Kouri Richins Claims THIS Bombshell Evidence Proves She's Not a Killer

Could Cor Corey Richens be set free both. now and for good? We got to talk about. the defense's new bombshell allegation. claiming that prosecutors failed to not. only turn over evidence, but evidence. that allegedly clears her of the murder. of her husband, Eric. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. Is Corey Richens about to get a major. major win? That is quite a statement. It. is quite a statement since we always. talk about the mounting evidence against.

her, against this wife accused of. poisoning her husband. Well, it may all. center around a key witness. Okay, let. me explain. So, Richens is accused of. murdering her husband, Eric Richens, back in March of 2022 that she spiked. his drink, a Moscow mule, with fentanyl. the night of his death. And when I say. that there is mounting evidence, what do. I mean? So, she allegedly told. authorities that she found her husband. unresponsive at the foot of the bed when. she woke up at 3:00 a.m. But Eric.

apparently had five times the lethal. dose of fentanyl in his system. That's. according to authorities that when. authorities looked at her phones, they. allegedly found searches for women Utah. prison. Can cops uncover deleted. messages iPhone. If someone is poisoned, what does it go down on the death. certificate as? How long does life. insurance companies take to pay? What is. a lethal dose of fentanyl that she. allegedly tried to poison Eric's.

sandwich the month before on Valentine's. Day? He apparently got so sick that he. broke out in hives. That Eric allegedly. told a friend, "I think my wife tried to. poison me." that behind Eric's back she. took out a $250,000 home equity line of. credit, that she may have forged his. signature, that she was in debt while. Eric was worth millions, and talking. money, that she is accused of opening. life insurance policies on her husband. without his knowledge to the tune of $2. million. And of course, if you're. familiar with this case, you will know.

that she is the woman who published a. book called Are You With Me? after. Eric's death that she said could help. kids cope with loss. and she even went. on local media talking about it. And now. she's accused of murdering Eric. So. yeah, all of that is not great. That's a. sampling of the evidence that. prosecutors seem to have against her. And she's facing multiple counts. including murder, financial crimes. But. there is one other key piece of. evidence, one other key piece of. evidence that may tie all of this. together. And the update I want to talk.

about right now is whether it. jeopardizes the whole case. Because. here's the question. Where would Corey. Richens have gotten the drugs from? Right. Where would she have gotten the. fentinyl? Well, prosecutors say she got. those pills from her housekeeper, Carmen. Labour, who apparently spoke with. investigators about this. According to a. search warrant affidavit, quote, "Lobber. admitted to supplying Corey Richens with. 15 to 30 fentinel pills on two separate. occasions approximately 1 month before.

Eric's death. She stated Corey paid her. approximately $900 each time she. supplied the pills. She provided details. of the solicitation of the drugs, the. pickup and drop off locations, and other. pertinent details that have been. corroborated with digital forensic. evidence. So, slam dunk, right? All well. and good for the prosecution. Not quite. No. Here's the problem. Richen's defense team, they are now. arguing that wait a second, Lowber.

allegedly says she got the pills from a. guy named Robert Crosier. But he denies. doing this, that he sold Lowber. Oxycontton, not fentanyl. That the only. reason Lobber thinks she gave fentanyl. to Richens is because that's what she. thinks she was given by Crosier. This is. a big development. So Crosier allegedly. recanted his previous statement. So. according to NBC, he allegedly had said. back in 2023 that he sold Lowber.

Fentanel. And when asked now, why did. you change your story? Crosier allegedly. said he doesn't remember what he said. back in the day that he was in the. middle of detoxing and he was quote out. of it. He now claims he's sober. According to his affidavit, Crosier. says, "On May 4th, 2023, I had been in. jail for a short time and was detoxing. from drug use. I do not have any. personal recollection of the details of. that interview, although I have since.

been told that I agreed that I had sold. fentanyl to Carmen Lauer in 2022 on two. occasions. According to Crosier's. affidavit, he told who he thought were. prosecutors in a meeting in April of. 2025 that this wasn't true. Quote, "Mr. Bworth and the other individual asked me. if I had sold fentanyl to Carmen Labour. I told them no. I sold Oxycontton to. Carmen Lowber on two occasions in early. 2022. I told them that I met her at the. Maverick in Draper both times to sell. her the pills. I told them that I was.

certain that I had sold Carmen Labour. Oxycottton 30 mgram pills otherwise. known as Roxy's or Roxy 30s. They asked. me several times if I was sure and I. told them yes. I was sure. I sold her. Oxycontton. So, in other words, defense. attorneys are arguing that not only did. prosecutors interview him in April, that. they learned all of this, but maybe most. importantly, they didn't tell the. defense. That is the allegation. The. defense filing states, "The prosecution.

has been aware of this exculpatory. evidence since April of this year, meaning evidence to show that the. defendant is not guilty. The prosecution. did not inform the defense of this. information. No press release was. issued, no reports, nothing. The. prosecution just kept quiet. Let me say. this real quick. Even if you're not a. journalist, okay, staying on top of. what's going on in this world is so. important. But I will tell you, these. days with all the media bias, the. mistrust, it can feel nearly impossible. to know what to actually believe, right?

Well, that is why I want to introduce. you to our sponsor, Straight Arrow News. So Straight Hour News is a personalized. news platform that empowers readers with. unbiased fact-based journalism. Reporting that informs, educates, and. actually builds trust from across the. political spectrum. So how does it work? So its media mist tool opens readers. eyes to reporting that is not seen in. biased mainstream outlets, providing. useful commentary and analysis and. source transparency along the way so. that readers can see what's really. happening versus what's just sensational. spin. But the difference between.

straight hour news and other platforms. is that their site and app declares the. biases of their sources. Their media. landscape tool groups and displays. outlets according to their leanings to. deliver maximum transparency. So if. you're ready for a better way to get the. news, then go to sn.com/sidebar. or just click the link in my. description, straightourne. You can skip. the drama, get the facts. Welcome back. to trustworthy journalism. And the. defense claims that the only reason they. found out about all of this is because. they interviewed Crosier last month. And.

here's the big idea as laid up by the. defense in court documents. Here, the. prosecution failed to disclose evidence. that not only negates Miss Richen's. guilt, but completely eviscerates the. prosecution's own theory that Miss. Richens procured the fentanyl that. ultimately killed her husband. the. prosecution's failure to disclose and. continued concealment of exculpatory. evidence that Miss Richens did not. procure fentanyl and inflicted ongoing. harm on Miss Richens, the public, and. the integrity of our legal system. This. is precisely the type of misconduct rule.

3.8 was designed to prevent. By. withholding this evidence, the. prosecution abandons its duty to seek. justice and undermines the assurance of. a fair trial. The defense goes on to. say, quote, "If the state cannot place. fentanyl in the hands of the defendant, the state has no case." Mr. Crosier's. statement doesn't just poke holes in. their case, it throws a grenade into the. middle of it, leaving them nothing but. speculation and conjecture, getting them. nowhere near the realm of beyond a. reasonable doubt. Now, in one filing,

they're asking the court to issue an. order for the prosecution to deliver to. the defense all evidence like texts, emails, recordings of any correspondence. between the prosecution, the police, and. Crosier, any notes discussing him, anything that negates Richen's guilt. But you also have to imagine, is this. such an alleged egregious violation of. the rules? Could the judge throw out the. case? I'll talk about that. By the way, they also make a motion for the judge to. reconsider bail, which has been denied. in this case multiple times. We're going.

to talk about that, too. So, what. exactly is going on here, right? Well, let me bring on an expert. We are joined. by Jeremy Diaz, criminal defense. attorney, former Salt Lake County. assistant district attorney, ADA. Thank. you so much for coming on, Jeremy. It's. really good to see you. I I I let me. just start here. What do you make of the. fact that Crosier apparently has this. change in his position, a change in his. account? Can we start right there? Sure. I mean, it's not it's not entirely. common for stories to change that to.

change this substantially. I mean, it's. it's for this case, it's a pretty big. deal, I think. >> Such a big deal that let me start here. even before the allegation that the. prosecution uh you know hid exculpatory. evidence is if this is true okay and he. supplied only oxy and not fentanyl. uh is that the end of the case I mean. can they prove that Corey Richens killed. her husband.

>> I don't I don't know if it's necessarily. the end of the case because there are. different things within the rules of. evidence that allow the prosecutor to. bring in prior inconsistent statements. Right. But at the same time, it it. doesn't help. And I think as a. prosecutor, I would view it as a serious. blow to the case as a whole. >> Yeah. Because if Carmen Carmen Lobber. says, "I don't really know what I was. given. I assumed it was fentanyl." He's. saying, "No, I gave Oxy." The toxicology. reports indicates that he had that Eric. had five times the lethal dose of.

fentanyl in his system. And they can't. directly tie where Corey Richens got it. from. Uh, I mean, I wonder, first of. all, how do prosecu do prosecutors. change their case? Do they still call. him to the stand? Do they still call. Carmen Labour to the stand? Do they. forget about where she got the fentanyl. pills from allegedly? I mean, how does. this change the whole prosecution's. case? >> But remember, you still have the fact. that according to Carmen, Cy asked. Carmen to get her fentanyl, right? So,

as a defense, you still have that to. deal with and as a prosecutor, you still. have that kind of in your pocket. Why is. Corey asking for fentanyl in general? So, I mean, even though even though this. delivery system that they've alleged, this Carmen to Robert, back to Carmen, and then back to Cory, that whole thing. that may have fallen apart. Um, what the. state certainly doesn't have is any sort. of sort of new, I guess, bridge to the. fentanyl, but there's still the fact.

that according to Carmen, Corey was. asking for fentanyl. So, you you still. have that to deal with. And it's it's. depending on what side you're on, you. have arguments to make. >> But, by the way, we're also making this. argument assuming he's telling the truth. now, right? Is he the most credible. witness? >> He may have given he may have actually. given fentanyl. We don't know. So there. there are a lot of things that you look. at when you're weighing credibility, right? And really what is one of the. things you look at is what is the motive.

here? What's the motive to lie? What's. the motive to change the story? And I I. that's going to be something that's hard. going to be hard to kind of argue. against as a prosecutor here. Certainly, like I said, another feather in the cap. for the defense team. Did the. prosecution. violate the rules regarding turning over. material to the defense? turning over. material that is potentially exculpatory. material that negates a defendant's. guilt. What is the standard and did they.

violate it? Man, and that's hard because. it's a bit of a gray area. I think that. it's it's certainly poor form. When I. was a prosecutor, as you mentioned, I. was a prior prosecutor. The hope is that. as a prosecutor, you are trying to go. above and beyond and kind of be above. reproach. So the hope would have been. that when they had the conversation with. Robert Crosier that they would have. disclosed that conversation with the. defense. Um the fact that the defense is. just hearing about that according to the.

defense team in September from April to. September by my math that's 5 months and. they haven't disclosed such a big thing. Again I want to be clear this is a big. deal. The fact that he's saying he was. not the person who gave fentanyl him. changing his story. is a big deal and. that's something that I think should. have been disclosed back as as soon as. possible in April. I mean, you would you. would certainly think and hope that a. prosecutor on the drive back to the. office after meeting in the in the the. Starbucks coffee shop would have said,

"Hey, we've got a problem. This is what. the witness is telling us now. you may. want to have somebody go out and reach. out to him and and kind of interview him. or and one of the things that kind of. surprises me here is that the. prosecution team didn't themselves send. out an investigator to kind of get this. new information and somehow get it to. the defense team. So, I think it it is a. concern. Um there is an element of. timeliness as far as disclosure. They.

don't necessarily have to disclose it. immediately, but they do have to. disclose it timely. So whether or not. they're kind of in this little bit of a. gray area, I mean, it's September. They. still haven't disclosed it to the. defense team. They're set for trial in. February. Um I. it's. I'm surprised that that it hadn't been. disclosed. >> Well, that that's the point. when the. defense comes out and says, "The only. reason we found out about this is. because we interviewed him oursel and.

found out." Um, what would be the. defense for the prosecution? I think. this is something that the defense. mentioned in their filing that what's. the prosecution going to argue that it. was an oversight. Is that the argument. from the prosecutors? Hey, we we didn't. deliberately withhold evidence. This was. an oversight of some way. We were trying. to corroborate it. But is it even their. responsibility to corroborate it or is. it just to turn it over to the defense. immediately? I mean, what what it seems. like this was a mistake. This was an. oversight. It wasn't intentual. Intentional. That would be the.

prosecution's defense here, right? >> Well, I mean, it would have to be. It. would have to be, look, it was just an. oversight, but at the same time, that is. a big oversight, right? I mean, that's. that's some pretty critical evidence. when it's as it relates to this case. I. would think that they would have to say. it was an oversight. I think it's going. to be something along the lines of we. were busy. we weren't sure how reliable. it was. But I mean, even at that, when. it comes down to reliability, that. shouldn't necessarily be the the. prosecutor's decision to make. That's.

something that should be made um after. having disclosed it to defense council. This is. >> Yeah, this is such a big issue that I am. curious different scenario, but if you. remember what happened in the Alec. Baldwin case, there was a serious issue. about evidence being turned over to the. defense where his case was dismissed. I. mean, if I'm remembering correctly, I. believe that's what happened. Um, is. that an op is that something that could. happen here? The judge could look at. this and say, "This is a total travesty.

This is an injustice. Corey Richen's. rights were violated. I am dismissing. this case. Is that an actual consequence. if the prosecution, you know, really violated their duty? I. think it's possible. I think it probably. has to be more egregious, at least the. violation, um, in order to get to that. point. But, I mean, it's it's it's on. the table. I just don't think it's. likely. >> What could be a punishment for the. prosecution?

>> That's a good question. It's it's going. to be interesting to see. Um I I don't. know exactly how the judge would rule or. or really what's on the table for that. >> What What about agreeing with the. defense prosecutors? You got to turn. over all this evidence. So not only. evidence that would negate Cory Richen's. guilt, which obviously they should be. turning over anyway, but every. correspondence regarding Crosier, everything regarding him. Do you think. the judge will grant that request?

>> I think he will. It's it's not a guarantee that he will, but given the circumstances, given the. whole high-profile nature of the case, I. think he will order that that be turned. over. >> Will that delay this case? I mean, her. trial is scheduled for February. Does. this now put a wrench in all of this? >> It's possible. It depends on number one, how quickly it takes the prosecutor's. office to get the defense team the. discovery and what the defense team's. able to do with it once they get it. How.

long does it take them to fully review. and fully vet any new new information. that they get from that disclosure? >> By the way, I'll talk about bail in a. second. I'm just as we're going through. this, I'm thinking if now the. prosecution is struggling to prove that. she got those pills from Carmen Labber. and Robert Crosier. If they can't. establish that, how do they prove the. pills were in her possession? I mean, a. does that show a weakness in the. investigation? Can they not pinpoint. another alternative by which he would. have gotten those pills? because they.

have to establish, I think, in some way, where did she get them from? Otherwise, that's something the defense is going to. jump on in an, you know, an opening. statement, a closing argument during the. course of the trial. And if they can't. establish that, is that show a weakness, a gap in the investigation? So, I don't I don't know if it's enough. to necessarily get the case thrown out. Remember, this case has always been. circumstantial. The question when it. comes to circumstantial cases is how. strong is that circumstantial case? It's.

absolutely weaker with Robert Croier's. disclosures that he never gave fentanyl, but the prosecutor still has the fact. according to Carmen Lowour that Cory was. asking for fentanyl. So you you have. Eric overdosing on fentanyl. You have. Corey asking for fentanyl. You still. have that to use as evidence. And is. your case weaker without that bridge. that shows this is where she got the. fentanyl from? Yeah, it's weaker. But at. the same time, it's it's still something.

that the prosecutor's office could still. potentially go forward on. But yes, you're right. It is a weaker case. because they can't point to the. distribution route that it took that. Cory allegedly took to get the fentanyl. I want to talk bail here, okay? And I. want to talk the defense's motion for. the court to reconsider it and for. Richens to be released in light of this. development because again, she has been. denied bail twice so far. So they cite. in their filing how under Utah law, an. individual charged with or arrested for.

a criminal offense shall be admitted to. bail as a matter of right except if the. individual is charged with a felony when. there is substantial evidence to support. the charge and the court finds by clear. and convincing evidence that the. individual would constitute a. substantial danger or the individual is. likely to flee. Quote although the court. has previously found that there is. substantial evidence to support the. charges against Miss Richens, Mr. Dr. Crosier's recantation of his previous. statement changes the landscape to a.

degree that cannot be ignored. In order. to continue to hold Miss Richens without. bail, the court must first find that. there is substantial evidence to support. the charge, and that simply no longer. exists. In this matter, the state's. entire theory of criminal liability is. that Corey Richens procured fentanyl. from her housekeeper, Carmen Lowber, which she caused to be unwillingly. ingested by her husband in some unknown. way directly causing his death. There is. no physical evidence of this, but only. the statements of Carmen Lowber. And.

these statements are wholly dependent on. whether or not Lowber procured fentanyl. from Robert Crosier. None of these. so-called fentanyl pills were found nor. tested. Lowber only believes she sold. Corey fentanyl because she believed that. is what Crosier gave her. If Robert. Crosier did not in fact sell fentanyl to. Laour, there can be no credible argument. that substantial evidence of guilt. exists. And they argue that she should.

be released. Good argument, Jeremy. >> I think so. I I really do. Remember that. when it comes to Utah's bail statute, it's multi-pronged, right? The first. thing that the judge has to find, like. you just read, is that there's. substantial evidence to support the. charges. The prosecutor's office when. they've gone through and they've argued. their their motion to hold without bail. up to this point, they've had this this. distribution bridge with what Mr. Croier. has come out and said that he never sold.

fentanyl to Miss Lowber. with that. statement, it destroys the distribution. bridge. Um, and so I it it does cut. against the substantial evidence nature. of of the case. And so I think I think. it is ripe for reconsideration and I do. think the defense argument is a good. argument and I think it's sound. >> Let me ask you this. Apparently, the. Summit County Attorney's Office said, quote, "It doesn't comment on pending. matters, that it's going to respond in.

the public record in 14 days as allowed. under the court rules. Is that a. response you were expecting? And how are. they going to respond?". >> I mean, it's it's how they have to. respond for now. The fact that this has. now come to light, it's in the media. um. they're going to be very very careful. with how they respond given the high. nature of this given the allegations. that are put forth by the defense team. I mean like like we've already talked. about it like we've already talked about. it is a big deal that the def the.

prosecutor's office learned about this. kind of recantation this this changing. of events of saying that he did not sell. Miss Lowber fentanyl but that he sold. her oxycottton. Um, it's it is it's it's. a big deal and it opens the door. And. real quick, big picture, I I might be a. little repetitive, but if the. prosecution can't definitively prove how. she got the pills, and they can't. definitively prove when or how she.

allegedly put it into this Moscow mule, you think they still can get a. conviction based on the circumstances of. his death, her statements, her behavior, the life insurance policies, her alleged. Google searches or searches on her. phone. Do you think they could still get. a conviction um based on everything else. they may have? I think it's a. possibility. How likely the possibility? I don't know. That's going to be. something that the prosecution team is. going to have to evaluate. Remember, you. just listed off a whole bunch of. evidence. And even though they don't.

have the foreshore distribution chain, like we've already talked about, they. still have the fact that Corey reached. out to to Miss Lowber and asked her to. get fentanyl. All we know is that the. distribution route didn't come through. Miss Lowber. That's that's the only. thing that we know. But the prosecutor's. office still has everything that you. just mentioned as far as being able to. sit in front of the jury. They may say, "Look, we don't necessarily know how she. got the fentanyl, but we do know she was. asking for it, and we know that he.

overdosed on it.". >> Yep. That's a good point. This is an. interesting development. We wanted to. cover it. We've been focusing on Cory. Richards for quite some time. I think. this is significant. Jeremy Diaz, thank. you so much for taking the time. It was. great to see you. >> Yep. Thank you. Good to see you as well. >> And that is all we have for you right. now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank. you so much for joining us and as. always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you. should get your podcast. You can follow. me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll see you next time.

[Music].