March 16, 2026
Grief Author Murder Trial: Prosecution’s Closing Claims Kouri Richins Wanted to Leave Eric, Not His Money.
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The prosecution put on an extremely effective closing today, giving a detailed timeline of what Kouri did NOT do to try and save her husband’s life and appealed to the jury’s common sense for why and how they claim Kouri poisoned her husband. As soon as the prosecution finished, the defense called for a mistrial. The judge denied that motion but did agree to re-instruct the jury after prosecutors compared RIchins to a black widow and discussed the facial expressions she was making throughout the trial. Next up, the defense.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hes it is Monday, March sixteenth, and she wanted to leave her husband, but she didn't want to leave her husband's money, so she had to kill him. That is the crux of the argument in the closing argument with the prosecution and the so called grief author murder trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy, and TJ said grief author murder trial. Some call it the poisoned husband murder trial. But at this point, I guess folks know what we talk about.
00:00:33
Speaker 2: Bro Yes, if you have been following our feed, you are, or at least I'm assuming you are up to speed on thirty five year old Corey Richins, whose life is at stake, who's freedom is at stake. She is charged with aggravated murder, attempted murder, a bunch of other financial crimes because prosecutors say she poisoned first, she tried to poison her husband, and then successfully poisoned her husband with fentanyls spiking his moscow mule. These are the closing statements from the prosecution, and they paint a pretty nasty picture. You've been back and forth about a potential hung jury or wonderer who might feel like the defense did a good job poking some holes in some of the defense's key witnesses. But after you heard that closing argument by the district attorney, you were singing a different tune.
00:01:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, And then when I hear the defense closing argument, I'll be back on the other side. It's just how it goes. It's what lawyering does, and this is what they're supposed to do. But I heard a couple of things from him. I'm not a big circumstantial evidence kind of a guy. It's hard for me to understand putting somebody in prison the rest of their lives without a smoking gun, if you will. But I get it. This guy said a couple of things in closing that made complete sense to where I'm like, well, duh, you think I'm stupid. We obviously he put a case together that you and I were, you know, given he's not a very animated guy, not a fire.
00:02:00
Speaker 2: No, he's not a theatrical performer. We see a lot of defense attorneys, even more so than prosecutors. Defense attorneys oftentimes, especially in high profile cases like this where there is someone's life on the line, you tend to get more animated theatrical types of attorneys that are trying to capture the jury's attention and sell their clients story. That wasn't the case with this prosecutor.
00:02:26
Speaker 1: No, this, So you and I were wondering, like, wow, I mean the other side with a little more personality, are they going to, you know, outduel him in a closing argument. He has been very methodical and he has finished his closing argument. He'll get a rebuttal at the end. Right now, as we are recording this, the defense is doing their closing argument. But Rohbes he put together and I thought he was almost professorial. He had slides, and he said, I am going to walk you through this case and every single point that you need to check off when you're deciding guilt or innocence. I'm going to go through each one of those points and explain to you why, yep, we have met our burden. And at first I thought, oh, this is going to be long and boring, But he built a compelling case.
00:03:09
Speaker 2: I thought I would agree. And the jury had a lot to process. They had forty two witnesses. That is how many witnesses the prosecution brought to the stand over these past three weeks. And so yes, the DA did an excellent job. I thought of creating a logical outline where you could follow, and that's so helpful. I would imagine as a juror who has processed so much. Yes, they can take some notes, but this is something where it's incredibly helpful to have the person now wrap up all that evidence you just got and bring it home. And that is what the DA did today.
00:03:47
Speaker 1: Think you said appeal to logic. I like that you do. Some of the stuff just doesn't make sense. Go through a few of the things the prosecutor did talk about in closing. First of all, we set the scene in here ropes. The judge did change. He essentially kicked the public out, not necessarily, but he was trying to make more room for family and friends of the defense of the victim. And so it's a packed house, but it's mostly just people associated with the defense and with the victim.
00:04:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's members of the media. They have allowed press to be in there and the pool cameras, but short of that, there are no members of the public. There just wasn't enough room. The judge gave each side I believe, twenty four wristbands and said knock yourselves out. You each get to bring twenty four people into the courtroom other than the media. That's it. That was just a level of interest on both sides, on the victim side and on Corey Richard's side.
00:04:39
Speaker 1: There was one point then again they were close ups today of family members holding hands at one point, but they sowed a close up of Eric Richards had his head down while they were playing a nine to one one call about his son who was dead or dying and the wife dragging her feet and give him CPR and help the dad put his head down. We're going to talk about that nine one one call. But that was a tough moment in the courtroom.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: It was it was pretty damning just to hear it. The coldness and it almost felt like callousness. It was as if he were transported into that room. And yes, as a person who loved Eric Richards, that had to be so difficult.
00:05:24
Speaker 1: To listen to. You know, since we're there, let's go ahead and do that. That was part of what the prosecutor did Robes. He played the nine one one call, But the point he was trying to make, he was very effective in doing something. He was trying to make the point that this does this sound like a woman who is desperate to save her husband's life. So to set the scene, Robes she called nine one one. The nine one one operator is trying to get a couple of answers. Is he breathing and trying to help her? Help him? And the prosecutor did a very effective thing by putting Robes a clock up while playing the nine to one one call, just.
00:05:57
Speaker 2: To see how long she was dragging her feet. Where you've got the nine one one operator much more concerned and urgent about her getting CPR started than Corey Richins is about actually starting it. And then I thought, which was so effective, from the nine one one call to even the body cam video, he would take the DA would take what Corey Richins testified to or told police, as in I just threw up. I was frantically saying live, baby, live as I was doing CPR. So what she said she did versus what she actually did or more importantly didn't do, And so he was able to basically disprove what she claimed happened in journal entries and what she said to other people versus what actually happened on recorded conversations and recorded video.
00:06:46
Speaker 1: And this call at least there's a nine one one call that's plague, which was a dramatic playing. It took six minutes because they started the clock from the moment the nine to one one operator said to her, ma'am, I need you to start CPR. The first action she took that was CPR. Ish was six minutes later. Now, Robes as if you haven't heard it, you'd be sitting here wondering, wait a minute, your husband is not responding, he's cold. You can help him until the ambulance gets here. You would be frantic. You would think to save your spouse, Help me, help me, what can I do? That is the position she was in, Robes. How did six minutes go by?
00:07:32
Speaker 2: She just was crying, saying how shocked she was, how she didn't understand how it happened. It was almost like she was in defense mode to the nine one one operator and crying and incapable of actually doing anything helpful, and certainly not anything that was life saving.
00:07:52
Speaker 1: I mean, that was obvious, Rose, it was I don't even know how think of how long six minutes is. You're sitting here with your loved one who's not responding. How do I help? Why does it take six minutes roll that nine one one call was baffling. And this is where circumstantial evidence, and this is where common sense comes into play. Give me a.
00:08:13
Speaker 2: Break, exactly. And look, this is often what each attorney is pleading with or at least appealing to on the juror side. If you don't have the smoking gun, you're going to try to appeal to their common sense. And every juror when they're hearing this nine one one call, when they're hearing what prosecutors say she didn't do and what you don't hear her say or do, you're putting yourself in that position and you're imagining it's your spouse, and you're thinking, no way would I not be doing chest compressions right now. Even if I don't know exactly how to do it, I'm gonna try. I got a basic idea. I think everyone knows the beat of staying alive. I just there are some basic things that people understand. And if you're desperate to try and save someone's life, you go and tell.
00:08:55
Speaker 1: Action there was it was bizarred toy here? What did you think about the it reference referred to.
00:09:00
Speaker 2: That was so bad? Like the body shed so it's we'll get into the what. The defense said that the DA was dehumanizing their client in that moment, she dehumanized her husband.
00:09:13
Speaker 1: The quote was, I can't move it. It's just dead to weight. And that was how she was referring to her husband at the time. I can't move him. No, no, no, she said, I can't move it, and say he's just dead weight. She said, quote, it's just dead weight. He was making a point of it. I mean, is that a It seemed effective.
00:09:33
Speaker 2: Oh, it landed. It landed, without a doubt. It landed. That sent chills up and down my spine when I heard that.
00:09:41
Speaker 1: A couple of points other points that could have landed for him. And again he feels to your common sense here, Robes. The defense has made all big whoopie doo about she didn't know it was fentanyl. She never specifically said fentanyl. That was only until the police got involved. They put fentanyl in these other people's heads, and blah blah blah blah blah. They were trying to make a point here or that they do have evidence that she asked two people full quote the Michael Jackson drug. I thought this was a common sense and no matter how much the fence it's been in your head about this drug, and this is that what does that suggest to you, Robes, If I'm looking for the Michael Jackson drug, what do we know about that drug?
00:10:19
Speaker 2: We're looking for the drug that killed Michael Jackson. So yes, and something that would have been used to help somebody sleep or maybe somebody who's in pain, or somebody who you could perhaps say wanted it, because we see other people having died by ingesting it willingly. So she's thinking, Aha, I got something that I know will kill my husband, but it could also look like a drug that he would have taken on his own for whatever reason.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: Another dub moment that they pointed out again common sense they're appealing to. There was a form she filled out police after the incident, essentially gave her a standard form saying, write down what happened everything about your evening right trying to figure out what happened to him. She started her story with at nine o'clock, we had a drink. And I didn't think much of that necessarily during testimony, but Rose he made a point, why would her story start right there? Because for her that's when the event started. When he had a drink. Why does she know that because she's the one that poisoned him is the point that's being made. And it was like an aha moment.
00:11:27
Speaker 2: For It's one of those things when you don't realize you're actually giving yourself away without realizing your brain is going somewhere. And that speaks to his next point about her search, because maybe she didn't even realize how she was actually pointing the finger right at herself.
00:11:48
Speaker 1: These are implicit admissions of guilt. She is admitting guilt the search. I never would have thought anything of it, all right, They say this was one of her searches, Internet searches. If somebody is poisoned, what does it go down on the death certificate? Ass Okay, I've heard about that search. He pointed something out about one word in that search that I swear to you if I was on the jury, this might be the thing that put me over there.
00:12:14
Speaker 2: This is what you said to me. Clicked. Why use the word poison? Why wouldn't you say if somebody overdosed on unknown medication? What do you you know? She used the word poisoned as in a verb, as in a criminal act, as in murder, to poison someone is to murder someone, So she she googled a criminal act versus an accidental overdose? Or what could someone take? What if an unknown drug was taken? What would the autopsy shit say if any of those had been the searches, that would be a completely different scenario.
00:12:50
Speaker 1: Help me, we're poisoned. How can you get around that one like as a common sense and reasonable doubt, I can't. How can you tell me that you know what? She just in the moment wrote google the wrong thing.
00:13:02
Speaker 2: If I knew I was the one who gave him the drink poisoned, IM sure as hell wouldn't be thinking he was poisoned. I would think what could have been in there that I didn't realize? What could he have accidentally overdosed on? Could he have put something in the drink? I wouldn't have used the word poisons. That implies premeditation and intent to kill.
00:13:20
Speaker 1: Another point here, we heard this Robes. I'll admit I heard them bring this up several times during testimony, but I never harped on it that much. But he brought it home today. She was She asked her the guy she was dating, the boyfriend that she was dating outside of her husband, asked him at one point, he's a former military guy, asked him at one point if he had ever killed anyone, and then asked him how that made him feel. Okay, I heard it during the testimony, but it never really was explained. He landed the plane for me today, Yeah.
00:13:57
Speaker 2: He said. She was actually by asking him. Now, it had been what a couple weeks since Eric Richards had died. She was working through, according to the prosecution, her own feelings about killing him, and she was trying to relate or connect or see how he got through killing someone. She wouldn't have known. Why would she have all of a sudden asked him. They'd been together for years, They've been friends for many, many years. She knew he served in the military, she knew he served in a rock. Why then would she ask him that question? That made a lot of sense to me.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: It was a matter of the word again killed. You would have asked, hey, how did you feel when you saw a dead body? How did it feel? Did you ever walk in and were surprised by a dead body?
00:14:39
Speaker 2: Did you see dead? Yeah?
00:14:41
Speaker 1: That was what you ask You don't ask the kill again. This landed today? He made sense of it in a common sense way that I think this is reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable for me to look at that? Is it reasonable for to put these things together and say, well, may she meant something else? It's not reasonable exactly.
00:15:05
Speaker 2: Yes, you can have some doubts because they don't have the smoking gun, because it is a circumstantial case, because you are relying on testimony from somebody who has proven not to be credible. So yes, you do come down to common sense. And he landed his plane, all.
00:15:18
Speaker 1: Right, But stay here. There was a moment during the closing argument, a moment you don't often see during closing arguments and objection, and the judge didn't even give them time to get it out before he said, sit yo, butt down, stay here. Continuing here on Amy and TJ. Closing arguments are underway as we speak in the Corey Richan's poisoned Husband murder trial or the Grief author murder trial is being called. But as we are recording this defense, closing arguments are underway. The prosecution wrapped up its closing argument a short time ago and wrote something that we do often see. The defense also often takes it takes it shot when it gets a chance, but often when the prosecution rests its case, they'll ask for a mistrial. And today, after they gave their closing argument the prosecution, the defense got up before giving a closing asked for another mistrial. And some of the reasons you certainly found interesting.
00:16:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, well they joked out of me, because look, I know it's common for the defense to try and get every opportunity they can to ask for a mistrial. And I'm always curious to hear the reasons why. Corey Richards attorney had two of them. One of them was that she said the defense attorney dehumanized Corey Richins and she cited some law and I thought, dehumanized her in what way? And then she said he called her a black widow. So she said he called her a spider judge. I mean, that almost became laughable in a moment, and so then the DA had to stand up and say, I wasn't referring to the insect. That wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to what we all know, a black widow, a wife who kills her husband. That almost became a comical moment at one point. And then she also was upset again saying that the DA was referencing the facial expressions of Corey Richards, and she was so adamant that this was worthy of a mistrial that the judge actually took a beat and said out came back and said, out of an abundance of caution, I will now instruct the jury again to you can consider your own impressions of Corey Richards, but you cannot consider the prosecutor's impressions of Corey Richard's facial expression. So she did at least get an instruction to be reiterated to the jury before she began her.
00:17:55
Speaker 1: The judge, even when he overrules, he's trying to accommodate everybody the best he can. This is as fair of a referee I have seen in sports or in the judicial system. He has been fantastic.
00:18:08
Speaker 2: He's been an incredible and incredible judge. And that moment in which there was actually an objection.
00:18:15
Speaker 1: In the middle, don't get that a lot.
00:18:16
Speaker 2: I don't think I've ever seen that in the middle of a closing argument.
00:18:20
Speaker 1: You could tell he was immediately annoying, like, how dare you shouldn't be this is their chance to talk? Shut up? She got up and she tried to have an objection, Robes, she could not get it out fully. It was clear he did not want he was not interested in hearing and then ruling. He said, overruled, please have a seat in the sternest and straight of voices, sit down and shut up.
00:18:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, it has been a contentious relationship between those two, but he has kept it so incredibly civil.
00:18:53
Speaker 1: Only one side. Yes, he has been as civil as anything. He has never taken any of this stuff personally. And you and I said, wow, he's I would have been I would.
00:19:01
Speaker 2: Have clapped back, my feathers would have been a little ruffled a couple of times. I will say that. And he has done an incredible job. I like the way you put it of not taking anything personally.
00:19:12
Speaker 1: This was a line we loved as we wrap up here, Robes the judge, excuse me, the prosecutor, and once again brought it home. It was a simple line about people making up stories. It was a simple line that we said, oh, yeah, I ain't that true. And so when you have any question about why is Corey Richins's story not lining up or why is it different? Why has it changed? He brought it all back home and he appealed Robes to our common sense today.
00:19:39
Speaker 2: Corey Richins is very ambitious.
00:19:42
Speaker 1: He used that line several times. I liked, I loved that. What do you think? How you think that?
00:19:48
Speaker 2: Right on? I think that he is painting a picture. He called again, He called her a black widow, said she's very ambitious. They went into great detail about how many millions and millions of dollars she was in debt, and how she was completely in over her head, that she was a desperate woman, that she cared so much what other people thought about her, and that she didn't want to be married, but she wanted to have the means she wanted the life she was living. She just wanted to switch out man and take care of all of her financial problems. And the way she did that was by poisoning Eric Richards.
00:20:18
Speaker 1: You know, I don't remember hearing at the beginning of the trial them talking about her upbringing, her background. But he started out talking about her coming up with her mom and having to clean homes of more affluent folks, and they painted this picture of a little girl who grew up desperate for a life she didn't have.
00:20:39
Speaker 2: I'm gonna live in one of these homes one day.
00:20:41
Speaker 1: Man. That was like, wow, he did he kind of it was a story he did weave. But Rogue's common sense as well. His line, when people make up stories, what was that line? Where is it in front of me? I have it here? I have it here because you and I both looked at it and it's like wow. That's that's when people make up stories are they are inconsistent in the retelling. It's that simple. When people make up stories, they are inconsistent in the retelling. We all know that when you lie, you can't keep your story straight. That's all he was saying.
00:21:13
Speaker 2: And that's why he was saying. She would write down one thing, say she said another, and then when you actually look at what happened, it doesn't line up because it wasn't true.
00:21:22
Speaker 1: So this is wrapping up again. As we speak, closing arguments are underway, the defense giving its closing. We do believe the prosecution, which does get an opportunity for a short rebuttal will take that opportunity. So when we get the defense closing statement, we'll hop back on and let you know how they did. But as always we appreciate you sticking with us. I'm TJ holmes On behalf of my dear Amy Robot. We will talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hes it is Monday, March sixteenth, and she wanted to leave her husband, but she didn't want to leave her husband's money, so she had to kill him. That is the crux of the argument in the closing argument with the prosecution and the so called grief author murder trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy, and TJ said grief author murder trial. Some call it the poisoned husband murder trial. But at this point, I guess folks know what we talk about.
00:00:33
Speaker 2: Bro Yes, if you have been following our feed, you are, or at least I'm assuming you are up to speed on thirty five year old Corey Richins, whose life is at stake, who's freedom is at stake. She is charged with aggravated murder, attempted murder, a bunch of other financial crimes because prosecutors say she poisoned first, she tried to poison her husband, and then successfully poisoned her husband with fentanyls spiking his moscow mule. These are the closing statements from the prosecution, and they paint a pretty nasty picture. You've been back and forth about a potential hung jury or wonderer who might feel like the defense did a good job poking some holes in some of the defense's key witnesses. But after you heard that closing argument by the district attorney, you were singing a different tune.
00:01:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, And then when I hear the defense closing argument, I'll be back on the other side. It's just how it goes. It's what lawyering does, and this is what they're supposed to do. But I heard a couple of things from him. I'm not a big circumstantial evidence kind of a guy. It's hard for me to understand putting somebody in prison the rest of their lives without a smoking gun, if you will. But I get it. This guy said a couple of things in closing that made complete sense to where I'm like, well, duh, you think I'm stupid. We obviously he put a case together that you and I were, you know, given he's not a very animated guy, not a fire.
00:02:00
Speaker 2: No, he's not a theatrical performer. We see a lot of defense attorneys, even more so than prosecutors. Defense attorneys oftentimes, especially in high profile cases like this where there is someone's life on the line, you tend to get more animated theatrical types of attorneys that are trying to capture the jury's attention and sell their clients story. That wasn't the case with this prosecutor.
00:02:26
Speaker 1: No, this, So you and I were wondering, like, wow, I mean the other side with a little more personality, are they going to, you know, outduel him in a closing argument. He has been very methodical and he has finished his closing argument. He'll get a rebuttal at the end. Right now, as we are recording this, the defense is doing their closing argument. But Rohbes he put together and I thought he was almost professorial. He had slides, and he said, I am going to walk you through this case and every single point that you need to check off when you're deciding guilt or innocence. I'm going to go through each one of those points and explain to you why, yep, we have met our burden. And at first I thought, oh, this is going to be long and boring, But he built a compelling case.
00:03:09
Speaker 2: I thought I would agree. And the jury had a lot to process. They had forty two witnesses. That is how many witnesses the prosecution brought to the stand over these past three weeks. And so yes, the DA did an excellent job. I thought of creating a logical outline where you could follow, and that's so helpful. I would imagine as a juror who has processed so much. Yes, they can take some notes, but this is something where it's incredibly helpful to have the person now wrap up all that evidence you just got and bring it home. And that is what the DA did today.
00:03:47
Speaker 1: Think you said appeal to logic. I like that you do. Some of the stuff just doesn't make sense. Go through a few of the things the prosecutor did talk about in closing. First of all, we set the scene in here ropes. The judge did change. He essentially kicked the public out, not necessarily, but he was trying to make more room for family and friends of the defense of the victim. And so it's a packed house, but it's mostly just people associated with the defense and with the victim.
00:04:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's members of the media. They have allowed press to be in there and the pool cameras, but short of that, there are no members of the public. There just wasn't enough room. The judge gave each side I believe, twenty four wristbands and said knock yourselves out. You each get to bring twenty four people into the courtroom other than the media. That's it. That was just a level of interest on both sides, on the victim side and on Corey Richard's side.
00:04:39
Speaker 1: There was one point then again they were close ups today of family members holding hands at one point, but they sowed a close up of Eric Richards had his head down while they were playing a nine to one one call about his son who was dead or dying and the wife dragging her feet and give him CPR and help the dad put his head down. We're going to talk about that nine one one call. But that was a tough moment in the courtroom.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: It was it was pretty damning just to hear it. The coldness and it almost felt like callousness. It was as if he were transported into that room. And yes, as a person who loved Eric Richards, that had to be so difficult.
00:05:24
Speaker 1: To listen to. You know, since we're there, let's go ahead and do that. That was part of what the prosecutor did Robes. He played the nine one one call, But the point he was trying to make, he was very effective in doing something. He was trying to make the point that this does this sound like a woman who is desperate to save her husband's life. So to set the scene, Robes she called nine one one. The nine one one operator is trying to get a couple of answers. Is he breathing and trying to help her? Help him? And the prosecutor did a very effective thing by putting Robes a clock up while playing the nine to one one call, just.
00:05:57
Speaker 2: To see how long she was dragging her feet. Where you've got the nine one one operator much more concerned and urgent about her getting CPR started than Corey Richins is about actually starting it. And then I thought, which was so effective, from the nine one one call to even the body cam video, he would take the DA would take what Corey Richins testified to or told police, as in I just threw up. I was frantically saying live, baby, live as I was doing CPR. So what she said she did versus what she actually did or more importantly didn't do, And so he was able to basically disprove what she claimed happened in journal entries and what she said to other people versus what actually happened on recorded conversations and recorded video.
00:06:46
Speaker 1: And this call at least there's a nine one one call that's plague, which was a dramatic playing. It took six minutes because they started the clock from the moment the nine to one one operator said to her, ma'am, I need you to start CPR. The first action she took that was CPR. Ish was six minutes later. Now, Robes as if you haven't heard it, you'd be sitting here wondering, wait a minute, your husband is not responding, he's cold. You can help him until the ambulance gets here. You would be frantic. You would think to save your spouse, Help me, help me, what can I do? That is the position she was in, Robes. How did six minutes go by?
00:07:32
Speaker 2: She just was crying, saying how shocked she was, how she didn't understand how it happened. It was almost like she was in defense mode to the nine one one operator and crying and incapable of actually doing anything helpful, and certainly not anything that was life saving.
00:07:52
Speaker 1: I mean, that was obvious, Rose, it was I don't even know how think of how long six minutes is. You're sitting here with your loved one who's not responding. How do I help? Why does it take six minutes roll that nine one one call was baffling. And this is where circumstantial evidence, and this is where common sense comes into play. Give me a.
00:08:13
Speaker 2: Break, exactly. And look, this is often what each attorney is pleading with or at least appealing to on the juror side. If you don't have the smoking gun, you're going to try to appeal to their common sense. And every juror when they're hearing this nine one one call, when they're hearing what prosecutors say she didn't do and what you don't hear her say or do, you're putting yourself in that position and you're imagining it's your spouse, and you're thinking, no way would I not be doing chest compressions right now. Even if I don't know exactly how to do it, I'm gonna try. I got a basic idea. I think everyone knows the beat of staying alive. I just there are some basic things that people understand. And if you're desperate to try and save someone's life, you go and tell.
00:08:55
Speaker 1: Action there was it was bizarred toy here? What did you think about the it reference referred to.
00:09:00
Speaker 2: That was so bad? Like the body shed so it's we'll get into the what. The defense said that the DA was dehumanizing their client in that moment, she dehumanized her husband.
00:09:13
Speaker 1: The quote was, I can't move it. It's just dead to weight. And that was how she was referring to her husband at the time. I can't move him. No, no, no, she said, I can't move it, and say he's just dead weight. She said, quote, it's just dead weight. He was making a point of it. I mean, is that a It seemed effective.
00:09:33
Speaker 2: Oh, it landed. It landed, without a doubt. It landed. That sent chills up and down my spine when I heard that.
00:09:41
Speaker 1: A couple of points other points that could have landed for him. And again he feels to your common sense here, Robes. The defense has made all big whoopie doo about she didn't know it was fentanyl. She never specifically said fentanyl. That was only until the police got involved. They put fentanyl in these other people's heads, and blah blah blah blah blah. They were trying to make a point here or that they do have evidence that she asked two people full quote the Michael Jackson drug. I thought this was a common sense and no matter how much the fence it's been in your head about this drug, and this is that what does that suggest to you, Robes, If I'm looking for the Michael Jackson drug, what do we know about that drug?
00:10:19
Speaker 2: We're looking for the drug that killed Michael Jackson. So yes, and something that would have been used to help somebody sleep or maybe somebody who's in pain, or somebody who you could perhaps say wanted it, because we see other people having died by ingesting it willingly. So she's thinking, Aha, I got something that I know will kill my husband, but it could also look like a drug that he would have taken on his own for whatever reason.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: Another dub moment that they pointed out again common sense they're appealing to. There was a form she filled out police after the incident, essentially gave her a standard form saying, write down what happened everything about your evening right trying to figure out what happened to him. She started her story with at nine o'clock, we had a drink. And I didn't think much of that necessarily during testimony, but Rose he made a point, why would her story start right there? Because for her that's when the event started. When he had a drink. Why does she know that because she's the one that poisoned him is the point that's being made. And it was like an aha moment.
00:11:27
Speaker 2: For It's one of those things when you don't realize you're actually giving yourself away without realizing your brain is going somewhere. And that speaks to his next point about her search, because maybe she didn't even realize how she was actually pointing the finger right at herself.
00:11:48
Speaker 1: These are implicit admissions of guilt. She is admitting guilt the search. I never would have thought anything of it, all right, They say this was one of her searches, Internet searches. If somebody is poisoned, what does it go down on the death certificate? Ass Okay, I've heard about that search. He pointed something out about one word in that search that I swear to you if I was on the jury, this might be the thing that put me over there.
00:12:14
Speaker 2: This is what you said to me. Clicked. Why use the word poison? Why wouldn't you say if somebody overdosed on unknown medication? What do you you know? She used the word poisoned as in a verb, as in a criminal act, as in murder, to poison someone is to murder someone, So she she googled a criminal act versus an accidental overdose? Or what could someone take? What if an unknown drug was taken? What would the autopsy shit say if any of those had been the searches, that would be a completely different scenario.
00:12:50
Speaker 1: Help me, we're poisoned. How can you get around that one like as a common sense and reasonable doubt, I can't. How can you tell me that you know what? She just in the moment wrote google the wrong thing.
00:13:02
Speaker 2: If I knew I was the one who gave him the drink poisoned, IM sure as hell wouldn't be thinking he was poisoned. I would think what could have been in there that I didn't realize? What could he have accidentally overdosed on? Could he have put something in the drink? I wouldn't have used the word poisons. That implies premeditation and intent to kill.
00:13:20
Speaker 1: Another point here, we heard this Robes. I'll admit I heard them bring this up several times during testimony, but I never harped on it that much. But he brought it home today. She was She asked her the guy she was dating, the boyfriend that she was dating outside of her husband, asked him at one point, he's a former military guy, asked him at one point if he had ever killed anyone, and then asked him how that made him feel. Okay, I heard it during the testimony, but it never really was explained. He landed the plane for me today, Yeah.
00:13:57
Speaker 2: He said. She was actually by asking him. Now, it had been what a couple weeks since Eric Richards had died. She was working through, according to the prosecution, her own feelings about killing him, and she was trying to relate or connect or see how he got through killing someone. She wouldn't have known. Why would she have all of a sudden asked him. They'd been together for years, They've been friends for many, many years. She knew he served in the military, she knew he served in a rock. Why then would she ask him that question? That made a lot of sense to me.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: It was a matter of the word again killed. You would have asked, hey, how did you feel when you saw a dead body? How did it feel? Did you ever walk in and were surprised by a dead body?
00:14:39
Speaker 2: Did you see dead? Yeah?
00:14:41
Speaker 1: That was what you ask You don't ask the kill again. This landed today? He made sense of it in a common sense way that I think this is reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable for me to look at that? Is it reasonable for to put these things together and say, well, may she meant something else? It's not reasonable exactly.
00:15:05
Speaker 2: Yes, you can have some doubts because they don't have the smoking gun, because it is a circumstantial case, because you are relying on testimony from somebody who has proven not to be credible. So yes, you do come down to common sense. And he landed his plane, all.
00:15:18
Speaker 1: Right, But stay here. There was a moment during the closing argument, a moment you don't often see during closing arguments and objection, and the judge didn't even give them time to get it out before he said, sit yo, butt down, stay here. Continuing here on Amy and TJ. Closing arguments are underway as we speak in the Corey Richan's poisoned Husband murder trial or the Grief author murder trial is being called. But as we are recording this defense, closing arguments are underway. The prosecution wrapped up its closing argument a short time ago and wrote something that we do often see. The defense also often takes it takes it shot when it gets a chance, but often when the prosecution rests its case, they'll ask for a mistrial. And today, after they gave their closing argument the prosecution, the defense got up before giving a closing asked for another mistrial. And some of the reasons you certainly found interesting.
00:16:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, well they joked out of me, because look, I know it's common for the defense to try and get every opportunity they can to ask for a mistrial. And I'm always curious to hear the reasons why. Corey Richards attorney had two of them. One of them was that she said the defense attorney dehumanized Corey Richins and she cited some law and I thought, dehumanized her in what way? And then she said he called her a black widow. So she said he called her a spider judge. I mean, that almost became laughable in a moment, and so then the DA had to stand up and say, I wasn't referring to the insect. That wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to what we all know, a black widow, a wife who kills her husband. That almost became a comical moment at one point. And then she also was upset again saying that the DA was referencing the facial expressions of Corey Richards, and she was so adamant that this was worthy of a mistrial that the judge actually took a beat and said out came back and said, out of an abundance of caution, I will now instruct the jury again to you can consider your own impressions of Corey Richards, but you cannot consider the prosecutor's impressions of Corey Richard's facial expression. So she did at least get an instruction to be reiterated to the jury before she began her.
00:17:55
Speaker 1: The judge, even when he overrules, he's trying to accommodate everybody the best he can. This is as fair of a referee I have seen in sports or in the judicial system. He has been fantastic.
00:18:08
Speaker 2: He's been an incredible and incredible judge. And that moment in which there was actually an objection.
00:18:15
Speaker 1: In the middle, don't get that a lot.
00:18:16
Speaker 2: I don't think I've ever seen that in the middle of a closing argument.
00:18:20
Speaker 1: You could tell he was immediately annoying, like, how dare you shouldn't be this is their chance to talk? Shut up? She got up and she tried to have an objection, Robes, she could not get it out fully. It was clear he did not want he was not interested in hearing and then ruling. He said, overruled, please have a seat in the sternest and straight of voices, sit down and shut up.
00:18:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, it has been a contentious relationship between those two, but he has kept it so incredibly civil.
00:18:53
Speaker 1: Only one side. Yes, he has been as civil as anything. He has never taken any of this stuff personally. And you and I said, wow, he's I would have been I would.
00:19:01
Speaker 2: Have clapped back, my feathers would have been a little ruffled a couple of times. I will say that. And he has done an incredible job. I like the way you put it of not taking anything personally.
00:19:12
Speaker 1: This was a line we loved as we wrap up here, Robes the judge, excuse me, the prosecutor, and once again brought it home. It was a simple line about people making up stories. It was a simple line that we said, oh, yeah, I ain't that true. And so when you have any question about why is Corey Richins's story not lining up or why is it different? Why has it changed? He brought it all back home and he appealed Robes to our common sense today.
00:19:39
Speaker 2: Corey Richins is very ambitious.
00:19:42
Speaker 1: He used that line several times. I liked, I loved that. What do you think? How you think that?
00:19:48
Speaker 2: Right on? I think that he is painting a picture. He called again, He called her a black widow, said she's very ambitious. They went into great detail about how many millions and millions of dollars she was in debt, and how she was completely in over her head, that she was a desperate woman, that she cared so much what other people thought about her, and that she didn't want to be married, but she wanted to have the means she wanted the life she was living. She just wanted to switch out man and take care of all of her financial problems. And the way she did that was by poisoning Eric Richards.
00:20:18
Speaker 1: You know, I don't remember hearing at the beginning of the trial them talking about her upbringing, her background. But he started out talking about her coming up with her mom and having to clean homes of more affluent folks, and they painted this picture of a little girl who grew up desperate for a life she didn't have.
00:20:39
Speaker 2: I'm gonna live in one of these homes one day.
00:20:41
Speaker 1: Man. That was like, wow, he did he kind of it was a story he did weave. But Rogue's common sense as well. His line, when people make up stories, what was that line? Where is it in front of me? I have it here? I have it here because you and I both looked at it and it's like wow. That's that's when people make up stories are they are inconsistent in the retelling. It's that simple. When people make up stories, they are inconsistent in the retelling. We all know that when you lie, you can't keep your story straight. That's all he was saying.
00:21:13
Speaker 2: And that's why he was saying. She would write down one thing, say she said another, and then when you actually look at what happened, it doesn't line up because it wasn't true.
00:21:22
Speaker 1: So this is wrapping up again. As we speak, closing arguments are underway, the defense giving its closing. We do believe the prosecution, which does get an opportunity for a short rebuttal will take that opportunity. So when we get the defense closing statement, we'll hop back on and let you know how they did. But as always we appreciate you sticking with us. I'm TJ holmes On behalf of my dear Amy Robot. We will talk to you soon.