December 11, 2025 • 12 mins
2 filings in this episode - 1 - State's motion to pre-admit defendant's interview and email
2- State's motion to determine admissibility of jail calls and text messages - 16 exhibits listed & they've requested a hearing. Did Kouri get too comfortable in jail and let some things slip?
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
2- State's motion to determine admissibility of jail calls and text messages - 16 exhibits listed & they've requested a hearing. Did Kouri get too comfortable in jail and let some things slip?
- 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):
What you know. Ala Byers, Welcome to another episode of
Pretty Lies and Alibis. I'm Jigi. Good to have you here.
It's Thursday, December eleventh. I thought we would be eyeball
deep in the defense case in the Brian Walls trial,
but they rested without calling any witnesses, which is different
from what his defense attorney said during openings, which was
(00:21):
Brian was going to take the stand. They said after
hearing two key witnesses yesterday, they decided not to. I
would adventure a guest. It would have been Jim, who
spent New Year's Eve with them, as well as honest
friend Elisa from DC. Very powerful testimony, very credible and
really gave a lot of insight into who Anna was
(00:42):
not sure you can come back from that. So tomorrow
we'll have closings and I think a very quick verdict,
but we'll see. I'll be live streaming starting at nine
am for closings, so come hang out with us. We're
going to go through a couple of motions in the
Corey Richan's case. I received about ten different documents this
week and I've been wanting to kind of chip away
(01:03):
at these. I do not think these have been ruled
on yet, but I will keep an eye out for
any rulings. The first is a state's motion to pre
admit defendants interview, statements, and email. The first section relief
requested in grounds. The State of Utah requests the court
pre admit the defendant's statements provided two detectives during an
(01:24):
interview on April fourteenth, twenty twenty three, and an April seventeenth,
twenty twenty three follow up email to detectives. The statements
and email are admissible because they're authentic, not hearsay relevant,
their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice,
and they are complete. The statement of relevant facts Number one.
(01:49):
Texas interviewed the defendant at her residence on April fourteenth,
twenty twenty three. That interview was contemporaneously recorded and subsequently transcribed.
Number two. The interview contains six distinct statements. Number one
Eric Richards's health history to the knight of Eric's death,
(02:10):
three phone deletions fo the Eric Richins living trust, five
life insurance, and six power of attorney. The defendant's statements
from that interview. The state is requesting to pre admit are,
and they list I guess the exhibit numbers. The state
is not seeking to admit portions of the interview redacted
(02:33):
in yellow number three. On April seventeenth, twenty twenty three,
the defendant sent detectives in email following up on the interview.
The state is requesting to admit that entire email. The
argument the defendant statements are authentic. To satisfy the requirement
of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent
(02:55):
must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
item is what the proponent claims it is. The defendant's
interview statements are authentic because she personally made the statements,
they were contemporaneously recorded, and there is no evidence of
tampering with the recording. The follow up email is authentic
because responds to the interview from the defendant's viewpoint, was
(03:18):
sent from the defendant's email account, and there is no
evidence of tampering with the email. The defendant's statements are
not hearsay. When the defendant is the declarant, the statements
are of a party opponent, which definitionally is not hearsay.
When the declarant is someone other than the defendant, the
state is not offering the statements for the truth of
(03:39):
the matter asserted, but rather offering them for the effect
on the hearer. The defendant statements are relevant, relevance is
a low bar, and they cite State versus Thornton. Evidence
is relevant if it has any tendency to make a
fact more or less probable that it would be without
the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining
(04:02):
the action. The defendant's interview and email statements contains certain
details regarding the defendant's means, motive an opportunity to cause
Eric Richards's death. These details, especially when compared with other
evidence in the case, tend to make it more probable
that the defendant poisoned Eric Richins. Accordingly, the defendant's statements
(04:22):
are relevant. The probative value of the defendant statements is
not substantially outweighed by the danger of any unfair prejudice.
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more
of the following unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
(04:46):
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Evidence
is not unfairly prejudicial just because it helps the state's
case and hurts the accused. The defendant's interview and email
statements contain her matter of fact, narrative, discussion, and opinion
regarding details probative to the defendant's means, motive, and opportunity
(05:09):
to cause Eric richins death. They are not inflammatory, shocking,
or misleading, except to the extent the defendant is deliberately
misleading detectives to cover up her involvement in Eric Richins's death. Well,
that's a burn. Balancing the highly probative value of this
evidence against substantial danger of any unfair prejudice weighs heavily
(05:33):
in favor of admission. The defendant statements are complete. If
a party introduces all or part of a statement, an
adverse party may require the introduction at that time of
any other part or any other statement that, in fairness
ought to be considered at the same time. Utah Rules
of Evidence one O six does not require the court
(05:55):
to admit the entirety of a recording or writing, only
those portions that are necessary to clarify, explain, or place
into context the admitted testimony. They cite a case state
versus Jones. The intent behind Rule four h six is
to prevent a misleading impression, not to simply correct a
specific misleading instance. A court need only introduce these portions that,
(06:21):
in its discretion, are necessary to qualify, explain, or place
into context the portion already introduced. The definitive statements from
the redacted interview and email that the state seeks to
admit do not create a misleading impression. The remainder of
the interview and the email is not necessary in fairness
to clarify, qualify, explain, or put into context the statements. Accordingly,
(06:46):
the definitive statements are complete. For the conclusion, the court
should pre admit for the trial the redacted recording and
redacted transcript of the definitive statements to detectives on April fourteenth,
twenty two and in April seventeenth, twenty twenty three follow
up email because they are authentic, not hearsay relevant, their
(07:08):
probitive value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and
they are complete. This was filed November twenty sixth. You know,
I wonder if after that interview she felt really confident
that she was off their radar, that she sent the
email to look even more helpful when it really probably
(07:29):
bitter in the booty. The next filing, the State's Motion
to determinate missibility of defendants jail calls and text messages
the relief requested and grounds the State of Utah requests.
The Court determined the admissibility for trial of the defendant's
statements in certain jail calls and text messages. The statements
(07:50):
are admissible because they're authentic, not hearsay relevant, their probitive
value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and they
are complete statement of relevant facts. Number one, the defendant
has placed numerous calls and sent numerous text messages from
jail using her unique homewave account. Those calls were contemporaneously
(08:15):
recorded and subsequently transcribed. Number two the defendant statement from
those calls and texts that the State is requesting to
admit are listed below and provided to the Core on
a thumb drive and to Defense Council inbox. The state
is not seeking to admit the portions of the call
and text redacted in yellow, so they have these listed
(08:37):
here as exhibits. And it looks like there are sixteen
separate exhibits Number three, The defendant's jail calls and text
messages contained certain details regarding her procurement of pain pills
from Carmen Lauber, her knowledge about what happened after she
went to bed on March third, twenty twenty two, the
(08:58):
toxicology of Eric Richand's body Valentine's Day twenty twenty two, which,
remember the prosecution theory is on that day she put
something in the sandwich she got for him and left
in his work truck. Eric Richan's attitude about suicide, the
witness Hayden Jeff's or consultation with a divorce attorney in
(09:19):
twenty twenty one, and the transfer to herself and mortgage
of her mother's home. Argument the defendant's statements are authentic.
To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item
of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support
a finding that the item is what the proponent claims
it is. The defendant's jail calls and text messages are
(09:42):
authentic because they present her first person viewpoint, contain information
unique to her, originate from her home wave account, and
there is no evidence of tampering with the recordings or
texts the next section. The defendant's statements are not hearsay.
When the the defendant is the declarant, the statements are
of a party opponent, which definitionally is not hearsay. That
(10:06):
is a hard word to say for me. Definitional. Definitionally,
when the declare is someone other than the defendant, the
state is not offering the statements for the truth of
the matter asserted, but rather offering them for the effect
on the hearer. The defendant's statements are relevant. The defendant's
jail calls and text messages contain certain details regarding the
(10:28):
defendant's means, motive, and opportunity to cause Eric Richards's death.
These details, especially when compared to other evidence in the case,
tend to make it more probable that the defendant poisoned
Eric Richins. Accordingly, the defendant's statements are relevant. D The
probative value of the defendant statement is not substantially outweighed
(10:50):
by the danger of unfair prejudice. The defendant's jail calls
and text messages contain her matter of fact, narrative, discussion,
and opinion regarding detail else probative to the defendant's means
motive and opportunity to cause Eric Richard's death. They're not inflammatory, shocking,
or misleading, except to the extent the defendant is deliberately
(11:12):
misleading to cover up her involvement in Eric Richand's death.
They say that balancing the provative value versus any danger
of unfair prejudice weighs heavily in favor of admission. The
statements are complete. The defendants redacted jail calls and text
messages do not create misleading impressions. The remainder of the
calls and text message strings is not, in fairness necessary
(11:35):
to qualify, larify, explain, or contextualize the statements. Accordingly, the
redacted jail calls and text messages are complete. Conclusion, the
court should find the redacted jail call recordings, redacted transcripts,
and redacted text messages are admissible for trial because they
are authentic, not hearsay relevant, Their probitive value is not
(11:59):
substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and they are complete. That
was also filed on November twenty six. Very interesting. So,
one thing I've always heard is a lot of times
when you've been in jail for a while, you get
a little too comfortable, and you start letting things slip
on your jail calls or your emails or your facetimes,
(12:21):
and it seems like here to the tune of sixteen
separate exhibits. I still have a couple of more documents
to read through, and we'll get to those at some point.
This is gonna be a very interesting trial. I don't
think we know the half of what they have on her.
It's very interested to see this one unfold, and it
won't be long because it starts in February. All right,
(12:42):
that's it for this episode. Hope you guys have a
good to rest of your afternoon, and we will see soon.
What you know. Ala Byers, Welcome to another episode of
Pretty Lies and Alibis. I'm Jigi. Good to have you here.
It's Thursday, December eleventh. I thought we would be eyeball
deep in the defense case in the Brian Walls trial,
but they rested without calling any witnesses, which is different
from what his defense attorney said during openings, which was
(00:21):
Brian was going to take the stand. They said after
hearing two key witnesses yesterday, they decided not to. I
would adventure a guest. It would have been Jim, who
spent New Year's Eve with them, as well as honest
friend Elisa from DC. Very powerful testimony, very credible and
really gave a lot of insight into who Anna was
(00:42):
not sure you can come back from that. So tomorrow
we'll have closings and I think a very quick verdict,
but we'll see. I'll be live streaming starting at nine
am for closings, so come hang out with us. We're
going to go through a couple of motions in the
Corey Richan's case. I received about ten different documents this
week and I've been wanting to kind of chip away
(01:03):
at these. I do not think these have been ruled
on yet, but I will keep an eye out for
any rulings. The first is a state's motion to pre
admit defendants interview, statements, and email. The first section relief
requested in grounds. The State of Utah requests the court
pre admit the defendant's statements provided two detectives during an
(01:24):
interview on April fourteenth, twenty twenty three, and an April seventeenth,
twenty twenty three follow up email to detectives. The statements
and email are admissible because they're authentic, not hearsay relevant,
their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice,
and they are complete. The statement of relevant facts Number one.
(01:49):
Texas interviewed the defendant at her residence on April fourteenth,
twenty twenty three. That interview was contemporaneously recorded and subsequently transcribed.
Number two. The interview contains six distinct statements. Number one
Eric Richards's health history to the knight of Eric's death,
(02:10):
three phone deletions fo the Eric Richins living trust, five
life insurance, and six power of attorney. The defendant's statements
from that interview. The state is requesting to pre admit are,
and they list I guess the exhibit numbers. The state
is not seeking to admit portions of the interview redacted
(02:33):
in yellow number three. On April seventeenth, twenty twenty three,
the defendant sent detectives in email following up on the interview.
The state is requesting to admit that entire email. The
argument the defendant statements are authentic. To satisfy the requirement
of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent
(02:55):
must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
item is what the proponent claims it is. The defendant's
interview statements are authentic because she personally made the statements,
they were contemporaneously recorded, and there is no evidence of
tampering with the recording. The follow up email is authentic
because responds to the interview from the defendant's viewpoint, was
(03:18):
sent from the defendant's email account, and there is no
evidence of tampering with the email. The defendant's statements are
not hearsay. When the defendant is the declarant, the statements
are of a party opponent, which definitionally is not hearsay.
When the declarant is someone other than the defendant, the
state is not offering the statements for the truth of
(03:39):
the matter asserted, but rather offering them for the effect
on the hearer. The defendant statements are relevant, relevance is
a low bar, and they cite State versus Thornton. Evidence
is relevant if it has any tendency to make a
fact more or less probable that it would be without
the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining
(04:02):
the action. The defendant's interview and email statements contains certain
details regarding the defendant's means, motive an opportunity to cause
Eric Richards's death. These details, especially when compared with other
evidence in the case, tend to make it more probable
that the defendant poisoned Eric Richins. Accordingly, the defendant's statements
(04:22):
are relevant. The probative value of the defendant statements is
not substantially outweighed by the danger of any unfair prejudice.
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more
of the following unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
(04:46):
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Evidence
is not unfairly prejudicial just because it helps the state's
case and hurts the accused. The defendant's interview and email
statements contain her matter of fact, narrative, discussion, and opinion
regarding details probative to the defendant's means, motive, and opportunity
(05:09):
to cause Eric richins death. They are not inflammatory, shocking,
or misleading, except to the extent the defendant is deliberately
misleading detectives to cover up her involvement in Eric Richins's death. Well,
that's a burn. Balancing the highly probative value of this
evidence against substantial danger of any unfair prejudice weighs heavily
(05:33):
in favor of admission. The defendant statements are complete. If
a party introduces all or part of a statement, an
adverse party may require the introduction at that time of
any other part or any other statement that, in fairness
ought to be considered at the same time. Utah Rules
of Evidence one O six does not require the court
(05:55):
to admit the entirety of a recording or writing, only
those portions that are necessary to clarify, explain, or place
into context the admitted testimony. They cite a case state
versus Jones. The intent behind Rule four h six is
to prevent a misleading impression, not to simply correct a
specific misleading instance. A court need only introduce these portions that,
(06:21):
in its discretion, are necessary to qualify, explain, or place
into context the portion already introduced. The definitive statements from
the redacted interview and email that the state seeks to
admit do not create a misleading impression. The remainder of
the interview and the email is not necessary in fairness
to clarify, qualify, explain, or put into context the statements. Accordingly,
(06:46):
the definitive statements are complete. For the conclusion, the court
should pre admit for the trial the redacted recording and
redacted transcript of the definitive statements to detectives on April fourteenth,
twenty two and in April seventeenth, twenty twenty three follow
up email because they are authentic, not hearsay relevant, their
(07:08):
probitive value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and
they are complete. This was filed November twenty sixth. You know,
I wonder if after that interview she felt really confident
that she was off their radar, that she sent the
email to look even more helpful when it really probably
(07:29):
bitter in the booty. The next filing, the State's Motion
to determinate missibility of defendants jail calls and text messages
the relief requested and grounds the State of Utah requests.
The Court determined the admissibility for trial of the defendant's
statements in certain jail calls and text messages. The statements
(07:50):
are admissible because they're authentic, not hearsay relevant, their probitive
value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and they
are complete statement of relevant facts. Number one, the defendant
has placed numerous calls and sent numerous text messages from
jail using her unique homewave account. Those calls were contemporaneously
(08:15):
recorded and subsequently transcribed. Number two the defendant statement from
those calls and texts that the State is requesting to
admit are listed below and provided to the Core on
a thumb drive and to Defense Council inbox. The state
is not seeking to admit the portions of the call
and text redacted in yellow, so they have these listed
(08:37):
here as exhibits. And it looks like there are sixteen
separate exhibits Number three, The defendant's jail calls and text
messages contained certain details regarding her procurement of pain pills
from Carmen Lauber, her knowledge about what happened after she
went to bed on March third, twenty twenty two, the
(08:58):
toxicology of Eric Richand's body Valentine's Day twenty twenty two, which,
remember the prosecution theory is on that day she put
something in the sandwich she got for him and left
in his work truck. Eric Richan's attitude about suicide, the
witness Hayden Jeff's or consultation with a divorce attorney in
(09:19):
twenty twenty one, and the transfer to herself and mortgage
of her mother's home. Argument the defendant's statements are authentic.
To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item
of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support
a finding that the item is what the proponent claims
it is. The defendant's jail calls and text messages are
(09:42):
authentic because they present her first person viewpoint, contain information
unique to her, originate from her home wave account, and
there is no evidence of tampering with the recordings or
texts the next section. The defendant's statements are not hearsay.
When the the defendant is the declarant, the statements are
of a party opponent, which definitionally is not hearsay. That
(10:06):
is a hard word to say for me. Definitional. Definitionally,
when the declare is someone other than the defendant, the
state is not offering the statements for the truth of
the matter asserted, but rather offering them for the effect
on the hearer. The defendant's statements are relevant. The defendant's
jail calls and text messages contain certain details regarding the
(10:28):
defendant's means, motive, and opportunity to cause Eric Richards's death.
These details, especially when compared to other evidence in the case,
tend to make it more probable that the defendant poisoned
Eric Richins. Accordingly, the defendant's statements are relevant. D The
probative value of the defendant statement is not substantially outweighed
(10:50):
by the danger of unfair prejudice. The defendant's jail calls
and text messages contain her matter of fact, narrative, discussion,
and opinion regarding detail else probative to the defendant's means
motive and opportunity to cause Eric Richard's death. They're not inflammatory, shocking,
or misleading, except to the extent the defendant is deliberately
(11:12):
misleading to cover up her involvement in Eric Richand's death.
They say that balancing the provative value versus any danger
of unfair prejudice weighs heavily in favor of admission. The
statements are complete. The defendants redacted jail calls and text
messages do not create misleading impressions. The remainder of the
calls and text message strings is not, in fairness necessary
(11:35):
to qualify, larify, explain, or contextualize the statements. Accordingly, the
redacted jail calls and text messages are complete. Conclusion, the
court should find the redacted jail call recordings, redacted transcripts,
and redacted text messages are admissible for trial because they
are authentic, not hearsay relevant, Their probitive value is not
(11:59):
substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and they are complete. That
was also filed on November twenty six. Very interesting. So,
one thing I've always heard is a lot of times
when you've been in jail for a while, you get
a little too comfortable, and you start letting things slip
on your jail calls or your emails or your facetimes,
(12:21):
and it seems like here to the tune of sixteen
separate exhibits. I still have a couple of more documents
to read through, and we'll get to those at some point.
This is gonna be a very interesting trial. I don't
think we know the half of what they have on her.
It's very interested to see this one unfold, and it
won't be long because it starts in February. All right,
(12:42):
that's it for this episode. Hope you guys have a
good to rest of your afternoon, and we will see 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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!