need to discuss uh jail calls and the other information that'll be coming in through Detective O'Driscoll. Let's start with schedule. Mr. Bworth, who are the state's anticipated witnesses today? Your honor, Cody Wright, uh Matthew Throck Morton, uh Jamie Woody, Todd Gabler, um and then if we get there, Jeff O'Driscoll, >> there's probably a lengthy discussion regarding the state's motions and defendants's positions. regarding the jail calls the interview transcript that we need to have prior to Detective O'Driscoll. Is that your sense of it? >> Yes, your honor. >> So, I if we're going to have that before he gets on the stand, we're going to have to have it today, which means he's probably not getting on the stand today. >> Agree. >> Okay. Uh, Ms. Lewis, you're the one looking at me, so I'll just ask you. Does that sound right? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. Okay. So, we'll plan to at least begin, if not have that discussion sometime today. Then, uh, let's see. The state filed a motion regarding exhibits 8-57R and 8-63R. Need to make sure I give defendant an opportunity to respond to that, Miss Lewis. What are your thoughts? >> Um, now I believe those are the videos. Is that correct? The videos of the interviews with Carmen. >> I wasn't sure what they were. It's the >> Yeah, it's 857 through 63. >> My apologies. That's right. >> And we've submitted the transcript, but of course, a video would be redacted once we make a decision based on the transcript. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I didn't see the specific redact if those are the redacted. I don't I didn't wasn't able to look at them. I just saw that >> they're all filed as separate docuies. There there there's the six Carmen Lob interviews involving Summit County Sheriff's Office and one involving the United States Attorney's Office. And these are redacted portions of those six interviews used to rehabilitate Carmen Auburn. >> Okay. Um I guess I need to look at the redactive version. I didn't realize that. I was looking through uh what the state files in box to get to us and it wasn't in there when I was looking at it yesterday evening. So >> So these are the attachments to the motion that was filed over the weekend >> and we have the same objection to the motion. I mean it's the same objection. I will have to look at the redacted version, but >> I'm not sure what you mean by same objection, but let's not spend time on that. Now, the state is designating specific portions, a very limited subset of the 900 pages of combined transcript >> as consistent statements to rebut a charge of either recent fabrication or pressure to change her testimony. I'm going to have to make a ruling regarding each of them. >> Okay, I'll read them. >> Versions. >> Sorry, I misunderstood what was filed. So, that's that. We What's a reasonable time to have that conversation, Miss Lewis? >> Um, I'm going to try and look at them this morning. I I don't know. Let me pull them up and then at the break we can talk about that. >> I'm not Okay, we'll check back in about that. They're I had them to bring it in. It's this much paper and so it may be more than you can do uh between now and the lunch break, but let's be reasonable. >> Mr. Bledworth, >> your honor, I think that's a a prerequisite to having a full discussion on Jeff O'Driscoll's testimony. >> Is that true to uh give me Why is that true? >> Why doesn't that why don't those issues stand alone >> or stand independently? Your honor, they do stand independently, but uh Jeffriscoll will likely be the state's last witness. We would then u move or you know then use those exhibits as part of his direct examination. >> That makes sense to me. Okay, I understand that. Okay. Uh let's see. Defendants uh motion for mistrial regarding the alleged Eglio violation that was mentioned on the record. I asked defendant to file that in writing. They did. It's docket 1691. Need need to give the state an opportunity to respond to that. What's reasonable, Mr. Bledworth? >> Your honor, state can respond right now. >> I'm going to need some details that I'm not sure you can provide right now. And even if you can, having it in writing would help me keep it all straight. even if it's just the factual position about what was provided when. >> Your honor, we can we can do that. I don't think that the state disagrees on the the facts, >> okay, >> laid out in in the defense's motion, but um we can we can provide something to the court in writing tomorrow morning. >> That's fine. And if that's the case, it sounds like it won't be burdensome to produce it or to draft it. >> Uh no, your honor, it's not it's not too burdensome. >> Okay, sounds good. Um, your honor, just maybe a a heads up, can I can I refer to the court to state v. Bizner that that will feature in the state's response? >> I look forward to reading it after I get your response. >> Understood. >> Okay. Very good. Then, M. Lewis, there's also the oral motion for mistrial that you made at Sidebar regarding references to quote unquote charges in states exhibit 2-46. That was on March 5. Uh we provided a curative instruction to the jury on that. Is that something your defendant is uh standing by or is that motion withdrawn? Um, can I have a minute? >> Mhm. >> It's 2-46. >> This is the video, the audio recording, the two-part audio recording that was played. It's a recorded telephone conversation. Oh, >> your client used the word charges. I instructed the jury that that referred to civil litigation. >> That motion's withdrawn. >> Okay, >> Britney, can you make a note of that in the minutes? All right. Okay, that's what I had on my uh initial to-do list. Mr. Bworth, anything else from the state? >> No, your honor. >> Miss Netor, Miss Lewis? >> No. >> Okay. Uh, I've already forgotten the order of witnesses, Mr. Wright. >> Yes, sir. >> And just confirming, you've reminded Mr. Wright of the bounds of the court's prior ruling regarding his testimony. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, Mr. Bleworth, are we ready for the jury? >> Yes, sir. >> No. >> Oh, well, that simplifies that. >> We're going to take a fiveminut break and locate the juror who has not yet arrived. >> All right. Very good. We'll be in recess for 5 minutes. Thank you. >> I'll rise for the judge. >> 31500139. We now have all the jurors. Mr. Bworth, are we ready for the jury? >> Uh, yes, your honor. But before we call Cody Wright, the state was going to publish 8-8. That's the exhibit that we had hold held off on publishing for to blur some faces on. >> Very good. remind me what's depicted in it. I can't quite remember, >> your honor. It's from a it's about a 35 second video from a gathering on March the 5th, 2022. Um that shows u the defendant Chelsea Barney Bryce Canudson and others >> celebrating. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, Ms. Lewis, >> they've already admitted. >> I think I've already >> ruled on any objections to that. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, we'll start in that way. I'll uh have you introduce it and uh just offer it again. >> Okay. >> M Lewis, Miss Nester, anything before we invite the jury in? Okay, let's do it. All right, for the jury, please have a seat as you commit. Please have a seat. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. We'll continue with additional evidence from the states. Mr. Bledworth, >> thank you. Your honor, your honor, on Thursday, the court uh took testimony from Chelsea Gibson who referenced a celebration on May, sorry, March the 5th, 2022. And the state um was redacting some children's faces from a video. The state now moves that exhibit 8-8 into evidence and moves to publish it. >> Chelsea Barney, correct? >> Barney. Did I say Gibson again? >> Yes. Sorry. Chelsea Barney, March 5, 2022. >> Yes, your honor. >> Very good. Uh, let me get that up. >> Can you folks see that? Okay. Very good. Scott, please proceed. >> And it does have some audio on that, but it's not coming through. It sounds like >> It has some audio, but >> it's not coming through. It doesn't sound like >> All right. I don't know why that is. Scott, let's try again. And >> your honor, I'm sorry. We admitted this through Aldi Sting, not Chelsea Barney. >> Understood. Scott, would you pause? >> Would you disconnect and reconnect and we'll just start over. Check the settings on your end, please. Ready? >> Okay, I'm getting all three. >> Cheers, boys. >> Yep. Come back in the corner with us. There we go. >> Richard. >> Richard. >> Richard. Yep. >> Richard, >> look. Ch. Mom, turns out empty. >> You are a you are Afghanistan warrior. >> You are an Afghanistan warrior. >> Mr. Bworth, the state's next witness, please. >> Your honor, the state calls Cody, right? Mr. Wright, good morning. If you'd step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? >> Thank you. Have a seat. Please proceed. >> Good morning, sir. Morning. >> What sir is your name? >> Cody, right? >> Spelled W R I G H T. >> Yep. >> Did you know Eric Richards? >> I did. >> How? >> Um, Eric was a really good friend of mine and also business partner. Um, met him in high school. Um he was an acquaintance of my brother. Met him through him. Um became good friends through the hunting world. He was a rancher. I liked uh hard work. He loved hard work. Um and we became friends almost immediately through that. Um that led to a lifelong of of uh events together and fun together and work together. Um, we had a lot of good times. Um, shortly after I met him, he he came to work for a family business as a hot tender. Um, got to teach him what u hot tending is all about and hard work that way. Uh, which was fun. We both served uh LDS missions shortly after that. Came home, continued to uh work together through that family business. Um, in 2010 we we decided that it was time to separate from that business and start our own. We started our own masonry company together and um that was a another journey in and of itself. That was fun. >> Is that masonry company CE? >> Yes, CN Stone Masonry. >> Is that for Cody and Eric? >> Yes. And um we worked in that masonry company together for almost 12 years, 11 and 1/2 years or so. >> How often would you see him when running your company together? >> Um see him um couple times a week probably. We ate lunch fairly often. Um, in the fall I saw him a lot cuz we were out in the hills and and doing and doing doing fun stuff, whether it be on the ranch or up in the mountains. Um, we spent a lot of time together in the fall. We spent a lot of lunches together while we uh worked and things like that, but talked to him pretty much every day on the phone if I didn't see him. >> When you talk about spending a lot of time together in the fall, is that hunting? Yeah. Yeah, we spend a lot of time. >> About how many days each fall would the two of you hunt together? >> Um, we would spend the end of August and most of September and sometimes October and sometimes November and sometimes that bled into December, January and February, but >> and would you >> quite a few days? >> Would you travel together to hunt? >> Yes. >> Yes, we went on different trips as well. What was Eric's personality? >> Um, Eric's feisty. Eric's hardworking. Eric's the life of the party. Um, Eric's funny. Um, depends where he's at and what he's doing. He can be uh very fun to be around, very comforting um at times, and also he can tell you what you've done wrong and make sure that you knew that it was wrong and and that that should have been done differently. And so good personality. >> What was he like personalitywise in business? >> Business he was serious. He took that very serious. That was one of the things that he was very passionate about. He wanted to grow CE. He wanted to be successful. He wanted to um do the best he could with that. Um he came from a a background of of hard work in business as well and uh saw that and wanted to replicate that from his parents, I'm sure, but he was very serious when it came to business. wanted to make sure that things were done right and and wanted to grow that business. >> Were you able to interact with Eric and his boys? >> Yes. >> What are some examples of that? >> Uh, one that comes to mind was he asked me um I did a lot of baseball growing up. Um, I pitched in particular and he asked me to to work with Carter uh with some pitching lessons. Um, we went over and worked with Carter and and helped him learn how to pitch. Uh, that was one um that comes to mind. >> What was Eric like as a father? >> Uh, competitive, dedicated. Um, he wanted to know what my kids were up to so he could tell me what his kids were up to and how well they were doing as well. Um, he wanted his kids to be the best on the team. He wanted them to succeed. He wanted to to make sure that I knew that how well they'd done over the weekend and how good they were doing in all their sports. >> What was your business relationship in CNE? >> We were 50/50 partners. Um, so we were um I ran half the business, he ran half the business, although that wasn't like a perfectly straight line, right? Um, we did paver, stone, tile work. I took care of tile and paperwork or took care of the stone work side. So, we did have it split um to where he took care of his projects, I took care of mine. We overlapped in the book work end of things or in the the administration side of things. But as far as work went, uh, he had relationships with people that I didn't. Um, and so he would take care of those clients and I would take care of others. >> How many people did CD employ in early 2022? >> Um, approximately 90. >> And about how many projects at any given time was CE running? When Eric passed, um, I obviously stepped into a full-time role in that whole business. Um, I remember counting 47 projects. >> What was CN's business outlook in early 2022? >> Good. It was great. Um, business was good and business continued to be good and and uh was projecting upward each year. We'd done a little bit more and it was definitely on its way up. >> Did you and Eric have any plans for the business before he passed? >> We had I was I'm more conservative than Eric was. Um, and so my plan was always to just be okay with where we were at. Eric's plan was let's grow this thing and keep going. And I was like good with where we were at a lot of the time. Um, he definitely was very motivated to continue to do more and more and and be better and and and bigger and better. >> Did CE have an office? Um, it has it had my house and a small office at Eric's house. Uh, we we both had home offices and so we ran the business from his office and my office at our at our residential home. >> Did Eric use a a CE computer? >> Yes. >> Did he keep that at his home office? >> Yes. Did >> you and Eric have a Cene email account? >> Yes. >> How did that work? >> It was a joint email. If you know him or I, you know that we're not technology people and so one email was enough to handle. So, we had one email that we both would look into um that all of our emails would come through. That way we could make sure that we were taking care of each other as well. Uh, that seemed to work and so that's what we did. >> Did Cene receive its America First Credit Union bank statements by email? >> Yes. >> Are you generally familiar with K Richens Realy? >> Generally familiar. >> Did there come a time when C and E assisted K richy? >> Yes. How did that come about? >> Um, Eric called me um was distraught. I said that some things had happened in their in their home that um >> object to hear say >> please rephrase >> or just keep moving. Do you approach? >> Sure. >> Sir, did there come a time when CNE assisted Corey Richen's business? >> Yes. >> How did CNE, without saying anything that Eric told you, how did Cene assist Corey Richen's business? there was a loan that was needed to be had um for that business that was asked for um where CN would provide the funds to fund a project um and CN did provide those funds. >> Was that a loan rather than an investment? >> It was a loan. Was it an extraordinary circumstances that caused Cene to loan Cory Richen's money? >> There was a need for that loan. There was a need for that money to make sure that that um financial things were going to happen for um reimbursement. And >> was that related to a K Richen's reality project on Francen Lane? >> Yes. >> And was that in October of 2020? >> Yes, I believe so. >> And was that approximately $200,000? >> Approximately. Are you familiar with a buy sell agreement that you and Eric had in place should anything happened to either of you? >> Yes. >> Are you familiar with a new law New York life insurance policy uh a set of New York life insurance policies that were associated with that buyell agreement? >> Yes. Are you familiar with the series of beneficiary changes to the New York life policy on your life in January of 2022? >> I was told those happened. >> Did you make those beneficiary changes to your New York life policy in January of 2022? >> I did not. >> Did you ever make any beneficiary changes to that New York life policy? No. >> Did you ever observe Eric Richens make any bene? >> Of course. >> You I'm approaching the witness with exhibit 8-49. It's some handwriting exemplers exemplars I think everyone's familiar with. Then I need to lay some foundation on. So can you please turn to tap two? Right. >> It's 8:49. It's the exemplars. >> Sir, did you collect those um business and haircut receipts from CN's records? >> Yes. >> Can you turn to page tab three? Did you recover those documents from Integrated Solutions? >> I'm looking at an IRS e file signature authorization form 8879. Is that >> Would you repeat the tab number, Mr. Bledworth? >> Tab three. Maybe just take a look to make sure you and the witness are on the same page. It's these four pages of tap three. >> Sir, did you collect those documents from Integrated Solutions? Those four pages in tap 3. >> We requested any signatures that they might have to be sent. >> And did they then provide those to you? >> Yes. >> Sir, can you turn to tab 7, please? Yeah. >> Did um you request and obtain from Big Deconstruction uh those documents containing Eric Richen signature? >> Same thing. We asked if they had any signatures and if they could send those over. If they did provide those for us. And then sir, tab 13. >> Did you uh request and retrieve those uh documents from the Ford dealership? I did not request the ones from Labor and Ford. >> Okay. >> The documents at tabs 2, three, and seven, did you then provide those to Katie Richens? >> Yes. >> I'll get that for you. Thank you, >> Scott. If you can bring up 10-89, please. Defense exhibit 10-89. >> He has I'm sorry, we don't have it. >> You should. Mr. Wright, can you see that photograph on your screen? It's >> okay. I can >> see it on the uh >> Miss Nester, can you see it on your screen? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. We'll fix that during a break. Mr. Blood. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Um, your honor, can the court publish it? Defense admitted this into evidence uh with mistaking. Britney, will you just confirm that that's correct? I don't recall. >> Yeah. Defendants 1089109. Trust and verify. Okay. Very good. >> There you are. >> Sir, are you married to Ally? Wright? >> Yes. >> Is Ally Wright in this photograph? >> No. >> Thank you. Sir, have you ever observed Eric sick or injured? >> Yes. >> Can you give some examples, please? >> Um, Eric had Lyme disease at one point. Um, saw him when he had COVID. I saw him when he had a cold. I saw him when he had the flu. Yeah. I saw him when he had back pain. Um, hunched over from lifting a rock and tweaking his back to where he could barely walk. Um, yeah. >> How did Eric react to illness or injury? >> Uh, he's a cowboy. Um, Eric is a go get him. He's not going to sit at home cuz he's sick. He's not going to um stay home cuz he has CO. He's not going to not show up because he's feeling under the weather. He's very uh tough spirited, rough-hearted as far as uh not not being a wimp goes. >> Other than allergy medication, have you ever seen Eric use over-the-counter drugs? >> No. >> Have you ever seen Eric use prescription drugs? >> No. Have you seen ever seen Eric use elicit drugs? >> I have never seen him use elicit drug. >> Sir, do you recall receiving a phone call from Eric at approximately 2:00 p.m. on Valentine's Day 2022? >> Yes. >> Without saying what Eric said to you, why is it you remember that phone call? the fear in his voice, the the urgency of of the situation, the um seriousness of what was going on. >> Had you ever heard Eric sound like that before? Um the only other times I heard that urgency and that fear um when he called me telling me that his mother was had passed away in in the hospital. Um I also heard that urgency or that fear when he had been rearended in an accident. um and feared that the person that had hit him had had passed away as well or had hit him hard enough that he was scared of what had just happened. >> Thank you, sir. I don't have any further questions. >> There's more water in that correct. >> Miss Nester, please proceed. >> Thank you, your honor. May I please the court? Good morning, sir. You and I have met before, but just to remind you, I'm Kathy Nester, and I'm one of Corey's attorneys. So, I want to talk to you about CN a little bit. Um, you mentioned that the Excuse me, you mentioned that the company was growing about the time Eric passed away, right? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. It was slowly growing. Yep. >> Okay. And you guys split everything 50/50 >> financially and in the in the administration part of the business. Yes. >> So whatever you made in a year, he made in a year. >> Yes. >> So in 2022, how much did you earn that year? >> Objection. Relevancy. >> Would you approach restate the same question? >> Yes sir. So, how much did you earn? Let's say 2021, the year before, just a few months before Eric died. How much did you clear that year? Income? >> Are you talking personally or in the business or >> Personally? >> Personally. Um, I don't have those numbers in front of me. I'm not positive what that number would be. >> Was it more than $500,000? >> Personally, no. >> Okay. Do you know that? Um, do you know what Eric made in 2021? >> Mr. Bworth, go ahead. >> Objection. Foundation. >> It's a yes or no question. So, if you would start there, sir, over. >> Do you know what Eric made in 2021? >> No, not up top, man. >> All right. So, if there's tax returns that have already come in that indicate that came in through an expert that indicate he declared around 900 between 700 and $900,000, would that be way off base for that year? >> You pause there for a moment, Mr. Bworth. >> Objection. Foundation. >> Yeah. You approach for a minute. >> The foundation is sustained. Ms. Nester. >> All right. Did you at the time that Eric died, did you project that your company was going to continue to increase in value and resulting in increased income to both of you over the years? >> Before he passed, you're asking, >> yes, we would have projected that our company would continue to grow, >> right? And fair to say that you both would be financially secure as long as that continued to happen. >> As long as that continued to happen. Yes. >> All right. At one point before Eric passed, you actually had Corey Richens on your payroll. Is that right? >> Correct. >> And she would get monthly income from your company. >> Correct. >> And do you remember how much she would get? >> Ms. Nester, I apologize interrupting. Uh, Mr. Wright, I need you to answer just a little bit louder. >> Britney's listening on the mic and we're not picking it up. Go ahead. >> So, you had Corey on the payroll, >> right? >> How much was she making every month? Do you remember? >> I don't recall. >> Right. And then when Eric passed, isn't it true that Corey asked to be removed from the payroll? I do not believe she asked to be removed from the payroll. We continued to pay her for some time after he passed, >> like a week. >> I recall it being longer than a week. >> How long do you recall it being? >> A couple of months. >> Okay. You also had as part of your company an um business called Fox Lake Investments, right? >> Correct. >> And Fox Lakes was separate from um CNE. Correct. >> Objection. Your honor, scope. >> Sustained. >> Okay. Did you at one point engage in house flipping like Corey Richens had through your CE business? It's >> through CE. >> Not through CNE, through Fox Lake, through anything. >> Yeah. >> Objection. Your honor scope. >> Sustain. >> Okay. All right. Let's talk about the Francom Lane property. The Francine property. You just testified that you gave a loan or invested or whatever word you want to call it about $200,000, right? >> Approximately. >> And do you know what that money was used for? >> The money was used for fixing up that home. >> Rehab costs. >> Rehab costs. >> Right. And you got all of your money back plus interest. Is that correct? >> I believe we did. Yes. And do you know how much interest or profit you made on that? >> I don't recall. >> All right. And you talked about a buyell agreement that you guys had and you just discussed that with Mr. Bworth. The buyell agreement is basically when partners in a business buy an insurance policy on each other. Right. >> Correct. So that if Eric died, you would get money. If you died, Eric would get money. Right. >> Correct. >> And the idea of that policy is that you pay the family member to divest from your business and say, "Look, here's the $2 million. Please don't be a partner with me. I don't want to be partners with you. I just want to pay you $2 million and you go away and you're done with this business." Right? >> The idea of it is to do whatever the contract states. So whatever is in that contract, that contract would be followed. >> And was it your understanding that your buyell agreement would allow whichever person survived the other partner to pay that money to the family and then the family would not be involved in the business from there forward. >> In our byell agreement, we had it so that our the proceeds would go to the family. >> Right. And Mr. Mr. Bworth talked to you about a beneficiary change on a buyell on the buyell agreement, right? >> Yes. >> And that occurred on January 1st of 20 just foundation. The beneficiary changes on the life insurance policy, not the buy agreement. >> Uh I think that's what Ms. Nester meant. That's what I meant. Appreciate the clarification. >> Thank you. So, the beneficiary to the life insurance that backed up the buy sell agreement was changed on January 1st of 2022. Is that right? >> I was told that. >> Okay. And were you in fact told when you learned about this that the policy that was changed was your policy, not Eric's? So the way that I understood that is the policy is on the person who was still alive and um I don't recall exactly the words that they used to tell me that it had been switched. They told me that someone had logged in and switched that beneficiary and that was >> to your policy. >> Yeah. I I don't recall the exact words that he used in that moment. >> Well, think about it. You remember everything else. You don't remember if it was your policy or Eric's policy that it was changed. >> Objection. Asked. >> Your honor, I'd like him to have a chance to answer it. >> Overruled. Uh, please answer Miss Nester's question. >> So, I'm It's tricky because when you It's It's a flip-flop. So, I'm trying to think about that in this setting. Give me just one second. >> It's okay. Take your time. Um, so what I was told was that there was a change made to the beneficiary that somebody had gone in and changed that and then switched it back. I do not recall him telling me whose name was changed or anything like that. >> So, it's possible it was your policy. >> There's a possibility. >> Okay. And if it was your policy, that means if you died, the beneficiary would be somebody different, not if Eric died. >> Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then it was changed back. Right. >> That's what I was told. So, at the time that Eric passed, Corey Richens was not a beneficiary of your policy, right? >> Can you say Can you say that again? >> At the time Eric died, Corey Richens was not a beneficiary of your personal policy. Correct. >> Not of my policy. No. >> And she was not a beneficiary of Eric's policy. Correct. >> The policy stated that if he were to die, I would pay his family the the money. And that's what you did. You paid Katie Benson and the trust. >> I did not pay Katie Benson. I paid the trust and I put it in to the court. Okay. >> Which was instructed by attorneys. >> Okay. So none of that money went to Corey, right? >> Um I have no clue where that money sits today. >> You didn't give it to Corey. >> I gave it to the court. >> You gave it >> as I was instructed through my attorney >> on the behalf of the trust. >> Um I believe so. Yes. >> Okay. Right. >> I want to talk about the times that you saw Eric in pain. >> Mhm. >> So, fair to say Eric had back pain. He had back problems. >> He would pinch a nerve once in a while and have back pain. Yes. >> And he'd be unable to work. >> Um, he would work through that. Sometimes he'd be unable to work. >> Um he would still probably drive around in his truck, which is considered work. I mean, he wasn't outlifting another stone if that's what worked. Yeah. >> So, it might have impacted the type of work he did. >> Yeah. >> All right. And he also had knee pain, right? >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, I believe so. Mhm. >> And he even had knee surgery at some point. >> I don't recall that. >> Okay. And then he had Limes disease. >> Yes. >> And did he complain to you about pain in his muscles from limes disease? >> He would tell me how painful that was. Correct. >> Okay. Now, Mr. Bworth asked you if you had ever seen Eric take drugs, >> right? >> Correct. >> And Eric, you mentioned you guys went on a mission together, right? >> Correct. >> So, it's times together. >> It's fair to assume that you subscribe to the faith of the Church of the Latter-day Saints. >> I am LDS. >> Okay. And um as part of that faith, you all subscribe that it is it is not proper to drink or take drugs, right? >> Um if you are an active following member um and you believe that, then that is correct. And Eric knew that you are of this faith. Correct. >> Correct. >> And he did not share with you when he drank alcohol, did he? >> Um I would hear about it. >> He didn't share it with you. >> Um I have never been offered a drink from American. >> And I'm sure that is a sign of respect to you and your faith. >> I believe so. To me as a person. >> And he never shared with you that he used marijuana gummies. Um he himself. No, he never told me. >> Okay. Did you ever see him do that around you? >> No. >> Okay. And again, he knew that you would not approve of that, right? Under your faith. >> Eric would be okay telling me some of those things. He would tell me but in the light that I am his good friend that he would tell me things right but not uh be proud of that by any means. >> So he did share with you that he used drugs. >> No >> objection your honor. >> It's not a question cause right here. >> Whoa. >> Sustained. Just ask your next question. >> Did you just testify that he did tell you about things? He just wasn't proud of it. >> Ms. Nester. >> Yes, sir. >> Sustained. If you'd ask a different question, please. >> So, when Mr. Bledworth asked you the question, if you had ever seen Eric use drugs, your answer was no. Correct. >> Correct. >> But you have knowledge that he did. >> People have told me that. >> I'll leave it. >> Here's what it's out. What do you want me to do now, Mr. Budworth? >> Is out. Um, what what if people told you? >> You can follow up. Okay, Miss Nester, please keep her moving. You mentioned that you and Eric used to go hunting together. Is that right? >> Yes. >> At some point, did you provide information to hunting law enforcement officials about violations that Eric had done when he was hunting? >> Yes. >> And was he placed in jail for that? >> Uh, yes. And you provided that information and testimony against him? >> No. >> Okay. But you told the police that he did what they thought he did, right? >> I was in um I was brought in and asked questions that I that I answered to >> and those questions incriminated Eric. >> Um yes. >> Okay. >> Some of them. >> And you and Eric kind of had a falling out after that. Is that fair? >> Um falling out in what sense? you stopped going on vacations together with your families. >> Um, we didn't go on vacation with our families very often as it was. Um, so I would say that that was not something that immediately happened after that. >> And your relationship became more tense, more difficult between the two of you. >> Oh, yeah. He didn't like it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. He was um upset about that. So, I want to talk about the Valentine's Day call that you had with Eric. To your knowledge, did Eric work that day? >> Again, work is everywhere we go. We have our cell phone and we are working. >> Did you know whether he worked that day? I would assume that he had worked that day, having received a phone call or two or or done some sort of management style of work. >> If I were to show you photographs of projects that he visited that morning, would you be able to recognize the project by looking at the house? >> I may be able to recognize the project, but I'd have no clue if he showed up there or not, or if he would had worked there that day. >> Okay. Can we put up for the witness states exhibit 3-13D? >> All right, >> your honor. I'm sorry. We still don't have it. >> You're welcome to use that. >> Look at ours. >> Okay. Do you see that photograph in front of you? >> Yes. >> All right. And that is a photograph. An >> pause for one moment. Miss Nester, Mr. Bledworth, >> objection, your honor. Foundation. Um, >> he hasn't even let me get it out of my mouth yet. Judge, >> are you about to lay some foundation? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. And so, if you'd lay it before you represent what it is, >> I will. Thank you. >> Do you recognize what that home is? The aerial view. Do you know whose home that is? >> Yes. >> Whose home is that? >> Eric's. >> Okay. And um can you go to the next photograph, Katie? Do you recognize that overhead view of a home? >> I don't. >> So, you don't know if that's one of the homes Eric was working on or one of his projects at the time? >> Doesn't look familiar to me. >> Okay. Can you go to the next one, Katie? What about this very large home? Do you recognize that one? >> I don't. >> You don't know if you guys were doing a project on that house? >> I don't. >> Okay, you can take it down. >> On the day that you spoke to Eric Richens on Valentine's Day, he didn't uh you weren't aware that he went to a doctor that day. Did you ever know of him going to the doctor, taking time off? >> He he told me that he had gone with Carter that morning >> to get allergy shots. >> Uh something with allergies. >> Okay. But after you spoke to him, were you ever aware that he went to a doctor to follow up on how he felt that day? >> You got an objection. Call's I think for hearay. There's no foundation otherwise. >> If he had personal knowledge of Eric took time off to go to the doctor, >> please approach. Did you give Eric a ride to the doctor that day? >> No. >> Did you give Eric a ride to the hospital that day? >> No. >> Did you go visit him in a hospital that day? >> I did not. >> Okay. Did he make any calls to you where you could hear in the background there was hospital noises or ambulances or anything like that? >> No. >> Did he come to work the next day? >> Yes, he would have been working All right. The day that Eric died on March the Well, the day before he died, the 3rd. Um, you guys went to lunch that day, didn't you? >> Yes. >> And you went to lunch at the Mirror Lake Cafe. >> I believe that's where it was. Yes. >> And um, you kind of spent part of the day with him that day, did you? Didn't you? just that at that launch appointment. >> All right. >> And then you got notice that he had passed, correct? >> Uh the next morning. >> And did you send Becky Lloyd to Eric's house to pick up all of his computers >> at a certain point? Uh yes. I don't remember when, but yes, she went and picked the computer up. >> And was that within a day or two of his death? >> Um, yes, it would have been within a couple of days. >> And you didn't clear that with any law enforcement? >> Didn't. Nope. >> So, you picked up his computer or Becky picked up his computer and brought it into y'all's custody, right? >> Yeah. It was CN owned computer that we needed the company stuff from. >> And did you get into the computer? Did you open it? Did you look for documents in it? >> I don't know how to turn a computer on half the time. >> Okay. All right. What about Miss Becky? Did she go into the computer? >> Your honor. Um, objection here. Say scope. >> Do you know whether Becky went into the >> uh sustained if you could ask? >> I will. Non hearsay inducing question. >> Did you see Becky go into the computer at all? >> I did not see Becky. >> Okay. And then at some point a private investigator came to talk to you about that computer. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that would be Mr. Todd Gabler. >> Correct. >> And Todd worked for the the Richens family or the trust. >> I don't know who he worked for, but I would assume that's correct. >> And you told him that Becky had the computer. >> Correct. >> And you sent him to get it from Becky. >> Um, I don't remember sending him. >> Do you authorize Becky to give it to him? Um, we would have in that instance. Yes. >> Okay. And in all that time, no law enforcement had gotten the computer first. >> Correct. >> All right. And then isn't it true that shortly after Eric died, you also sent somebody to pick up his work truck? >> Correct. >> And explain to me what the work truck looked like. >> Uh, Brown uh Ford 550 flatbed truck. >> And I noticed you said earlier that work a lot of times involved driving around in that truck, right? Correct. >> So, he spent a lot of time in that truck. >> He did. >> And the truck was parked generally in the garage in the back of his house. Is that fair? >> Um, I don't know where he parked it, >> but you sent someone named What was the person's name that you sent to go get the truck? >> Um, I don't recall who I sent. >> Okay. Somebody named Victor. >> I don't recall. >> Okay. and he went to pick the truck up and took it out of the garage. >> Right. >> But if it was in the garage, then he would have taken it out of the garage. I don't know where it was parked. >> Okay. And if the police testified that that truck was not searched when Mr. Richens died, to your knowledge, had anybody sought your permission to search it at all prior to you picking it up? >> No. >> Okay. And then you took it into your custody. >> Yes. >> And you kept that truck? >> Yes. >> You still have it? >> Yes. >> All right. He also drove a red truck. Is that right? But like a personal truck. >> Uh uh. Yes. >> And did the CE own the red truck? >> Yes. >> All right. And at some point you found out that the red truck was being serviced. Is that right? >> Yes. >> How'd you find that out? Uh the Ford dealership called me and told me that it was ready to be picked up. Right. >> And you knew that that truck was being driven by Cory Richens at the time. >> It should not have been being driven at all. >> Okay. But she had custody of it. >> Um it was sitting at her house with instruction that it shouldn't be driven. >> Okay. And when you found out that it shouldn't be >> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I thought you were done. >> You found out the truck was ready and you went and picked it up, >> right? Um, we went and got it. Yes. Because it because it had been driven. >> You didn't talk to Corey about it? >> No. >> You didn't discuss it with her at all? >> No. >> You just took it from the dealership. >> Is a CE owned vehicle. There is um ramifications for an accident for somebody that's not working with CNE. >> Okay. And so it felt >> that it would be proper to make sure that the truck wasn't being driven. >> Where is the truck now? >> In um somebody's yard or house or I I don't know exactly where it's at. >> Did you give it to Katie? >> I did. >> You gave it to her for free? >> I did not give it to her. No, >> you sold it to her. >> It is owned by Cene. >> So did Cene sell the truck to Katie or did they just give it to her? No, it's sitting at their home or their yard or their place. >> So, they had it. So, the people who had access to the truck before any law enforcement ever looked at it were you, Katie, anyone in Katie's family, anyone at the dealership, is that all right. >> Say that again. The people who had access to that red truck before there was any search executed were you, Katie, anyone in Katie's family and anyone at CE that picked it up? >> Jackson Foundation >> overruled. You can go ahead. >> Um, yeah, I mean many people had access to that truck if if access is >> Okay. they would have to be given the key and given permission to to drive it. >> So when Eric passed and his um buy sell agreement was executed and you gave the money to the court to for the trust. Then the company 100% became yours. Correct. >> Correct. And is it fair to say that your personal net worth basically doubled at that point? >> Um, you could say that. >> Okay. >> Since Eric's death, you've remained close with his family. Is that fair? >> Yes. And you've actually, you and your wife have accompanied Eric's family to court and sat with them during court hearings. We have courts indulgence for just oh one one question I did forget the New York life um that was who had your insurance for your buy sell. Correct. >> Correct. >> Were you aware of whether uh Corey and Eric had personal New York Life policies as well? >> I don't I don't know the answer. >> Okay, that's fine. >> Court's indulgence for just one minute, your honor. Of >> course. difference. Okay. >> Um, only if you know, but were you a aware was CN paying for a personal life insurance policy for Eric through a company called Auto Owners or Integrated Insurance Solutions? >> I'm not aware. >> Okay, that's fine. Um you mentioned that um Eric loved hunting, right? >> Correct. >> And after you gave your testimony to the Department of Wildlife and Re Natural Resources, Eric couldn't hunt for a while in the United States. Is that right? >> Correct. >> But he still could hunt in Mexico. >> Correct. >> And are you aware that shortly before his death he went hunting in Mexico? >> I am. >> Do you know when? Um, it would have been in February sometime, I believe. >> All right. And how often did he hunt in Mexico? Are you aware? >> Sorry. What? >> How often did Eric go hunting in Mexico? >> Um, he went down there for a trip, so I would assume he was hunting every day that he was there. >> Okay. Are you aware of more than one time that he went to Mexico to go hunting? >> Yes. >> Were you aware of the more than five times? >> I don't I couldn't say. I don't remember. Did you ever go with him to Mexico? >> Could I? >> Did you? >> Did I? No. >> Do you know where in Mexico Eric went hunting? >> Um, a general area. I don't know exactly where. >> Is a general area. >> Um, typically the hunting takes place in somewhere around Sonora. >> Around Sonora >> somewhere. >> Okay. >> I think that's all I have. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. >> Mr. Blood. >> Thank you, your honor. Sir, from your perspective, was the loan to K Rich's realy in connection with the Francon Lane property out of necessity? >> Yes. >> You testified that generally people had told you that Eric did drugs. I want to be specific. Did people generally tell you that Eric would use THC edibles? >> Jack here say >> you open the door overruled. >> Can you repeat that? >> Did people tell you that Eric would use THC edibles? >> People would tell me that. Yes. >> Did anyone ever tell you that Eric Richens used illicit street drugs? >> No. You testified that you provided some inculpatory information to DNR officers in connection with their investigation of Eric. Do you recall that? >> Yes. >> Why did you provide them with information? >> Eric was being investigated for a wildlife incident. Um, somebody else had turned him in. Um, and they brought me in to answer some questions that they had. >> And did the incident involve not having a tag in in killing an elk? >> Yes. >> Why did you provide in incriminating evidence as opposed to covering for Eric? Um, Eric knew what he had done was wasn't right and he was okay to be a big boy and take care of his own stuff. and I was okay to be honest and tell them the truth and allow him to do what he needed to do on his end. >> Is that hard for you to do? >> It was extremely hard. I knew what those ramifications were going to be. >> But did you do it cuz it was the right thing to do? >> I did. >> Does March the 7th, 2022 sound like about the right day? when you dispatch somebody to pick up the brown truck from Eric's residence. >> Sounds right. >> Why have you sat with Eric Richen's family at various court proceedings? >> Jack to relevance, your honor. >> Just within the scope of your cross overruled. >> I love the richens. I love um I loved Eric. He was my best one of my best friends. Um and I want to be a support where I can. >> Thank you, your honor. >> Of course. It >> up on your screen, Mr. Bledworth. >> I do, your honor. >> Okay. So the part that we're seeking to examine the witness and we submit that the state has opened the door by asking the question has anyone ever told you Eric used elicit drugs and his answer was no in this testimony at the preliminary page 16 line beginning at line 15 and were you aware that in high school Eric had an addiction to pain pills answer I did know that he participated in pain pill taking for sure question you did answer Yes. And do you know what his pill of choice was that he was addicted to back then? Answer. I believe in high school we called them red devils. >> Is that where you want to stop? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, I'm not entirely sure that Mr. Wright is referring to illicit street drugs, quote unquote, uh, there. But I also don't know the other way. Mr. Bloodworth, you'd be able to clarify that with him once it came in. I think I already ruled on a motion in lemonade that this issue would be admissible. Correct. >> No, your honor, it was it was the opposite. >> Well, that's in the motion in lemonade. >> And I'm we're we're scrambling in the back to get this now the motion in lemonade briefing to you, >> but the in the motion in lemon, Mr. Right. Clarified this testimony to say his awareness was from other people. >> Oh, that's right. >> Not from observing Eric Richens. So, whatever he knows about Eric Richens high school drug use, if any, is hearsay. Mr. Wright also clarified um uh well, sorry, it wasn't Mr. Right. That was clarified. Also, um the state produced evidence that Red Devils circa, whatever it was, 2020ish, um was a reference to an over-the-counter um cough suppressant that kids were taking in high school. Um so I I think the um The defense is saying that the court I'm sorry that the state opened the door is is is unfounded. >> May I respond, your honor? >> One moment. I've got to read my ruling. >> Yes, sir. So the ruling was that I deferred ruling on the motion and lemonade until after the parties have an opportunity to war dire witness Cody Wright or provide other evidence outside the presence of the jury to determine whether there is any nonharsay route to the admissibility of the proposed evidence. >> Thank you honor. Um, so here's what just happened. Mr. Bworth asked the question, "Has anyone ever told you that Eric used elicit drugs?" I objected drugs. >> I objected to hearsay. The court ruled that I had opened the door and allowed him to elicit that hearsay evidence. >> In fairness, you're skipping the first step. You opened the door and crossed the topic. I just said that you I want to be clear. >> Okay. >> It's not just an allegation that you did. You did. >> Then Mr. Bledworth went into it. >> Okay. Absolutely. I was trying to convey that. I'm sorry if I didn't do it correctly. I was not trying to skip any step. You ruled that I had opened the door. You allowed him to elicit what would typically be hearsay evidence because I had opened the door. Now it's in. Now this witness has sat on the stand. No one's ever told him that Eric used elicit drugs and that is not true. >> Elicit street drugs. Please be precise. >> That's what these are. He's claiming >> we don't know one way or the other. Would you like an opportunity to avoid dy Cody Wright about that consistent with the court's motion and lemonade ruling from January? >> I can I'm happy to vort if it helps the court with your ruling. It is my position that at this point I'm entitled to impeach him for making a statement to in response to the state elicited by the state that no one's ever told him Eric used illicit street drugs. Here I have testimony that is contrary to that. I have a right to impeach him on that. I'm I'll var whatever you want, but it is my motion now that I be allowed to go into this because the state has put it there. They've put it out there. I have a right to impeach that he just testified falsely and inconsistently with what he said at the prelim and it's very important your honor. >> If he in fact said something impeachable you have the right to impeach him. >> I'm not sure that he did yet. Why don't we get to that point? >> Mr. Bledworth >> your honor. Certainly we can launder him. I think if the court reads further down in the preliminary hearing transcript, council asks, >> you know, I don't have that ability. So, if you could cite me to it. >> Oh, do you know? I'm sorry. >> No, I don't have control over what they're showing me. >> I can email >> if there's a documentary you want me to look at, I know that it's in the doc. >> So, it's page 61 that I thought was on your screen. It's on my screen. >> It is now. Yeah. So, at the bottom of page 60, >> I guess we we just read from the middle of page 60. >> 60 line 15 through 25. >> Correct. If the court keeps reading to the top of page 61, >> Cody Wright says he has no idea what red devils were. He says prior to that that he is very aware that Eric took pain pills in high school. He says that clear as day. >> Why don't we just ask him what he knows? >> We can, but >> Oh, you don't want that. You want to just use this. >> I want to use this and I want to do it in front of the jury. I don't want to give it. >> You don't want to just put it in. You want to ask him questions about it, right? >> No, I just want to you I want to impeach him with this document only. >> You don't have any foundation that red devils are elicit street drugs though. So, you need that foundation. >> Pills would be. >> But that's not elicit street drugs. And that wasn't the question. This is an important difference. >> Nobody's asked this gentleman or shown that >> if you buy pay, >> please don't speak over me so that you have a clean record. >> Yes, sir. I'm sorry. >> If there is an impeachable statement by this witness as to whether he's aware that Eric Richens took pain pills at any point in his life, this would be directly relevant to that. But we need a nonspeculative foundation for the idea that red devils are elicit street drugs. >> So the pain pills that they're talking about if they are taking >> if that that is being referred to in this prior statement the pain pills that >> well he says pain pills and then he says red devils. >> Okay. So my understanding according to this is that Mr. Wright doesn't know what red devils are, but that's what they called them in high school. >> Seems accurate, >> which is clearly saying these were not doctor prescribed. These are elicit drugs that he's using in high school. So, >> no, there there's a >> there's some distance between a nickname called red devils and elicit street drugs. And I don't know what the red devils he's referring to are, but it doesn't automatically mean they're elicit street drugs. >> If you use pain pills without a prescription, that is elicit street drugs. >> It is not. And you know that to be true. >> I I disagree, your honor. >> It might be diversion of a prescribed substance, but it's not elicit street drugs. They've certainly heard testimony from Mr. Croer that he's selling oxycodone on the street that came from prescription from prescriptions. That's elicit street drugs. >> I'm not sure you want to take that position going forward, but I don't uh endorse it in any respect. Certainly we know that diversion of prescribed legal medication is different than uh purchasing on the street. Prescription medication is different than purchasing non FDA approved substances on the street. There is a range of conduct here and the question asked by Mr. Bworth was specific. >> Can we read back? Can we get it read back what he asked? Can we have Do we have the transcript of the exact statement that Mr. Bledworth just asked of us? >> State courts do not create transcripts. >> I think we have someone doing it live right now. >> When you say we, who are you referring to? >> Uh, Miss Payer. >> She's not a court employee. I don't know what you're referring to. >> If you can give me 5 minutes, I can email her and get the exact statement. >> Sure. >> While that occurs, I'm going to use the restroom. We'll take a recess until 10:35. All right. >> The topic or the concept of whether Eric Richens used uh pain pills during his lifetime, prescription or non-prescription, elicit that is um is relevant. But at the motion eliminated hearing and as I sit here right now there is it's unclear as to whether there is any admissible evidence that he did. So Ms. Nester, I think the correct course forward based upon where we are right now is to allow you to viire Cody right regarding his knowledge of the topic that he discussed at the preliminary hearing, having heard or known or learned somehow um that Eric Richens used pain pills in high school and they were red devils. If that reference is to prescription pain medication, it impeaches Mr. Wright's testimony on the stand today that he's never known Eric to use prescription medication. If it's elicit street drugs, it impeaches his testimony that he's never known or heard about Eric using elicit street drugs. If he doesn't know what red devils are, we're all just speculating, including the jury, and that's not permissible. Mr. Bworth, any comment there? >> Your honor, I think Mr. Wright's testimony. Let me grab the question was that he had never seen Eric Richens use prescription drugs or elicit drugs. >> Okay. >> So, let's see what he says on board Dyer to see if it actually impeaches that or not. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I I'm sensitive to the precision of the questions you were asking at various points. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anything further, sir? >> No, sir. >> All right, Miss Nester, anything before we invite Mr. Wright back in for that purpose? >> No, sir. >> I'm going to wait for Mr. Bertram to whisper in your ear. >> Go ahead. Call back in. >> Okay. Very good. May we invite Mr. Wright back into the courtroom, please? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Mr. Wright, thank you for your patience. If you take the stand for me, if you'd like a glass of water, you can pour yourself one. You are still under oath. >> Um, Ms. Nester has a few extra questions for you and then we'll see where we go from there. All right. >> May I please the court, >> please? >> Thank you, your honor. >> Um, welcome back. >> So, we want to just dig in a little bit to the question. um that you were asked on redirect um when Mr. Bledworth asked you if anyone had ever told you that Eric used elicit drugs and I believe he said elicit street drugs. Does that sound right or do you recall? >> Did he did he say elicit street drugs? Is that what you're asking? >> What was your understanding of the question that he asked you at the very end about whether you'd ever heard about Eric using drugs? I understand elicit street drugs, >> right? What was your understanding of that question? >> If anyone had ever told me about him using an elicit street drug. Okay. >> Now, I'm not in the drug world. I have no clue what most drugs are categorized as. So, >> did you talk to anyone outside in the hallway while you were waiting? >> I did not. >> Okay. Just checking. Okay. Um, so at the preliminary hearing, >> Mhm. >> we asked you some questions about whether you were aware that Eric used pain pills in high school. Do you remember that? >> Yes. >> And are you aware of that? >> I was told that he that had happened. >> All right. And are you were you ever told about where he got those pain pills? >> I have no idea where he got those pain pills from. >> So when Mr. Bworth asked you earlier today if you were ever aware of Mr. um Richens using prescription drugs. You said no. >> Your honor, that's not the question I asked. >> Pause. Mr. Wright, if you would just object to foundation and restate the question for me. >> Your honor, objection foundation. >> Let me ask you this way. >> Sustained. Go ahead. Yes, mister. You was it your understanding in high school when you had this knowledge that Mr. Richens was using these drugs illicitly? In other words, not with the prescription of a of a pharmacist. >> I need you to be more precise in that question. Which drugs are you referring to? >> The pain pills. Sorry. >> And if you would re ask it, please. >> Was it your understanding in high school when you knew about this that Mr. Richens was using his own prescription for pain pills or someone else's. >> I learned about this later on in life, not in high school. >> Okay. And what did you learn? >> And I learned that he had taken pain pills in high school. That's what I had been told. >> Without a prescription. >> Um I didn't get asked whether it was a prescription or not. I I don't know. >> All right. And then I think you said in the prelim that you thought they were called red devils. Is that right? That's what I was told. >> And was it your understanding that red drug red devils were an illicit street drug? >> I don't know what an illicit street drug entails, but I assumed that the red devils were being abused as that's what high school kids were doing. >> So people were doing that in your school. >> I heard that. Yes. >> And did you know what red devils >> later on in life? >> What did you know what red devils were? Um, I learned later on what those were. Yes. >> What are those? >> I believe I believe it's pseudafed. >> Oh, it's pseudafed. >> I think I I'm not a drug person. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Uh, could be pseudoedan maybe. >> Uh, I have no idea. >> Okay. >> But that's what I think it is is pseudafed being abused. >> Okay. Um, so when you testified at the preliminary hearing that you were aware in high school that Eric or you became aware later that in high school Eric abused red devils and pain pills. Do you still stand by that today? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, your honor, do you need more than that? I understand Mr. Wright's testimony on the record. >> Okay. Okay. Um, let me just think for one second if there's anything else. When you answered Mr. Bloodworth's question in front of the jury that you that you had not heard from anyone that Eric used elicit street drugs. That's except for what you heard about in high school. >> Objection, your honor. The foundation. >> I can ask him what his intention of his answer was. Your honor, did you intend to carve that out? >> That's a fair question. Can you restate that? I'm sorry. >> Intend to carve out from that answer what you knew about high school. >> What answer? Sorry. >> From the answer that Mr. Bworth asked you in front of the jury if anyone had ever told you or if you had ever heard that Eric used elicit street drugs. Did you intend to not include what you knew in high school? Are you carving that out? I if I said it that I was in high school. Um what I've been what I would been told about Eric is throughout my life. I don't know if it was exactly in high school. I don't know if it was in my early 20s or now. What I've been told over the years is that he had used those in high school. And that's what I know. >> All right. And so if I were to ask you the question again that Mr. Bworth asked you, are has anyone ever told you that Eric used elicit street drugs and you included all the knowledge you have all the way back through what he did in high school? What would your answer be? Now >> I don't know what elicit street drugs entail. >> Okay. >> I've been told of some drugs that he used. Um and that's what I would testify to is that I know that he used some drugs form of drugs. I don't know what they are exactly. I don't know if they're elicit street drugs or not, but that he had used drugs at some point. >> That's it. Your honor. >> Okay. Mr. Bworth, anything else for Mr. Wright at this point >> in terms of order? >> Sir, is the only drug that you've been told he used in high school the Red Devils? >> In high school, yes. You haven't heard of him using any other drug in high school other than marijuana. Let's just accept marijuana from this whole discussion. Okay. >> Yeah. So, in high school, I was told that people were using red devils. I had heard that Eric had popped pills. >> Okay. And is your understanding was the pills that he popped were the red devils or was it red devils and something else? understanding that a red devil is a pill. He popped pills and I don't really know much more than that. Okay. I don't know what pills they were popping or >> anything to that extent. >> Can I just follow up on that, your honor? >> So, you mentioned in high school like maybe there was after high school as well. Did I misread what you just said? Um, I have learned of these things through people over the years. I there's a um I don't know this exact times and days that people have told me this this knowledge. Um there Eric popped pills in high school is what I've been told. >> Beyond high school, do you have any knowledge if he popped pills? >> I don't have any knowledge of sure knowledge that he popped pills after high school. >> Not sure knowledge, but have people told you that? >> I have knowledge that he took THC gummies. >> Okay. Anything else? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure cuz I heard that I heard that uh clarification and I wanted to make sure we followed all the way through with it. Great. >> As far as you sit here today, other than what you heard about what he did in high school and other than knowing about the THC gummies, have you heard any other from any other person that Eric used drugs in his lifetime? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clar clarify that. >> I need to make you take a walk again. >> Okay. Please don't speak to anybody in the lobby. Ms. Nester, any further argument? >> Well, your honor, I mean, I think that this witness has now clarified that if he were to ask answer the question now, he would include that he was aware Eric popped pills in high school. He also heard that people in his high school were doing red devils. He said he assumed that's what Eric was doing, but he doesn't know. But he has knowledge that Eric was popping pills. This whole case is about a pill addiction. This whole case is about whether or not Eric Richens voluntarily ingested that or if he was given it by his wife. This is a critical piece of the defense. He's been allowed to make a statement in front of the jury that we have now found out through Verdy is not 100% accurate on one of the core issues in this case. I am only asking to impeach him. I can limit it to what he said in the prelim. We can go farther if you want us to or we can limit it to what he said in the prelim. I'll do it either way. But I think to deny Miss Richens the right to impeach him on something this critical to the defense and the prosecution when the door was absolutely opened by the prosecution would be reversible error and we're asking that the court allow us to do that now. >> Mr. Blair, >> your honor, this state disagrees with all of that, including the veracity of some of that. The state reverts back to what we had briefed in motion hearing by the way that any relevancy to what happened in high school has decayed to zero 40 or 20 plus years later. Um the testimony at issue was is Mr. writes response to the question of um did anyone ever tell you that Eric Richens used illicit street drugs to which he responded no. Nothing in his vadier um impeaches that testimony. Um therefore um bringing in the preliminary hearing transcript or any further questioning on this um well the prel pre preliminary hearing transcript or any further questioning on this is inadmissible. >> All right. The case has to be tried based upon admissible evidence. And on both sides of the V, there are pieces of evidence that either the state or the defense has sought to admit that the court has ruled are not admissible. I'm required to apply the rules of evidence. We instruct the jury that the rules of evidence have developed over hundreds of years to make sure that trials are tried in a fair and impartial way. This issue developed in a way where defense council asked a question that elicited hearsay testimony regarding what Mr. Wright had heard about uh Mr. Richen's prior drug use generally. Whether or not that's what the defendant intended, that's what happened. So then on redirect, the state asked two very specific questions to characterize that volunteering of hearsay by Mr. Wright. Whether they' heard that Mr. Richards had used THC products and whether he had ever heard that Mr. Wright used illicit street drugs. Nothing in his uh prior preliminary hearing testimony or during his war dire outside the presence of the jury on the stand is admissible evidence contrary to his sworn testimony on the stand in front of the jury. His prior reference to red devils he's now clarified as pseudafet which is not pain pills to begin with. Moreover, he doesn't have any admissible testimony that Eric Richens used elicit drugs of any kind. This is hearsay. It is speculation. It's not admissible. >> Your honor, may I just make a record? >> Of course, >> your honor, it's our position that first of all, when I asked the question, it was not objected to by the state. Second of all, I'd like to make the record that this would be for purposes of impeachment. This to deny us this opportunity is a violation of Crawford. It is a violation of our sixth amendment right to cross-examine. It is a violation of a due process right to a fair trial. We would be able to call in our case an expert who would testify that red devils were in fact PCP in that period of time. They were not pseudafed. The DEA has a pamphlet on that. We're being denied that option. Um, we're being denied the ability to attack the credibility of someone who has changed. Respectfully, we disagree with your honor's position on this. We think he absolutely changed his testimony. And we're being prohibited the right to impeach him on the fact he changed his testimony. And I believe that the question I would ask him if I were allowed to go forward would be, did you learn that Eric popped pills in high school? and that would impeach what he said to Mr. Bledworth unrebuted and not allowed to be rebutted by me when we know that I can rebut it. Um, and we just we in our strongest way possible, we object to this. We would like a continuing objection. We move to strike all of Cody Wright's testimony, all of the issues that Mr. >> Whoa. You You lost me. on redirect on redirect the redirect testimony >> which case >> where he answered the question that I'm not now being allowed to impeach him on we're asking to strike it at the very minimum um the all of the things that Mr. Bworth just brought up all go to weight, not admissibility. Um, and >> what is the nonharsay route for this witness to testify regarding what he heard if it's coming in for the truth of the matter? Certain? >> It's not. It's coming in to impeach that once the court allowed him to answer that question with hearsay to rebut the hearsay that we elicited. What's the evidence that he heard prior to today testifying today that Eric Richens used elicit street drugs? >> He just testified to it on the stand. >> That is not true. >> Okay. Well, we agree to disagree on that, your honor. >> Have you disclosed that expert that would provide a nonspeculative basis that red devils are an elicit street drug? >> We have disclosed that expert. His name is Mr. Kierney. He is on our list. He's been available. We did not know the Red Devil stuff was coming in until 10 minutes ago because we were told >> coming in. >> Well, okay. Well, that's that's obvious then. I mean, we did the best we could. We gave him our drug expert that as soon as the Red Devils comes in, we can let them talk to him about that because we sure would go into that with our expert that we're now being denied the ability to do that. There is a key question here, your honor. if Eric Richens had a drug problem and if he did, Miss Richens is innocent and we are being prohibited from going into that with the one person who knows. And I just think that the the the veracity of this witness on this topic cannot be underestimated for purposes of the defense. I know you disagree with us. I believe I've made my record. Yes, he's changed his story. He's now saying he's never heard that Eric used drugs when he knows in the prelim that he did. Um, and I just think this is just a huge, huge impediment to us to put on a fair trial in this case. And I believe I've made my record. I can't think of anything else I need to say on the record. Thank you for letting me make a per offer. >> Okay. Are you asking me to strike Mr. Wright's answer that he's never heard uh that Eric used Alyssa Street? >> Yes. On which basis? On what basis? >> On the fact I'm not allowed to impeach him on it and we all know it's not a correct answer. >> You certainly can impeach him on it if you have any evidence that it's impeachable. >> Know any other way to show it to the court other than what we've already done? >> Okay. >> Can can I see? >> I want to be clear. There's just no evidence that Cody Wright believes that red devils are illicit street drugs. But he separated the red devils from the popping pills. He separated that. >> No, I with respect he didn't. Okay. >> Okay. Well, I think the transcript will reflect in. >> All right. Let me pause. Anything further? We have nothing further to add, your honor. >> Mr. Bworth, a direct question. I need to exercise a measure of humility here. Is the state sure that you won't don't want to just get this out on the record to insulate the potential of a verdict on appeal? You now know what Mr. Wright's going to say. And if you need to uh confer with your team, I'm happy to give you a moment. >> Yes, your honor. Let me take a moment to confer. Can I make a record on one thing, though? >> Sure. >> Let me read to the court the expert disclosure as it relates to >> I don't know that we need to get into that at this moment. I won't be basing anything I do on that. >> Okay, then. >> Thank you. >> Can I step back? >> Of course. We're still going forward. We're off the record for the moment in the record. >> Okay, very good. Court stands on its ruling. Uh, anything else before we invite Mr. Wright back in and the jury? Mr. Bworth? >> No, your honor. >> Ms. Nester, I >> can't remember. Did we >> I'm not persuaded that you've provided a basis to strike Mr. um writes statement that he's never been told that Eric Richens used elicit street drugs. >> I understand your ruling. I just can't remember how he ended it with the witness because so much has happened. So >> I think you had the witness on recross. >> Oh, I approached before I recrossed. >> Okay. Thank you for helping me remember. >> Do you have any recross questions within the scope of redirect? Can you give me just one minute? >> Of course. >> Refresh my recollection because a lot has gone under the bridge and I just have to get back to where we were. I think I do have a quick recross on within the scope of this redirect. >> Very good. If we could invite the jury back in, please. Okay. All right. Oh, well, we'll invite her back in. >> Yeah, if you can get him. >> Thanks, mister. I detective. All eyes for the jury. >> Please have a seat as you come in. All right, folks. Have a seat. Mr. Wright, if you would take the stand again, I'd appreciate it. >> Mr. Wright, you're still under oath. Miss Nester, please proceed. >> Thank you, your honor. We're almost done. You mentioned just now to Mr. Bledworth or a few minutes ago, it's been a minute now. Um that you were aware that Eric used THC gummies, right? >> I heard that he did that. Yes. >> Okay. Do you have any personal knowledge as to how often he would use THC gummies? >> No idea. >> Do you know why he used them? >> Um I couldn't tell you that. I don't know why he would have used them. And do you have any personal knowledge about where he obtained his gummies from? >> Zero. >> Okay. >> So that was just a part of his life he didn't share with you. >> Correct. >> And on the truck when you sent whoever I know you said you don't remember. Mr. Bledworth just talked to you about a date. The work truck, the not the red one, but the work truck. You guys got that just within a day or two after he passed. Correct. The work truck was picked up within a few days. >> Okay. And then the truck that you took from the dealership was about a month later >> or so. Yeah, months later. >> I just want to make that clarification. Thank you. That's all I have. We tender on the witness, your honor. >> No, your honor. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, are we releasing this witness, council? >> Yes, your honor. >> Okay, sir. You are free to go. You are released from the subpoena. You can talk to anybody you'd like. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. Mr. Bworth, the state's next witness, please. Your honor, the state calls Matthew Throck Morton. Great. Mr. Throck Martin, if you'd step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. If you'll please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Have a seat. Please proceed. >> Thank you, your honor. Please state your full name and spell your last name for the record. >> My name is George Matthew Throck Morton. That's T H R O C K M O R T O N. >> Sir, are you employed? >> Yes, I work full-time for the Salt Lake City Police Department in the crime lab as a crime scene investigator with a specialty in forensic document examination. Okay. Um, how long have you been with uh Salt Lake City as a crime scene? >> 27 years. >> And um, what is a forensic document examiner? >> Forensic document examiner is an individual who examines and compares writing in an attempt to determine identity, authorship or authenticity. This includes the examination of uh handwriting, erasers, inks, papers, basically anything related to documents. >> So, um how how long have you been doing that forensic document examination? >> 30 years. >> Okay. Um did you have any special training that you've done just specifically for FDE? >> Yes. Um, I apprenticed uh with my father, George Throck Morton. It's about 4,000 hours of training in casework and study over a two-year time period. I also um trained with other document examiners at the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners. I completed courses through the Institute of Applied Science in Chicago. I also was trained at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia and um have trained with uh other document examiners uh and uh attended courses and conferences throughout the United States. >> Have you um practiced this FTE or uh forensic document examination with other labs? Uh, no, just pretty much my own. >> So, um, did you do something uh with the state lab in Montro, Colorado? >> I did train with other document examiners at the state lab in Montro. >> Okay. So, you didn't practice, you were in training. >> It was part of my apprenticeship. >> I see. Okay. Um, have you had to maintain uh continuing training? >> Yes. >> In the intervening years? Yes, I've attended various uh courses and conferences put on throughout the United States. >> Have you given presentations yourself at such conferences? >> Yes. Um I've actually uh been a guest instructor at the Salt Lake Community College as well as the University of Utah at the law department. Um I've trained at the Utah Post Academy helping police officers understand what a forensic document examiner is and how they can help them with their cases. Um, I've also trained employees at American Express to detect uh potential forgeries and I've also taught classes at the IE um which is the International Association for Identification. That's the largest and oldest forensic organization in the world. >> Are you a member of that organization? >> Yes, I am. >> Um, do you belong to a particular section of the IAI? >> Yes, I belong to the question document section. So over the last 30 years, this may seem like kind of a a dopey question, but have you ever had the opportunity to examine question documents? >> Yes, I've worked on over 1,500 individual cases over 30 years. >> And have you ever testified in court as a forensic documented examiner? >> I've testified 61 times, 48 times as a question documented examiner. In uh the world of forensic document examination, are there some basic underlying principles upon which the the science rests? >> Yes. That uh no two people write exactly the same way. That's to say that no two individuals share all the same characteristics and habits uh given the proper quantity and quality of documents to compare to show that their writing um is different. >> Okay, before we move on to the second one, I wanted to just very briefly go into this idea of habits um when you're talking about what do you mean by habits of writing? I guess just have you explain it. Um, habits are uh part of an individual's writing where they most of the time they really don't even know what those habits are. They're just writing trying to create uh either a letter or they're signing their name. And um as they have learned to write over the years, they they uh pick up uh different characteristics and habits within that writing. That could be um how they cross the tea is the crown at the top of the staff, medium part of the staff or down closer to the baseline. Uh when they write an er combination, for example, is the E bigger than the R or vice versa. Um are those two letters connected or is there a pen lift between those two letters? Um is the the U more rounded or a little more pointed? So they they just develop and use these habits um as they write different types of things or sign their name. So when we first learn to write, we're writing careful um what our teacher is teaching us and then as we go on later in life, we become more concerned with the content and not the formation of the letters. Those are just subject to habit. >> That is correct. we we learn a a textbook style of writing uh in school. We're just trying to duplicate what we see. Um again, more concerned with uh making it look like how we see it. Um and again, concentrating, like you said, more on what it looks like. as as our skill level increases, we're more concerned with uh the content of of what we're writing, whether it's assigning our name or whether it's the letter uh that we're trying to write to somebody. Um, and the longer we write, those uh characteristics and habits just become muscle memory to us and we don't necessarily think about how we're writing letters and formations. We're more concerned with what we're writing. >> Okay, we've talked about individuality. What's the other principle upon which your science rests? >> That uh an individual can't make all of the variables the same to make two pieces of writing the same as one another. There's always going to be a natural variation that occurs as we write our name. You're not going to find two signatures that are an overlay. There's always going to be a little bit of difference in how those look or in a body of writing. >> Okay. So, is there are there studies out there where um researches re researchers have looked at um these principles? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um could you very briefly go into um this idea of individuality? >> Absolutely. There was a study done um called Cedar Fox out of the uh University of Buffalo in New York. And the premise of the study was to test the theory that no two people share all of the same characteristics and habits within their writing. And what they did is they had 1,500 participants of varying ethnic backgrounds, age, and gender. The objective was to make it similar to to what the population and makeup was for the United States. They had these 1500 individuals um write some handwriting specimens. These specimens were put into a computer. They picked eight characteristics out of the writing and had the computer analyze those eight characteristics. uh it was determined uh with a 98% confidence level that no two individuals wrote those eight characteristics exactly the same way. >> Okay. Are there studies that uh have looked at the ability of a trained document examiner versus lay people on their abilities? >> Yes, there's been a number of studies over the years. Um, Cedar Fox also did a study of twins uh again to differentiate if uh the writing of twins could be um seen as it was different one from another. They in that particular study they hired uh lay people to to do the examination. the computer did an examination and they also had intern um document examiners uh look and do those comparisons. In that particular study, it was determined that the computer had about a 9% error rate in in differentiating writing one twin from another. It was determined that the lay people had a larger percentage of an error rate and that the intern document examiners had about a 5% error rate in differentiating writing one from another. >> Those are interns, not fully trained. >> Correct. now or there's some studies um known as Cam being one of the authors of these studies that uh also looked into um into the abilities of a trained examiner versus lay person. >> Yes. Moshi Cam, Professor Moshi Cam out of Drexler University uh did a number of studies and in his studies he had um lay people do examinations as well as document examiners from intern to those that had completed the 4,000 hours of training. Uh throughout his studies, he determined that uh that lay people um made larger mistakes in doing their examinations and that document examiners starting as interns going to the fully trained that their error rates were less than the lay people and that the fully trained document examiners had about a 4% error rate. >> Okay. Now, how could you explain to the jury what you do um in this comparison process? >> Yes. Um in this particular case, I was uh given >> just very briefly, generally, you receive question documents and known documents. >> Correct. I I receive a stack of documents. I >> um first of all, I separate the question from the known. Mhm. >> Um I go over each page individually uh looking for um comparison between whatever has been questioned versus uh the undisputed known samples that I receive. I compare uh my findings uh one from another. Then I evaluate those findings in order to render an opinion. >> So um this process does it include digitizing the documents say they come on paper. or do you reduce them to some digital format? >> I scan everything um to first of all to preserve the evidence uh documents. I'll scan the whole document and as well as the signatures or the questionnaire individually and then same with the known samples. >> I see. And when you're um when you're doing that, do you then do a sideby-side comparison or do you do one uh a question and then known? How does that work? >> Yes, I do a justosition examination which is uh comparing the question versus the known side by side looking for uh similarities and differences that may be amongst the writing. >> Okay. Um, what are you looking for? Um, these habits you mentioned before. >> Yes. >> I'm looking for everything in the writing. Just looking for again similarities and differences. Looking for um evidence that uh will basically say is that was this authored by the same person or was it authored by two different people. I look for letter formations. I look for proportion between letters. I look for um where the writing sits within a margin. Is it uh closer to the right left? Is it on uh above or below a baseline? Looking for shading uh where darker areas of the writing may be. Um just basically looking for everything on the documents to compare. >> Okay. So, when you're doing this comparison, do you um consider the underlying facts of of the case you're working on? >> No, I just look at the um evidence sitting in front of me. Um usually I'm asked, do uh does a question in known writing, were they authored by the same person? So, I'm looking specifically uh for evidence one way or another on that. >> Okay. um when I AI or or I think you've mentioned uh earlier you talked about the Southwest Association of Forensic Documenting Examiners uh Swigd Do or somebody does does somebody give you a a set of standards for your conclusions? Yes, there's a set of standardized opinions that uh initially was put together in 1977 by the ABFDE, the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. In 2016, uh SWIGDOC, which is the um scientific working group for forensic documents, took that standardized group of opinions and made it their own. >> Okay. >> And that's the scale that I use today. >> Okay. Can can we briefly review what those stand what those yeah that scale is. >> Sure. Uh the first one is an identification. Identification means that the questioned and known signatures agree in every observable detail and that there's no unexplainable differences or variations present. The opinion below that is highly probable or strong probability >> that it was authored by that person >> by the same person. Correct. >> And that means that um there was either something that was different between the question on it might be a feature was missing uh the the way a letter was connected. It also might be the difference uh looking from a a an original document to a a a copy of a document um that I didn't have the original. I was only looking at a copy. I didn't have best evidence. So, because I can't tell the origin of the document, I'll drop that down from an identification to a highly probable or strong probability. The opinion below that is a probable. And a probable means that a majority of the evidence says that the question and known document was authored by the same person. But the reason that it would be dropped to a probable could be again that it's a copy. Could be that there were um uh signatures that were out of the timeline than than the question document was. So I don't have maybe current uh documents to look at. Um the opinion under that is an indication and an indication means that most of the evidence says that the question and known were authored by the same person but uh again might be dealing with a copy might not have as many signatures as as I would like to have in doing that comparison. So it drops it to an indications. The next opinion is a no conclusion and this is basically I couldn't tell one way or the other whether it was authored or not authored by who it purports to be. Then it it uh continues towards exclusion in the in a reverse sequence. So um indications it was not authored by followed by probable not authored by highly probable not authored by and then an exclusion >> an elimination >> elimination that's the word okay um in your process then do you somehow try to verify what your opinion is? >> Yes. >> How do you do that? Um, usually I'll uh contact a a peer, another forensic document examiner, and have them review a blind uh examination of of the same evidence that I looked at. >> What is a blind uh view? >> That means that um they don't know what my opinion is that they're going to do their own examination and come up with their uh their own conclusion. >> Okay. Now are these the the uh principles and methods accepted in your field? >> Yes. >> And uh are those the methods and principles that you applied in this case? >> Yes. >> Okay. So did you receive a uh question writing in this case? >> Would you like to publish, Mr. >> Yes, please. Your >> 7-21 is published. >> Okay. Um let's just scroll through it. from top to bottom just to refresh the jury. Okay, so that's page two. Let's go return then to page one. Do you recognize this, sir? >> Yes, I do. >> Um, is this the question document? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, um, what did you receive? A copy or an original? And if a copy, what type of copy? >> I believe um, on this one I had a PDF copy. >> Okay. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for your purposes? >> Uh PDF is um not the best quality of document. >> Why is that? >> Um first of all uh obviously best evidence is the original document. Okay. >> Um next best evidence would be a photocopy of that document. >> Okay. >> And then a PDF comes after >> a regular photocopy. >> Sure. But what is it because of when is there some limitation on PDFs that for your purposes? >> Yes. Um if I could talk about photocopies first. Uh a photocopy is a distorted picture of an original document. Uh the problem with a photocopy is it's a picture that is slightly smaller than the original document. there is uh the colors are not as vivid or clear. Um the tonesuh may be less vivid as well. In some cases in photocopies uh writing uh pen strokes can uh diminish and in some cases disappear. There's also um marks that can appear on the photocopy that weren't on the original document. These are called trash marks. Trash marks can occur from damage or dirt on the scanner glass as well as wear and tear on the inner workings of a photocopy machine. Uh so you're going to it's going to change or alter the evidence a little bit. The PDF has a lot of the same problems with it. Uh the problem with the PDF is there's no default setting. Uh, so depending on the software or where it was made, if it was made on a computer with a scanner or if it was made on a a copy machine or in some cases a a cell phone, um, it uh changes and alters the document, makes it so that kind of the overall appearance looks good, but if you were to try and enlarge or zoom into a particular area, it will pixelize and get rid of some of the finer details that you would have in the original or in a copy. Okay. So, did in this case, did you receive some known documents? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. May I approach the witness? >> Yes. >> I'm handing the witness what has been marked as states exhibit uh 8-49. Can you take a look at that and review it for a moment? >> Yes. Uh, council, my apologies for interrupting your question. Make a note of this one. We'll come back to it. I need to take a quick break. >> Yes. >> Please rise for the jury. Have a seat, please. Okay. Uh, Mr. Throck, I need to take a fiveminut break. We'll just say until 11:40. All right. Please do not speak to anyone during the break. >> Yes, sir. I know you've done this before. >> Yes. >> Very good, sir. Thank you. We'll be in recess until 11:40. Thank you. Court's off the record. >> Mr. Burmester, are we ready for the jury? >> You are? >> Yes. >> M. Netor ready for the jury? >> Yes, your honor. >> Okay, very good. Get my nails done. All right. Please have a seat as you come in. Have a seat. Thank you. I I promise I'm paying attention to the temperature. We're We're trying to adjust as we go. Uh Mr. Throck Morton, you're still under oath. Mr. Burmeister, please proceed. Sir, this um states exhibit 849. Have you had a chance to look through the various documents that are in 849? >> Not yet. Do those look familiar to you, sir? >> Yes. >> Um, how are they familiar? >> These were the uh undisputed known samples that I received uh in preparation to compare the signature on the true stage to the signatures and initials found in these known documents >> and signatures. >> Correct. >> Okay. And where did you get them from? >> Uh majority of these documents were received from Katie's attorneys. Uh and >> is that the law firm Bennett Tuler? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um so initially were you hired by the the trust or the Tuler or >> I was hired by the attorneys at Bennett Tuler um who were working for Katie Eric's sister. >> Okay. And how much were you uh paid by the >> I received a $900 retainer to help with that. >> Okay. Um, since that time, have you been uh hired by um Summit County? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. >> Can you briefly describe what is this collection of documents that are contained in 849? Um there was uh cancelled checks, uh driver's licenses, uh just various documents that Eric had authored and signed over the course of his regular daily activities. >> Was there a trust and a will? >> Um there might be amongst the documents. >> Okay. >> There's also tax documents and receipts. >> I see. Okay. Um, now there were some other documents like a that appear to be like photographs maybe of a a journal u a mission journal. >> Yes. >> Um and uh a photograph of some appear to be written coupons. >> Yes. >> Those documents. Where did you get them? >> I received them from your office. Uh Chelsea Gibson. >> That's correct. >> Okay. How did that delivery take place? >> Um she met me at uh the Salt Lake City Police Department in the parking lot and gave me a thumb drive that contained all of those photographs. >> Okay. The other documents um the ones from Beneter, were they paper or were they electronic? There were um some hard copies uh and there were also some digital uh PDFs that were sent to me. >> Okay. Did you um did you go Well, let me ask this. How many actual signatures of Eric Richens did you receive in in all those documents contained in 849? >> Um I found that there were 86 signatures and 24 sets of initials. And uh did you do a comparison like you described earlier with the digitizing um and then going through the analyze compare evaluate verificate uh verification? >> Yes, I compared the question signature versus the 86 known signatures and 24 initials looking for similarities and differences. >> Okay. Um, did were you able to come to an a conclusion yourself? >> Yes, I was. >> And did you send that out for a verification, a blind, as you said, a blind verification? >> Yes. >> To whom? >> Uh, to my friend in Colorado, her name is Darla McCclary Salatano. >> And um was she able to come to a conclusion? >> Object to hearay. >> Yeah. Would you approach for a moment, Mr. Burmister? Sorry. >> Okay. Um let's um take a look. Did you prepare did you prepare a uh a a slide for the jury to look at in preparation for your trial or for trial today? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um can we take a look at just to the witness and counsel um 8-28 please? >> The witness has it. >> Okay. Um it do you recognize that sir? >> Yes I do. >> Would that be helpful in communicating your testimony today? >> Yes. >> State would ask would offer states exhibit 8-28 and ask for permission to be published. >> No objection. >> 828 is admitted and published. >> Okay. Let's um set aside 828. Well, why don't you orient us first? What does 828 show us? >> 828 is an exhibit that shows the um question signature at the top uh taken from the true stage document. >> Okay. >> And the uh Q stands for question, three is the series of documents, page is uh page two and A is the first signature used on that document. The signatures, the 10 signatures below were are samples taken from the known signatures that I received and initials to compare. Again, uh K stands for known. One stands for the group of documents. P stands for the page, so page two, and again a is the first signature on that page that was used. So 849 is all the K's and um this particular one is from the first tab. >> Correct. >> I see. Okay. Now um let's take a look at U 7-21 please. This is page two of 721. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um, now which uh looks like there's a couple signatures on this page. What one were you focusing on? >> The one on the right. The one that purports to be Eric. >> Okay. And then is so did you take the one from the truth stage and then put it into your exhibit? >> Correct. >> Okay. And that's the one that we have. We just don't have uh you you didn't add the data that it was given. >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. We can go back to 8:28, please. Were um were you able to come to a conclusion? >> Yes. >> Okay. What was that conclusion? >> My conclusion was that there was no evidence that Eric authored this signature. >> Okay. >> And that he probably did not. and that it appeared to be a simulated forgery uh written by somebody who was familiar had access to his writing in an attempt to copy draw or duplicate his signature and try and pass it off as a genuine signature of Eric. >> Okay, I want um we'll come back to this in one second. Your honor, could the witness step down with the microphone and let's just look at 828 moment, sir. >> Thank you. >> Why you have Well, I'm thinking of it. There appears to be one that's in yellow. It looks like it's been highlighted. Has it been highlighted? >> No. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, no. That one came from an NCR copy. Uh it was a yellow piece of paper. All I did was uh crop the signature off that paper to put it on this document. >> All right. Could you explain to the jury how your analysis went? >> Sure. First thing in looking at the question signature on this uh there it's basically EER and um the way that the E is formed starts at the top comes down creates the first uh semicircle comes to a point and then comes back down towards the baseline. When it gets to the baseline it shoots off to the right. Uh then a line comes down towards the baseline, continues up to create the second E which is leaning a little further over. This E is not as defined, a little more loosely made. Um, when we get to the second portion of the E, it shoots over to the right to start uh the letter R, which creates a kind of a triangle formation there, then goes up and creates uh kind of an arc uh more squared than normal. Comes back down towards the baseline um from uh towards the baseline and then shoots off over to the right and terminates. Couple things that pointed that stuck out to me on this signature. This is what's called a one-stroke signature. That means that the writing instrument starts and continues all the way through to the end. There are no pen lifts. Um, as well within the signature, uh, the things that stick out again is is there's the pen lifts are are not found here. the uh if you look at the known samples from ERIC, you'll notice that there's a pen lift between each of the letters, a pen lift between the E and the E, pen lift between the E and the R. Um, and that's a consistent characteristic inhabit that Eric has. The other thing too is the second E actually starts at the baseline. Um, you'll notice that on the nonies, the E start up top in a normal fashion. um that they always start at the top. They don't start at the baseline like this one does. The other thing too to to note is this are again where it's connected. It actually starts down closer to the baseline and then comes up. You'll notice in these E's or in the Rs that they start at the top like we're we traditionally learn how to do in school. You've got a line that comes down, pen comes off the paper, and then the second part of the R is made. You can see the staff of the R here, uh, staff here. So, couple things that stuck out to me that were not common among his writing again is we've got a single one stroke signature instead of pen lifts. Uh, the E, second E starts at the bottom at the baseline and the R starts at the bottom at the baseline. It was um by looking at these characteristics and comparison that I was able to um render an opinion that the question and known signatures were not authored by the same person. >> Okay, you take a seat, please. >> Now, your opinion was that it was probably not signed by Eric Richens. Why probably not? as opposed to uh elimination >> because I was dealing with a photocopy uh that the true stage was a photocopy of a document. I um basically I'm missing evidence. Uh so as a conservative opinion instead of an an absolute elimination, it's closer to a little weaker than that. So it was a probable as well. um I couldn't identify uh who the author of that signature was. In the case of a simulated forgery, the author gives up their own habits and characteristics to try and copy, draw, or duplicate somebody else's. So, because I was not able to determine who was authoring this, uh basically I came back to that there was no evidence that Eric did it, but I couldn't determine who actually authored it. >> Okay. So your final conclusion then is also um that there is no evidence that you could find nothing in the known that would support the question document was signed by Eric. >> That's correct. >> Okay, that's all the questions that I have for this witness. I have off of course. >> May I please the court? >> Almost. Good afternoon. Good morning still, sir. >> Good morning. >> My name is Kathy Nester. I'm one of the attorneys representing Corey Richens. >> Okay. Um, so I want to first talk about your um, I guess we call it your curriculum vite, which is a fancy way of saying your resume, right? >> Correct. >> And I reviewed that that you gave to us. And can you tell me, sir, is there a difference between a fraud a document fraud examiner and a certified forensic document examiner? I said it wrong the first time. A I'm gonna get it right. Uh forensic document examiner is your title. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And is there a difference between a forensic document examiner and a certified forensic document examiner? >> Certified examiner is somebody that belongs to an organization that they pay and that they recognize him or them or her as part of their group. It's not just payment. They also take a test, right? >> Uh depends on the organization. >> And in fact, there was an organization um there's an organization that accredits um these these organizations and it's called the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board. Is that right? Do you know what that is? >> That's one of them. And they are people who accredit these organizations to certify people, right? >> Yes. >> And if you go to one of these accredited organizations, and I'm going to just read some examples and see if you're familiar with them, the Board of Forensic Document Examiners, is that one of them? >> There's an American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. >> Okay. And are you also aware there's just a Board of Forensic Document Examiners? >> I haven't looked into that one. and Scientific Association of Forensic Examiners, SAFE. >> I've heard of them. >> Okay. And the International Association of Document Examiners, I a >> I've heard of them. >> And the National Association of Document Examiners. Have you heard of them? >> Yes. >> And the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, ACFE. >> Not familiar with them. >> Okay. And all these are groups that provide ways for forensic document examiners to become certified and they're accredited by this specialties accreditation board, right? >> Yes. >> And the way that they become credited certainly they have to pay a membership fee. You're right about that. But they also they take an exam, right? >> I assume so. >> And they're given a bunch of samples that are peer-reviewed by others to see if they agree that their analysis are good, right? Correct. That would be the process. >> And they do an oral board where they answer questions and respond to um like on the spot testing of their skills. >> Objection, your honor. Right. Foundation is that I >> He said he doesn't know. >> Well, I so far uh there hasn't been a foundation problem. Ask him whether he knows which I think is what you're doing. >> And it's appears to me by your answers you know about all of this process, right? There's a lot of organizations out there that people can join uh even people that haven't been properly trained, >> right? And by being certified by any of these organizations that are accredited, that's an extra security and assurance to your co customers and your clients that you've been screened, you've been vetted, and you've been certified that you're good at what you do, right? >> Uh it can be. And you've never ever done that in your whole career, have you? >> No. >> You've chosen not to ever seek certification. >> Correct. Never gone for it. >> And you do agree that the forensic science that you're involved in of handwriting analysis involves a lot of using your own best judgment, right? >> Judgment based on experience and training. Absolutely. But your judgment, your analysis. >> Yes. And I've been properly trained in order to know how to use that judgment. >> Okay. And certainly you agree that not every single forensic evaluator is going to come to the exact same conclusion by looking the exact same writing. Is that fair? >> I don't know that I agree with that. It would again depend on how much training they've had. It depends on how who they were trained by. Um it is possible that uh individuals aren't going to have the exact same opinion as me. >> Sure. And it also depends on the quality of the sample you're given. Right. >> Correct. >> And original is best, right? >> Yes. >> One copy later after the original is is a little worse, right? There's about a 1 to 3% distortion rate from an original to a first generation photocopy. >> And do you know which generation photocopy you were given? >> I have no idea. >> You know how many times it was photocopied? >> No. >> Do you know how many times it was faxed? >> Uh, it didn't appear to be faxed, but no. >> Okay. Do you know? And you never got a paper. You got a PDF sent to you. >> Foundation. >> These are yes or no questions overruled. Go ahead. >> Thank you, honor. You got a PDF sent to you on email, right? You didn't even get a document >> for this document. That's correct. >> Right. And if we could please bring back up 8-4 and go to the page ending in 781. I believe this has been admitted. Your honor, >> one moment, please. >> Can you make sure? 84 84. >> Not yet. >> 84. >> His report. Did you put it in? >> No. >> Oh, sorry. Just for his review only, your honor. >> The witness has 8-4. >> 781. The I think it's like maybe the fourth or fifth page. Let's just kind of scroll. That one right there. Um, so this page that you're looking at, is this a page that you included in your report that you submitted to the prosecution in this case? >> Uh, yes. >> All right. And can we blow it up just to the extent you can a little bit, please, so he can see the the body of it? Okay. And these are the um levels of of certainty that you talked about with Mr. Burmeister, right? from the strongest opinion to the weakest opinion. >> Um, yeah, it's it's not a scale based on pass or fail or but it helps the examiner to express his opinion as a whole. >> So, it's the standards that you typically use in your reports. >> Yes. >> And the best report you can give somebody is elimination. I can say 100% this person did not write this. Right. or identification depending on >> which one you're doing. >> Correct. >> In or out 100%. It's definitely not them. >> I don't use percentages. >> Okay. But that's your strongest correct >> elimination or identification are your two strongest opinions you can give. Right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then you can also give an opinion of strong probability did not. Right. >> Correct. And that's not quite as good as I'm sure, but a little less than I'm sure. >> It mean it means all of the evidence says um in the one you're using that the question and known were not authored by the same person and that there's some feature that's missing in this case. It's that it's a copy and not an original. >> But you didn't use that. You didn't reach that conclusion in this case, right? >> Correct. >> So let's go to the next one. The next level of certainty is probably did not. >> Correct. >> Probably did not. And that is what you decided in this case, right? That >> that's correct. >> Eric probably did not sign that true stage, right? >> Correct. >> And can you read to me or uh it's not in, but is it fair to say that probably did not um means it's not quite up to virtually certain, right? Isn't that fair? >> Correct. >> Okay. And that is what you have reported with your training and your opinions, your expert opinions that Eric probably did not sign that true stage document. >> There was no evidence he signed it. >> And you cannot say that Corey did sign it. Right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Now by saying that you have no personal knowledge whether Corey Richens was given permission by Eric to sign his name. >> Objection. >> Do you approach? >> Sure. So, just to repeat the question, you have no knowledge and you weren't given any information to suggest one way or another whether Corey had permission to sign her husband's name to that. >> Correct. >> You So, you don't know that? >> I have no I was not asked that. And that was not part of the examination. >> And I see you're a married man. >> Yes. >> On your wedding ring. >> Yep. >> And does your wife ever sign your name on anything? >> Objection. I think we're a little bit beyond the scope of this gentleman's expert testimony here. Go ahead with your next question. Sustain. >> And is it my understanding from your resume that you no longer do forensic document examinations for the Salt Lake City Police Department? >> That's correct. >> When did you stop doing that? >> Um 2020, I believe. >> Right. And is that the reason you stopped connected at all to an internal affairs investigation against you for falsifying documents? >> No. >> Okay. >> Did you in fact were you submitted to an internal affairs investigation for falsifying documents? >> Objection. Your honor, can we approach please? >> Sure. >> Uh I need you to restate the question. >> Yes, sir. Your honor, were you subjected to an internal affairs investigation for falsifying documents? Yes. All >> right. >> And were you ultimately exonerated? >> Yes. >> And was the person who accused you of doing that a law enforcement officer? >> He was a retired sergeant who'd been hired back as a supervisor who was then terminated for a number of issues. >> So you were falsely accused by a law enforcement officer. I was falsely accused by somebody who had been a law enforcement officer but not at the time they made the complaint. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Are you aware that the whole science of forensic science of um I'm sorry just one minute. Are you aware that the whole science of forensic document examination has come under fire in the last few years for accuracy and reliability >> objection misstates um the source I notice you grabbed her memo um >> foundation. Mr. >> Hurst, >> are you objecting on the basis of foundation? >> Yes. >> Would you lay some foundation disaster? >> Certainly, your honor. Are you familiar with the national I'm sorry, I need to make a little bit of water. Sorry. Are you familiar with the National Resource Council report um titled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States, a path forward? >> I've read it at some point. >> And are you aware in that report that they concluded the scientific basis for handwriting comparison needs to be strengthened? >> Yes. Are you aware that they found there's only been limited research to quantify the reliability and replicability of the practices used by trained document examiners? >> I read that in there. >> Are you also aware of something called the President's Council of Adviserss on Science and Technology report? The PCAST report? >> I'm familiar with it. I probably read it a long time ago. Do you remember that they expressed concerns regarding the validity and reliability of conclusions made by forensic examiners and called for more empirical testing in the area? >> Um, vaguely. You talked about an error rate. Is that right? >> Yes. >> And remind me what is the error rate of noncertified forensic document examiners? the same as document examiners uh that have been properly trained. >> Do you know that for a fact or are you assuming that? >> I'm assuming that not all document examiners are certified. >> Fair. and that the air rate if they've been properly trained uh apprenticed with the 4,000 hours that were are required that their air rate should be the same >> which is what >> is less than 4%. >> So four out of every 100 times they're wrong. >> 4% of the time they may make uh an error in their judgment. Are you aware that the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a report from a working an expert working group of for human factors and handwriting examination which found multiple problems with the reliability of handwriting analysis? >> I haven't read that. All right. You've referred to the big binder in front of you, which were all of the um handwriting samples that you reviewed and included in your report. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Right. Is that in? >> Nope. >> And you relied on all of those documents and concluding whether or not um making your decisions about whether Eric's probably did not sign that document. >> Yes, I reviewed all 200 pages. >> Okay. Um, can you turn to uh let me see? >> Court's indulgence. Can I talk to Mr. Burmister for just a minute? >> Of course. looking over the documents. Did you include a document? I am so sorry. My throat is fried. I know it's annoying to listen to. Give me just a second. Sorry. Looking at the documents that you relied upon, was one of the documents titled um the my princess letter? >> I did review that. Yes. >> Right. And what was that? >> It was a few pages of writing um purportedly written by Corey. >> By Corey >> or sorry, no, by Eric. I apologize. >> Where did you get that letter? This exceeds the scope, your honor, that that is not in 849. >> Your honor, I'm allowed to go to anything he looked at to form his opinion. >> Yeah, I I just need clarification for a second if you'd approach. >> Okay. Oh, my throat my voice came back. So, on the my princess letter, that is something law enforcement gave to you to review in making your opinions. Correct. It was given to me as a question document, not a known sample. >> And you were to review it to see who you think wrote it. >> That's correct. >> And um can we pull up for the witness only? Um MT4, >> your honor, this is now outside the scope clearly because the foundation is is not part >> I misunderstood your position, Miss Nester. Would you approach for a minute? My apologies. When you were looking at the Eric Richens handwriting samples to compare them with the true stage signature, did had you also already reviewed this document? >> No. >> This was came after >> correct. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Were you asked to look at any other insurance documents to determine whether or not they had forge signatures on them? >> I looked at a number of different documents that were in question. >> Okay. And did some of them include insurance documents, other policies besides the true stage? Um, there were other documents, but I don't have recollection of how they were related. >> So, how many documents total were you asked to look at and decide who signed them or who didn't? >> Your honor, can we just clarify if it's a question or a known document? I I'm >> That would be helpful if you could provide a little specificity there. So, just to be clear, there's documents that are called question documents where you're looking at them to decide who you think signed them, right? >> Who who is the author? Yes. >> And then there's known documents where you know for sure through some way they've been validated that that's an actual signature that you can compare. >> Correct. >> Right. So, how many documents, questioned documents were submitted to you for your opinion in this case? >> Uh, between the civil and criminal? >> Probably uh half a dozen or so. >> Okay. And the only one that you're here today giving an opinion on is the true stage document. >> That's correct. I think he's given it now. I'll just court's indulgence for just a moment, your honor. I think I'm almost done. Just one moment, sir. Okay, last one. >> Were you ever asked to look at any closing documents for the Midway Mansion to determine the veracity of the signatures on those documents? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Thank you. That's all I have, your honor. >> Within the scope of crafts, Mr. Burmeister. Um you defense council asked if you're certified. Have you once again have you testified in a court of law regarding your uh forensic document examination? >> Yes. 48 times. >> 48 times. And um if you hypothetically um well, let me back up. Hypothetically, if you send a your um known and question documents out for verification, is your action different if you receive back uh information that their opinion differs from yours >> or you just submit it? >> Objection. >> Sustain. The fact that you received a PDF is reflected in your ultimate opinion. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, are you you're Miss Nester talked to you about the um that initial uh report uh the national the status of forensic sciences? >> Yes. >> Um that report, do you know when it came out? >> Off the top of my head, no. >> 2008ish or so. >> Approximately. >> Okay. And it addressed not just uh handwriting but DNA uh all the sciences pattern matching sciences. >> It it reflected a majority of the different forensic sciences >> and gave opinions about steps each of those forensic sciences need to do better at. >> Yes. Those those the individuals involved in those were to study uh various aspects of the different forensic sciences and then come up with uh possible issues and then how to address those issues to make all of those forensic sciences more sound. >> And PCAST came out in 2016. Sound about right? >> Sounds about right. >> Okay. And it did not mention at all uh forensic document examination, did it? >> I don't recall, but that sounds right. >> Um identifying an author is difficult if it's a simulated forgery. >> Is that what you said? >> That's correct. >> And why is that? Because in a simulated forgery, the individual gives up their own habits and characteristics in order to try and copy, draw, or duplicate somebody else's. And so the writing itself is um you you can't identify who the author was, just eliminate who it purports to be. >> Did you find any evidence at all that Eric Richens signed the true stage document? >> There was no evidence whatsoever. Thank you. Nothing. >> Just very briefly, you talked about if it's a simulated forgery, people give up their own way they write to try to write like someone else, right? >> Yes. >> What about people who are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Does their signature change? >> Um, there are a number of factors that can affect how a person writes. Uh, drugs and alcohol can change it. In in some cases I've seen where alcohol makes somebody more exaggerated. Um it can all other things that can affect writing is stress um the writing surface the writing instrument that they use um chronic uh pain medications that they may be taking. Uh there there's a lot of factors associated >> THC being stoned. um haven't done specific studies in those, but anything that can affect motor skill could potentially alter how a person writes, but it won't change their characteristics or habits. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. >> I have nothing. >> Okay. May we release this witness council? >> Yes. State your question. So, you're free to go. You can talk about the case with anyone or no one. It's up to you. >> Sounds good. Thank you, sir. You, too. Council, is now an appropriate time for a lunch break? >> Yes, your honor. >> Miss Nester. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a break until 1:15. During the break, as always, please do not discuss the case with anyone. Don't let anyone discuss it with you. Please do not read, watch, or listen to any report or any coverage of the case of any kind. And please don't do any research of any kind about the case. Enjoy your lunch break. Please rise for the jury. Oh. I may may I ask for an additional 15 minutes, judge? >> Yes. >> Is that okay? >> That's fine. Uh just doing that 1:30. >> Thank you, judge. >> Thank you, folks. >> Sorry. >> All right, please have a seat. Mr. Bworth, anything on the record before we recess for lunch? >> No, your honor. >> Miss Nester or Miss Lewis? Mr. Ramos? >> No, sir. >> No. >> All right. Uh, folks, if you would make your way out of the courtroom or just stay quiet. I need to do a detention hearing in another case right now. Thank you. >> Clear the table here. >> No. >> Thank you. and publish the 911 call before calling the next witness. >> No objection. >> Okay. Uh, Ms. Nester, anything before we invite the jury in? >> No, sir. >> If you would invite the jury in, please. >> Let's see. Scott All right. Please have a seat as you come in. Thank you. All right, please have a seat. Mr. Bloodworth. >> Thank you, your honor. Your honor, the state moves to admit and publish states exhibit 2-40D, the 911 call. >> Any objection, council? >> No objection. Okay, Scott, let's give this a try. >> Address of the emergency. >> Sorry, I'm not breathing. Too cold. >> Okay. What's the address? 282 Court 28. >> Willow Court. Okay. What's the best phone number in case we get disconnected? >> 435 671 4987. >> Okay, it's going to be in Franchesca. >> Okay, tell me exactly what happened. I don't I don't know what I was sleeping with my kids. >> Okay, I can't understand your I need you to take a deep breath. What's going on? >> I don't I don't know. I just I was sleeping in with my kids. I just came in the bed in our bed and I turned over and he's just cold. He's just cold. Who's cold? My husband. I turned the light on him. And he's not breathing. He's not breathing. No. >> I need you to confirm it for me. Is he not breathing? >> No. Okay, we're going to Can you do CPR? >> No, I don't know. >> You don't know? I'm going to tell you how to. Are you willing to do CPR? >> Yeah. Okay. >> If there's a defibrillator available, send someone to get it now and tell me when you have it. >> No, available. >> Okay. I'm sending the paramedics to help you now. Stay on the line and I'll tell you exactly what to do next. Okay. somebody. >> Okay. Are are you right by your Are you right by your husband right now? >> Yes. He's so pale. His mouth is so >> Okay. Listen carefully. Are you able to lay him on the floor on the ground? On the floor on the ground? >> I I I'm just shaking. I can't I can't touch him. I can't. He >> You can do it. You can do it. >> You need to calm down. Okay. >> Yellow. We need to help them. >> I I can guide you through CPR. >> Take a deep breath for me. I'm I'm here with you. >> He doesn't have a pole. He He doesn't have a pole. >> No. No P. I'll be >> okay. I'm here with you. >> I don't care anything. I want you to do this. >> I'm here with you. I We need to get him help. >> I know. >> If I If you need to put me on speaker, put me on speaker. I'm going to guide you through CPR. Okay. >> Okay. Tell me when you >> Okay, I'm ready. >> You're ready? Okay, he's on the floor. >> He's on the He's on the bed. >> Okay. Are you able by any chance to move him on the to move him on the floor? his father. I don't know what's happening. I don't know what's happening. >> I'm here with you. Are you not able You're not able to move him to the floor? >> Go out. Go out. Go out. Go out. Go out. Don't come in here. Don't come in here. >> Oh my god. My >> You're not able to move him to the floor. I'll go. >> Just listen carefully. We just need to get him on the floor. Don't worry about hurting them. >> No. >> Is he still on the bed? >> Okay. If there's a sheet or a blanket under them, can you loosen it from the mattress? >> Yes. >> Okay. Stand at the side of the bed closest to them and remove anything under the head. >> Okay. >> Okay. I need you to pull the sheets towards you and slide them off the bed. Don't Don't worry about him falling. We just need to help him now. >> Okay. >> Tell me when he's on the floor. >> I can't move it. It's dead weight. like this. >> You're not. If he has sheets on her, pull them to the floor. Don't worry about hurting him. >> Can you please somebody? >> Okay, I I have the ambulance that's on the way. Okay, there's another way to do this. Okay, grab their feet. Grab his feet. Okay, >> slide them towards you. until they're just off the bed. >> Okay. >> How old is your husband? >> 39. >> 39. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Were you able to pull his feet off the bed? >> And pulling. >> Okay. Now, grab the arm closest to you. and pull the rest of of the way off the bed. Again, don't worry about the fall. We just need to help them now. I have the ambulance on the way. I just need you to do this, okay? So, we can get the help for him. >> Okay. >> Once they arrive, they'll take over. We just need to start CPR now. >> You are doing great. Okay. Okay. I just need you to get him on the floor. >> Okay. On the floor. >> You got him on the floor. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Listen carefully. Okay. Make sure that there's nothing under under his under his head. Is he laying flat on his back? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Just listen carefully and I'll tell you how to do chest compressions. Okay. >> Place the heel of your hand on the breast bone. This is in the center of the chest right between the nipples. >> Put your other hand on top of the of that hand. >> Okay. >> Okay. Pump Stop start pumping the chest hard and fast at least twice per second and 2 in deep. >> Okay. >> Okay. Start start counting out loud so I can count with you. Okay. >> We're going to count 1 2 3 4. Okay. Let me know when you're ready. >> Okay. One 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Count out loud so I can hear you. I'm counting with you. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 If it's easier for you, am I on speaker? >> Yes. >> Okay. 1 2 3 4. Do you know if the front door is open? >> No, it's it's locked. >> It's Are you I need you to go. Are you Is there anybody else within the home or is it just you? >> It's all my kids. >> Okay. Are you Are one of them old enough to go unlock the door? >> Yeah, it's unlocked. It's unlocked now. >> Yeah, he's there. Okay, we need to keep doing CPR. Keep in here. Keep in here. >> Okay. Do I keep you on the phone? >> Yeah. Keep me on the phone, but won't lock the door and come back. Come back to CPR. >> No, he's here. >> Sorry, Monaco. He's on scene. I'm beginning CPR. Check compression. >> Okay. Is the live there with you? >> Yes. Um, not yet. The new is in route. >> Oh, >> okay. Are we doing CPR still? >> Yes, he's doing CPR. He's doing right now. >> Okay. >> Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. >> What kind of vehicle do you have outside? me. I don't I don't I don't have a vehicle outside. >> Why to the 4Runner? Okay. Did a Did a paramedic take over? >> Paramedics haven't arrived yet. We're in the back. We're in the back bedroom. Ma'am, who's there with you? >> Can you hear me? >> Okay. Okay. When did you talking. Okay. >> Mr. Bloodorth, >> your honor, the state calls Detective Jamie Woody. Detective, if you'd step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? >> Thank you. Have a seat. Thanks. Ma'am, what is your name? >> Uh, Jamie Woody. Do >> you spell the last name W O D Y? >> Yes. >> What do you currently do for a living? >> I am a deputy at Summit County Sheriff's Office. >> Were you a deputy with the sheriff's office in March 2022? >> Yes. >> What was your job then? I was a detective. >> What is your job now? >> Um, I'm a K-9 officer. >> In March of 2022, were you assigned as the lead detective in connection with Eric Richen's death? >> I was. >> Prior to this case, were you ever lead investigator on a death investigation? >> Yes. >> Had you insist assisted in death investigations? >> Yes. What was your prior experience with death investigations? >> We would show up and see if they were basically unattended or unattended, expected or not expected. >> About how many death investigations did you participate in? >> A handful. >> Prior to this case, did you have any experience with poisoning investigations? >> No. Did you have any experience with digital forensics? >> No. >> Did you have any experience with forensic accounting? >> No. >> Prior to this case, what was the biggest case you had investigated as a lead investigator? >> Uh, rape case. >> Were most of your assignments prior to this case um sexual assault and se and special victims cases? >> Yes, they were. Were you called to Eric Richmond's home in the early morning of March the 4th, 2022? >> Yes. >> Why? >> Uh to do a death investigation. >> How is it that you caught that call? >> I was just the on call detective. And >> is that just random essentially? Yes, >> it is. When you arrive at a death scene, I think you just mentioned this, are you first trying to determine whether the death was medical or potentially suspicious? >> Yes. >> In this case, was the death scene the bedroom where Eric Richen's body was? >> Yes. When you arrived at the Richen's home, what did you first encounter? >> I uh ran into his sister at the bottom of the driveway. Uh I spoke to her briefly. Um I went in and spoke to the initial officer that was on scene and I did interview some of the witnesses there. When you met with a sister in the driveway, do you remember which sister? >> Amy, >> did what she told you inform you how you approached what you did once you entered the house? >> Yes. >> What did she inform you? >> Your honor, can we approach? >> Of course. >> Uh, ladies and gentlemen, there's a legal issue I need to work a little bit on. If you would stand up, stretch your legs, take a walk. >> I'll rise to the jury. Please have a seat. We're still on the record. Excuse me. Uh, detective, you're still under oath. That chair sucks. I apologize. Uh, Mr. >> I just asked the question. >> Yeah. Ask your next series of questions. Let's see where we go. >> When Amy met you in the driveway, did she say anything that informed your investigation? >> Yes. >> What did she say? She told me that um Eric had said to her that he thought Corey was going to kill him. >> Then did you go into the house? >> Yes, I did. >> Miss Nester, were there any questions about anything else that Amy said to her that you'd want to ask? >> Yes, your honor. Um let me pull up her report really quickly. Sorry, honor. Just one moment. >> No problem. I got it. Just one second. Okay, me this up so I get it exactly right. All right. So, I want to make sure because it appears from your report there were two conversations with Amy. So, I would like to make sure we're talking about the same one. Okay. When you first arrived and you saw Amy in the driveway, >> you're saying that is when she told you that Eric said that Corey was going to kill him. >> Yes. They said uh she said it during both conversations. >> Okay. So, in your report, um when you reported what happened, you said Amy thought said she thought I should know that Eric and his wife Corey were having problems and that Corey had threatened him. >> Yes. threatening to kill him. Yes. >> Okay. That's different than what you just said. So, that's what you were referring to. >> Yes. >> All right. Then you walked in the home and then you came back out and had another conversation with Amy and her other sister, right? >> Yes. >> All right. And can you explain, just cuz we're going to get into this in a minute, what they told you on that second conversation? >> I'm trying to remember. They said um they had been fighting a lot and that Corey was erratic when she was drinking and that Eric had told them that she had threatened to kill him. Okay. >> And did also did Amy tell you that Corey found out recently she wasn't the beneficiary anymore and that because of that she threatened to kill Eric? She told me that at some point, but I can't remember when. >> Okay. So, she told you that Cy had found out he had basically made her not a beneficiary. >> At some point, yeah, >> before he died, >> she said that at some point, but I don't remember when she told me that. >> Okay. Do you remember when you had that first conversation with Amy? Any specifics about when that statement was made to his family, under what circumstances, or any details about the statement? >> No. And that's before you even walked in the house, right? >> Yes. >> Did you ever do any investigation to verify that? >> Yes. Afterwards. >> I'm sorry. Verify what? >> I don't know what the that is. My apologies. >> Sorry. That that statement had been made by Eric. >> We did an investigation, but that specific statement, I could only ask her what he'd said. >> So, it was just her word. You didn't corroborate with anybody else? >> Not that I can recall. >> Okay. >> And what about that statement changed the way you behaved when you went into the house? Cuz I think that's the question he was asking you. >> It just made us look at it with a more critical eye. Okay. All right. Um, I think that's all I need from her. >> Would you approach for a moment just to make sure I have a same understanding you do? >> Council, I appreciate the discussion. Uh, Mr. Bledworth, are we ready for the jury? >> Yes, your honor. >> Miss Nester? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Let me grab my Sorry, man. >> Detective, make sure you listen to the question. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. No, I don't know. >> Britney, can I switch out? This one's dead. >> It's getting red. It's red. All right. The jury Have a seat. Thank you. >> Have a seat. Thank you. >> All right. We're on the record. The jury is present. Detective, you're still under oath. >> Mr. Bworth, please proceed. >> So, ma'am, when you arrived at the house, Amy Richens met you in the driveway? >> Yes. >> Did what she told you suggest that Corey Richens may have been involved in Eric's death? >> Yes. >> After you spoke with Amy in the driveway, what did you do next? I went into the home and um I spoke with the initial investigator and kind of took a look at the scene and then I interviewed people present. >> And was that person that you referred to as initial investigator was that um Vinnie Wyn? >> Yes. >> He was a patrol he was the patrol officer that was filling out the death checklist form. >> Yes. Did he update you on what information he had down on his form? >> Yes. >> Did you also speak with Officer Deputy David Pinantel? >> I don't remember. Did you speak with Corey Richens? >> Yes. >> What did Corey Richen say about what happened the night of Eric's death? >> She said that they were celebrating something and that they had a shot of alcohol and around 9:00 they went to bed. At around 9:30, one of her kids woke her up with a nightmare. So, she went down to their bedroom and stayed there for about um for a while until about 3:00. And then she came back to her own bedroom. She said when she got there, Eric was in the same position. He was really ghost white. He was cold. And when she nudged him or moved him, he was heavy. I mean, didn't appear to be breathing, so she called 911. >> Did Corey Richen say anything about Eric Richen's health or using medication? >> Yes. Um, she said that he was a very healthy guy. He ran marathons. Um, she said that he had been complaining of chest pains that night, but he had had COVID twice and that he currently had Lyme disease, but he didn't like taking anything for it. He didn't He had pain pills prescribed, but he didn't take them. He took vitamins instead. >> Did Corey Richen say anything about Eric using street drugs? >> No. Did anyone at the scene inform you whether they thought Eric Richards may have died of an aneurysm? >> Yes. >> Do you recall who? one of the medical paramedics or one of those guys. >> When you looked around the death scene, did you see any evidence of um illicit drug use? >> No. >> Did you see any evidence of drug paraphernalia? >> No. Did you look at the trash cans at at at the death scene in the bedroom and surrounding the bedroom? >> Yes, I did. >> Did you find anything in those trash cans? >> Uh, no. They were empty. >> Did you ask um Corey Richens about why they were empty? >> Yes. >> What did she say? She said her housekeeper had emptied them. >> Did you ask her her housekeeper's name? >> I did. >> How did she respond? >> She said she couldn't remember her name. What, as you understand it, are the laws for searching a home when investigating a death scene? >> You can search the immediate area and look for anything that might explain what had happened. Um, anything more than that, you need either a warrant or some probable cause. And here that immediate death scene was the the bedroom. >> Yes. >> With the information you had at the time, what Corey Richensson had told you, no drug paraphernalia, no signs of elicit drugs, possible aneurysm. Did you believe you have probable cause to apply for a warrant to search the entire home? >> Your honor, objection. calls for a legal conclusion >> overruled. >> Uh, no I did not. >> And you ask for consent to search beyond the immediate death scene? >> Yes. >> Did you Did you ask for consent to search beyond the immediate death scene? >> Uh, I did. We asked if we could search the kitchen garbage. >> And why did you ask to search the kitchen garbage? >> That's where he had been for the last part of the night. And uh garbages are usually a good place to see if there's any evidence of any kind of elicit drugs or anything like that. >> Did someone else search that garbage? >> Yes. Did they find any evidence of elicit drugs? >> No. >> Beyond the garbage in the kitchen, did you ask for consent to search the rest of the home? >> No. >> Why not? >> At that point, there wasn't anything that said it was a crime. Um, I didn't know what I'd be looking for and I wanted to be mindful of a family that was grieving. Let me in a hypothetical contrast the death scene that night with a fictional one. If you arrive at a death scene at a home and the cause of death is obviously a gunshot wound, but there is no gun near the body, would you apply for a warrant to search that home? >> Yes, I would. >> In the two weeks following Eric's death, >> did you gather Eric Richen's health records? >> I did. >> Why? I wanted to see if there was a reason or a medical reason for his death. >> And who provided you his health records? >> His sister Katie. >> Did you then provide those um health records or information from that health record to the medical examiner? >> I did. In the two weeks after Eric's death, did you also gather Eric's will, trust, and power of attorney papers from Katie Richens Benson? >> Yes. >> Did you also gather I'm sorry. Did you also speak with Crystal Bowman Carter, Eric's attorney, who prepared those documents? >> I did. In those two weeks, did you speak with Christina Miller, Eric Richen's divorce attorney? >> Yes. >> Is the next big event in your investigation when you received preliminary toxicology results? >> Yes. >> Was that on April the 8th, 2022? >> Yes, it was. >> What did those What information did those results provide? um that he had died from a massive fentanyl overdose. >> Did that preliminary toxicology result alter the trajectory of your investigation? >> Yes. Based on that toxicology result, did you then get warrants to search the Richen's home vehicle and Corey Richen's person for elicit drugs, digital devices? >> Yes, I did. >> Did you execute that warrant on April the 13th, 2023? >> Yes. When you executed that warrant, did you inform? Sorry. April 13th, 2022? >> Yes. >> Okay. When you executed that warrant, did you inform Corey Richens that the preliminary toxicology results showed that Eric Richens died of fentanyl intoxication? >> Yes. Did detectives search the house that day? >> They did. >> Did the detectives search Cory Richen's automobiles that day? >> Yes. >> Did detectives find any evidence of fentinel in the home or the automobiles? >> No. Why did you seek through the warrants to collect Corey Richens and Eric Richen's digital devices? >> I wanted to see if there was a source for how they got the fentanyl, if he was texting or anything like that. >> Or if she was. >> Yes. Did you seize Corey Richen's white iPhone on that date? >> Yes. >> Did you also seize Eric Richen's iPhone? >> I did. >> On that date, was there a red truck at the home? >> Yes. >> Was there a brown truck at the home? >> No. Did you seize any THC products? >> Yes. >> On May the 2nd, 2022, did investigators send those THC's THC products to the state crime lab for testing? >> Yes. On March the 4th, 2023, did Brian Holden from the state crime lab send investigators the test results? >> Yes. >> And did those test results confirm that there was no fentinyl in those THC products? >> Objection. Can we approach? >> Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. Pause there for a minute. Uh, Mr. Bworth, I understand you uh would like to withdraw the state's last question. >> Correct. >> Okay. All I ask folks is that to the extent you wrote down the last question in the answer to it, just cross that out of your notepads. >> Okay. Mr. Bworth, take it from there, please. >> Your honor, on March the 4th, 2022, did investigators send deceased phones to the regional computer forensics lab for downloading? >> Yes. Did those phone downloads return from the RCFL uh in in July of 2022? >> Yes, they did. >> Did investigators then begin searching through the phone downloads? >> Yes. >> Were investigators primarily searching for information on both Corey and Eric Richen's phones regarding where the fentinel could have come from? >> Yes. Did did investigators find information on either Corey or Eric's phone about where the fentinel came from? >> No. >> Was that search complicated by deletions in Corey Richmond's phone? >> It was. Is it fair to say that between waiting for tox or sorry for state lab crime state crime lab results download results and sifting through digital information that from late spring of 2022 through the fall of 2022 that the investigation wasn't advancing very much. >> Yeah, that's fair. During that time did the family's investigator Todd Gabler begin providing him detectives with information that he was discovering through the course of his investigation? >> He did. Did he provide detectives with information to include some phone billing records from both Corey and Eric Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> Did he also provide detectives with recorded interviews and interview written reports from his interviews of Corey Richen's friends and Eric Richen's friends and other associates of the two of them? >> Yes. Was that information helpful in advancing your investigation? >> It was. >> Towards late 2022, did the information that Mr. Gabler was providing detectives start to accelerate your investigation? >> Yes. In March of 2023, did you transfer from serving uh as a detective to serving as the K-9 deputy? >> Yes, I did. >> How did that come about? >> Um, I'd been working to get a dog for years and uh when the opportunity came and I was able to get that dog, that was something I really wanted to do. Did Detective Jeff O'Driscoll then take over as the lead detective on this case? >> Yes, he did. >> Thank you. I don't have any further questions, >> Ms. Nester. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> You need some more? >> Uh, yeah. Yes. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> Um, what's your title now? >> Uh, just deputy. >> Deputy. I want to make sure I call you the right thing. Deputy Woody. >> Yes. Um, we've met before, but it's nice to see you again. >> Thank you. >> Um, all right. I have a few little few questions for you. So, when you responded to the home, is it fair to say that before you walked in the door, as you told Mr. Bworth, you had reason to believe that could be a murder crime scene? >> Yes. >> Okay. And I know that you hadn't had many of those yet, but >> correct. >> You've definitely responded to overdose calls, right? >> I have. >> Okay. Um, so when you went in and I don't even know if this is part of your typical death investigation, so if it's not, please advise me. But did you have any crime scene tape with you available? >> I don't remember. Did you put up any crime scene tape to keep people from disturbing a scene? >> No, we had somebody post it at the bedroom door. >> Right. And eventually that person left later in the morning. >> Yes. He was switched out. >> So there was no preservation of the scene as far as allowing CSI people to come in and do their thing, right? >> Yes. They could come in and work that scene, >> but they didn't. >> The crime scene decks. Yeah. >> Yeah, they came in. >> Okay. So, who is it that you're referring to were the crime scene guys? >> That would be Chelsea Gibson. >> Okay. >> And then uh we had uh somebody from the medical examiner's office as well. >> Sure. Perfect. Other than Chelsea and the medical examiner person who we have heard testify in this trial, was there anybody else there helping you investigate the scene? >> There was a patrol deputy. >> Who was that? I believe I can't remember which officer it was. >> Okay, that's fine. So, between the four of you, the only area that you searched was the area immediately around the body and then the kitchen trash can. Right. >> Uh the bathroom that was attached to the bedroom as well. >> All right. Did you have consent from Miss Richens? Did she cooperate with you on that? >> Yes, she cooperated. >> And she gave you consent to search the kitchen? >> Uh, just the garbages. That's all we asked for. >> That's all you asked for? >> Yes. >> All right. And you mentioned that she told you that she couldn't remember her housekeeper's name. Did you ultimately confirm that a housekeeper did come that day and clean the house? >> I can't remember. >> If I gave you the name Norma Garcia, does that refresh your memory? >> No. >> Okay. So, you don't know if you ever confirmed that or not? >> I can't remember. I don't recognize that name, though. >> Did you or any of the other three uh search the large trash cans that were out in the back in the garage? >> No. >> And did anybody search Mr. Richen's vehicles that night? >> No, we didn't search any vehicles. Okay. You did mention that um when Mr. Bledworth was talking to you that you did not see any evidence of drug use or paraphernalia. Is that right? >> Correct. But in fact, wasn't there an empty hydrocodone bottle seized from right next to Mr. Richen's bed? >> There was. >> And do you know what happened to that bottle? >> We took some pictures, but I'm not sure if we took it or not. >> You didn't put in an evidence bag? >> No. >> You didn't swab it for the inside of it? >> No, it was empty. >> Do you know where it is to this day? >> No. You talked with Mr. Bledworth about the fact that in order to go outside the immediate area of the body or anywhere else where you get consent, you'd have to go to a judge to get a warrant. Is that right? >> Outside of the immediate area. Yes. >> Right. And nowadays, when I first started practicing law, this was different. And this has changed in the many decades that I've been doing this, but now you can actually call a judge on the phone and get a warrant, can't you? >> You can do an e warrant, >> right? Over the email? >> Yeah, online. >> Okay. That did not exist when I started practicing law. So, did anybody try to get an e warrant that day to look anywhere else in the house? >> We didn't really have any idea if there was a crime that was committed or not. So, even with all your experience and your training, >> there was nothing about that house that day that indicated to you it was a crime scene sufficient to even get a probable cause warrant. >> Correct. >> Okay. You also mentioned that you gathered some health records from Mr. Richen's sister Katie. >> I did. And did you ever subpoena those same records from the actual doctor? I can't remember. So before you gave these records to the medical examiner, you can't say for sure if Katie removed any part of it or changed any part of it or if they were actually accurate, valid records, can you? >> I just read them to her over the phone, but yes, I gave her that information. >> Okay. And Mr. Bledworth talked to you about the search on April 13th of 2022. You were basically the person in charge of that search, right? >> Um I don't know if I would say I was in charge. I don't have any rank, but yeah, I was there. >> Okay. And when that search happened, is it totally fair to say Corey Richens did not know that search was imminent? meaning she didn't know that it was going to happen, >> right? >> I have no idea. >> And as a matter of fact, she was seized and detained as she was driving away from her house. Right. >> She was. >> And she was held in a police car while you guys did at least part of this search. >> Uh, she was only held there till I could explain it to her. >> So, how long was she held in the police car until you could get to her and explain everything? >> I believe they said it was 10 minutes. >> Okay. And when you got there, you explained to her what you were doing, right? >> Yes. >> How would you uh Well, strike that. >> She was obviously very upset when you saw her. >> Yes. >> And she Is it fair to say that she was under the impression that this was related to them taking her house until you explained to her that it had to do with Eric's death? >> Uh, I don't remember that. You don't remember her talking about is this them trying to take my house? >> I don't remember her saying that. >> Okay. But you any either way you told her that day, hey, Eric died of fentanyl. And that was in April. >> Yes. >> So just over a month after his death, she knew that you all believed he died of a fentanyl overdose. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. Have you reviewed the website searches that the states tried to put into evidence in this case? >> No. >> Okay. No, no worries. To your knowledge, did any of your four team members on the day of the death go downstairs or upstairs? >> Not to my knowledge. When Ms. Richens told you on the day of the death when you first responded that she had come back to the bed uh and found that her husband was cold to the touch. Did you ask her if she went anywhere else in the house before she laid down? >> I don't remember. >> Did you ask her if she went to their bathroom? >> I don't think I asked that specifically. >> And I know you like dogs. Did you notice there was a dog in the house? They must have had it put up when I was there cuz I never saw it. >> Did you ask her if she let the dog out before she went to bed? >> I didn't even know there was a dog. >> Did you ask her if she went to the kitchen and got a glass of water? >> Nope. To this day, did anyone to your knowledge when you you told Well, strike all that. I think you've already testified to that. >> You did mention that you went through everybody's phones. Is that right? Or Eric's and Cory's phones. >> Yes, we did downloads. >> To what extent did you look through Eric's phones? >> I mean, there was a couple of investigators just trying to figure out what it all meant. It was all pretty confusing. So, what exactly did you look at in Eric's phone? Honor, >> objection foundation that I think there's a disconnect between you and investigators and who was involved. >> Would you lay a little foundation for whether this person ever looked through the phone? >> And this may be my fault. I thought you testified that you were looking through the phones. It wasn't you personally. I looked through some of the downloads at some point. Yes. Like the Celbrite downloads or what type of downloads? >> They would have been like call records, call logs. >> And those are the ones you got from investigator Gabler. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you never actually looked through the guts of what was in the phone? >> No. >> Perfect. That was my mistake. Thank you for clarifying that. >> How often were you talking to investigator Gabler during the time you were on the case? Um, he would send emails sporadically throughout the case while I was there. >> And how often were you talking to members of the Richens Eric Richens family? >> Uh, they emailed me pretty frequently, but I can't give you a number. Do you recall about a week or so after Eric's death, Katie Benson sending you a multi-page timeline of everything suspicious she believed Cory had ever done in their lifetime? >> She did send a timeline at some point >> going back years. >> I'd have to look at it again. I can't remember. >> Okay. Do you remember as part of this investigation, did you do any investigation into whether or not um in Summit County there were reports of fentinel being um found inside marijuana? >> No. Are you aware that a few months after Eric's death, an individual was arrested and charged with selling marijuana laced with fentinyl? >> Objection, honor. Foundation. >> I'm asking if she's aware. >> Yeah, the hypothetical needs foundation. >> Do you recall a case that um actually Katie, can you bring up uh Okay. Um, >> we may need to go back to page one. >> We will. >> Okay. >> It may have to be page two, your honor. I'm not sure. Page one. We'll refresh your rap watch. >> I mean, you I mean, take control, please. >> Do you recognize the document that's in front of you? No. Are you okay? Let me then that's fair. Take that down. Did you ever provide to investigator Gabler, the private investigator, reports from cases where people were being arrested for dealing fentinel in Summit County? >> That doesn't sound familiar. >> So that if he got those, they did not come from you. >> I don't believe so. That doesn't sound familiar. >> Totally fair. Did you know that Corey Richens was represented by an attorney um shortly around the time that you did the search on April 13th? >> Objection, your honor. >> Relevance. >> Relevance. Yeah. >> Sustain. When you had the conversation with Corey on the day of the search on April 13th and you told her that Eric had, in your opinion, died of a fendel overdose. Um, had she been trying to set up with you that week a meeting with her and her attorney? Objection, your honor. We approach. >> Yeah. when you interviewed Corey on the day of Mr. Rich's death. Um, you mentioned that she told you she came back into the bed around 3:00 a.m. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Did you ever ask her how long she was in the bed with Eric before she realized he was cold to the touch? >> From my understanding, it was almost immediately. >> Okay. All right. And you reviewed the 911 call that we all heard here today, right? You you listen to the 911 call. >> Um I haven't today and I don't remember listening to it. >> Okay. >> You never listened to the 911 call? >> I might have at some point, but I don't remember it. And she certainly Corey Richens never told you, "Hey, my husband's a big drug addict. He's probably overdosed. Check for drugs." She did the opposite, right? >> Correct. >> She told you he was pretty healthy. >> Yes. >> I think that's all I have. Anything else? >> That's all. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. Enjoy the dog. Thank you. >> Now, your honor, >> may we release this witness? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, your honor. >> Thank you, Judge. >> Deputy, you're free to go watch the case. Don't watch the case. It's entirely up to you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Very good. >> Mr. Bledworth, I've lost track of the witness list for today. Another witness from the state for today. >> Uh, your honor, the state would next call Todd Gaveler. >> Okay, let's do it. You folks okay to keep going? Very good. A brief point of privilege or what you just stay put for one moment. This will make sense in a moment. Mr. Gabriel, good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Judge. >> Would you mind standing in front of Britney? If >> you please raise your right hand. >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of her truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please have a seat. >> Sir, take your time and please watch your step. >> Thank you. >> All right. How's this? >> Sound great. >> Great. >> Mr. Bledworth, please proceed. >> Sir, what is your name? >> My name is Todd Gabler. G- A B L E R. >> You appear to be recovering from something. >> Yes. >> Uh would you mind just at a high level explaining? >> On January 13th, I underwent a fivelevel PCLF. That's a posterior cervical laminctomy infusion. My neck has been fused together with titanium rods. >> Sir, are you taking any medication today that would affect your testimony? >> I purposely did not take any pain medication today for the purpose of the clarity of of my mind and my testimony to you today. I took Tylenol this morning. >> What, sir, is your occupation? I'm a licensed private investigator in the state in the state of Utah. >> How long have you been a private investigator? >> 34 years. >> What sir is your investigative experience that is relevant to this case? Well, over the course of 34 years, I have worked on approximately 100 homicide cases. Uh, I have been active um in the trials of perhaps a dozen or maybe more homicide cases over the course of my career. Um, I have extensive experience in a specialty in digital forensics, which allows me to examine uh digital devices, phones, computers, other things of a digital nature to uncover information that may have been deleted, destroyed, or altered. I can't really think of anything else that um is sort of a 30,000 foot view of uh what would be important to the jurors in this case regarding my experience. >> Well, sir, of those 100 or so homicide cases, how many have have you worked for the defense? >> All of them. I have always sat on that side of the room standing in between the state and a defendant. And you mentioned, sir, that you testified about 12 times. Have you ever testified for the the state? >> Never. >> Did there come a time shortly after Eric Richen's death when the estate of Eric Richens hired you as an investigator? >> Yes. >> Do you recall about when? I was first contacted by Crystal Bowman Carter, an attorney. I believe that would have been early to mid-March of 2022. She asked that I uh contact her client, Katie Richens Benson, regarding the death of her brother, Eric. She gave me a broad sketch of what she knew about what had occurred regarding Eric's death and it was a very short conversation, very professional, very to the point. Um, and then it was a few more weeks uh before I first spoke with Katie and Clint. Uh that's Katie Richens Benson and Clint Benson uh at their home in one in Summit County. Uh that was April the 1st, 2022. >> And was that engagement to investigate the death of Eric Richards? >> Well, that was part of the investigation. Um the uh I was under the impression that I had been hired at the instance of the filing of a lawsuit by the defendant in this case against Katie uh for the trust money and the control over the trust that Eric Richens had created. >> And to be clear, the the lawsuit involved Katie Richens as trustee. >> Correct. And when you're interacting with Katie Richens, it is in her capacity as trustee. >> Correct. >> Or personal representative of Eric Richens estate. >> Correct. >> Um what if anything, sir, did you inform at that meeting with Clint and Katie? um what if anything did you inform them of how you conduct investigations? >> Right. So, I talked with them about uh some of the various facets of an investigation, how it would proceed. Um I've already talked to you about the qualifications that I have in digital forensics. And so I talked a little bit about that, about the need to get a hold of phones and computers and other things that uh would have evidence of uh either a wrongful death uh or uh some mismanagement of u uh finances that was being alleged in the case. Uh so for all my clients, it's basically the same speech. You're hiring me to find the truth. The truth is sometimes very difficult for us to accept. I've often said that the truth is half what you most fear that it is and half what you most desire it to be. And you cannot separate those two from the truth. I told them that they would have to accept the truth about what happened to their brother. No matter what that truth was, if he took his own life, they would have to accept that. If someone was responsible for his death, they would also have to respect my investigation and accept that truth. They agreed. >> Sir, from that point forward, did you conduct an independent investigation? >> I did. Sir, who paid for that investigation? >> I was paid by Clint Benson, but my understanding is that the legal sort of line of authority for which I was engaged was for the estate and Kitty Richens Benson as the personal representative. >> Did you build them at your customary rate? >> I did. I continued to build them at the rate that was established at the time of my engagement. Even though my hourly rate increased during the course of my investigation, they enjoyed a lower rate essentially because of the time that um that they engaged me. >> Did anyone else pay you for your investigation? >> No. Did anyone from the Summit County Sheriff's Office direct your investigation in any fashion? >> No. >> Did you conduct your investigation entirely independent of the sheriff's office? >> Yes. >> Did you provide information from your investigation to the sheriff's office? >> Yes, on many occasions. And before providing it, did you receive approval from your client? >> Yes, that is part of the standard operating procedure. It would be a crime for me to under the Utah Private Investigators Regulation Act to um have any file materials go to anyone else but my client without my client's permission. So, the standard course would be that I would discuss my findings with my client and we would discuss handing that over to the sheriff's office. In every case, information uh that we thought important to the investigation was handed over and there was no event, no occasion upon which we decided not to turn over something to the sheriff's office. Full disclosure, that was the rule. Sir, was that flow of information one way from you to the sheriff's office? >> Oh, yes, very much so. I initially tried to get the 911 audio call uh that the defendant in this case had made and the sheriff's office denied my request under the grammar law. I appealed to the county administrator for Summit County. She also denied my request. Um, so yeah, uh, it's common for police agencies to be one-way streets. >> So was it was not uncommon for your request for information to be denied. >> Correct. My investigation proceeded regardless of whether they were providing me any information or not. Did you have contact with the Summit County Attorney's Office before Corey Richen's arrest? >> No. >> Did anyone from the Summit County Attorney's Office direct your investigation in any fashion? >> Never. >> Did you conduct your investigation independent of the county attorney's office? >> Yes. On June the 15th, 2023, after Corey Richton's arrest, did you receive a subpoena from the county attorney's office for your investigative file and any forensic data that you had collected? >> I did. >> Did you provide that material to the county's attorneys to the county attorney's office in response to that subpoena? >> I did. I produced two hard drives. One contained what I call the uh logical and physical investigation file. That would be interviews, audio recordings, photographs, videos. Um that was a fairly large file. And then the second hard drive that I provided a few weeks later was all the computer forensics, the digital forensics, the examinations of the CNE computer. Um a clone of Eric's iPhone. um and some other digital data. >> Did you begin your investigation with a hypothesis? >> Yes. A number of hypotheses appeared um clear to me in this case. My investigations are hypothesis testing exercises. That's just a fancy way of talking about something that we all do every day. we um look at a situation and we evaluate what that is. Is there evidence that supports our hypothesis that that is what it is? Well, if we're looking at a red light, our hypothesis may be that traffic should be stopped and we're we look around for data to verify that hypothesis that indeed there are cars that are stopped at that red light. In this case, it was clear to me that two hypotheses needed to be looked at. Number one, Eric took his own life as a matter of accidental overdose. Number two, Corey Richens surreptitiously had Eric ingest a massive amount of fentanyl and killed him. So as the case proceeds and I see new data, I see phone data, I see computer data, I interview people, I look at documents or things or other devices. All of that data gets fed into one of those two hypothes both of those hypotheses. Does this confirm it? Does it deny it? Does this evidence make it more likely that this hypothesis is true or less likely that this hypothesis is true? Does this evidence preclude the possibility of one of the hypothesis being true? So that hypothesis testing continues throughout the investigation and sometimes a permutation of the hypothesis comes along. We have to change the hypothesis just a little bit to allow some of the data to fit that hypothesis. Not large permutations in this case. Pretty straightforward. Two competing hypotheses. >> Sir, you just mentioned that in testing your hypothesis, you conducted some interviews. >> Yes. >> What sir is your process for conducting interviews? >> So my process is to always have a recording device active for any of my interviews whenever possible. This eliminates any possibility for me to be biased or unclear in my reporting of what was said during that interview. It also protects me in a liability scenario uh if someone were to allege that I had done something improper or um had offered them uh material for their cooperation. anything like that that would all be protection uh for me by recording that contact. So that is the uh primary um objective of uh documenting an interview later on when I report it uh when I summarize that uh interview uh and in writing because it's hard to get a lawyer to listen to an entire interview. um there's some difficulty that they have with that. So, they need a summary sheet about what the interview was about and I type those up based upon the recording that I made and I type up those later or I may have an agent type those for me from the recording and then I'll review the the report and sign off on it and then it'll go into the file. So that would be my process with respect to an interview. All interviews >> approximately how many interviews did you conduct in this investigation? >> I you know it depends upon your definition of an interview I guess but 45 probably somewhere in that department. 40 I guess I could say 40 to 50 to be safe. And in those interviews, did you identify yourself? >> Oh yes, always. Um there was no occasion in this case where I did not identify give people my true identity and who I represented. >> Um and did you record those interviews? >> Yes. I think there were a couple of occasions where I could not get a recorder fast enough, but other than those couple of occasions, they were all recorded. Who, for example, are some of the people that you interviewed? >> I interviewed friends and associates of Eric's. I interviewed friends and associates of Corey's. I interviewed a number of people involved in Eric's business and personal life. I interviewed uh family members, both the Richens family, and I attempted to interview family members of Corey's family, but was not successful in gaining their cooperation for an interview. So, that was generally who I interviewed. >> And was the purpose to test your hypothesis? >> Well, yes. I'm I'm interested in getting those interviews done from as many people as I possibly can from both sides of the camp uh so that I can get the largest possible data set to feed into that >> to the sheriff's office. >> I did. Sir, as part of your hypothesis testing, did you analyze Corey and Eric Richen's cell phone billing records? >> I did. >> How did you obtain the records? >> Eric and Corey's cell phones were being paid by CNE, Stonemasonry. They were Verizon accounts. And I obtained the uh call um the billing records uh from CE from Ali Wright uh with the authorization of Cody Wright. There were two productions of telephone records from Cene. The first one was for the period of uh January 2022 through May of 2022. The second production was May of 2022 through February of 2023. in that January of 2022 onward time period, what types of information were you looking for in the billing records? So, because the billing records don't really offer content, that is to say, it's not a you don't get to see text messages or what the text message was. You do get to see the numbers that uh were connected to Cory and Eric's phones. So we first of all decode that number to a name. We try and figure out who that is and we fill in every instance uh where that uh number occurs with that name and then we begin to count the total number of contacts with uh with that phone number. So for example uh we would see the highest number of contacts for Corey's phone to her mother. not an unusual circumstance that someone would uh be close to their mother and that would be the highest number of contacts on your phone. So uh that was the procedure that I was initially interested in uh was the weight. We call that the weight. So what is the weight of that uh person on the other end of the line? Cory's mom was a high weight because there was a high number of contacts. And so I'm interested in uh how many times you contact that person. Uh occasionally I'm interested in what time of day you typically contact that person. Um and the type of contact whether that contact is by text message only or by voice and text that changes the character of the person on the other end of the line. Sir, did you pass your analysis of contact weight along to the sheriff's office? >> I did. >> Was there any particular contact weight that caught your attention? >> Yes. >> What contact did that involve? >> It involved the contact with Carmen Lobber. I noted immediately that there were many hundreds of text messages between the two from the initial data set. That was January of 22 through May of 22. There was a very heavy weight. Um I don't recall if she was the second or third weight, but it was very close. Uh the only two people that I recall that were ahead of Carmen on that weight was um Cory's mom and Eric. So, um, that was the one that stood out to me. There were others that I investigated, but that one was of particular interest to me. >> And to be clear, that involved the weight of contacts between Corey Richens and Carmen Lober. >> That is correct. >> Did that contact weight cause you to investigate Carmen Lobber? >> It did. What did you determine? >> Well, it was immediately apparent to me that Carmen had a very extensive criminal record involving drug use um and potentially drug sales. Uh I noted that Carmen um had a dirty urinalysis, meaning that she tested positive for prohibited drugs in her drug court around the time of Eric's death. Um I I was very concerned about the high number of contacts and the criminal history for Carmen and I alerted the sheriff's office about that. >> As part of your investigation, did you search the Richard's home? >> Yes. >> When did you first search it? I believe it was May the 8th of 2023. That was the day that it was released by the sheriff's office. It was um an an an estate asset. Um Corey's lawyer, uh two of her lawyers from Rayquinny Nebacher had showed up as soon as the sheriff's office had departed. and I had arranged for security to stand watch at the house uh after the sheriff's office released that. So, um I engaged in a conversation with council who wanted access to the home and um it was eventually agreed that uh one of the lawyers would accompany me on an inventory of the property, all of the assets in the house, all of the items in the house and the uh detached garage. And so that lawyer stayed for a couple of hours and then left. I never saw them during my search of the property again. I continued to search the property for uh four or five days and then um that was the end of my contact with the house initially. >> And what is your what was your process for searching the and documenting your search of the richen home? >> Right. So, a GoPro video chest mounted typically, sometimes mounted on the head. Um, and, uh, a backup audio recorder just in case something happens to the camera, at least I've got an audio recording of what I'm talking about, where I'm at, what I'm looking at. Uh, and, um, so, and that is the procedure for documenting those. There's also photographs that are uh taken. Uh there also with respect to documents. Um I scanned with a scanner many thousands of pages of documents in this case uh from the detached garage office. Uh so that that was the general procedure for uh for being at the house. Um, there was at least one occasion that I can think of where I was called over to the house and I didn't have my camera with me. So, my video camera. So, I used the audio recorder and my camera on my cell phone to document things. I think that was in 2024. So, um, with the with that being the only exception, that would be my process. And was Clint Benson present at the home whenever you searched the home? And I guess by present I mean in the home, not necessarily leaning over your shoulder. That is not an easy question to answer because my focus was not on Clint Benson. My focus is on the things in front of me. I was never in that house without Clinton Benson's authorization. I was never in that house without Clint Benson being on his way. So if he wasn't there when I got there, he was on his way there and so he would join up later. Um, it it's possible during the May searches that Clint had left the house while I was doing documenting uh things in the in the house. I think that that was particularly true of the detached garage office where I was spending maybe 8 hours in a day just scanning documents, just feeding documents into a scanning device. So, uh, I think Clint was likely not there during that. >> He was generally there. >> He was generally there, I would say. So, yes. >> And you were recording with your go GoPro the whole time? >> Yes, with the exception I noted. Yes. >> Did you ever remove Well, other than your recording equipment, cameras and audio, GoPro, all of that. >> Yeah. Did you ever bring anything into the home? >> No, I did not. >> Did you ever remove anything from the home? >> Yes, I did. >> What did you remove from the home? So during my May searches of the house and in particular in the detached garage office, I encountered a number of documents that had Ray Quinny and Nebucher letter head on the top and they were either communications uh between Corey and her lawyers or they were billing records from her lawyers that would be improper for me to read or possess. It would be unethical. I placed these documents into a manila envelope and I as I encountered more of them, I would simply grab a hold of them and put them into the manila envelope. And at the end of my May search, I took that envelope to the office of Ray Quinn and Nebuchad. Uh there were other things that I removed from the house. Sort of the general category of the kids, the boys things. Um the boys had requested a few things. Um I believe I believe um child protective services or someone at DCFS had requested that we get documents that pertain to the boys and um I believe there were some other documents uh that I removed that were personal docu documents that were now the property of Katie Rich and Spenson. These documents involved uh vital records, birth records for Eric, um other vital documents that you know we would generally safekeep for ourselves and I turned those over to my client. I'm I'm trying to think if anything else was removed. Any item that I considered to be evidence was removed by the sheriff's office, not me. So, if you came upon something that you considered to be evidence, um, how how did you handle it with the sheriff's office? I don't think there was a standard approach. I only recall a few occasions. I think the first couple of occasions I may have contacted the sheriff's office directly either Lieutenant Hemingway or I can't recall any others. And then on one occasion I contacted Travis the investigator with your office and then subsequently spoke to the sheriff's office uh about removing an item. And is it your understanding that the sheriff's office would then get a warrant and come to the house to seize whatever item you thought might have evidentary value? >> Yes, I was there for one of those occasions. >> Thank you, sir. I don't have any further questions. >> Thank you. >> Are we going to take a break? Go for it. You tell me. Would you like a break? >> Could Could we have just a few minutes? No problem. You know what? Uh let's let you stretch legs. We'll take a restroom break. Uh the witness asks for a break, we provide a break. >> All right. >> Mr. Gabler, watch your step there. >> There you go. Mr. Gabler, may I ask you a question? >> Yes, sir. >> Would you like the opportunity to use the restroom? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, >> I'm sure you know this, but you cannot speak to anyone during the break. All right. If uh is 10 minutes enough time, sir? >> Five is plenty. >> All right, we'll say 10. Uh, we'll be off the record until 3:40. Thank you. >> You can stay seated. They will understand. >> I prefer to stand. >> Oh, all right. Very good, sir. Uh, we're ready for the journey. Please have a seat. Thank you. >> All right, folks. Have a seat. Thank you. >> All right, Mr. Gabler, you're still under oath, sir. >> Yes, sir. Miss the court. Please proceed. >> Good afternoon, sir. >> Good afternoon, Miss Nester. >> I don't believe you and I've ever met, but I am Kathy and I Kathy Nester and I'm one of Miss Rich's attorneys. So, it's nice to meet you. Um, so I want to just kind of start with a basic observation, but just to make it crystal clear, you are not law enforcement, correct? >> Correct. >> And you've never been law enforcement in your whole life, right? >> Correct. Okay. And the rules and um ethics and expected practices of private investigators are significantly different. Would you agree with me than those that apply to licensed law enforcement? >> I don't know that I would agree with that in every circumstance. A private investigator when he is hired by a lawyer is bound to all the ethics that that lawyer is bound to. >> Okay. >> So, um, >> but for example, you don't have to go get a warrant to go look at a house. >> Well, right. That's the state action distinction, right? Yeah. Right. >> I'm not a state actor. >> Never been a state actor. Right. >> I will never be a state actor. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, if you want to go search a house for six straight days and look at thousands of documents, >> you don't need to get a judge to give you permission to do that, right? >> No. Uh, I got the permission of Corey's lawyers who represented her to do that. >> And you also got the permission of Clint Benson, right? >> I Yes. >> And in fact, Clint gave you a key. Yes. >> And you had that key to use at your discretion. >> Yes. >> And there were times when you would go to the house and Clint was not there and you would let yourself in. Right. >> I believe that my testimony covered that and that was that Clint was aware that I was there and he was either on his way or there with me. But you agree with me and you have videos I believe that back this up that there were occasions where you would go to the house, Clint was not there, you'd use your key and you'd go in. >> Yes. >> All right. And there were occasions where you would be spending hours and hours and hours in the office because I've watched all the videos. >> Yes. >> And you would be there alone without Clint anywhere around you. >> Yeah. I don't need supervision counselor. >> Perfect. >> I was conducting an investigation independent investigation and he had given me the key, trusted me with that and I was authorized to enter the premises at my at will. >> Right. So if he got on the stand and said you were never doing anything outside his eye, that would be false. Well, from his perspective, he had knowledge of my presence there as I have testified every time I was there. >> So, from his perspective, it may look different. >> But you agree with me, sir, that there's hours and hours and hours of video of you alone in that office going through things. >> I I think that I've already testified to that. >> Okay. Now, you were not permitted access to the house until after Corey had been arrested, right? >> No, that's not correct. >> You got in the house before she was arrested. >> No, that is not correct. >> Okay, help me out. >> The house was released by the Summit County Sheriff's on the 8th. >> That's what gave us that was the trigger, not Cory's arrest. It was the end of their search that triggered our access to the house. >> Okay. >> The police were executing a warrant. >> Do you know when Corey was arrested, sir? >> I don't recall the exact date or time. >> Would it surprise you to be the day before May 7th? >> Um, okay. >> All right. So, >> objection, your honor. Foundation on that. >> Would you reass? >> Sorry. Was it May? Would it surprise you if it was the same day, May 8th, that you got access to the house? >> It would not surprise me since I do not recall. >> Okay. And um during the time after Eric's death, but before Cory's arrest on May 8th, did you ever go inside the house for that entire year? >> I'm sorry. Could you ask that again? >> Sure. During the time between when Eric Richens died on March the 4th in the early morning hours of 2022 Y >> and May 8th of 2023. Were you ever inside the house at any point in between those times? >> No, never. >> Perfect. So, the first time you ever got into that house, over a year had expired since Eric had passed. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you mentioned the police had executed a search that day before they released it to you, right? >> Yes. >> And do you know how many times prior to that the police had searched that house? >> No. >> Okay. And then you've also testified here, I think very honestly, that on repeated occasions you notified the police, hey, there's something you missed. You might want to go back to the house and find it again. I mean, I'm not going to adopt your characterization, but it is true that I called them back to that house when I discovered something that I thought was evidentary. >> How many times? >> Oh, I don't know, four, five. >> So, on at least four to five occasions, you found things the police had missed. >> Yeah. Oh, that's been my experience throughout my career. And you told them, >> "Please never get everything >> ever." >> Right. Well, not >> true in every case I've ever handled. >> Sure. Not gonna argue with you on that one. >> Yeah, it's true. >> So, they come back because you call them and say, "Hey, I found something." Come back. Here's where it is. >> Yep. >> And they know you're doing that. They know that you're you have full access to this house, right? >> I don't know what they know. I can't answer that. >> Well, you're calling them every time you find something. >> Well, what what opinion they formed in their mind is not within my knowledge. Okay, fair. True. You called them every time you found something >> that I thought was of evidentiary value in their investigation. >> And did any of did any of them ever say, "You know what? We're good. Stop calling us." >> No, I don't recall that at all. >> So then the converse of that is they encourage you to keep doing that. >> Well, no. Um, that is not the converse of your hypothetical. >> Okay. >> And I do not agree with your assessment. >> Okay. Did you feel like you were helping them? >> I was following the instructions of my client to turn over anything I thought was relevant to the criminal investigation. This is not my case. My case is in the civil court. Anything that we thought was of value to the criminal case, we turned it over. >> And the police were happy with that. >> I don't know if they were happy or sad or um distraught. I have no idea as to their emotional condition. >> They sure never told you to stop. >> The police never directed me to do anything. And if they had told me to stop, I would have ignored them. >> Okay. So, you could go in without a warrant, find something, call them, tell them to get a warrant, and they'd come get it. >> I I think that's an oversimplification and a vilification. Um, I had permission to enter those premises. I had every right to be there. I didn't need a warrant. I'm not a state actor. I have the permission of the property owner. So, I don't agree with your characterization. When the cops would show up, did you point out what you were showing them? Did Were you usually there? >> No, I was there on one occasion when the police showed up, which >> they executed warrants when I was not there. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, I only remember one occasion where I found an audio recorder in a dresser drawer uh that they then recovered by Warren. >> And you waited around and pointed it out to them. >> I did. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I never touched the device. So, yeah, I would have uh I don't know if I pointed it out. I think what I did was on that date when I saw the recorder and recognized it for what it was, which is not easy. Uh the I just immediately withdrew. I left my audio recorder going until the police arrived. I don't recall pointing it out. I recall describing to them where it was. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. So then um there was one occasion where you found something that was a letter purportedly written by Eric called the my princess letter. Do you remember that? >> I don't I remember a baby cakes letter. I don't know if I remember my princess. Is that the same one? >> That's the one. >> Yes. >> You remember finding that letter? August the 9th of 2024 is when I took a photograph of that, but I found it on May the 10th of 2023 during my search of the residence. >> So, when you found this letter, at some point, did you move the location that you found it from? >> I don't recall ever moving the location. Uh on the video, you will see me find the letter on May the 10th of 2023 when I'm in the bedroom and it is located in the bottom drawer of Eric's side of the bed, the bottom drawer of the vanity. And um I looked at it, I didn't think it was relevant. I put it back down on the drawer. uh on August the 9th of 2024 when I photographed it on the bed. I do not recall if that letter was on the bed or whether I went and retrieved it from the vanity. But there is video. the the August 9th, 2024 was the episode that I described that I was called over and I didn't have a video recorder. So, I was recording by audio and I was and and this is the same date that I recovered the audio recorder. So, the letter was also uh photographed and then later I think it was taken by the police. I don't know. Uh but >> let me stop you for just a minute. >> Okay. >> You left the letter on the master bed, correct? for the police to find. >> I left the letter on the master bed. I didn't know that the police were going to come for it. >> Okay. And they ultimately did. Correct. >> Well, ultimately I don't know because I wasn't present, so that's beyond my knowledge. >> Isn't it true that you moved other things around in that house often? >> No, that is not true. >> Did you move a computer that you located in the office? I don't recall moving a computer in the office, but I did not move it out of the office. >> Did you put it in your Tesla? >> If you are talking about the Cene computer, I did not find it in the office. That is not how that worked. >> Okay. So, you found it where, sir? I found it in possession of my client who had taken it who had been given it or taken it from Becky Lloyd. So, my understanding of the uh pathway of the Cene computer that I examined was that it was picked up by Becky who lives nearby and works for CE. The CE computer, she then went to get business files off of it. I talked with her about this, I filed an extensive report uh regarding my interview about the computer. Uh and then um before I could get up to uh Francis to get that computer, I lived at the time 250 mi south of Francis in Washington County. So it takes me a while to get up to Francis. Before I could get up to get that computer, I believe that my client had already secured it and so I went and got it from her. >> So Becky got the computer from the house after Eric died. Right. >> Correct. >> Then Becky gave it to Katie. >> Correct. >> And Katie gave it to you. >> Correct. >> And in all of that, no law enforcement ever put hands on it. >> Correct. >> Right. And at some point, you took it back up to the office to go through it. >> No. All right. Well, there's video of you going through that computer in the office. >> Um, well, uh, I suppose that I may not have remembered that, um, I went through a computer in that office, but the Cienn computer um was processed at a location in Midway. And I recall that there was a a what I want to say is an obvious missing hard drive location. I could see the outlines of a hard drive that had been in place in that computer. I became suspicious that the hard drive had been removed prior to me getting to that computer. I later sourced that um missing hard drive to an upgrade that was performed by a computer company at the request of Cene. The hard drive contents were transferred to a solid state drive and I did locate that inside the computer. >> Okay. Um, so can we play for the witness only um clip TG10? >> It's we're going to play without sound, right? >> Yes, sir. No sounds necessary. >> Okay, I'm going to kind of wait till we get to the computer part. I'm sorry, that's the wrong one. Can we bring that one down? That's the next one. We want to go to the one right before that. Uh which is 173. Um it's GXO1073. Do you have that one? Okay. Excuse me. I'm having difficulty keeping my head up. >> Oh, no worries. Whatever you need, sir, to be comfortable. Take a minute. >> Yep. I'll go back to that. It's going to take her a minute to upload that, your honor. So, we'll get to that. You don't recall putting electronics documents in your Tesla and driving away from the house? >> Oh, I I remember that. Yes. >> But that was not the CN computer. >> Okay. What computer was that? >> I don't recall. I'd have to see the video. >> That's why I make them. >> You removed a laptop from the office and put it in your Tesla and drove away with it. >> I don't recall that. No, >> I do not. That would have been my if there was a laptop in that office, it was mine. >> Okay. Well, we're going to pull it up in just a minute. I'll help refresh your memory. >> Yeah. >> Um, also, you mentioned earlier that you didn't take um other than the vital records and the attorney client privileged records that you didn't take anything else out of the home. That's not entirely true. You also took a safe out of the house. Yeah, I described that by report, but that house um that safe was returned. >> Okay. So, you went into the house with your own key, correct? >> Yes. >> You went into the family, I believe, is in the master closet. Is that right? Where was it? >> Yes. >> You picked it up, took it out of the house, and put it in your Tesla. >> Yes. I believe I did that at the request of Clint Benson. >> Okay. Okay. >> And then you drove it to a locksmith. >> I did. >> And you busted into the safe. >> I did not bust into the safe. >> Well, he did. >> He bumped. He used a technique called bumping. It's the movement of the door and the frame of the safe that allows it to come open. >> Okay. But you didn't have a combination. >> I didn't uh I don't know if that was a combination. I thought there was a key to that one. >> It was forced open with a hammer, right? >> I think it was a rubber mallet >> and it was dropped onto the ground. >> Okay. >> It I think that's what eventually got it opened was that it was dropped onto a flat surface. >> And when you were doing that, there's no law enforcement there. Correct. >> I don't need law enforcement to babysit me. >> Okay. And you open it up and there's clips from guns in there, right? I would have to go back to my report to uh recall exactly what was in there. >> But you handled it with your bare hands. No gloves. >> I did. >> All right. And I'm sorry. Um and uh you also found an unusual residue in the safe. Do you recall that >> that you touched with your fingers? >> I don't recall that. >> All right, we'll play that in a second. >> Fantastic. >> I do think we found the video of the laptop. So, can we cue up uh for the witness only GXO1073? >> Yeah, that's my laptop. I am scanning into my laptop the documents uh that I am going through at the office. That is my laptop. >> The black one. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you're scanning all the documents you're finding in the office and then loading them into your laptop. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. And again, Clint Benson was not present when you were doing any of this. >> Yes. That is my testimony on direct. >> Okay. Um, now let's go to the one of the safe. Can you pull up the clip? Um 100055. Hold on just a moment. 1055. See if you can find that one. Sorry. I think it might be under the impeachment documents. Nope. Okay. All right. We'll get the the safe one up to refresh your memory about that residue. You don't remember touching some residue and filming it and asking the safe breaker if that was unusual to find residue in a safe? >> I don't recall that. I would have to refer back to the video that I made of that for just this purpose. >> Okay, no worries. So, my understanding is you were at the house. There were some times before you got access to the house, while Miss Riches was still living there, that you would sit outside her house and observe the house while she was in it. Is that fair? >> It is not fair. That is false. >> You never did that. >> I never sat outside her house and watched her. False. >> Not on March 9th of 2023. >> Correct. >> Not on April 12th of 2023. >> Correct. >> Okay. But you did put trackers on their cars. Is that right? >> I did. And that's a secret device that you put on someone's car so you can follow where they're going without their knowledge. >> So GPS tracking devices are generally covert and um there's a good reason for that. Um I I put GPS devices on Cory's vehicle and two of Lisa's vehicles, one of which was being used by Cory's brother, Ronnie. >> So her mother's cars and her car. >> That is correct. And how long did you track these individuals? >> I think there were different times for different vehicles. I don't recall the exact amount of time, but that'll be in the file that you have. >> And did you turn over your reports on every single place they went for months to law enforcement? >> Yes. >> And you know that law enforcement is required to have a warrant to do that. Well, um, they have to get a warrant and I have to go through a different procedure that is prescribed by Utah law to appropriately place those devices. >> Did you track anybody else's car in this case? >> I want to say yes. Yes, I did. >> Who else's? >> Um, there were some vehicles that I suspected that Carmen Lober may be utilizing. Um, but uh I discovered that in fact the vehicle that was parked at her house overnight on many occasions was being driven by someone else. >> So you never gave that report to law enforcement? >> Um, I believe I did. >> You gave the Carmen Lober tracking report to law enforcement? >> Yes. It wouldn't be a named Carmen Lobber, though. What would it be named? >> Oh, I want to say there were a number of people that were associated with her residence. >> That's all right. If it's someone Nick Bon Savage, there was a and there was an another young man who were frequenting that residence and I believe the vehicle that I tracked from that residence was seen there overnight on many multiple occasions. Okay. I really don't remember because the point of that was to track Carmen Lober and when I discovered that it wasn't Carmen driving the car, I removed the device. >> Okay. Law enforcement was also providing you I believe you said that um Mr. Bledworth asked you if if you got information from law enforcement and you said no. Is that right? >> No, that is not right. >> Okay, please correct me. Well, um I would have discussions with law enforcement. I could um garner an understanding. I could read between the lines if you want. >> In fact, you went to you went to meetings with law enforcement about this case, didn't you? >> Oh, yes. >> How many times did you have meetings with them? >> I don't recall. I don't count them. >> Okay. >> The number is not relevant to me. >> Well, you appreciate it might be relevant to me. Can you try to remember? I you know half a dozen. >> Okay. Can you pull up TG11 for the witness only? >> Can you make it bigger? All right, sir. Do you recognize that? >> Can you see it? >> I can see it. >> Do you recognize it? I do. >> All right. And is that an email that you sent to Detective Woody on July 13th of 2022? I'm going to have difficulty talking about this exhibit because if it becomes an exhibit, it um it contains a confidential client communication, but I did send it to Detective Woody. >> Okay. >> Your honor, I would object to Mr. Gabler being required to testify regarding any client. With respect, I'm not sure you have standing to make any objections and he seems fully attuned to the issue. Um, Ms. Nester, I'm not sure where we're headed, so just take it one question at a time. >> I shall. Thank you, your honor. Um, is it fair to say that this is an example of you suggesting to Detective Woody that now would be a really good time for law enforcement to interview Carmen Lobber? >> Yes. >> And why would that be, sir? >> She's on the ropes in drug court is what it says, >> right? >> She was on the ropes. And in fact, what you argued was she would be very likely to be compliant at this point with law enforcement. Is that your words? >> Yes. >> All right. Also, in here, you accused Corey of lying about the name of her um house cleaner. >> Yes. >> And the lie that you said Corey told was that her house cleaner was her cute cleaner, Nora. Um Norma. Yes. >> In fact, didn't you, sir, finally confirm that Norma Garcia was her house cleaner? >> I did later confirm that. Yes. >> So, when you sent this to police and said Corey was lying, you were wrong. >> I was wrong. >> Okay. >> But prior to um Norma, >> your honor, >> Gabriel, you need to pause for the next question, sir. Thank you. >> Very good. Did law enforcement give you access to sub uh I'm going to try to use the right word to folders where you could access their information on like a subfolder where you had a link to their folder? >> No. >> Did you provide them with links to your folder? >> Yes. >> And one of the links you provided them involved a download of Eric's phone. Is that right? >> No. >> Okay. Did it involve the decoded call logs that you talked about earlier where you figured out everybody's number and name? >> I'm confused. You're talking about two separate things. You were just talking about Eric's phone. >> You said no. Right. >> I had I had an identical copy of Eric's phone that I created from the backup on his Apple iCloud. I may have turned that over to them, but they already had Eric's phone. I didn't need to give them what I had done, which was to trick the Apple server into um repopulating a a blank iPhone so that I could then forensically examine that iPhone and come up with context from Eric's phone. So, I may have given them that information that I created from a clone of Eric's phone. So, you had in your possession a clone or an exact copy of Eric Richen's phone? >> It would not be an exact copy. Only the items that uh were unencrypted or decryptable from the Apple backup would be on the the cloned phone. For example, uh encrypted data would not be present for biometrics, for um his Apple Watch, if he was wearing a biometric watch. That is all encrypted. That would not come back to a new cloned phone. But all of the text messaging, the web histories, the call histories, all of that stuff will um will be present on that clone. >> So you had access to all his texts. I don't believe I did. >> Why not? And this is maybe a stupid old lady question, but explain to me why you didn't have access to his text if you downloaded everything off the cloud. >> You said all of his texts. >> Okay. >> I don't believe I ever got all of his texts. >> How far back did they go? >> I don't recall the date at this time. I would have to refer to the file material to know the exact date of the first event on the phone. >> So, how much time did you spend reading through his text? >> Well, um I don't recall exactly. I could refer back to some records to come up with an answer for you. Um it would have been a number of hours, >> hundreds of hours. No. >> Okay. >> I mean in this case, >> right? >> Um 9 um 36.3 hours >> is how many hours you build total for the case? >> Yep. >> And what were you paid for that? >> I don't know. >> How much do you charge an hour? >> $125 an hour. >> However, that is not the only billing rate. uh in this case when I used computer forensic software and my expertise in that regard the rate would be higher. >> Okay. >> $200 an hour I think was the discounted rate that I gave them. >> So I'm really bad at math. Please forgive me if I get this wrong. >> Yeah. Well, we're both in the same place. >> We're talking about over $100,000 you made on this case, >> I would say. So, yes. >> Okay. >> Now, I want to go back to that phone and you reading his text. Yes. >> As you were calling through your hypothesis. >> Yeah. >> Obviously, one of the things you want to look at is the state of their marriage. Is that fair? >> I mean, it's significant, but it's not dispositive. >> I agree. >> It it's important context, but it's not it's not evidence of anything really. I see a lot of bad marriages out there. In my career, I've handled many hundreds of divorce cases. So, you know, people have problems. >> Did you review text messages between Eric and some of his friends? >> Yes. >> Did you review text messages between Eric and Bryce? >> Bryce Kudson? >> Yes. >> I don't recall specifically, but if they were there, I probably looked at them. >> Okay. Um, your honor, can I have just a moment? This was sitting here. Okay. Okay. When you reviewed Eric's text, did you find evidence of him sexing with people other than Corey? >> I don't recall that. I did investigate allegations of an affair with Eric. >> Okay. But that's not my question. My question is, do you recall seeing texting, as the kids say, on Eric's phone with people other than Corey? >> I don't really know what you mean by texting. I don't know what the parameters of that are. And so my answer is no. Okay. Did you find any texts where Eric talked about having an open marriage with Corey? >> I don't recall that. At some point, were you investigating um cases that were being prosecuted in the Summit County area around the time that Eric died um where people were caught distributing fentinel? >> Yes. >> Did you gather affidavit from cases where fentinel was being sold in the Summit County area? >> Yes. And did you ever follow up on any of those investigations or did you just stop by gathering the affidavit? >> Well, they were plugged into the hypothesis testing matrix. Uh I considered them for their proximity being in Summit County and for them involving fentinel. In each of those cases, I found no relationship to this case. >> Okay. Um, I want to pull up TG2, Katie, just for this witness only. Sorry, I lied about the time. I'm going a little bit longer, your honor. I'm close to done. >> No problem. >> Um, sir, do you recognize that? >> I do. Is that what you were talking about with Mr. Bworth, which is the decoding where you looked at his call records and tried to figure out who he was calling? >> It is the record that I referred to when I was uh talking about it on direct. I agree with that. >> And Katie, could we go to the page uh for the date 214 2022 at 12:23 p.m. It's a ways down. >> Just a moment, your honor. >> Of course. All right, sir. We've blown up a section. Does that refresh your memory about what you determined a call that was made on December 14th at >> Give me the date one more time. >> I'm sorry. February 14th. Thank you, your honor. at 12:25 p.m. >> Well, this is not a record that I created, but I recognize the format, and it appears to be that Eric Richen's phone had an incoming call at 12:25. >> Can you look at the call right above that one? >> This is an outgoing call from Eric Richen's uh phone on March the 9th of 2022. I'm sorry. February the 14th of 2022 at 12:23, 2 minutes before the first record that we talked about and that is to a different number 8 014735058. >> So as part of your investigation that you were doing on the mirror phone, you could at least identify a call that was made by Eric at 12:23 p.m. on February 14th. Right. >> I'm confused. We're looking at a We're looking at a an invoice record from a carrier and you're asking me about his phone. >> Those are two different things. >> Did this invoice come from his phone? >> No. >> Billing records >> from his from his carrier from Verizon, >> right? >> That's that's that's not a record from his phone. That's a record from his carrier. >> Understand? >> Two different things. >> So, according to the bill from his carrier, Yeah. He made a call at 12:23 p.m. on February 14th. >> Correct. >> Objection. There's a 901 problem. >> I'm done with it, your honor. >> Uh, hold on. You got to approach for a moment if you would. >> There's a Did you ever make any calls or any trips to Mexico as part of your investigation in this case? >> No. You mentioned you interviewed 45 to 50 people somewhere around there. 40 to 50. >> Yeah, it's an approximate number. I have no method of calculating that number. It's approximate based upon my memory. >> Did you ever interview Corey? >> I did. I spoke to Corey. She called me on January the 19th of 2023. >> All right. And she voluntarily spoke to you? >> She called me >> and talked to you voluntarily? >> She did. And I stopped her. I told her it would be inappropriate and unethical for me to continue the conversation outside the presence of her lawyer. I then texted her lawyer and had a phone call with her lawyer about the propriety of her client speaking without her presence. >> Okay. >> I then requested that Corey sub submit to an interview multiple times. >> All right. Stop. >> Don't reveal what anyone else said to you. >> Okay. >> The point is Corey called you to talk to you and tell you her side. Right. I don't know what her intentions were. She seemed very angry that I had contacted one of her business associates. I believe that was the reason she called me on that date. >> Okay. And so you never to this day have sat down with Corey and heard her version of what happened? >> No. Despite my repeated requests. >> Okay. She called you >> and I was bound by the ethics not to talk to her outside the presence of her lawyer. She was a litigant. She sued my client. >> Okay. And ultimately as you were working with the trust, did you become aware that the trust filed a wrongful death suit against Corey? >> I am. >> And are you aware they're seeking over $10 million in damages against Corey Richens? No, >> I didn't know that. It's irrelevant to me. >> Okay. >> Okay. Court's indulgence for just a moment, your honor. >> Of course. >> Oh, yeah. Can I just one moment? You found it. What's the date? Okay. I asked you whether you recalled seeing any texts with Eric about him and Corey having an open relationship and you said you could not recall. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Can you put that up on the screen, Katie? >> Do you recall looking at that text? >> I do. You've seen this one? >> I believe I have. It's a joke. >> It's a joke. >> It is. It appears to me to be a joke. >> Did you see the text around this text? >> I did. >> So, you have reviewed the text between Eric and Bryce. >> I don't know. I don't know that this is a text from Bryce. I have no idea. This does not identify Bryce. >> Doesn't identify anybody. Now that you have your memory refreshed, do you remember seeing this text between Eric and another individual saying that Corey and I are starting an open relationship tonight? >> Right. >> It says, "Corey and I are starting an open relationship tonight, so I told her I'm taking you home." >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And you left that out of your report. >> Um, no. This would be part of my report. Did you see texting between Bryce and Eric when you looked at their texts? >> I don't recall that. No, >> Katie. >> And is this I mean, is this sexing? I don't know what you mean. >> No, I'm not talking about this one. What about other ones? >> All right. I don't recall. I'm talking about um many hundreds of thousands of messages in this case. I can't recall them all. Let's see here. Just a moment. Courts indulgence for just a moment. Can I show you this other text right here and see if this refreshes your memory? Do you remember seeing a whole bunch of emails like this or texts like this between Eric and Bryce? Honestly, no. I don't remember. there. Like I say, there were hundreds of thousands of messages in this case. I don't remember even 1% of them. Um, as I look at this, I I mean, it just makes me laugh. It doesn't appear to be serious. >> So, how many of these joke sexings did you review that Eric did? >> I don't understand this to be sexing. I think you're wrong about that. I resist your characterization. Um, these are two friends joking uh with each other. That's what I'm reading here. >> And they did that all the time. >> I don't know, >> hundreds of times. >> If I had the records and then I could answer your question, but I don't remember uh all of these messages. And um yeah, this is a joke. >> Did you review all of the texts between Bryce and Eric? >> I I think at one time I would have gone through every single text message that was available to me on Eric's cloned phone. So uh do I recall it? Well, I I mean I recall that it was a bit mind-numbing. There was a there was a lot there. I am nothing particularly stuck out in my mind or memory >> about those messages. >> Did they repeatedly talk about having sex acts together? >> I don't recall. >> Did they repeatedly talk about oral sex together? >> I don't recall. >> Did they talk about anal sex together? >> Also don't recall. >> But you read them all. >> I'm sure that I did. >> And it's all joking. I knowing what I know about Bryce and Eric. Yeah, that's how I interpret it. >> So, you do remember reading things of this nature and you interpreted it all as joking. >> Uh, no. As I sit here today, I interpret it that way. I would have interpreted it that way back at my original reading of it. That doesn't mean I recall it. It means I have an opinion about what I thought then. That's different. >> And what did you think then? They were joking. No, no. I'm what I think now is that this was a joke. I do not have a recollection uh of this at the time that I first read it, but had if I had a recollection of that time, I'm sure it would be the same as it is today. >> And if there were these tens of tens of 20s of 50s of these types of emails, all of them would be jokes. >> Foundation >> sustained. >> Yeah, >> that's it. That's all I have, your honor. >> Mr. Mr. Bworth, anything further for Mr. Gabler? >> Yes, your honor. Thank you. Um, >> the tax they're a bunch of to locker room talk from August of 2018. >> That was my read of it. Yes, >> there wasn't any serious read that Eric Richens and Bryce Ken were engaged in some homosexual affair. >> Zero. >> In all of the text messages you reviewed, did you see any evidence of Eric using elicit street drugs? >> No, I looked and I could not find You mentioned legal requirements for a licensed private investigator to place a GPS tracker on a car. What are those legal requirements? >> So the statute governing that uh was adopted some a few years ago. It requires that before placing the device, a licensed private investigator must um identify the person or persons that are driving that vehicle and potentially the owner of that vehicle and that they submit a request to query the protected person's database in the state of Utah for any record of those persons that are subject to the GPS tracking that is designed to keep us from tracking people who have protective orders or temporary restraining orders or other lawful processes that define them as a protected person. We cannot track you in that circumstance. We do not have independent access to that database. So we must ask an agency of the state for a yay or nay. Uh is this person in the protected person's database? We have to do that before we place a device. We have to be certain that we are not tracking a protected person. So I submitted those requests to the appropriate counties of the jurisdictions where I placed these devices. The Summit County Sheriff's Office initially declined my request under the statute. I insisted. I finally got them to comply. I did the same with the Wasach County Sheriff's Office and they complied with my request. >> Did you conduct your investigation entirely within the bounds of the law? >> I believe I did. Did you conduct your investigation entirely within the ethical bounds of private investigators and the attorneys you were working for in this case? >> I believe that I did. >> Thank you, sir. >> Miss Nester, anything further for Mr. Gabler? >> No, your honor. >> May we release this witness? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you for your time. Please step safely. You are free to go, sir. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Bledworth, is this an appropriate uh time to recess for the day? >> It is, your honor. >> Ms. Nester. >> Yes, your honor. >> Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be recessing for the evening. As always, please do not speak about the case. Please do not allow anyone to speak to you about it. Please do not watch, listen, or read anything about the case at all. Please do not do any research about the case. To allow me and the attorneys to talk about some legal issues that hopefully will keep us efficient during the presentation of testimony tomorrow, uh, please be here ready to go at 9:30 tomorrow morning. Thank you for your patience. I'll rise for jury. Folks, have a seat. Uh, Miss Nester, Miss Lewis, Mr. Ramos in docket, if you would just make a note of this for me. Docket 1555, docket 1555. The state sets forth its understanding of your objections or requests related to the portions of the O'Driscoll interview transcript that you believe should be included under rule 106 or excluded uh under various reasons and the state's understanding of your objection. or request for inclusions related to the jail calls. I understand that to be the last word from the parties. The state presents it as the last word from defense, but if you would take a look at that specifically this evening and come tomorrow morning ready to let me know if you are changing any of those positions. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, Mr. Bledworth. Um, anything else anticipation of that discussion? >> No, sir. >> 8:30 tomorrow morning. >> Yes, sir. >> Miss Nester, 8:30 tomorrow morning. >> Yes, sure. >> Okay. I have I've reviewed each of those portions of the O'Driscoll transcript. I've reviewed each of the uh jail calls and recordings that are listed in 1555. I have notes regarding all of that. Anything else I need to be prepared for on those two issues from the state's perspective, Mr. Bledworth? >> No, sir. >> Okay. All right. Miss Nester, anything else on the record today? >> No, sir. >> Very good. Thank you for your patience. We'll be in recess until 8:30 tomorrow morning.