Kouri Richins - Preliminary Hearing Day 2

that would be helpful um yes your honor I think we we'll go there maybe I can anticipate this a little bit sure the I'd like to note at the outset other than the hearsay evidence that the court addressed in a private um or non-public hearing yesterday all the other evidence that the state references in its bench brief has been placed into evidence so the court can rely on that briefing I suspect um considering that uh the court has already found substantial evidence at the detention hearing related to the homicide aggravated homicide charge and since uh there there's really no evidence to undermine The credibility of the of the existing evidence and the state has added evidence mostly in the form of 1102 statements from Miss lber Mr Jeff Miss Lloyd and Mr rman um and also considering that the financial charges are mostly paper based charges that the the court can read considering all of that my sense is the court is most interested in hearing arguments on uh the attempted homicide charge and I you know the distribution kind of goes along with that it really Trails it so let me be specific but I'm happy to go wherever you like to take me but counts two and four are linked yes and I have questions about the state's view of those I do have some questions about counts 8 9 and 10 only because I'm not sure I understand specifically the conduct that the state believes uh is associated with each of those three counts but we can get them yes your honor let's start with two and four the attempted homicide and the connected distribution in the meantime um Mr bur might start thinking about 8 n and 10 um but I I also May address them as well depending on specific questions let me begin your honor on the attempted homicide Bond over argument this is a domestic violence case right and to best understand the attempted homicide charge the court should view the defendant's conduct through a wide angle demestic violence legs um and consider the entire Arc of the criminal information um and all the evidence that supports it may I ask you a specific question about that yes sir to what extent can I I consider the probable cause showing that of the aggravated murder in March when considering whether the state has shown probable cause of an attent in February the reverse would certainly be true sure I'm unclear as to what extent I can consider the March events as probable cause for the febrary events your honor you can fully consider it and the court should fully consider it what happens before a Charged event and what happens after a Charged event is probative of the event particularly in this case Let Me Maybe explain in some greater detail sure um and I guess further to that point your honor to to to consider the attempted homicide in isolation or as a discreet event I think would be an error the best evidence of the attempted um homicide by poisoning on Valentine's Day is the actual homicide by poisoning 17 days later all of the defendants motive that existed for the homicide also exists for the attempted homicide side maybe let me just kind of detail some of that for the court I don't want to belabor the briefing but there's some highlights there I I agree with you the financial motives that existed in March existed in February that's correct um uh but it's not only the financial motive youor there is um and I I I don't want to recap it unless it's helpful for the court I can recap the financial motives I think have those sufficiently in hand you're honor the the the AL the second motive that is just as present in February as it was in March 17 days later was her love interest in Mr Rosman and their planning of the future um and specifically um you know the the purchase of the 3 million Midway Mansion where she discussed raising children and farming with with him about a month earlier I guess what I'm saying is you don't need to prove V of be unreasonable the state has shown for okay so then I guess the takeaway your honor is that the same motive for the charged homicide is it's identical to the attempted homicide I agree okay I will move on yeah um and candidly I think the state has problem cause that she procured fenel prior to February 14th state has shown prob cause that she wanted something stronger after February 14 and saw it again made a reference to the Michael Jackson stuff which I think at least at the preliminary hearing stage I could take judicial notice refers to a well-known event in which someone took a controlled substance and died I'm tracking all of that okay where I Stumble or where I pause is do we have an evidentiary foundation for a non-speculative inference that she actually gave Eric Richard a control substance on February 14 so we do your honor um let's or intended do so sure let's kind of focus in then on February 14th with the understanding that um she 2 days earlier um it's a probable cause understanding that she two days earlier U purchased fol from Miss laber got it okay um so her conduct of that her conduct on Valentine's Day um helps establish that she in fact provided the the fentel to Eric richens and so her conduct that day starts um uh early in the morning when she um purchased a sandwich from the marake diner well we know she makes a purchase for the marake diner right yes sir we don't know that it's a sandwich based upon invisible sir we do um the the invoice from mer Lake Diner entered into evidence is exhibit 66 go ahead um shows a I think it's labeled on the invoices breakfast sandwich yeah Bagel sandwich okay Bagel sandwich and and your honor we also know from the defendant's own words that in her text message uh with her best friend she admits to purchasing a sandwich that day remind me which exhibit is that we're going to need to talk about I'm going to I'm going to need some help on on that ex I know I know what you refer to but I just need to look at it yeah um I might have it in my notes your honor if not we're we're working on that on the side I'll get keep so we we know from the invoice and from her text message that she purchased a sandwich that morning from the Marik Diner we also have uh you know as the court seen bank statements that confirm a purchase phone call that confirms an order um the the receipt corroborates the invoice corroborates that the phone call related to is related to the order and exhibit 66 um so she purchases the sandwich from the Marik Diner um I think it's it's something like a 9007 p is is what the invoice shows um we then know at at 9:43 the defendant it's exhibit 8 your honor is text message with her best friend okay we then know at um 9:43 she texts messages her Paramore that um she's on her way and at 9:49 she sends him a navigation screenshot that shows her kind of leaving the canvas area with an arrival time at some unknown destination approximately an hour from them from then um we also know based on her text activity with her param more that they were essentially together um all day and we know that because because as the court can see they text frequently throughout the day um but throughout that day uh they weren't texting with each other and I think the reasonable inference is they were not texting with each other because they were together um while the defendant is an hour or so away from Eric richens with her Paramore Eric richens has some medical event strong enough that he texts the defendant and says he's considering going to the hospital and we have that tax Exchange in evidence right um feeling sick enough to go to a hospital um and then sleeping in the garage which he also texts for about two hours which is consistent with no activity on his phone and Associated devices all of that is consistent with the reaction to t uh just I've read it but I can't remember the number the number for the 1102 from the person that lays that Foundation regarding a reaction to any yeah so that's the toxicologist not lawon okay thank you keep going your honor also in evidence is literature from the Mayo Clinic which lays a similar Foundation okay so we we now have right on the chronology of Valentine's Day 2022 the defendant in her Paramore and hour more away Eric Rich's sick enough that he's considering going to the hospital um and he inactive for two hours all of that consistent with f poisoning and then at that point the defendant's own words are kind of important here because he texts her right um of his illness of considering going to the hospital and what she says is chilling she says take a nap and then she doesn't check on him for 2 hours she doesn't come home she doesn't text she doesn't call she doesn't check on them their next communication is 2 hours later when Eric richens checks in with the defendant notably throughout the day Valentine's Day and thereafter the defendant's reaction to Valentine's Day events is consistent with the consciousness of dealt she ATT texted on February 11th and 12th significantly with her drug dealer during a time frame that corresponds with the drug dealer's purchase of fenol at the Maverick and the Draper right those texts are deleted from her phone she texted with the drug dealer 30 times about 30 times was Mr coacher deos his testimony um on Valentine's Day and those texts are deleted there is no good reason the defendant is spending Valentine's Day with her Paramore and texting her drug dealer 30 times Eric richens texted the defendant a photo while he was texting her about feeling ill and considering going to the hospital that photo is deleted from the defendant's phone and also from Eric Rich's phone that is in the moment consciousness of guilt the next day uh forgive me I don't recall testimony for Mr cubby mayus or any documentary evidence about when those images were deleted now I acknowledge they were deleted sometimes after they create but very okay okay the next day after Valentine's Day February the 15th 2022 the defendant lamented to her Paramore if he could just go away dot dot dot life would be so perfect and then 2 weeks later she assured her Paramore life is going to be different I promise hang in there until Friday on Friday Eric richens is dead we've referenced exhibit eight the text messages that the defendant sent to her best friend I don't think that's eight celebrate is e can you give me that number well your honor it would be found in a celebrate extraction oh my apologies okay so it's not like a screenshot it um let's get there together I need the exact language of that it would be okay got it so this is we got to be specific about this a June 18 2022 communication correct um yes your honor it is June 18th 2022 I I can give the court some context which the Court's already familiar with on the timing the timing relates to an out this the the the same allegation kind of is wrapped up in the attempted homicide charge that was made in the civil litigation and um timing would suggest I think it is reasonable to infer that they were discussing this in and this text is a discussion of the Valentine's Day 2022 incident as put forth publicly in civil in civil filing he I have some questions about this when you're done going through the evidence okay sir um I also have questions about the February 15 text messages so just put two pins in those okay um I'm not questioning the exact number no sure I I that glance was to get a copy of whatever the February 15th test was we'll see if you would just go away dot dot dot and then I promise we'll be together on Friday or Works them yeah yes we we can discuss those kind of text when we're both looking at then okay the um text to her false sorry the text to her best friend regarding Valentine's Day the defendant says it was Valentine's Day and Eric and I were both working from home that day we know that to be false we know that to be false from her text messages with Eric himself we know that could be false from her text messages with her Paramore we know know that to be false from the navigation screenshot continuing with the text she says he meaning Eric never broke out in hives or used the ne she did not know that she was not with him the court can reasonably infer that the opposite is true she is lying about being with him she is lying about him not breaking out in highs she is lying about him not using an nappy pen because she knows those facts are indeed true and indeed inculpatory sir do you want to discuss those text or should I continue on with kind of further answering your question is how the homicide charge kind of relates directly to the attempted homicide charge well let's pause here for a second yes sir we also skipped over the 14 mention in that recation remind me of the date where she asks SE for something stronger so you honor that I I I don't know that I know a precise date it's somewhere around February the 25th I think it was 12 days later right okay in your honor the court raises an important point right um I said at the outset that the best evidence of the attempted homicidal like poisoning is the actual homicide by poisoning 17 days later and the defendant learned from the attempt and applied it to the homicide and we see that with the with what the court just raised she wanted something stronger she learned that whatever she used on Valentine's Day wasn't strong enough which is why she went back and asked for something stronger she also she but she had a similar Mo right you know her MO is to go to the to the drug dealer procure fenel and two or 3 Days Later 4 days later administer the fent that is the same the the drug is the same the drug dealer is the same the timing is the same but she learned she learned she needed something stronger she also learned how to administer it she learned that putting it in a sandwich where Eric richens could take a bite feel the effects set the sandwich down was not the proper way to administer a fatal dose of fen instead she administered it with a lemon shot where Eric richens would throw it back back all at once she says that in her journal article her journal note at exhibit 49 and she learns that it takes a truck load of fenel to kill him she learns that one bite in a sandwich isn't enough it has to be stronger it has to be administered it once and it has to be a lot and that's why Eric Rich's toxicology shows five times the lethal amount in his blood in 20,000 nanog per milliliter remaining in his gastro fluid gastric fluid the attempt and the homicide are connected in M Mo and Lessons Learned if we view let's imagine for a moment that everything through February 15 well February 26th stays the same imaginary Chans is still alive the text message on June 18 get S I imagine you tell me we still have rable intented we we would your honor and I guess that goes back right to the standard of of this hearing you know all reasonable in inferences um go to the state right and you I hear you telling me it's a non-speculative inference that she tried to poison him because we have her admitting that she ordered lunch from mirly Diner we have him having a significant enough event that he contemplates going to the hospital we have tax messages on February 15 that draw reason life for instance she wanted a dead um we have R looking for something stronger when he did not die on February 14th we have a financial motive we have the Medical Foundation the difficulty is right and maybe this just highlights the low threshold that is the probable cause determination and I imagine this is what M ner M Lis is going to tell me is this turns just about every possession charge into an attempted murder charge if the spouse has some medical event around the same time but here you'd say and the spouse dies 17 days later under very very similar circumstances same that all connections between the two and is it 404 that lets me Connect the Dots here I don't even think the court has to go to 404 I think the the court can connect certainly it's probative yeah certainly it's relevant I I I guess the court could have connected odds through probative but um there's no doubt especially you know return turning to the fact that this is a domestic violence case the court sees the consistency in um the domestic violence defendants conduct um throughout the motive is super strong I mean I know we've kind of agreed that the motive is present in both circumstances but um it's equally present it's separated by nearly 3 weeks correct it's equally strong now your honor the court raised um you know that this isn't speculative and and it's not and Schmid kind of talks to the notion the point right that the Court's job here is not to sift through the evidence and find the most reasonable explanation just to make sure that the states W the the most reasonable inferences just to make sure rather that the state's inference is reasonable and we leave the most reasonable inference question to the jury okay all right so if you've got probable caer count to you've got for count four yes sir I think two two goes that or four goes as two goes right I think I understand the state's position here you will of course get the last word on counts on all the counts but of certain accounts two and four I have some questions regarding some of those on Angel accounts yes sir um bear with me for a [Music] moment all right count e for insurance fraud what is the conduct that forms the basis of that count 7 the $100,000 true stage policy on following the state are I'm not sure what count e first yes your honor and in the statute under count eight um you know the insurance fraud statute has different non-exclusive or I guess different exclusive theories of presenting an insurance fraud claim certain and then count 8 is is kind of the the broadest claim um it's it's the scheme claim well for count 7 right it's either the it could be the for Signature it could be the uh false representations regarding how Eric got the fentanyl in him either one of those I think would get you there let's just say it's the false statements regarding the fal sure you have a forgery count regarding the f signature I think either bear with me 9 or 10 m or maybe 11 CH I think 11 is the four signature on the $100,000 policy sure so that that relates to the claim right count 7 is a false claim right on an insurance policy count 8 is a scheme devised to get money falsely from an insurance company can or cannot involve a claim fair enough but is it the I'm not I I acknowledge that we don't need to get into merger today but sure is it the forged signature on the $100,000 true stage sure it's the it's the signed application on January 28th and 29 it starts with the application okay for the the policy that issued on February 4th right 10 days before the attempted homicide a month before the homicide it starts with that sign kind of application that the court will recall there was no way for the insurance company to contact Eric richens rather they can only contact the defendant right the defendant used her business PO Box the defendant used her email the the defendant um provided an improper phone number okay and so the that submitting that application Begins the scheme got it then the scheme continues um uh through uh through the false claim for the money and the evidence of that is the claim laog we submitted into evidence as exhibit 67 um but you know different than the false claim where the the men's the men's Ray and the actors Ray is just submitting a false claim with the intent to to get paid on it the scheme is much more sweeping the scheme in count 8 is I'm going to submit a false application for insurance on Eric Rich's life I am going to then cause his death and then seek money understood all right so with respect to the three forgery counts 11 is allegations regarding ER signature on the application for the $100,000 J policy correct and that's the policy of exhibits 17 what is 9 and 10 9 is the um fraudulent bank statement that the defendant provided to Ironbridge and 10 is the similarly fraudulent statement that the defendant presented to Boomerang that's the cut those are the cut and Pace job got it statements and the so the forgery count of nine is related to the mortgage fraud count that is in five right and then the forgery count 10 is related to the mortgage fraud count in six correct yeah okay thank you anything else you want to put on the record at this time no your honor I'll be back very good Miss leou how are you I'm fine thank you I'm going to address religious counts counts one and three and a little bit of four and then miss Nester is going to address count two okay and the remaining counts tell me where you see the gap on count one all right well here's where I see the gap on count one so I understand that there was a finding made at the detention room um and I I understand that the court can consider the transcripts from that here however I think we're in a kind of an interesting interesting situation because the burden of proof has to be at the preliminary hearing and the court do does need to make a new finding this hearing and I actually think interestingly that this is a situation where additional information that came in makes it less likely and makes it more difficult for the state to establish a reasonable belief as to the first element of aggravating murder that she actually intend Ed and knowingly killed Mr richens because what we learned yesterday is we have now the affidavit or the 1102 from Miss ler but what that really tells the court is only one thing is that she believes she gave fenol to miss richens she doesn't know what she gave Miss richens whatever she gave Miss richens has been through at least three people before it came to miss richens miss lobber got it from somebody Mr crosier who got it from somebody else that we we don't know who that other person is um none of these people manufactured it none of these people tested it so we don't know what was given to miss Richard uh I don't disagree that we don't know but knowing it's not the legal standard that I'm required to apply today so tell me why is law ver 1102 is insufficient to support a reasonable belief in the parlance of uh preliminary examination law that the stuff that she provided was F let me look at let's look at the distribution counts and examining that yeah we can't do anything about that all right go so looking at the distribution all backc so detective odris said that he had no way of knowing that he did not know what was in the pills he just knows that they are blues or greens which he given his experience with he didn't say narcotics but with controlled substances is consistent with Street V what was he said okay there you go um anyway I was trying to remember if this was in the record or not before I said it all up so I that's what was my pause there but I have never seen a a distribution case where there actually we don't have anything that was distributed you mean a preliminary hearing or a trial two very different universes well personally neither okay uh personally I've not seen it either place but I don't think just a individual who's a drug addict saying I thought I gave a fentanyl I mean doesn't that form the reasonable belief though I mean by all accounts carbon laber knows the difference between a controlled substance and not well that's not in their affidavit how do we know that how do we know that she knows the difference with respect she's in drug court and she faces controlled substance convictions so apparently she has some kind experience with Detective odris testified that she said initially and she said it in more than once that she knew nothing about fenol she didn't deal fenol it's not her drug and he said that these are great trial arguments but I I uh I question whether this would be sufficient to these concerns uh are suff to rule that there's only a speculative basis rather than a reasonable basis there was provision of a control substance let me understand your position and where you're headed with this but I do think we want to for the record especially um detective ad riscal testified that he cannot say with any certainty what happened to those pills we we have no knowledge no testimony no evidence even if those pills were FAL what happened to them after February 25th I mean the third ones were allegedly received after right Mr Rich's death which is is interesting um in terms of what these pills were actually for and I think and again maybe a trial argument but it's it's interesting that if that was the purpose of these pills that they were still being handed out afterwards um but he said he could not testify what happened to those pills he cannot testify what to in those pills and he does not know how if those pills were given to Mr richens and if they were how they were given who gave them did he take them himself there isn't any evidence as to that and I understand you know the position and the very low standard we're looking at here I get it but that would be to be clear the Court's position is based on an application of the standard not because I have an indep and I didn't I didn't mean to imply that it was your personal belief I understand the um and your application of the standard our position is still that there needs to be something more when you look at everything that's been presented as evidence in this case up to this point and particularly on the distribution count I I think it's three or four well to both but there's additional of course problems with the February 14th distribution count with the with count 3 though I mean if there's probable cause for the if there is evidence sufficient support a reasonable belief that cor Rich put some drugs in a drink at handed at teric richin there's probable cause for the count three right yeah he is okay all you're right but I think I've made my argument on that that uh and I just don't think that anything that happened from any of the other Witnesses of course goes any further to show anything about k um it goes to the motive which is an element of K especially the uh M um Carrington's testimony I understand that but nothing that they said I think goes to intentionally or knowingly administering the drugs the motive would provide a some foundation for intentionally earing we put it differently if there was no motive their inference would be harder to draw I'm correct yeah you're correct okay um I think that covers what I have in our record on that I don't know if you have any other questions but miss Nester will talk about counts two and then that of course relates directly to count 4 and she'll address the financial okay I think I understand your position I through thank you thank you good morning Ur may I please the court if the court would indulge me just a couple minutes I know you're so familiar with preliminary hearings you do about a billion of them a year probably but I do just want to talk about what they are and what they mean to this system and to my client so Utah is a state that has decided not to employ the grand jury system to determine whether someone should be prosecuted for a felony crime they Utah has decided to place the entire power of whether someone's going to be dragged away from their home in handcuffs to a courtroom facing serious charges to the discretion of these people at this table that it's it's their their power to fill out an information I have some role in the process before I'm talking about before they get to you that hav talk that part yet you're jumping ahead of me but what brings them to you is the people sitting right here and it's their opinions it's their um beliefs they're not a grand jury they're prosecutors they do their best so what we have created to protect clients from the that awesome power that sits at that table is this process of a gatekeeping that instead of delegating that to a grand jury people in our society that come together and close doors and hear the evidence and decide whether there's enough to put someone through this they bring it to you you're the gatekeeper and this preliminary hearing is a critical right that every single individual who they decide to write a charge against has and when we come before you we recognize that it's a low standard we recognize that probably cause means that it just means enough to charge you doesn't mean enough to convict you it doesn't mean enough to determine you commi committed a crime it's enough to charge you but that charging decision does matter and it's going to have a huge huge impact on the way this case plays out on the evidence that is brought before the jury on who will be Witnesses determining What charges get past this gate you you the GateKeeper so we believe very very very strongly that the charge of attempted murder has not met the lowest standard even of probable cause um and that as rare as it is for a judge to say there's not even enough to charge here it's it is anticipated that that will happen on occasion which is why you do thousands of these right because every every once in a while they don't get up to that level and we think in this case they haven't done it and we'd like to tell you why so thank you for IG that I agree with everything you said about the law okay what is the essential element of count to that you believe the state is either shown no evidence of or insufficient evidence to draw a reasonable inference regarding causation 100% causation so in order for them to establish an attempt attempt murder they have to show that Miss richens took some act that caused someone to be in danger of death right she had to have she had to have caused something that put them at risk right whether they actually died obviously it's aent right so I want I think it's critical that you understand the timeline of that day and I want to walk it through and I know it may take us a couple of minutes but I think it shows so clearly that they cannot make the connection and it's it's indisputable evidence that's in the celebrate that has been downloaded off their phones there's no debate about what happened on those phones okay so in exhibit 6 there are substances of texts between Eric and Corey um that say exactly their Communications that day I want to go back to the very beginning which is the receipt which is exhibit 66 from the Mirror Lake Diner it shows that Corey's credit card swiped at 9 I think 05 907 I'm sorry 9:07 a.m. and that she ordered a bagel breakfast sandwich and and an omelette there is a statement under the sandwich that it's over hard which which means it's an egg sandwich there's an egg in that breakfast sandwich and I think that's important because I don't know about you but I'm not eating an egg sandwich 2 to 3 hours after it's brought to me you eat it quick or you don't eat it so she brings an egg sandwich home and 9:07 she this um this actually hasn't come in but I think the court could take judicial notice because of the address on Miss Carrington's um exhibit about the Willow Creek home where they resided it's about 5 minutes away from this Cafe and I don't think that the da will um the county attorney will just read that nothing in cus is very far away nothing in cus is very far away so it's about a 5 minute drive from the cafe to their home so best case scenario of her credit cards being swiped at 907 she's getting home around 9:15 in that area maybe there any evidence that she actually went home correct what asket there is on her on the phone on her phone the um her the print out of her phone shows her returning um back to well actually they've introduced that exhibit that they blew up that showed that she was on her way to the house and that's from her home okay so she was at home so there's a period of time where she's at home between 9:15 and 9:41 a.m. with eggs to eat now it is a fair assumption that when you bring eggs home you eat them quickly so it is perfectly possible and just as inference inferential that she could have had breakfast with her husband that morning together and let me tell you why I believe that that's proven in the state's own case because at no point in any conversations any texts between Corey and Eric does he ever tell her that he's feeling sick until he tells her at 11:40 something that if I'm still feeling this bad I'm going to go to the hospital so it's sounds very much that they've already discussed that he doesn't feel well right so it is perfectly consistent with Corey Rich's statement to her friend they break us together um which would make it pretty hard to poison someone when they're sitting there and you're handing them their food and watching you hand them their food so then you have Eric between 1021 and 12:06 and these are reflected in exhibit number 38 which shows the locations of calls made by Eric did you pause for a second yes is there a statement that they ate breakfast together they just talked about her telling her friend lying that they were together when they ate so I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything to you SE quote forgive me folks I didn't even make him a [ __ ] sandwich those [ __ ] idiots it was Valentine's Day and Eric and I both were working from home that day and I ordered lunch from Mirror like Diner well that was months later and she hadn't seen the time she hadn't been exposed to any of the the um folks I need you to take a deep breath uh is there any evidence that she has a backward looking statement saying I ordered bre well that's the only statement that we're aware of but at that point she hadn't been she hadn't seen the time so she's remembering if it was breakfast lunch whatever I mean that was months later but she admits she got it a miror lake she admits they ate it together she mixed up the time of breakfast and lunch mean there's no debate that she was not there at lunchtime that that didn't happen so so that's clearly a mistake so she leaves the house at 9:41 and is gone for the rest of the day Eric drives to multiple other locations after she leaves do we know help me out do we know that or he doing the estimating from home this was unclear to me from the testimony so in the celebrate exhibit that is Eric's phone it shows where he's making calls from and so he makes calls from I think he goes to the it looks like the Smith's grocery store the Walmart he goes and runs some errands he's making business calls ever since Cory left the whole time after he's eaten the egg sandwich he's driving around he's making calls then he texts Corey at 11:27 and talks to her about some soccer fees that the boys o and then says a few minutes later so between 11:27 he's talking about soccer at 11:33 so he hasn't seen Cory now in 2 hours he says I'm feeling I'm going to go lay down if I don't feel better I may go to the hospital right and I I I must respectfully point out that when the prosecution talked about her saying go take a nap and how that was chilling he pulled that completely out of context of the rest of what she said in that text do you need me to come home would you like me to come home Jesus is that bad you know she even at one point later in the day talks about I wish he says I wish you were here and she's like I would cuddle you so that is very misleading to pull that statement out and I'm I need to correct that for the record but regardless now he hasn't been in her presence for 2 hours if he ate that sandwich he ate it around 9:30 give or take at the latest so in that period of time he's been running errands doing doing business calls texting Corey very benign normal day-to-day texts nothing about I'm about to die nothing like that he takes a nap for 2 hours then he gets up they text romantic text wish you were here like to cuddle um that's at 1:43 when he just woke up the same period of time that'll that well I'm sorry that's not before I withdraw that um continues to make work calls from 1:50 to 2:30 goes to a soccer game with his kids from 352 to 611 takes the boys to get some food leaves food for Corey in his truck as they go back to the game cuz Cory is running late um and that's the day that's the day that they are now saying that they that you can infer she tried to murder her husband there's no evidence he ever took a pill from her there's no evidence that she ever uh that he was if she put fenel in his egg sandwich at 9:30 and he ate it he would not be okay for 2 more hours he would not be um and there's zero evidence there's not one piece of evidence from Eric himself that he ever um took anything from Cory that day that he felt bad up until 11 20 11:33 is the first time he feels bad now I think you asked a fascinating question when you asked the prosecutor do I need to consider the death as support for probable cause of February 14th looking backwards and I think that's a really important in query because obviously if you Look Backwards everything you're looking backwards at Shades how you look at something that happened before but if you look at that count in isolation there is no evidence that supports um an opportunity for her there's no evidence to support that he took anything there's no evidence to support that he had fenel oxycoton and as a matter of fact he told um wait I have to think if this is in C can I ask you some specific questions about yes so let's take it one piece at a time here in terms of events after February 14th yes in your view can the court consider M Rich's text messages to Mr grman on February 15 can I consider that at all to can you consider them I mean I think you can consider anything you want to consider in terms of well see that's the question Utah Rules of Evidence say oh there's all kinds of stuff you can't consider on these uh set circumstances and it's often a difficult slom course to ski we did some of this yesterday morning trying to get a sense from the defense of whether or not the court can consider being like the text measur quote if he would just go away and quote so you know as evidence of an inference that she wanted him not around anymore but that could be divorce that doesn't have to understand and we're not a trial and I'm not a jury and so I have to contend with but how black letter law let me just get this out I I really am genuinely interested in your response I acknowledge there are multiple credible inferences that can be drawn from this evidence several of them Innocent but I'm not allowed to pick and choose I am not allowed to weigh the relative reasonableness or credibility of the inferences I'm required to draw all reasonable inferences in the state's favor to view the evidence as a whole in the state's paper and identify is there a reading of the evidence that supports the reasonable belief and so when you say things like look this evidence she went home I imagine Mr Bloodworth is fighting the Earth she jump up and say and that just shows she went home to give her the sandwich oh I was your that just shows you went home to give her the sandwich she went home to give her the sandwich and so the reason I asked about the stuff afterwards right the text messages her statement regarding ordering the lunch being home together so the text message certainly could be considered for the death right because he's still alive and it's February 15th but that's not my question right so how does the how does the statement on the 15th relate to something that didn't happen she's talking about it in future right like I guess the question is if on February 15 she has a text message showing a desire to have him not around anymore why can't I consider that for gental statement on the 14th she doesn't say he should be dead I know but we're talking in terms of reasonable inferences here it's you know criminal defense lawyers look at these phones and it's pretty terrifying to think that someone's going to go back and look at text that you wrote about your spouse you know years later and put it all into a cone of literal death threats when you say I wish you'd leave he's getting on my nerves I want to leave the house I'm going to leave him I want to divorce him Eric they put in Eric's divorce meeting with his divorce lawyer I mean this was not a perfect couple they didn't have perfect relationship but to take a context one single text and to say that that gives you a reasonable belief that she tried to kill him the day before I don't see the connection at all I don't I don't think that is a connection so I hear you saying you can consider a chch but it doesn't have any wait I don't think it does okay same response regarding her June 18 2022 text to her friend that's the what we just said where she has not seen yet the time like she hadn't had an opportunity to review the timing so if she maxed up lunch and breakfast but everything else in there is consistent with what happened that day what about her text message on her about February 26 to Carmen lber saying I something again that's after the 14th it's a backward looking statement though Rel it's imperative well apparently she had recently piced apparently according to miss law she had just recently got something from her so right I don't I mean that could be not connected to the 14th at all okay so um or more specifically not necessarily referring to what she got on the 11th but could be from the 25th but I mean you have a you have a claim that Mr richens was poisoned on the 14th there is no medical evidence there is no there is no connection there is no causation there is nothing but pure speculation that because they believe she tried to kill him and successfully killed him in um March that that must mean she tried it before that is not enough to reach a reasonable belief that someone and that's the question you asked at the very beginning just because I mean it's like a backwards acting in Conformity argument it's a backwards 404b EV this my question right does that exist which by the way 404 B's whole purpose of existing in every state in America and in the federal system system is exactly to avoid this kind of prejudicial leap of because somebody did something once they must have done it again that's the whole reason we have four of 4B is to prevent that I acknowledge that I imagine you would acknowledge as well the numerous exceptions in the lengthy or the uh the Deep body of case law regarding exceptions to the general bar to propensity evidence and so here when Mr Bloodworth makes references to botus abaranda he's arguing to some of those exceptions right well in your view does 404b work backwards as uh or does it only work perspectively it only works prospectively in my opinion but the analogy as to why this is such damaging and risky uh analysis can be found in that rule baked into that rule that our legislators and our our Supreme Court recognized that that's very very dangerous to base a prosecution on somebody while somebody used drugs once before in their life they're probably guilty this time that's the whole thing we're trying to avoid in our system and that's the that's the whole basis for their argument on the attempt that's the entire basis because they know they don't have proof they don't have medical proof they they don't have they we heard um testimony about allergies we heard about all of that so I mean there's innocent explanations for everything that happened on the 14th every single thing so that that doesn't lead to a reasonable belief they are 100% relying on an action in Conformity argument think we heard the admissible testimony of allies but I take your point okay I'm sorry I'm trying really hard to separate it in my brain I understand um I actually think it's included in the um I I believe it's included in some of the exhibits but we'll just leave it alone just in case I'm wrong about that I can check that while while he's back up um but having said all of that you know the distribution charge that is connected to the attempt charge if the attempt charge doesn't have probable cause the distribution charge doesn't have probable cause um they both have to go I ask you about the consciousness of guilt argument that the state makes yes which I understand to be my words not the states why is she lying in her text message to her best friend in June about what happened on the 14th I think the only thing she got wrong was breakfast for lunch well I think her location about her being home all day is one of the things they mean on um we were working from home that day and I mean that's easily provable so it's not like she when she's talking to her friend she's trying to remember the day back you know a few months later and she got part of it right I mean and part of it wrong and I just don't know if it's just I mean how do we know that what purpose would that be how would that serve as a lie the argument is that she's hiding the fact that she was with another person besides her husband on that day okay that's a good reason to lie cuz you're with your boyfriend and you don't want to Mitch her with your boyfriend right I mean that's not conscious of guilt of killing your husband that's not wanting to tell people you were hanging out with your boyfriend okay that's one credible inference right yes all right would you say that it's not a credible inference that the reason she's lying to her friend is because she had the scheme to be not present she admitted she was present with him and she was they she brought him breakfast so that's true that inculpates her more than exculpates her that's the opposite of covering herself she's putting herself in the house with him on the day that they're claiming he was attempted to be poisoned that's a statement against interest okay in my opinion um okay so I don't really need to argue the distribution you get that all right so the only other question the only other things that we have on the um the uh um the fraud type arguments um I do think that the state never established jurisdiction or venue for any of those counts um I don't believe we've heard any proof about why this court has jurisdiction over these acts they did not establish where they occurred um why isn't there a reasonable Ence that Cory rians was making these applications and forming these schemes from Sun count they have to show that you can't just out of whole cloth make that up there's no evidence that that occurred well the standard of proof is the same for every other of the crime right but there's no evidence that was submitted she lives here her business was based here I think there's a basis for reasonable belief that she was initiating these contexts forming these schemes from some count well I just want to make the record I don't believe they've established jurisdiction or venue on any of those accounts furthermore on the um I I don't see why the two insurance fraud counts don't merge here by uh correct me if I'm wrong I'm seen several merger issues in this information but merger is a fact issue that's handled after conviction am I right about that not at a preliminary hear after not after conviction before you said after conviction you meant after is it before submitting it to the jury or after merger yeah um I always do it as a pre-trial motion but okay I may be wrong I may be doing it wrong I don't think it gets considered though a preliminary hearing is a matter of law well if it's I think if you determine at a preliminary hearing that two counts are actually one act that you cannot push forward one of them absolutely I think you could do that have a citation for that I thought it was the opposite of a prary hearing well I think you would just argue that they can't play they can't make two separate counts so there's not sufficient reason to believe that a second crime is committed because it's all one so that's your finding that it's a reason you can't reasonably believe the second crime was committed cuz it's just one crime because the scheme swallows the allegation of the um filling out of the application I mean it swallows it so take a look at this yeah and then I think on the rest we would just submit on the other cser all right so let's just be clear to the extent that merger needs to be considered as part of the probable cause determination that's going to mean that one and three merge right yes two and four merge no no not one and three attempted murder is on a separate day it wouldn't one is three two and four I'm sorry let me look at one one and three is getting my numbers mixed up so the distribution counts merge into the a murder and a attempt right no those would be two separate crimes tell me why you can't them without dis uh doing the distribution right right they I think they don't merge though they're separate crimes like distribution is a separate offense than the attempted murder okay so they wouldn't merge isn't uh on the one hand uh forging a signature in on the other other hand making a false statement when trying to uh uh collect on the claim why aren't those two separate crimes what is the the two insurance fraud charges because that's that is the same offense insurance fraud is not two separate offenses and what they did is they said she created a scheme to wrongfully get insurance fraud and part of that scheme was she signed the application and they just charged insurance fraud twice there's talking about the forgery you have talking about the two Insurance broad charges I think they merged all right um just to be clear you think they merg because it is the same uh fruit of the criminal conduct that is there was only one policy right that's correct okay I understand that's correct thank you thank you can I just have one minute before I sit of course [Music] just one more thing your and I guess maybe the last thing I would say too is there's so many reasons that Mr Rich could have not F Well that day and taken a nap and to get over the hump of saying you're going to stand trial for attempted aggravated murder which is about the next to most serious charge you can ever be charged with because he went to take a nap is pushing it your honor we're just asking that the court exercise your gatekeeping function let's remove that from the the confusion that will cause the jury the Prejudice that will cause the jury the complete lack of foundation um we're asking that the court take the rarest of steps and say this one will not go forward um and we submit on that okay thanks Mr BL y real quick on just the merger issue it's two different policies count 7 relates to the I think $250,000 true stage policy and count in count8 I think relates to the $100,000 policy that is not the way it is charged I think that is your need to amend the information if you want to do that I frankly I don't think there's any allegation of fraud or there's any uh tell me why there's a any reasonable belief regarding fraud related to $250,000 policy fraud in the claim saying that I don't know why Eric richson that's not what she said with respect to the $250,000 claim that was only with respect to the $100,000 claim it's two separate Diaries this is why I'm asking y I think in paid out at different times sure in the one diary though they discuss both the policies I don't think that's true you can show me but I looked at them carefully yesterday sep Diaries regarding separate uh separate policy let me let me ask you this is this an issue you're considering and so I can show it to you but I don't know that it's a i You' be saying in count 7 is based upon statements made during the process of collecting the proceeds in June uh count 8 is the scheme to get the policy with intent to kill a ORS to collect so this is this is 20175 yes are you referring to the statement Mr bister of NOK known drugs occasional cannabis use no that that came out of the medical records your honor it's exhibit 18 page one it's the last not ah I see what you're referring to so this is 03 hold on a second let's get to my apologies I backwards okay so count 7 thank you for this clarification is resp with respect to the $250,000 policy got it thank you for that clarification your honor regarding the 404b discussion you know the purpose of admitting the evidence is further to many of the exceptions you know propensity uh intent preparation lack of accident nearly all of them um 44 B just relates to whether or not the defendant um acts in conform with her character whether that's prospectively or retrospectively is irrelevant the um most of the defense's argument against bind over the attempted homicide count as the court kind of noted um a lot of that goes to the jury a lot of that was arguing counterveiling evidence as the court is well aware the standard today is not withstanding counterveiling evidence whether that's counterveiling evidence of how quickly Eric richens eats his eggs or whether he goes shopping beforehand or after hand um it's counterveiling evidence it does not apply to the courts and analysis uh today um part of that counterveiling evidence I find it ironic that Council argued we hadn't heard one piece of evidence from Eric Richards what questions does the court have I understand the state's position I understand you to be saying conduct in March is evidence of other acts admissible to prove ano I understand stat and the Lessons Learned I think is is very important you know I you know we've had some discussion with defense Council also as it relates to the standards that issue for the probable cause determination and I think the court has sufficient evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the state when giving the state all the reasonable inferences not withstanding the counterveiling evidence to find probable cause here even without the 404b part the 404b part helps certainly um but I don't even think it's necessary for the court to get to a probable cause determination and you know Schmidt in discussing probable cause references that you know probable cause in a preliminary hearing is the same as probable cause for an arrest warrant and if the state were to set forth all the evidence it has put um you know referenced in its brief argued here today in charge an attempted murder and ask for an arrest warrant on the information search warrant or a search warrant right and if the state submitted it to 100 judges in Utah 100 of them would issue that warrant check a speculation it's a argument over I understand the stayes point okay it is 11:29 we're going to come back at 11:50 oh my apologies quickly I checked the EM report um it did reference the fact that he was positive for Co but it did not talk about allergies in the IM report that's where I thought it might be but I'll keep looking and see if I can find it but I do know that he he was did test positive for Co understood thank you 1150 cours in recess thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e what e e I hope you feel better thank you party yes technically IC I e e e e e e e e e e e e e e we're back on the record in case 231 00139 M Nester we had a conversation before the break about the merger Doctrine I confirm that as a matter of law merger does not apply before trial and in fact the protections provided by the merger Doctrine are not applicable before trial the trial court cannot assess whether under the particular facts of the case one charge emerges into another until the prosecution has presented its case and the jury has convicted the defendant of mult IAL charges thus under sty Lopez 2004 Utah have 410 thank you honor which brings us to a discussion of what we are and are not doing today first what we're not doing we are not determining in any degree guilt at all M richens was Presumed Innocent of all charges yesterday she is Presumed Innocent of all charges today and she will remain Presumed Innocent of all charges through trial nothing the court says today affects her presumption of innocence in any way preliminary hearing is a specific thing with a specific legal standard the state's burden at a preliminary hearing is to show probable cause for each offense charged and the Court must bind a defend over a defendant over for trial if the prosecution presents evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it so even though the Utah Constitution provides criminal defendants with a fundamental right to a preliminary hearing the evidentiary Threshold at such a hearing is relatively low at this stage of a criminal proceeding the prosecution need not eliminate alternative inferences that could be drawn from the evidence in favor of the defense and in reaching the bind over decision the court must refrain from assessing whether the prosecution's inference is more plausible than an alternative that cuts in favor of the defense instead the court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution and the court must leave all weighing of credible but conflicting evidence to the jury here having reviewed the evidence admitted including the 1102 statements the documentary exhibits that were pre- admitted having considered the admissible sworn testimony of witnesses that testified Li the court reaches the following determinations first for the reasons described at the detention hearing which remain valid today the court has sorry the uh prosecution has shown probable cause the count one aggravated murder and count three dist distribution of a controlled substance both of which uh relate to events that are alleged to have occurred onon our about March 3rd and 4th of 2022 are supported by probable cause m richens is bound over for trial on counts 1 and three with respect to count two attempted aggravated murder alleged to have occurred on February 14 of 2022 the prosecution has admitted evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief of the following facts and events that January of 2022 Corey richens secured a life insurance policy on her husband's death or her husband's life through fraudulent means that she had a significant financial incentive to secure his death because she would do better under the premier agreement if he were dead and her businesses were highly leveraged then on February 14th she purchased food for them both both including him she described as lunch in her text message to her friend in June she was not honest about where she was going that day or what she was doing after she left the family home Eric had a significant reaction to something that day sufficient to make him consider going to the hospital the St has admitted evidence that fenel can cause a serious reaction ction there's significant evidence at least to support a probable cause finding that M richens had secured fentanyl by February 11th and that on or about February 26 she contacted her Source again and said she needed something stronger these facts taken together would support issuance of a search warrant to investigate whether Miss richens had attempted to cause the death of her husband they would support issuance of an arrest warrant for her arrest unattempted murder and they are sufficient to support bind over under the probable cause standard uh for attempted aggravated murder on February 14 2022 the court makes this determination without considering the probable cause that indicates that M Rich has actually caused the death of her husband on March 4th and so while the court is considering evidence of statements made by his Orin and actions taken by his Orin after February 14th it is not not that action that is the alleged successful completion of the attempt rather the actions and statements the court is considering that occurred after February 14 are her text messages to prepare more to the effect of I wish he would just go away or if my husband would just go away her contact with her source of Controlled Substances seeking something stronger which at least a reasonable inference that the stuff she got before did not give her the results she wanted and her statements on June 18 2022 to her best friend um that she provided a lunch and this of course includes the evidence from the morning of February 14 that she did in fact buy vot from the Mirror Lake D taken together viewed in the evidence in the light most re to the state drawing all reasonable inferences in the state's favor this evidence supports a non-speculative inference that M richens attempted to murder her husband with fenel on February 14th having drawn that determination uh it also requires the court to bind her over her trial on count 4 which is the distribution charge related to February 14th we pause there before we get to the financial charges Mr Bloodworth you need any clarification of Court's ruling so far no honor thank you made l no okay all right count six and seven mortgage fraud with respect to the Iron Bridge Loan and the boomerang finance loan respectively are bound over counts 7 and8 insurance fraud with respect to the $250,000 true stage policy and then a scheme uh with respect to the $100,000 true stfe life insurance policy respectively are value over what's that is I think you just said six and seven and seven and eight and you skipped five my apologies five and six are Iron Bridge and Boomerang respectively seven and eight are the $250,000 two stage policy and the one the scheme related to the $100,000 dollar true stage policy respectively 9 10 and 11 are fory counts related to the altered America First Credit Union uh account statement submitted in respect to the Ironbridge and Boomerang finance loans and with number 11 the forged signature on the 100,000 true stage life insurance application Mr Bloodworth any clarification no thank is ne ne okay let's pause there for a sec uh M caner Miss Lewis I imagine Miss richens would like to inter pleas of not guilty to all charges correct does she wave reading of the third amended information we wave reading all right the court m richin is entering pleas of not guilty to counts 1 through 11 in the third amended information where lights go from here we'd like to S trial have you had a reasonably detailed conversation with State about numbers of witnesses length of time cuz I'm going to have some questions we have discussed it and what we have what we have uh agreed to I don't know if it works with the court calendar is we would like to set aside four weeks basically month May to try the case so we think that would include jury selection so we figure the jury selection is going to be at least a week and 3 weeks for trial you give any thought to pre-trial motion practice we have discussions regarding jury election it's going to be some questions regarding preserving the Integrity of the jury selection process correct we've discussed it um we haven't set particular dates for motions although I believe we thought it would be too yeah we should to rounds of uh pre-trial briefing and motions and that we need to do a scheduling on or we need to do a scheduling order on those motions and brief can we start having those conversations regarding pre-trial deadlines maybe at a pre-trial conference in mid September yes we're in trial until September 20th though so actually we could just late September like yeah after that does that make sense Mr L yes okay give me just a moment yeah that's my next question Council I have a couple of questions here if you're not prepared to answer these we can continue this discussion but first rather than the entire month of May we just say the last week of April the first 3 weeks of may we were a little bit worried because I think Easter's really late this year and um Memorial is included the so I you're right frying pan Into the Fire more to the point My Signing week is the last week of May on Memorial Day it could be tough for me to shight out of that um we I think we checked this we were trying to avoid spring bre oh excuse me hold on a second I'm in the wrong let's try this again my apologies oh it is there again did I get Memorial Day twice is that possible hold on a second I did we'll review who I pissed off to get that but uh with two questions one that will be hard to trade out of two I need my Fridays right I think we took that into consideration when we decided we thought it would take 3 weeks okay uh well for kind jury selection um the only concern we had was about Easter week that people traveled and we we're trying to avoid losing jurors who might travel over Easter so that's why we started it almost rather push it to the first week of June and and take that dat is it a week that you do the whatever oh I don't know that is so Easter in 2025 is April 20th I think we're going to be okay okay then we could do the last week of April so what I'm asking yeah is April 28th through May 22 right not including Fridays right the idea being that jury selection would be April 28 through May 1 say again yeah so then let's talk um we going to have lots of questions about how we're going to do this we're going to have to we'll have a discussion about whether we're doing half days each of those days for jury selection whether we're going to ask jurors to be available the whole day each of those days whether we we'll need to have a discussion about whether we're doing four V iries one for each day right I do anticipate your honor there will be a lot of the individual board dire based on the uh I me and so we'll want to be thoughtful about how many we have to come each day right um I'll need to reserve sufficient resources in terms of people power and jury selection slots Third District policy is we do this during the ver using the virtual jury selection system you're going to have to file a motion inside of extraordinary circumstances it's not my decision um okay we can have that discussion too right yeah so right now we need to take the 930 slot each day that's fine block it for now we discussion what's just we can change the Britney what do we have going on in the afternoon of September 27th freedoms yes 3 yeah we said we set 1 3 p.m. sure uh Council are you available on the morning of the 26th or the 26th before say 2:00 p.m. I may be in a trial would it be all right if if I can't make it if Miss when you try we might both be in trial there's a chance we could be in trial that day a chance it's it's set for 3-day trial I'm sorry it's set for 3 days and um I think it's only going to take two it's a trial down in Sal Lake so we could just tentatively set it if need to well in the afternoon better in case we can't wait on a jury or something all right let's avoid that day 27th is bad what's the christas if we could do it remotely we could definitely on the 26th in the morning in the afternoon in the afternoon would be better I'm I'm sure the judge would give us if we need to step out and do a take a break I I I've already moved to hear any once I'm sorry I can't do it in the afternoon okay bear with me I'm sure this is like nails on a shalk board all I apologize so he said something at 3 we have at 130 that's what do we have on or the yeah [Music] 25th oh goodness all right uh Council uh the morning of October 22 October 22 n can't do that I'm sorry my goodness this is the problem I'm gonna have to push something out of the way M richens uh I apologize I'm thinking about this the wrong way M Lis M Nester I think we need to hold an initial pre-trial conference to start talking through pre-trial deadlines and start talking about a jury selection tell me when you'd like to do it I will make room 30th of September Monday I unfortunately be out of state that whole week that I can't fix what about October week about the afternoon of the 23rd later September September 23rd later afternoon like 3 we'll make it worth it uh would you like that to be in person or by WebEx whatever you prefer we'll probably come up a prefer a person is 3 p.m. or yes sir okay Mr blood yes sir all right we'll set a pre-trial conference for September 23 at 300 p.m. in person thank you Council I need you to start talking to each other about issues you anticipate pre-draw deadlines I won't be able to see around every corner I would appreciate your input given your experience on how you'd like to conduct this when you start talking about your a selection uh to the extent I'm going to have to ask for special treatment favors or the extent you want to file motions to try and secure an exception from the standard practice in the Third District we need to get R I would prefer that you have notice of how you're going to be taking the jury in this case as early as possible okay Mr BL anything to that go your honor thank you yes Lis no m m no sir thank you Mr Ras nothing thank you m richin I'll see you again on September 23 at 300 p.m. I wish you the best of luck courts and recess thank you e e e