the Summit County Attorney's Office and told
them that I had sold oxy conton to Carmen and
not fentanyl. And then the last part says I certified
(06:29):
the statement is true. The next motion that was filed
was a motion to appoint council for witnesses, and it
says the States provided in discovery the statements of several
potential witnesses relating to their participation in the alleged unlawful
distribution of controlled substances. These witnesses have also been identified
as likely witnesses at trialed due to their inclusion, at
(06:52):
the state's request, in the jury questionnaire. To date, the
defense is only aware of one of these witnesses being
granted any sort of immunity. The remaining witnesses face potential
state and or federal criminal liability if they take the
witness stand at trial and testify consistently with their statements
produced during discovery. In order to protect their liberty interests,
(07:14):
these witnesses should be appointed counsel to advise them of
their Fifth Amendment rights. Defense counsel are not in a
position to do so due to their conflicts of interest.
It is important for these witnesses to be appointed council
prior to trial in light of the Utah Supreme Courts
ruling that a lawyer conducts himself unprofessionally when, for the
(07:35):
purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the
claim of privilege, he calls a witness to testify when
he knows the witness will claim a valid privilege not
to testify, and they cite State versus Travis. Without the
assistance of independent defense council advising these witnesses, there is
no way for defense counsel to avoid this trap. Furthermore,
(07:57):
defense council may be entitled to assert unavailable ability of
the witnesses if they have advanced knowledge of the witness's
intent to assert their Fifth Amendment right and con then
subpoena the witness to appear before the trial judge to
assert said right and they cite State versus White. An
unavailability determination may lead to pretrial admission of otherwise inadmissible
(08:19):
hearsay critical to the case. Appointing council prior to that
procedure will serve the best interests of judicial economy by
avoiding having to come back for a second appearance after
the appointment of counsel and an opportunity for counsel to
consult with the witnesses. The particular witnesses that issue include,
but may not be limited to, Nick Bond Savage, Susan Kohler,
(08:44):
Robert Krozier, Nicole Cummings, and Sheila Peterson. They ended with
the defense respectfully moves this Honorable Court to appoint indefendant
defense counsel to advise the five witnesses listed above that
their Fifth Amendment rights with respect in testimony about their
alleged participation in criminal activity that was submitted by Catherine Nestor,
(09:07):
one of Corey's attorneys. And of course, the next motion
is a motion to reconsider bail and conditions of release.
This was filed October second. It says Corey Richins buy
and through undersigned Council hereby moves this Court to reconsider
setting bail and ordering conditions of release pursuant to Utah Code,
(09:28):
which provides in part that a party may move to
modify a pre trial status order at any time upon
showing that there has been a material change in circumstances.
This motion is based on the following. The first section
is history of proceedings. The matter of bail has been
brought before this Court on two occasions. First, on June twelfth,
(09:49):
twenty twenty three, this Court conducted a detention hearing and
considered exhibits, testimony, and arguments submitted by the parties. At
that time, Miss Richards was facing a potential death penalty
on the aggravated murder charge and was not entitled to
bail as a matter of right pursuant to Utah Code.
The Court did, however, go on to find that there
(10:09):
was substantial evidence to support the charge and clear and
convincing evidence that the defendant would pose a substantial danger
to the community if released on bail. At that time,
the Court made no findings of risk of flight. On
October twenty second, twenty twenty four, Miss Richids, through Council,
filed the motion to reconsider bail, arguing that there had
(10:31):
been a material change of circumstances since the prior detention hearing.
The Court found that a material change in circumstances did exist,
and on November twelfth, twenty twenty four, a hearing was
held on the motion. After the oral argument, the court
ruled from the bench that there was still substantial evidence
to support the charge and clear and convincing evidence that
(10:52):
the defendant would pose a substantial danger to the community
and further was a flight risk. Miss Richins has now
been held in pre trial custody for twenty eight months.
The next section material change in circumstances since November of
twenty twenty four hearing. The following circumstances have changed since
the previous detention hearing and call for a renewed review
(11:15):
of bill and or conditions of release. In this case
number one, new evidence has come to light that goes
to the heart of the state's allegations that Miss Richins
poisoned her husband with fentanyl. The state's case is based
on statements made by Carmen Lauber that she procured fentanyl
from mister Robert Crozier on two occasions and sold it
(11:35):
to Miss Richins. The defense has recently learned that in
April twenty twenty five, mister Crozier met with prosecutors for
Summit County and informed them that this was not true.
Mister Crozier told members of the prosecution team that he
did not sell fentanyl to Miss Lauber, but rather sold
her oxyconton. In a footnote, it says this statement is
(11:56):
also consistent with Miss Lauber's original statement that she saw
only oxyconton to Miss Richins. Although the state failed to
disclose this exculplatory statement to the defense as required under
Brady and Giglio, the defense learned of it independently when
they interviewed mister Crozier on September third, twenty twenty five,
(12:16):
at which time he relayed this exculplatory information number two.
Mister Crozier has now informed both the state and the
defense that he sold only oxyconton to Miss Lauber on
two occasions in early twenty twenty two, and it says
see attached affidavid of Robert Crozier. He further told both
the state and the defense that he did not recall
(12:38):
previously telling Summit County detectives that he had sold fentanyl
to Miss Lauber, and at the time of the previous
interview he had been detoxing and was out of it.
Mister Crozier, who is now sober, states that he is
certain that he sold Miss Lauber thirty milligram oxy conton
pills on both occasions. Moving on to the argument, Utah
Code provides that one an endo Vidal charged with or
(13:01):
arrested for a criminal offense shall be admitted to bail
as a matter of right, except if the individual is
charged with a felony where there is substantial evidence to
support the charge and the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the individual would constitute a substantial danger
to any other individual or to the community, after considering
(13:23):
conditions of release that the Court may impose if the
individual is released on bail, or the individual is likely
to flee the jurisdiction of the court if the individual
is released on bail. Although the Court has previously found
that there is substantial evidence to support the charges against
Miss Richins, mister Crowzier's recanting of his previous statement changes
(13:46):
the landscape to a degree that cannot be ignored. In
order to continue to hold Miss Richins without bail, court
must first find that there is substantial evidence to support
the charge and that simply no longer exist. Our Supreme
Court has explained that the purpose of the substantial evidence
standard in the bail context is to ensure that the
(14:09):
quantum of evidence presented by the state sufficiently justifies the
denial of the defendant's right to freedom from pre trial incarceration.
In this matter, the state's entire theory of criminal liability
is that Corey procured finanyl from her housekeeper, Carmen Lauber,
which she caused to be unwillingly ingested by her husband
(14:29):
in some unknown way, directly causing his death. There is
no physical evidence of this, but only the statements of
Carmen Lauber, and these statements are wholly dependent on whether
or not Laubert procured fentanyl from Robert Crozier. None of
these so called fentanyl pills were found nor tested. Loubert
only believes she sold Corey fentanyl because she believed that
(14:51):
is what Crozier gave her. There's a footnote here that
says Carmen Lauber's original statement was that she never sold
fentanyl to Miss Richins and that Miss Richards never asked
her for fentanyl. Only later did she change her story
to say that she did get fintanyl from Crozier and
then gave it to Qurey. If Robert Crozier did not,
(15:12):
in fact self fentanyl to Lauber. There can be no
credible argument that substantial evidence of guilt exists, and since
in criminal cases a jury must find a defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, the substantial evidence standard is met
when the prosecution presents evidence capable of supporting a jury
finding that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
(15:35):
Even though the prosecution's cases need not be air tight,
and the defense must do more than have poked holes
in the state's case, there must be evidence that supports
the element of the crime charged. That is not the
situation before this court. If the state could not place
fentanyl in the hands of the defendant, the state has
no case. Mister Crozier's statement doesn't just poke holes in
(16:00):
their case. It throws a grenade into the middle of it,
leaving them with nothing but speculation and conjecture, getting them
nowhere near the realm of beyond a reasonable doubt. It
says he also Randolph versus State of Utah, a district
court may not deny a defendant bail unless the facts
adduced by the state, notwithstanding contradiction of them by defense
(16:24):
proof warrant the conclusion that, if believed by a jury,
they furnish a reasonable basis for a verdict of guilt,
and they cite Chenowith versus Larsen without substantial evidence to
support the charge of aggravated homicide or attempted aggravated homicide.
The analysis ends and Miss Richings should be released for
(16:45):
the reasons stated herein Miss Richins respectfully moves this Honorable
Court to reconsider its previous detention ruling and grant her
the privilege of pre trial release. And the last filing
is from October two as well is a request for
order compelling disclosure of exculplatory evidence. It says prosecutor says
(17:05):
she mixed a lethal dose of fentanyl into his drink.
They link in the footnotes a couple of different articles
Corey Richards's housekeeper allegedly sold her fentanyl pills prior to
her husband's poisoning, and in the footnotes there is a
link to a YouTube channel and that link goes to
Law and Crime Trials YouTube page from the preliminary hearing
(17:27):
that Corey had. Corey Richins, the Utah mom who allegedly
poisoned her husband with a finanyl lace cocktail. In the footnotes,
there's links to these articles. Prosecutors alleged she gave Eric
Richards a lethal dose of fentanyl on the night of
his death. Eric's family suspects she placed the fentanyl in
that Moscow mule. Investigators now say a woman accused of
(17:48):
fatally poisoning her husband asked multiple people if they could
procure fentanyl for her. Prosecutors previously have said she acquired
fentanyl through a woman who cleaned houses for her business,
both in the months before and shortly after her husband's
death in March of twenty twenty two. A search warrant
granted earlier this month, however, indicates investigators believe the woman
(18:11):
was not the only person Richins went to for fentanyl.
All these headlines stemmed from the allegations that miss Richins
procured oxy codone and ultimately fentanyl, from her relationships and
connections with Carmen Lauber, Robert Crozier, Nick von Savage, and
Susan Kohler. Initially, Miss Laubert informed investigators that fintanyl was
(18:32):
never procured, and it says see transcript of Carmen Laubert
interview from April twenty seventh, twenty twenty three. The investigating
officers subsequently interviewed Miss Laubert again on May third, twenty
twenty three. It was at that meeting when Miss Lauber
indicated she got fittanyl from Robbie otherwise known as Robert Crozier.
See transcript of Carmen Laubert interview May third, twenty twenty three.
(18:57):
Mister Crozier was interviewed in May twenty three. During his interview,
he confirmed he had sold fentanyl to Miss Lauber on
two occasions. Sometime in April of this year, mister Crozier
was interviewed by two members of the Summit County prosecution
team at a Starbucks in Salt Lake City. The prosecution
team asked if he had sold fentanyl to Miss Lauber.
(19:18):
He told them he had not sold fentanyl. He specified
he had sold oxy conton to Miss Lauber on two
occasions in early twenty twenty two. He told the prosecution
team he met Miss Lauber at the Maverick in Draper
both times to sell her the pills. The prosecution team
asked why mister Crozier had previously stated he had sold
miss Lauber fentanyl. He specified he did not remember saying
(19:40):
that he had sold fentanyl and told them he had
been detoxing during that interview and was out of it.
He told the prosecution team he was certain he sold
miss Lauber oxy conton thirty milligram pills also known as
Roxy's or Roxy thirties. The prosecution team asked him several
times if he was sure, and he told them he
was sure he sold Miss Lauber oxycont The prosecution has
(20:03):
been aware of this exculplatory evidence since April of this year.
They did not inform the defense of this information. No
press release was issued, no reports, nothing. The prosecution just
kept quiet. In preparation for trial, defense council located and
interviewed Robert within the past thirty days. It was during
(20:25):
this interview that the meeting and the exculplatory information became
known to defense counsel. There's a footnote that says defense
looked within discovery folder provided by the prosecution after the
discovery of this information and prior to the filing of
this request and could not find anything related to this interview.
The prosecution is required to disclose to the defendant the
(20:49):
following material or information directly related to the case which
the prosecution team has knowledge and control. Evidence that must
be disclosed under US and Utah constitutions, including all evidence
favorable to the defendant that is material to guilt or punishment.
Their duty to disclose is a continuing duty as the
(21:10):
material or information becomes known to the prosecutor. Rule three
point eight of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct prescribes
duties specific to the unique role of a prosecutor. It
requires a prosecutor in a criminal case to make timely
disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known
to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of
(21:33):
the accused or mitigates the offense. The timelessness of a
prosecutor's disclosure of exculplatory evidence is a matter governed in
Utah by our Rules of Criminal Procedure. By rule, a
prosecutor must make all disclosures as soon as practicable following
the filing of charges and before the defendant is required
(21:55):
to plead. The court highlighted the distinction between the procedural
rule and its ethical counterpart. The requirement of timely disclosure
is important. It is aimed at allowing the defendant to
adequately prepare his defense, and our ethics rule has the
same evident focus. Rule three point eight D of the
(22:16):
Utah Rules of Professional Conduct requires more than just disclosure.
It requires a timely disclosure. This distinction is critical because
without its ethical counterpart, a prosecutor would rarely face a consequence,
because it could hide behind the wide latitude and continuing
obligation provided by Rule sixteen. If the prosecutor's possession of
(22:38):
exculplatory evidence is uncovered at trial, a subsequent admission of
that fact may be somewhat mitigating at the sanctioned phase,
but the emission is not itself a fulfillment of the
Rule three point eight D duty of disclosure. If that
were enough, the rule would be rendered practically toothless, as
any savvy prosecutor could avoid an ethical violation by a
(23:01):
simple expedient of an after the fact mission of a
prior failure of disclosure once it is exposed by someone else.
A prosecutor cannot conflate the Brady standard with the prosecutor's
ethical duty under Rule three point eight D. The two
standards are distinct. The question under Brady is a matter
of due process of whether the prosecution's failure to disclose
(23:24):
exculplatory material so undermines our confidence in the verdict that
we should order a new trial. But Rule three point
eight d's disclosure is different. It is aimed not only
at assuring a fair trial by articulating a standard for
emotion for a new one, but also at establishing an
ethical duty that will avoid the problem in the first place.
(23:46):
In stating that duty, our rule requires timely disclosure by
the prosecution. That duty cannot be fulfilled by a prosecutor's
merit mission of the existence of exculplatory evidence made after
a whisiness first uncovers it. In addition to the timeliness
of disclosure, the prosecution's state of mind relating to the
(24:07):
disclosure is paramount in determining an appropriate sanction.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
Here, the prosecution failed to disclose.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Evidence that not only negates miss richards guilt but completely
eviscerates the prosecution's own theory that miss Richins procured the
fentanyl that ultimately killed her husband. The prosecution's failure to
disclose and continued concealment of exculplatory evidence that Miss Richins
did not procure fentanyl inflicts ongoing harm on miss richins,
(24:36):
the public and the integrity of our legal system. This
is precisely the type of misconduct Rule three point eight
was designed to prevent. By withholding this evidence, the prosecution
abandons its duty to seek justice and undermines the assurance
of a fair trial. No doubt there will be an
attempt to talk this up to an oversight, perhaps as
(24:59):
an oversight that should be excused as nothing more than carelessness.
But this was not an oversight. This was a continuing
and knowing concealment. It is not a blemish on the fruit.
It is wrought at the core, poisoning the whole harvest
of justice. The next section, it says, covenants without the
sword are but words, and that's Thomas Hobbs. Courts have
(25:20):
long trusted the prosecution to discharge its duty without supervision.
But when that trust is broken, when evidence negating guilt
is withheld, trust alone no longer suffices. In this case,
words like timely and becomes known suddenly demand a deadline.
Council moves this Court for a standing order imposing a
(25:40):
three day deadline on the prosecution to disclose the following
to the defense. Number one all evidence, including emails, text messages,
phone messages, recordings, video footage, or any other form of
correspondence involving the prosecution teams or any law enforcement official
and Robert Crozier, including correspondents about setting up a meeting,
(26:04):
and any sort of summaries of the meeting. Number two,
all notes correspondents or reports prepared by law enforcement officials
or any member of the prosecution team discussing Robert's interview
in April and or any other dates. Number three, any statements, recordings, reports,
or notes in whatever medium, including emails and texts, that
(26:28):
tend to negate guilt. Furthermore, the defense respectfully requests this
Court require the prosecution to disclose on the record or
to reduce to writing, and provide to the defense all
oral statements delivered when interviewing witnesses that tend to negate
guilt or contradict prior statements made by the witnesses, and
that was dated just October second. My opinion is that
(26:51):
I don't think this affects her getting out on bail.
I mean, at the end of the day, she is
still charged with the murder of Eric Richards. I think
the bigger issue is going to be whether or not
it's proven that the state withheld exculplatory information from the defense,
which could have professional ramifications for the prosecution, and it
(27:11):
could affect things not coming in at trial. As far
as the drug dealer recanting his statement and going in
the opposite direction, It's going to come down to who
the jury finds the most credible, the drug dealer or
the housekeeper. Carmen Lauber. Just my opinion on all this.
It'll be very interesting to see how this plays out.
Whenever there is an update on any of these issues,
(27:33):
I will bring it to you as soon as I can.
But that is it for today. I hope you guys
have a good arrest of your afternoon and we will
see you soon
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!