Kouri Richins Found Guilty

I'm saying, you can say that you're a hero.

You're a hero, right? But you don't understand. Exactly. It's just a challenge. You're just a hero. You're just a hero. And if you work, you're a hero. - That's right. - Save. You're a hero. - You're just a hero. - Now you're a hero.

That's a lot more fun. Stop! Let's go to the Recruiting game. With Stepstown All-Jobs, we'll show you everything for a year. In a package to a fixed price.

So let's take a look at the 50% cost probability. And we're all flexible. Now let's take a look at Stepstown.de/All-Jobs.

“Stepstown is the most important talent for all-Jobs.”

We, the jury, unanimously, find that the defendant Corey Richins is guilty of aggravated murder. There is a verdict in the trial of Utah Children's Book author, Corey Richins, who had been charged with murder and attempted murder of her husband Eric in 2022,

along with insurance fraud and forgery. Corey Richins was found guilty on all five counts as Eric's sisters and father watched emotionally and reacted emotionally to the decision in court. I'm 48 hours correspondent Natalie Morales,

and this is 48 hours inside the Corey Richins' trial. Now the state of Utah alleged that Corey Richins poisoned Eric with a lethal dose of fentanyl served in a Moscow Mule back in March of 2022, after previously attempting to poison him via a sandwich

on Valentine's Day of that same year. Before her arrest in 2023, she published a Children's Book about grief to help her kids mourn the loss of their father. Here with me to discuss the verdict and the trial is Skylasaro, a defense attorney who represented

Corey Richins before the trial, but she was there inside the Summit County courtroom for closing arguments. So Skythe decision really came down after just a few hours once the jury went to deliberate.

What was your reaction to then hearing the verdict and were you surprised? I was surprised by how quickly the jury came back. Really, there was a lot of evidence that was presented in this case and just from experience, I somewhat expected the jury to go back.

Probably do a little bit of deliberation with a few hours they had. Go home, get some rest, and then come back the next day. So the defense did make the decision not to call any witnesses and not to put Corey Richins on this stand.

“Was any of that a mistake in your opinion as a defense attorney?”

Yeah, to Monday morning quarterback, what somebody else does in trial is this is really difficult work. And these are decisions that you make in real time. I understand why they did not. The state actually held back some evidence.

I think because they expected Corey to probably testify and for the defense to put on a defense. And the strategy really becomes do we put on what we have and is what we have enough to make a difference because what you do the state gets a rebuttal in these cases.

So the state then gets to come back because it's their burden of proof and put on even more evidence or more character evidence. So really it gives a one more chance to send the jury back to deliberator, listen to closing arguments,

having heard even more negative things about your client.

It's always a really, really hard decision

to make you never know which one's right. You second guess everything you do, especially when you get a conviction then you really question it.

“But in this case, I think the state to their credit”

did a really, really good job of painting a picture of Corey Richins that someone who's capable of murder and who did commit it. Let's talk about the murder and attempted murder charges. And here's prosecutor Brad Bloodworth

during his closing arguments talking about the motive here. And the motive in this case truly was money. You know, Corey was in over her head in debt with her house flipping business.

Eric's estate was worth over $4 million,

including a life insurance policy which the prosecution alleged that Corey forged to sign over to her name. Let's take a listen to Bloodworth in his closings. The substance here happened to have been fentanyl.

that she bought happened to be fentanyl.

That she administered in a Moscow mill and a shot or a shot.

“But we know that's how she administered it”

because it was in his belly. We know it was a lethal amount. The deaths are difficult. Fentanyl killed him. That's the substance lethal amount.

It can be a small is three nanograms per mill a liter. And in this case, he had 15. Five times what can be a lethal amount. That, by the way, is not an accident.

That amount of fentanyl shows that Corey

Richens wanted Eric, not only dead, but good in dead. Well, that was Brad Bloodworth from the prosecution. Now, here is defense attorney Wendy Lewis. She insisted that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

OK, so they have to prove that Eric, or I'm sorry, that Corey Richens intentionally were knowingly caused the death of Eric Richens. The state has not proven this. They haven't even proven that she obtained fentanyl.

They have not proven where the pill sent it up or how Eric took them. The state stood up here and argued, well, it really doesn't matter what drug she purchased. As long as it was in the list of street drug, it absolutely matters because what did he die of?

He died of fentanyl. There was no oxycodone in his system. There was no other drug in his system. They must prove that she purchased and gave him fentanyl. So sky that defense really leaned into the fact

that the prosecution couldn't 100% prove that Corey was the one who procured the fentanyl and put it into that Moscow mule. The defense made the case that Eric Richens was a recreational drug user that he used to take gummies with a THC at night to help and sleep, or perhaps he got a tainted supply of THC gummies with fentanyl.

And so in your mind, the defense did not present that as strong enough evidence to the jury.

“I think what the jury's decision, it's clear that it wasn't presented”

strong enough that there wasn't enough follow-up that they didn't put it on through cross-examination, but maybe looking back at what should we have done differently or should we have put on a defense? Maybe those are the people you try to put on. Now, according to the prosecution, the key witness here is Carmen Lover.

She was a woman who worked with Corey Richens as a cleaning person, but also had a criminal history in dealing drugs and also admitted on this stand to having used drugs and having a past with drug abuse. Although she claims she's clean now, but Lover said that Corey had come to her on four different occasions asking for drugs from her saying this was

all for an investor and then Corey apparently asked Carmen Lover for something even stronger than the pain killer that she had received in the past. Carmen talks about her contact here when it came to buying those drugs. Take a listen, he said he had a buddy that had some fentanyl pills. What then did you get?

I text Corey back and told her that I had a friend that could get them, but they were fentanyl pills.

“So you told Corey you had a friend, a hookup for fentanyl pills?”

Yes. How did Corey Richens respond? She said okay, go ahead and get it. So did you go ahead and get it? Yes.

So Skai, I know Carmen Lover is somewhat of a tough witness when it comes to the prosecution because even though she is the key witness here, she also has this history with drugs and she also seems to be according to the defense's side, changing her story on multiplications, right? That's correct, the state really had a lot to overcome when you pin your entire case on someone like Carmen Lover.

We look back at the investigation and we look at the interviews that were done and she does say that she sold Corey drugs, but it wasn't fentanyl and it wasn't until several interviews later when the state investigators really pushing on her, this is your get out of jail free card.

And remember, she's on probation for first degree felony drug charges at the time.

Those carry a potential sentence of five years to life in prison.

They're looking to boy drug court deal and ask for seven years on your two first.

Five years for the first, the one felony in a 40% portion for the second, for seven years.

“The only exception to that and the only thing that they're willing to kind of help you out with”

is if you can help yourself with this. And by so he means like give up the details that will ensure Corey is convicted of murder. And I want to talk about how the defense also went after Carmen Lover's testimony. You know, they presented her with stacks of binders. I'm going to ask you to refer to those as we talk.

These are the transcripts of the interviews that you did in April in May of 2023. So in presenting those binders, it seems she's presenting the situation to Lover as this is all your testimony over the time and look how much it's changed, right? That's exactly what they did and they went after her pretty harshly. I think at times she almost came across the sympathetic, which didn't help the defense either.

Because up till this point interview, you've said no fentanyl, I don't deal in fentanyl. I didn't get her fentanyl. I got her rock sheets. I got her oxies. Oh, she asked for Michael Jackson drugs. Oh, I guess I got her fentanyl. How else would fentanyl be in my head, right?

“That's what's happened up to this point.”

Correct. And the only person up to this point was put the word fentanyl in your head or these detectives, correct? This Lover, you're on the stand. At that point, they are the ones that told you it was fentanyl. They were the ones that told me that Eric passed away from fentanyl. They really did try to hammer on, you know, you don't remember. You keep changing your story.

You know, you were saying whatever the state needed you to say. Now, one of the other big points for the prosecution is some of the web searches made. Shortly thereafter, Eric's death. Queries about, for example, had a delete information from your phone. If cops can force you to take a lie detector test, search is about life insurance and luxury prisons for the rich in California, and also this query about a lethal dose of

fentanyl. Did you think that that went over with the jury in a compelling way enough so that it was condensing? I think it was confusing from what I saw when those happened. And I think that was really the important part of it. A search warrant was executed in April, long after Eric's passed away. And they take, they search quarry's home, they take all of her electronics.

Those searches were conducted on our new phone. So we know that those searches were conducted after she was given a copy of a search warrant that said, we aren't investigating you, Corey Richins, for the homicide of Eric Richins, and we believe he died with a lethal dose of fentanyl. Those search warrant, or those searches that were done, I think are explainable when she's

learning for the first time. I mean, investigated for murder, they think I did it. And

you know, now they've taken my phone. I don't know what a lethal dose the fentanyl is. You know, actually I think that could probably be spun in her defense. She didn't know what a lethal dose of fentanyl was. Had she killed them. She would know what is enough. Let's talk about that walk, the dog letter. Now we had reported that on this in our 48 hours report. You couldn't talk to us really at length about that letter at the time. Now,

allegedly, this was a letter from Corey to her mother, giving her brother Ronnie instructions on what to say in terms of how to present the case and her story. And this was written in September of 2023. And the jury was shown this redacted version of the letter. And here is Detective Jeff O'Driskel, reading from that letter in the court. Page one, walk the dog, but take vague notes so you remember.

“Here is what I'm thinking, but you have to talk to Ronnie. He would probably have to testify to this,”

but it's super short, not a lot to it. He will need to tell sky at the meeting next week. Upon information and belief, just like they say, a year prior to Eric's death, Ronnie was over watching football one Sunday. And Eric and Ronnie were chatting about Eric's Mexico trips. Eric told Ronnie he gets pain pills and fentanyl from Mexico from the workers at

the ranch. Not to tell me because I would get mad, because I always said he

of Eric passed out on the floor or in the chair. So this letter, I mean, how big a deal is this letter?

I mean, was it witnessed hampering from Cory Richens in this case? Is this Cory trying to set up her story? What did you make of it? Because you're actually named in it. You know, Cory says, please tell sky a couple of times in the letter. This letter was probably the single worst thing that probably could have happened to Cory. It was published immediately by the district attorney's office to the press that it really

set the scene for Cory's a bad person and Cory will lie to get whatever she wants and use whoever

“she needs to. The reality is, and I think this was discussed at a hearing that we had after we”

talked on 48 hours when I couldn't really talk about it, was this letter was found in her cell after they executed a search and took a whole bunch of documents, including things I had to fight

to get back because they were privileged. This letter was never given to anyone. There was never

an indication that it was going to be given to anyone or mailed for a new that they read all or mailed that she sent out. There was no way she was getting this letter out without knowing. So, my perspective on it still is, it's thoughts on a page. It's not witnessed hampering. I certainly don't appreciate parts of it. And, you know, would never cross any lines as an attorney.

“You know, the way she may hope, but it reads really problematic. It's always been a problem in”

this case, like, expected it to continue to be a problem. And it just, in conjunction with everything else that was presented about her, it just really does not help put her in a positive light. The legendary checkout from Shopify, is just that the shop on your website is a bit too social media and everything is over. So, this is a music for your ears. Videos of the rest of the vendors with Shopify can be used to a real help.

Start your tests today for just one of your promotions on Shopify. So, the prosecution really talked about the financial motive, but they argue that Cory also

“wanted to start this whole other life with Robert Josh as he goes by Grossman. This was the”

man that she was having an affair with. Now, when we spoke sky back in 2023, that affair, there had been rumors of it, but we didn't have confirmation of it. So, now we're seeing we have confirmation of it. And his testimony when he took the stand, he seemed somewhat nervous. He seemed to really hate the fact that he was there. Even when he was taking the oath, he seemed confused at times. Would you say, I want to agree with you. And in your

correct, when we previously spoke on this, there were, it had been kind of thrown out there, that there perhaps wasn't a fair, this other individual existed. We now know, and through text messages, that had been, you know, obtained an entered into evidence that he does. His testimony was interesting,

for sure, that was probably the first time he had seen Corys since the relationship ended.

And he was, you know, clearly upset by either having to be there or having to testify against her or the relationship in and of itself. And the prosecution, they spent hours with him and taking him through some of those text messages that they were sending to each other back and forth. Now, these text messages showed both of them professing their love. But when Cory got arrested, he said, that's when he started feeling really guilty. And that's when he said he actually went

to Eric's family. And he spoke to one of the sister's husbands. And then they had him meet with their private investigator. And Josh recalled that conversation, also that he had with Cory soon after Eric's death. Did you ask a little question about Cory? She did. Asked me if I, if uh, yeah. What's her, what's her did she asked? She asked if if I had ever killed anybody.

Did she ask a follow-up question? Yes. Sir, what was that follow-up question?

She asked me how it made me feel or something along those lines. The way it was presented in

“Cory, I think, was really effective for the state. And they talked about it again and they're”

closing argument and said, it's not like she said, you know, have you ever seen anyone die or have? Has that loved one or close person to you ever died? It was, did you have you ever killed? It was, it was really, I think, damaging to Cory. Did the defense have much when it came to cross-examining Josh? You know, there really wasn't a lot there. I mean, you know, the cross of Josh,

I think really needs to be, did Cory ever tell you that she killed him? Did you ever see her

by fentanyl? Did she ever ask you to get her fentanyl? Did you ever, she ever have any conversation, you know, about getting rid of Eric and what she would do? I know there was conversations about her wanting to just be with Josh, you know, but really, you know, and if you can't provide any anything on that, then it's like, okay, thank you, so she had an affair. But that affair, I mean, to the jury, you know, an affair does not make a murder, but in this case, it was just one more thing

“that you think was more damaging to Cory. I think so, no, an affair never makes a murder, and this”

affair had gone, had been going on and off for years, and actually, you know, if, if it's the state alleges that one of the reasons she killed Eric was to be with Josh, this relationship has he testified on their stand, really just fizzled out, sorely after Eric died. And so it really is kind of flies in the face of that theory. But I think, you know, when you couple it with all of

these other things, that they just never were really able to, the defense was never really able to

counteract and humanize or in a real effective way, the circumstance will evidence just really, really adds up. And then finally, I want to talk to you about the book. This is the book. I think that got everybody's attention. It was a children's book about grief to her children, but it drew,

“I think, a lot of attention to this case. I want to place some sound once again from the”

prosecutor Brad Bloodworth during the closing argument about the book. She wrote it, had it written, and published it in early 2023, when she knew that investigators were investigating her for the murder of Eric Ritchens, she promoted it, her mother sent a book to investigators all to deflect attention away from Corey Ritchens. She also wrote it to make money. You see the email, they're in evidence. She thought she would sell 100,000 copies in 10 months, at $5 profit of

copy. That is not her to reality, but it does provide insight in how desperate she was for money. She would trade, if you would trade on her sons and the death of her father to make money. The final thing that tells you about Corey Ritchens is that she wanted as part of her facade, as part of her appearance, of success, privilege, and affluence. She wanted to be an author, but she didn't write it, and you can see it from her writings and text messages, orange,

notebook, the notes, the walk the dog letter, not only did she not write it, she's not a good writer. But she wanted to appear as one. The appearance was what was important to her. Blood Writer is alleging that this was written by a ghost writer, and this was really, again, Corey trying to put on appearances of that grieving widow, that grieving mom with her children. What did you make of that presentation of Corey?

That was her entire theory of this. Was everything she did. She did for attention. And he came back to that numerous times in his closing argument, talking about the timing of why she did things, or when she did them, because they would get more attention or more sympathy for her, and he tied it to the book. And the book in and of itself, it didn't really sell that many copies. I know it was taken off. Probably would have sold a lot more if I'd been left up after she'd been charged.

that she loved her children. There was no evidence presented that she didn't love her children.

“I think the timing of the book, I can see it was absolutely terrible. Please don't write books when”

you're under investigation for murder. But it doesn't help things. But, you know, I think the state's idea of why she did it is wildly speculative, and I'm not sure there's really any evidence to back that up. Well, I know Eric's family was, of course, very much relieved by the verdict.

It is what they wanted all along. His sister Amy said she was happy, that they finally got

justice for her brother. The sentencing for Corey Richens is scheduled for May 13th.

“What do you expect? Will happen then? What do you expect will be the outcome of that?”

With all five counts coming back as guilty? There's two options the judge has on count one,

and I think regardless of what he does with counts two through five probably don't matter.

Count one aggravated murder in Utah, the sentencing possibilities are 25 years to life in the Utah State prison or life without parole. That'll really be the decision the judge makes. On a 25, even if he gives her the lower end of that the 25 years to life, whether or not he can, you know,

“adds consecutive sentences for the remaining charges. I think really probably”

doesn't matter. It's going to be so long before she's eligible for parole unless this case comes back on appeal for some reason that she's going to spend significant amount of time, if not the rest of her life in prison. I know the defense had at multiple times asked the judge for a mistrial. The judge did not buy that, but I imagine there will be an appeal that you're understanding about what might happen next. I would expect an appeal to come in this case without

any personal knowledge. She was convicted of aggravated murder and the remainder of the counts. I think there's no other option, but to file an appeal. There were enough rulings and pre-trial litigation rulings, rulings that the judge made during the trial that an appeal at attorney will will pick this up and say, hey, look, some of these, you know, were detrimental and it should come back. You know, that would be up to our Utah Supreme Court as to how they're going to rule on those.

Well, once again, Skylosaro, thank you so much for your expert insight into this case, the Cory Richen's trial. Thanks for having me, Natalie.