Kouri Richins Convicted: Legal Analyst Kelly Hyman Breaks Down Fentanyl Murder Case | Crime House 24/7

Hi listeners, it's Vanessa Richardson.

Real quick before today's episode, I want to tell you about another show from Crime House

that I know you'll love.

America's most infamous crimes.

Posted by Katie Ring.

Each week Katie takes on one of the most notorious criminal cases in American history.

Serial killers who terrorized cities, unsolved mysteries that keep detectives up at night,

and investigations that change the way we think about justice.

Coming to and follow America's most infamous crimes, Tuesday through Thursday on Apple

podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Good morning everyone, I'm Vanessa Richardson, and this is Crime House 24-7.

You're home for Breaking True Crime News.

Today we're taking a slight turn from our usual format for an extended discussion on a case

that has captivated the Crime House community and national headlines alike.

The Corey Richens murder trial.

To help unpack the legal dimensions of this case, how prosecutors built their argument,

what the verdict means, and what it reveals about proving a poisoning crime in court, I'm

joined today by Kelly Hyman, an attorney and legal analyst.

On this show we spend a lot of time focused on details because details can change how

you understand a case, and in travel details change how you understand a place.

For travel that gets the details right, visit gocolet.com slash podcast, and use offer

code Travel26 to get $200 off select Colet Explorations tours.

Colet small group explorations tours are designed with that same focus on details.

You're led by experts and locals who know the destination inside and out, and groups

stay small with an average of just 19 travelers, so the experience feels more personal.

You might take part in a centuries old tea ceremony in Japan, guided by the meaning and

tradition behind every step, or explore Southern Africa on expert led safaris that spend

multiple days on game drives, giving you time to truly understand the landscape and wildlife.

With Colet you get immersive travel bill on thoughtful planning, local expertise, and

more than a century of experience behind it.

For travel that gets the details right, visit gocolet.com slash podcast, and use offer

code Travel26 to get $200 off select Colet Explorations tours.

Today on Crime House 247 we're unpacking the Corey Richens murder trial with attorney

Kelly Hyman.

Kelly, welcome to the show, tell us a little bit about your background and walk our listeners

through the Corey Richens case.

What happened, how we got here, and what stands out to you most from a legal perspective.

It's great to be with you.

Thank you so much for having me.

My name is Kelly Hyman.

I am a TV legal analyst, and I also represent victims, survivors of sex trafficking, human

trafficking, and people that have been harmed.

This case that we are discussing today has gotten a lot of national attention.

People are always fascinated with this case, and here's why.

Here's one side of the story is a grieving wife who lost her husband.

She wrote a book about it to help deal with the grief that she was going through.

However, from the prosecutor's standpoint, there is a woman who's been charged and that

she allegedly, and now she has been convicted, killed her husband, and her sole reason for

doing that was in fact financial gain, that she was having a very difficult time money

wise, and that she allegedly thought it was going to be more beneficial economically

to have her husband dead rather than have him be alive.

It's a horrifying thought, and for listeners who are following this case, but maybe hung

up on one key detail, the prosecution never proved how the poison, the fentanyl, got into

Eric's body.

So how did they get a conviction if there's no proof?

Ultimately, that is for the jury to decide based on the facts and evidence presented in

this case.

The prosecution brings the case, and so what that means from a legal perspective, as they

must prove every single element of the causes of action, the charges, the criminal charges

in this case.

So what the prosecution did was tell a story.

They laid out a story in painted a picture from their perspective.

Their perspective was here is a woman that was struggling financially.

They had someone testify to go over the financial aspect of the case, saying what the discrepancy

was of how much money she had, millions of dollars in debt, and then they also used witnesses

to help establish their case and to help establish motive.

Now, it's important to note that in this case, motive is not an element of the charge.

And what that means is from a legal perspective that the prosecution had to have intent, that

this was premeditated.

But they didn't in fact have to prove motive, but jurors usually sit on these type of cases.

And they think to themselves, why did someone do this?

Why did they want to do this?

What was their reasoning behind that?

And that's where, in fact, the financial aspect, the financial gain really hit home for

the jury based on their conviction.

That financial aspect hit a lot of different elements of this case.

One of the most striking elements, I think, was the forensic accountant who spent an entire

day on the stand walking the jury through Corey's finances.

The millions of dollars she was in debt and how much her husband's life insurance policy

was worth.

We don't often think of accountants as star witnesses in murder trials.

How does his financial testimony, like that, factor into building a circumstantial case?

What does it tell jurors that other types of evidence can't?

That was the star witness for this case.

And here's why, because when jurors usually sit on the jury, they can weigh the credibility

of someone.

So what that means is someone credible.

Is that person believable?

Here's someone testifying going over the numbers.

And someone would say, the numbers do not lie.

If you look at the numbers, and if you're a numbers person, and here is one scenario

of how much she would be worth if, in fact, they got a divorce, allegedly 700,000, but

in the fact that he no longer lived over a million dollars, which is sad when you think

about it from that standpoint that someone is allegedly solely motivated by money to do

something and kill someone.

But that expert, as you talked about, is key because it connects the dots of why someone

did something.

And the prosecution laid it out and built their case and used different people as witnesses,

as experts, to help substantiate their case for the jury.

Another key witness was a housekeeper named Carmen Lawber, who testified that Cory Astrid

had to acquire drugs multiple times, and that she purchased fentanyl on Cory's behalf.

But the defense spent a significant amount of time attacking her credibility, her history

of drug use and consistencies in her statements, the immunity deal she had with prosecutors.

So how do prosecutors manage a case where their most important witness is also their most

vulnerable one?

To be transparent, and what that means is to lay all the cards on the table.

A smart prosecutor will deal with those issues up front.

And so what that means is they're the one that tells the jury about it, whether it's

this person has a plea deal or discuss their past.

So then that way there is credibility to the witness.

Now, from the defendant's standpoint, they can poke holes as you pointed out about the

immunity deal, because the immunity deal, from the defense standpoint, it shows why

someone wants to do something, right?

From the defense standpoint, this person, the housekeeper, who is making testimony that's

going to hurt the defendant, has ulterior motives.

The only reason that they're testifying is because it's going to benefit them, thus they

have a plea deal.

However, by the prosecution laying that in the beginning, bringing that up front, also

about alleged drug use, it really helps pay in a picture of like, okay, here's the bad

stuff.

We're telling you, we're letting you know about this, but that doesn't mean that the

person is not credible.

Just because the person got a plea deal doesn't mean what they're telling you is not truthful.

Now, from the defense standpoint, they would say, no, that is not the case, because they

have the deal, they are motivated to make sure that they maintain that immunity deal.

And what immunity means is that, depending on the exact particulars of the immunity,

that they're not going to be charged to crime.

That potentially there is some kind of involvement by them, but I'm going to testify, and therefore

I am not going to go to jail.

And I guess it's up to the jury at that point, right, hearing both sides of this particular

aspect.

Exactly.

The jury is going to weigh credibility, and I think that's really important when you

think about that stuff, that they are, in fact, the finders of facts.

So when they hear someone, they can determine whether someone is, in fact, believable, whether

someone's honest, whether someone is credible, do they act like they're trying to hide something,

or are they truthful?

Are they transparent?

Are they accountable by saying, yes, I'm getting this plea deal, but I'm still going to tell

you the truth.

Yes, I have inconsistent statements.

It's because I have had some issues with substance abuse.

It's interesting.

Cell phone records played a big role in corroborating lobbyist testimony, placing her and the drug

dealer near the gas station on key dates showing deleted messages and capturing Corey Texting

Lobber, asking if she still had her hookup days after Eric died.

Can you explain how digital evidence functions in a circumstantial case like this?

Digital evidence is really important, and here's why it also helps establish that when someone's

testifying the housekeeper that she, in fact, is telling the truth, and it could be supported

by something else.

So if you have someone that may have potentially some credibility issues due to the fact that

they have a plea deal or the fact of potentially inconsistent statements, if you have additional

evidence that helps support their position, then when the jury considers it, not only are

they considering their testimony, but then there's also evidence, kind of like a backup,

something that's kind of going to support their position, and it gives it more weight.

It gives it more credibility, and potentially is key in this type of case.

When we come back, Kelly Hyman will continue to unpack everything we know about the Corey

Richens case.

Do you have $10,000 or more in credit card debt?

Maybe you're even barely getting by by making minimum payments.

With credit card debt hitting record highs, national debt relief offers real debt relief

solutions for people struggling to keep up.

These options may reduce a large portion of credit card debt for those who qualify.

You don't need to declare bankruptcy, and you may be able to pay back less than you owe,

regardless of your credit.

National debt relief has already reduced the credit card debt for more than 550,000 consumers.

So don't wait.

If you owe $10,20, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, you can now take

advantage of this financial debt relief as the cost of living increases.

To find out how much you could save, visit nationaldebtrelief.com.

That's nationaldebtrelief.com.

Zootopia 2 has come home to Disney Plus.

Let's go!

Get ready for a new case.

We're the greatest partners of all time.

New friends.

Give it this night.

And your last name?

This night.

Dream team.

Big new habitats.

Zootopia has a secret reptile population.

You can watch the record breaking phenomenon at home.

Zootopia 2.

Now available on Disney Plus rated PG.

Here right now you can get Disney Plus and Hulu for just $4.99 a month for three months

with a special limit to time offer ends March 24th.

With three months plan auto renews in $12.99 a month, terms apply.

Welcome back to Crime House 24-7.

We're discussing the Corey Richens case.

So interesting.

Corey's defense rested without calling a single witness, and Corey herself chose not

to testify.

So from a legal strategy standpoint, how do you read that decision?

Is that calculated to keep the jury focused on the prosecution's burden of proof?

Or does it carry risks of its own?

Both.

So the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

And what that means is that there should be no doubt.

Now a civil case, the burden is lower, and it's more of a preponderance of the evidence,

kind of like more likely than 50%.

But in the criminal case, in this case, the burden is on the prosecution.

So defendants, since the burden is on the prosecution, they still have an opportunity

during the trial to cross examine one of the prosecution's witnesses.

And what that means is a prosecutor will put on a witness.

They will testify to certain facts.

And then the defendant has the opportunity to poke holes at that testimony to show potentially

inconsistent statements, to show bias, anything they can to poke holes in a fact that is

not believable or it's not reliable of their testimony when we look at that from a legal

perspective as well.

Now in regards to whether someone decides to testify or not in a criminal case, ultimately

that is the client's decision.

And an attorney can advise a client and say, I do not think it's a good idea for you

to testify and here's why.

You get on the witness stand and I can ask you questions.

But then the prosecution gets to cross examine you.

And sometimes a client will say, thanks for the advice, but I want to testify.

Or a client may say, I know you think otherwise, but I want to do what I want to do.

If attorney says, I think you should testify, client say, no, I do not want to do that.

It's too stressful for me.

I don't feel comfortable doing that.

So ultimately the client make that decision, but the attorney most likely told her that

it wasn't a good idea because of the cross examination of the case and that's going

to open you up about all the financial stuff and your motive and all the messages that

were sent, all the alleged deleted messages that were sent.

And that as someone would say is a Pandora's box.

And so she decided not to testify, which is her right to do.

And there was also important to note that when this happens, you have a right not to

testify and that the jury should not assume because you do not testify in fact that you

are guilty of the charges.

While you were explaining, I was thinking the jury would might read into that.

So that's very interesting.

They should not take that into account as far as guilt, you know, because she doesn't,

she chooses not to testify on her own behalf.

That does not necessarily mean guilt, but that's I guess up to the jury at that point.

Yes.

And that's the criminal case.

When in the court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty and that's one of the questions

usually attorneys ask the questions of the potential jurors because some people have preconceived

ideas.

Sometimes people have preconceived notion.

You have a high profile case like this and potentially jurors already have made up their

mind.

And so if you have someone that has pre-consisting ideas of someone's already guilty before

the evidence is proven, then there's an issue because they can't be fair and impartial.

And that's really important and that goes to the point of your innocent until proven guilty.

And then also it goes to the point of in fact that just because she didn't testify does

not mean that she's guilty.

You have to prove someone is guilty of the crime.

So Corey has been convicted, but sensing hasn't happened yet.

So what does that process look like from here?

And given that she's facing 25 years to life on the aggravated murder charge alone, what

range of outcomes are realistically on the table for her at this point?

So during the sentencing, which as it stands right now is going to happen in May, judges

usually like to hear impact statements to hear from family members of what it's like to

lose someone, what they believe that the punishment should be.

From the defendant, sometimes defendants will have a written statement of what they want

to say.

Now it's important to remember that most likely in this case that there is going to be

an appeal of this verdict.

And so a defense attorney might be mindful of that and work with his client, the defendant

about if you're in fact going to say something, be mindful of what you say and work out potentially

a statement or not say anything at all.

But since the severity of this case and that in fact that she was found guilty, I could

potentially see that she could spend the rest of her life in jail, but it's also important

to remember that this is not the only trial that she has.

There's another one coming as well.

Still ahead, Kelly Hyman continues our conversation on Corey Richens.

Your little one grew three inches overnight, adorable, also expensive.

Sell their pint-sized pieces on D-POP and list them in minutes with no selling fees.

Because somewhere, a dad refuses to pay full price for the clothes his kid will outgrow

tomorrow.

And he's ready to buy your son's entire wardrobe right now.

Are your future growth bird budget secured?

Start selling on D-POP, where taste recognizes taste.

Pay me processing fees and boosting fees still apply, see website for details.

Jackson Hewitt has a great tax prep deal, $149 or less, missing out is like ignoring the

check engine light in your car.

You regret it.

Seriously, the price is only $149 or less, no matter how complicated.

So don't wait.

When you get a password expired, sit alert or you're shopping online and there's only

one item left.

It's like your taxes are in the cart, just complete the purchase.

Hurry, this deal for $149 or less is like your phone at 1%.

It's about to power down.

Limited time offer for new clients on federal returns, participating locations only

turns the Jackson Hewitt dot com slash $149.

Welcome back to Crime House 24-7.

We're discussing the Corey Richens case with Attorney Kelly Hyman.

This is not the only trial that she has.

That's right, she's facing a separate case involving nearly three dozen additional counts,

mortgage fraud, forgery, money laundering and more.

For listeners who may not realize these are two distinct legal proceedings, can you explain

how that works?

So there is the criminal case, the murder case in which she was found guilty of.

That's one component.

And also, another trial is going to happen in regards to the financial aspect, the allegations

of getting a mortgage allegedly without her late husband's approval, using fraud, right,

getting money by fraud.

Those are serious charges and also face serious penalty of potential time.

In jail, and ultimately, if it, in fact, found guilty, the judge will make a determination

about not only that aspect, the alleged mortgage fraud and the financial gain aspect, but

the criminal case, and most likely, she will spend the rest of her life in jail.

Having said that, she will most likely appeal and that will work itself through the court

system and play a role what could potentially happen in the future.

What grounds might Corey's legal team realistically pursue an appeal?

As many as they can possibly establish, whether it is about a change of venue, that she did

not get jurors that were fair and impartial, she could also challenge it about certain

evidence presented.

She could also challenge it on certain rulings as well.

So when you look at that, you kind of look at, as we would say, the totality of the circumstances.

So if there is a legal ground or legal basis for it, some people have filed appeals based

on their assistance of council.

So there's a lot of variety that she could potentially appeal on, but I could potentially

see the venue as a possibility, was in, you know, fair and impartial and allowing certain

evidence in because there was some issues about certain evidence that was, was let in,

and one letter that was let in, her attorney argued that it was attorney client privilege

and the judge ultimately ruled that the letter was in fact not attorney client privilege

and the letter could have significant impacts when the jury ultimately decided the case

on whether or not she was guilty or innocent.

So anything along those lines during the trial or beforehand about rulings could potentially

be on appeal.

We're going to have to wait and see if she does that, but my crystal ball is broken,

but I would assume that, that she would definitely, if there's a legal basis, her attorney will

file an appeal based on something that, that happened.

Kelly, thank you so much.

Are there any final thoughts before we wrap up today?

In these type of cases, I think it's important to remember the family members of her late

husband.

He was murdered, she was convicted of that and the effect that it had on them.

My heart and prayer goes out to the family to, to lose a loved one and to lose a loved

one by your own spouse.

It's saddening that something like that would happen.

I wish the best for the family members and I hope that they get some kind of peace

in this matter.

Beautifully said, thank you so much, Kelly.

So Corey wrote a children's book after her husband passed away, apparently for her children

and also to share with other people about bereavement of, you know, losing someone special

in your life.

How can that be used in a courtroom as evidence or, or how can that be used?

From defense standpoint, here is a woman, a mother who lost her husband and is dealing

with the grief of losing someone so young and that she wrote this book as, someone

would say therapy, a way to deal with the grief of losing someone that you love.

Also from the defendants standpoint, defendants would assert that it shows her innocence.

Here is someone that is grieving, that has lost her husband and she wrote this book in

order to deal with the process because she lost him and was grieving.

Therefore she did not kill her husband.

The other side of the coin from the prosecution standpoint, the argument would be made is

just because she wrote the book does not mean in fact that she is not guilty of those

crimes, but also further substantiates the fact that this was motivated by money.

Here she wrote a book to get more money because she was struggling so hard financially

that the defendant was in such debt that she not only killed her husband because it was

more economically beneficial for her rather than getting a divorce that she would receive

$700,000 rather than over a million dollars, but also rotting the book in order to gain more money.

Very interesting, both sides.

Thank you so much again for joining us on Crime House 24-7.

This trial raises real questions about how far a circumstantial case can carry a prosecution

and how juries weigh evidence when there's no smoking gun.

You've helped our listeners understand not just what happened in that courtroom, but why

it matters legally.

We appreciate you walking us through it with heart also.

Thank you so much and we'll have to have you back as sentencing approaches to really

go over this again and see what's going on.

That would be great.

Thanks so much Kelly.

Thanks for listening to today's episode.

Not sure what to listen to next.

Check out America's most infamous crimes hosted by Katie Ring from serial killers to unsolved

mysteries and game-changing investigations.

Each week Katie takes on a notorious criminal case in American history.

Listen to and follow America's most infamous crimes now wherever you listen to podcasts.