present. Ms. Richens is present as well. Mr. Burmister, anything on the record before we invite the jury in? >> Your honor, the state's first witnesses, Dr. Eric Christensen. I was notified by council this morning that they intend to move to exclude or suppress his testimony. And I will let them make whatever motion they want to make. >> Uh, council, tell me more. Judge, it is simply that um we have not been able to consult with Dr. Christensen. Um we have reached out to him uh to >> Say that again. >> I'm sorry. Uh we have not been able to consult um with Mr. Christensen or Dr. Christensen. We've reached out uh numerous times. Uh got on the phone with him once. Um he was unavailable. Asked if we could get some time with him. Uh that was about I don't know four or five weeks ago. um and haven't heard anything. Last week we informed the state that we haven't been able to get in touch with him. Ask the state to have him reach out to us. He has not reached out to us. So just based on just the rule and he should be available to you cooperative cooperatively consult with us. He did not. >> I appreciate that he's here now. >> I understand. I think >> Mr. Burmer, if we flip the order of events, can we allow Mr. Dr. Christensen to coordinate or sorry consult with defense council since he's physically present and then we can use the time for a different witness. >> I have no objection to that. Indeed, I u ask council time waiting, you know, 15 minutes ago. That's enough time. That is not. So, um >> who else do you have on deck? >> I don't know people. >> Let me see. I don't know if we have anybody in until 9, but let me see. Okay. Your honor, we have an objection to another witness that the state intends to call today. >> Okay. But let's uh let's stay focused on this one for the moment. Mr. Ramos, um make a record for me. If I change the order of witnesses and just order Dr. Christensen to consult with you since he's physically present. Anything further on that? >> Uh just assuming that we can take that break. I'm not sure who's next and whether it's my witness or not. >> Understood. Uh, >> okay. >> Absent that, I will make do. Obviously, I didn't want to do that rushed before we got here. Um, so if we can have an hour or whatever we need, right, >> that'd be great. >> Let's figure out what the order of witnesses is going to be. >> May I just have the benefit of the record for one minute? So, I spoke to Mr. Christensen or Dr. Christensen this morning. He says that he received a call several months ago from uh Mr. Bertram um saying, "Hey, we need to set up a time." Um he never heard from them again. He received a call warning that he would be getting an email maybe a month ago or so. Uh uh no, a subpoena. He subsequently received it by email and then he received a call with no message this uh over the weekend and that's where we are. >> We are where we are. We'll work it out. Uh Mr. Mr. Boulevard, talk to me about the other witnesses that are uh proposed for today. >> Your honor, I think that other witness is going to draw a motion. >> Oh, who is it? >> Um, it's his name is Todd Davis. Uh, I guess I don't know. Detective Todd Davis. Your honor, Mr. Davis was not on the state's witness list. They added him on Thursday, which I believe is in violation of rule 16. And I'm going to point the court to state versus Draper at 378P3rd 1261. In that case, um that was a theft case. The state had the manager of the store that was the victim of the theft on the witness list and then later during trial added the assistant manager and the court of appeals found it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow that witness to testify without uh notice sufficient notice under rule 16. >> What was the amount of notice in that case? I don't think it said exactly if it was with but it was during trial. It said it was during trial that they announced that she was going to testify. And I don't recall if it said if it was the same day, but um I mean the state's had months and months. We've had eight amended witness lists and I think to continue to add witnesses during trial um is not sufficient under the rule. Uh, help me out, Mr. Bloodorthwa. What is Detective? Is it Detective Davis? >> It's >> Lieutenant Detective. Lieutenant Davis, right? He um, your honor, the state is calling him to authenticate the May 4th, 2023 interview video of Robert Crosier. in rebuttal to Robert Crosier's testimony. All he's going to do is authenticate the video. >> Is that the first I've heard that that's all he's going to do. But >> is that issue in dispute? I mean, you reserve your arguments about whether there are other bases to bar the admission of that video, >> which I believe there are, >> but authenticity probably isn't one of them. Do we really need to call a witness or can we just stipulate that it's authentic and then the parties will reserve their arguments regarding admissibility? >> Um, I would agree it's authentic, but yes, we have we would have other objections. >> So, can we just have a clear stipulation on the record that the May 4, 2023 video recording of law enforcement's interview with Robert Croer is authentic? >> Yes. >> Your honor, may I the the transcript of the video as well? Is it a certified transcript? It >> is certified. >> I think that follows from the rule regarding certified transcripts. Miss Lewis, do you agree? I >> agree. >> Okay. So, it sounds like we don't need that guy. >> Correct, your honor. Um, we may as well use this time to litigate, I guess, what other objections to a visibility the defense has on the video. >> Uh, forgive me. The state is offering the video under which rule or exception? Your honor, page 01, it'll be D1A and perhaps some of it will be D1 B. The defense's crossexamination of Mr. Prozier elicited testimony that um uh well and the and the state's direct examination elicited elicited testimony from Mr. Kier that was inconsistent with his testimony in the video. The defense's crossexamination elicited testimony that he was um kind of out of it because of withdrawal and pressure to say certain things. Um and the video um you know rebutts that testimony. The video itself is I think 13 minutes long. Um and from these states you know from the state's view the entire 13 minutes you know well pieces of those 13 minutes are direct impeachment but the entire 13 minutes goes to whether or not he was high and out of it and whether or not he was pressured into saying certain things that that those pieces of evidence throughout the entire the uh impeachment pieces or the more specifically the D1A inconsistent pieces. Those would be I think fairly perceived off a cold transcript. The second piece, I'm not sure I or defense or you or the jury would be able to evaluate whether he was in a bad way uh from the transcript. Is the state seeking to admit both or publish the video and admit the transcript? What's the scope here? >> Your honor, publish both. We have the transcript running real time beneath the video. >> Okay. >> So that the jury can watch, listen, and read all at once. >> All right. Uh, Miss Lewis, do you have the video with the transcript? >> U, I don't have them together where it shows it under. No, >> I have them separately. >> Right. >> Sitting here today, are you prepared to make a record regarding this or do you need a moment to go through the pieces of or to make argument regarding certain pieces of the transcript versus other pieces? >> I think I would need a moment. I would like to see the video with the transcript run under it and then >> Yes, I I would need a m I would need some time to look at that. >> Okay. Well, we'll need to play this out a little bit. the state makes a facially uh if not valid at least thoughtprovoking argument under D1A uh 801 D1A that the video and the transcript related to it are categorically not hearsay but having not seen the whole 13-minute video or read the whole transcript and without the defense having the same opportunity I can't make a ruling sitting here at the moment So, can we provide the video with the running transcript to the defense? >> We we can, your honor. I believe we placed it in box yesterday, but we can if if they want to perhaps we can go into um a conference room here and we can just play it off one of our machines. >> Sure. I mean, I would also understand if the defense said, "We just need an evening with it to go through it, collect our thoughts, have you make a ruling." >> Miss Lewis, what's your request? >> Depends on what is happening here next. I may be able to watch it now. I don't know where we're headed. >> That that's that's the thing, your honor. Those were our first two. That was our um batter in the box and our on deck batter. >> Okay. Um, so we are scrambling to get our in the whole batter here. >> No, that's fine. Um, these things happen. We're going to let Mr. Ramos continue to consult with Dr. Christensen. Uh, Ms. Lewis, Ms. Nester, if you would have a conversation with the state about the video with the running transcript, let me know where we end up. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, before we take a break for that, Mr. Bworth, anything else on the record? >> No, your honor. Thank you, >> Ms. Lewis. >> No, your honor. >> All right. Let me know when you're ready for me. Thank you. Court will be in recess. >> Ready to go. >> Okay. Mr. Burmeister, anything before we invite the jury in? >> No, your honor. >> Council, anything before we invite the jury in? >> No. >> All right, let's do it. >> We're ready. I'm a stay hugely Ladies and gentlemen, please have a seat as you come in. Please have a seat. Good morning. Thank you for your patience. We'll now proceed with additional witnesses in the state's case and chief, Mr. Dr. Burmer, the state's next witness, please. >> Dr. Eric Christensen. >> Let's invite Dr. Christensen in. >> Doctor, if you would step in front of Brady, we'll get you sworn in. Please reach right here. 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. >> Drag that chair wherever you need to. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Please proceed. >> Thank you, Eric. Can you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record? >> Sure. Eric Dean Christensen, last name C H R I S Ten. >> Sir, are you employed? >> I'm currently self-employed. >> Did um you were recently the chief medical examiner for the state of Utah? >> Yes, I retired in 2024. >> Um and um how long were you the chief medical examiner? I began uh working as a chief medical examiner in July of 2016. >> Did you then supervise Dr. Mer? >> I did. >> Um are you familiar with the death investigation for Eric Richens? >> I am. >> And how are you familiar with it? >> I'm familiar with it um from discussions with Dr. Mer over the time she was evaluating the case um as well as my subsequent review of the medical examiner's file. >> Did you have an occasion to talk to Corey Richens? >> I did. >> Okay. Um have you uh testified as an expert in forensic pathology before? >> I have many times. >> Okay. I would like to first talk to you about um cause and manner of death and the the statutory requirement uh for that uh process. um when you have a death investigation, could you please explain how I guess what the manner of death um choices are and what's the purpose of that and >> just describe that for the jury, please. So, um, two of the things that the medical examiner is tasked with doing, uh, under statute is determining the cause of death and the manner of death. The manner of death is a, uh, box that we check on a death certificate. That is a essentially a one-word synopsis of the circumstances surrounding that person's death. The options available to us, we can certify that a death is a natural death. It can be an accident, it can be a suicide, it can be a homicide, or it can be uh in Utah, the death certificate reads could not be determined. What most commonly is referred to as undetermined. And in those settings, uh undetermined essentially means we can't we don't have enough information to decide which of those other four options best fits. >> What's the purpose of that whole exercise? Again, it's it's something that's on the death certificate and so it's part of the vital statistics uh function that the medical examiner's office provides. We all of the deaths that we investigate and deaths that we certify um provide information then back to the state. Um sometimes that's public safety, sometimes it's department of health. other people will utilize that death certificate data to evaluate the ways that people are dying within the state and attempt to intervene to minimize those types of deaths. >> In this particular case, um were you stuck between the first four you mentioned such that you ended up picking undetermined or cannot be determined? >> Yes. Again, and just to be clear, I didn't sign the death certificate. Dr. former did um but certainly was involved in discussions around that and and the determination you know making a determination of undetermined means that we generally can't decide between two in this case um I would say actually generally most cases where we certify death as undetermined it's because in overdose deaths that we certify as undetermined it's because I don't know enough about the person's own intent we see it frequently in the setting for example of people that um may have uh depression or other uh mood disorders um and maybe even prior suicide attempts as well as uh they may have substance use history that they use to self-medicate their uh depression and things. And so if someone overdoses on a drug that they're known to abuse, but they also have depression, if they don't leave a note or something else, then I don't really have a means of, you know, telling just from looking at that, did they mean to do this or is it accidental, you know, incident to their normal drug use? That's the most common scenario in which we certify death as undetermined. Um, in this case in specific, um, we did not really have any concerns about suicide in this case, but there had been concerns related to our office that perhaps someone, um, had done had done something to provide this to him and that he didn't just take it himself, but we didn't know. We had no idea how he got the stuff into his system. And so with that, um, we were left with undetermined. >> So the choice there would have been as opposed to accident and suicide, it was accident and homicide. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, could you describe for the jury the way in which uh the body processes substances? In particular, I'm looking at opiates and uh the different ways they can be ingested. >> Okay, there's a lot in that question. >> Yeah, sorry. >> Um, so um opiates can be consumed in a lot of ways. Um even things for example like pills that you might get from your doctor um uh for hydrocodone or oxycodone opioid related medications. Those can be just taken by mouth as they're usually prescribed. But it's not uncommon for us to see people take those pills, crush them up, dissolve them in liquid, draw them up into a syringe, and inject them. It's also not uncommon for us to see those pills crushed and then heated and people inhale the vapors uh from that. um primarily as a means of getting the drug into their system more quickly. Um and there's lots of other reported ways that people uh use things, but those are probably the the most three common ways that we see pills abused. Uh people may uh directly inject just about any drug um that's available in a liquid form. Uh fentanyl certainly is. Um fentanyl is also available in patches and lozenes and other forms. Um, and so, uh, it it can get into the system in a lot of different ways. Um, in terms of what your body does with it, fentanyl in specific is metabolized primarily by your liver. Um, there's a what they call a CYP enzyme that is primarily responsible for the metabolism of of fentanyl in in your liver. um that uh metabolism is felt to be mostly determined by how much blood is flowing through your liver. So the more blood flow you have to the liver, the more rapidly it will be metabolized. Um there are other ways that you know sometimes people will metabolize it more slowly. Um but the based on what uh specific genes they have for metabolism for that metabolizing enzyme, but mostly it's a function of how much blood is flowing through the liver. Um and it's then converted um very quickly has a very short half-life in the body minutes um and is converted to a substance called norfentinyl um which then is eliminated in the urine. >> Don't know if that >> Yeah, that's that's great. Thank you. Um once it gets into the blood then what's the intoxicating effect? I mean how does that function? >> Sure. So um fentanyl in the blood distributes throughout the body. It's absorbed um either through the mucosa, the lining of the mouth or directly into veins, whatever. It gets into the bloodstream and then from there it is uh it gets into the brain, it gets into other organs um where it exerts uh its primary effects on the brain and the central nervous system where it causes uh respiratory depression andor sessation. um can also cause central nervous system depression, meaning it alters the way you think, can you know make you uh groggy or you know less than normally responsive and things but its primary lethal effects are related to uh its effects on your breathing and um it is dose dependent. So a higher dose will do this more readily than a lower dose but it will you know either slow or stop your breathing and sometimes that has lethal consequences. Um the lethal con consequences then are from stopping breathing. >> Yes. >> Okay. And um when you stop breathing um death ensues does that metabolizing process continue to happen or does that stop as well? >> Generally it will stop. Um there are, you know, once your circulation stops and blood is no longer flowing through the liver, you're not going to have that uh continued metabolism through the liver. But there are a number of changes uh large number of changes that are described in the way fentanyl is uh present in the body after death um that are related to changes in the pH of the body as you start to decompose and other things that will influence what those levels look like. when a person uh I'm going to give you a hypothetical. So you we have a deedent and um in the blood you determine you and the the lab personnel determine that there is quitene below the threshold of their um tools. Um there is fentinol at 15 nanogs per milliliter and then in the gastric fluid there is uh quitene at about 16,000 nanogs per milliliter and fentinol at 20,000 nanogs uh per milliliter. My question then is based on that hypothetical um is there sufficient information for you to determine whether that those two drugs were taken simultaneously or sequentially and if sequentially which one came first? >> I can't tell you that >> there's just not enough information. >> No, there you can't derive that information from those values. >> Okay. Um, I just wanted to follow up. You said there's drowsiness as a consequence of taking I assume opioids of any type. Fentinyl just happens to be stronger. Yes, fentanyl on a weightby-weight basis, you know, 1 milligram of fentanyl compared to 1 milligram of oxycodone or of morphine is sort of the usual reference standard because it is the classic opiate medication. Um, fentanyl is just much much more potent. Um, 80 to 100 times more potent than morphine. So, um you said there's depression of the respiratory system, um drowsiness, um would you how quickly might one start to metabolize given the fact that um they take some fentinol and it causes their death? Would they be able to metabolize at least some of it? >> Uh you would expect so. of pain. >> I mean there are a number of overdose deaths reported in the literature where uh the death occurs so quickly and these are primarily in the setting of introvenous drug use um that no metabolism is able to be recorded because they just die too quickly. Um but um generally speaking we see some level of metabolism. Um, let me see. I wanted to um, but the someone takes an an overdose uh, a fatal dose of fentinol. Um, it's not then instantaneous um, death. It it depends partly I mean generally speaking no it's it's a function of the dose and the route of administration. So >> 30 seconds. >> Okay. Sorry about that. I'm going to come to you right now. Okay. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you so much. I'm not hearing it. >> Did we lose it, Scott? >> I think so. >> All right, no problem. Let's start over. We're We're uh we're getting quicker at this. Scott, if you would disconnect and reconnect on your end, I'll do the same on mine. But I'm going to talk to you right now. Okay. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you so much. No problem. >> Is that Chris? >> Hey, this is Corey Richens. Hey, I just have some quick questions for you. I'm just trying to understand the toxicology report and I promise I won't take up a ton of your time. >> Oh, you're fine. You're fine. >> Can you just kind of explain to me I guess I She was saying that this kind of supplemental report I guess was left out of the first autopsy and so nothing has really changed. Do you have it in front of you? >> I do. Yeah, I've got the file here. Scott, did we drop that again? >> Yes. >> All right. I apologize, folks. Give me Let's try that again. >> Scott, if you would disconnect from the system. Thank you. Then reconnect, please. If we do any additional microscop >> Hey, this is Corey Richens. Hey, I just have some quick questions for you. I'm just trying to understand the toxicology report and I promise I won't take up a ton of your time. >> Oh, you're fine. You're fine. >> Can you just kind of explain to me I guess I She was saying that this kind of supplemental report I guess was left out of the first autopsy and so nothing has really changed. Do you have it in front of you? >> I do. Uhhuh. Yeah, I got the file here. So can >> so just so you know so we issue supplemental reports like if once the original reports issued if we do any additional testing if we do any additional microscopic examination anything like that then we include that you know we we issue a supplemental report to include that additional information and sometimes it does change the cause or manner but in this case it didn't >> okay it was so it was just like extra testing done >> extra tox testing yeah so originally the testing the only toxicology testing it done was on blood. >> Um and so then this was additional testing on stomach contents. >> Okay. And so is there I mean difference in that I guess. >> Well, do they just tell you different things in the sense of you know it you know tells you something about what uh um you know was it uh um you know is it is it is it been there a long time? Is this something the person's been using for a long time? >> Is it something they ate? Is it something they, you know, injected? Is it, you know, whatever. And there's different things you can learn by looking at different substances. I mean, we we fully expected to find it in the stomach. It's just a question of what was there. So >> So does I guess. So does this tell you like if he if it was like injected, if he ate it, if I mean, is that what this can you tell from this report? >> Not definitively. Yeah, I mean it seems like, you know, with what the amount that's there that it probably was ingested um uh you know, probably taken by mouth. Um >> Okay. And so this so the 15 ng like is that like a substantial amount? Is that like a trace? >> That's a lot. That's a lot of fentanyl in the blood. Yeah. I mean that's you know people die with half that amount or less in their system. >> Okay. So that's quite a bit. >> Yeah. So what's the the next one down? The nor fentanol. What is >> it's just it's a metabolite of fentanyl. It's what your body changes fentanyl into after you take it. >> Oh, I gotcha. Okay. And then sorry just the third one, the acid. I don't know how you say that. >> Acetil fentanyl. Yeah, that's just a it's a form of it's a variant of fentanyl that is usually only present in the setting of uh illicitly manufactured fentanyl >> elicit manufactured like a pharmacy. >> No, no, no. Like so far like a lot of most fentanyl that we see that you know ends up people leading people to die these days is uh related to you know fentanyl that's manufactured by drug cartels as opposed to by pharmaceutical companies. >> Oh good lord. So this is like more of like a cartel. No, I mean that's not what it is. >> You call this the street street fentinel as opposed to you know >> prescription. Okay, I see. And then is this so is the ethanol is that alcohol? >> That's alcohol. Mhm. >> Okay. And is that like the 279 is that kind of like a substantial amount or is that like one drink? Is that five drinks? >> It it you can't tell how much it is. And in this case, you know, in since this testing was sent, you know, quite a long time after the original autopsy, most likely that's related to uh, you know, postmortem change, but it could be stuff that he drank. There's not really a way to sort that out. It could be related to decomposition of the stomach contents or it could be related to stuff he drank. But >> either way, what you know, in the stomach content, there's no way to know what that level means in terms of I mean, if that was a blood level, that would be the same as a 28, >> you know, which would be that person would be pretty substantially intoxicated. Um, >> but but because it's gastric contents, I mean, you know, you could in theory pull something out and it would be, you know, 100% ethanol if, you know, depending on if they just drank a stomach full of, you know, if they just drank a bunch of Everclear or something else. >> So, it doesn't really it doesn't really tell you much about how much they drank or what they drank or anything like that. >> Okay. >> Stomach and it's not present in his blood. So, >> I gotcha. Okay. So, it's not present in the blood, just the gastric or whatever. >> Right. >> Okay. Yeah. >> And then just the last one. What is quitine? Quitipene. >> Quitipene is a antiscychotic medication. It's called cerakquil. >> Okay. >> It's a prescription medic, you know, mental health medication >> that's prescribed for different things. >> I gotcha. Okay. And it has like 16,000 >> 16,000 nanogs per milliliter. Mhm. >> Okay. And is that I mean quite a bit like >> yeah I mean it's that's a big number but it doesn't it doesn't really mean that much. You know an anagram is a millionth of a gram and a gram is not very big. Um so even 16,000 of them is not a huge amount. >> Okay. Is there like could those have been mixed or is that not kind of a >> what's that? Could what be mixed? qu uh quitapene and like the fentanyl or I mean is that like drug a normal I guess drug thing I don't know like >> it's not I mean you know what most of the time if we see those together it's because somebody was taking quitine as a prescribed medication and they were abusing fentanyl but you know there's there's >> yeah do you have any indication he was abusing fentanyl No, that's why all of this is just like what the heck is this and going on. So I guess that's why I'm confused just about all of this honestly. So I'm Yeah, I don't know. So I mean I know it doesn't mean anything now, but just kind of something for me to, you know, try and figure out, I guess. >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah. And then I'm assuming the acettopian is that like a aspirin or something? >> Pedimen. That's just Tylenol. Yeah. >> Oh, that's fentanyl too. >> No, that's Tylenol. >> Oh, Tylenol. I was like, "Holy shit." Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, just like Tylenol, caffeine, and then the nlloxxin, I'm assuming, is just something that they gave him while he was here. >> Probably would be my guess. It'd be, you know, somebody that's unresponsive. It's very common thing for EMS to give people. >> Okay. Okay. I know that um that works. So, I was just trying to figure out, you know, if this is anything different, if we found out anything new with this sub >> Oh, come on. >> Pause there. It's okay. We can fix it. >> Scott, don't change anything. >> Okay. It seems like if I do this, press play again. >> Yeah, like she said, it doesn't really it doesn't change anything in the cause or manner of death. It's still, you know, definitely, you know, death from fentanyl intoxication, and we still don't know how he got it into him. >> Yeah. I mean, is is that anything you could ever find out if it was I mean, do people normally eat that like take it swap? Like is that something you like? >> Not it's not usually something people eat. Well, that's not even true anymore. So, with elicitly manufactured stuff, sometimes people take pills that have that. So, yeah, these days you can't really tell. >> Yeah. All right. Well, I appreciate your time. I do. Thank you very much. And um >> Yep. And if you have other questions, don't hesitate to give me a call. >> Okay. Awesome. What was your name? >> Dr. Christensen. >> Oh, Christensen. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. >> Okay. >> Yep. I'd >> like to follow up on a couple things there. Um, you mentioned to her about if the gastric contents were blood, it would be 28. >> Yes. >> Blood alcohol. But it's in fact not in the blood. It's in the gastric and so there's no way of conveniently figuring out how much it is much less its source. >> That's correct. >> Are you okay? Do you need glass? >> I've got water. I'm good. >> Um you mentioned in that call u first you said uh we typically don't see it eaten but you can't say that anymore. Could you expound upon that? How in cases where there's pills um is it common to see them eaten? Uh >> so yeah. Okay. A few things about that. So over time uh over I'd say the last 20 years we saw a rather dramatic change in the deaths we saw related to fentanyl. Um, you know, until the early 201s, um, pretty much all fentinel deaths were related to, uh, prescription fentinil being used incorrectly. Um, most commonly by healthc care providers and other people who would, you know, have access to it and would abuse it. Um, and it was just not a common thing. We just didn't see a lot of deaths related to that. Once patches became available um which were designed you know primarily for you know treating cancer patients with bad pain and things of that nature um people became creative with how they use those patches as well. Some people would you know put on multiple patches or they would put on patches and a heating and a heating pad to sort of drive it into their system more quickly. Um seen people that would smoke them, people that would insert them into their rectum. um people that would uh chew them up. Um sometimes we'd find, you know, multiple chewed up patches in the stomach. Um and so um and certainly other ways have been described as well with patches. But once uh the elicit drug supply and primarily the heroin supply came to be you know either augmented andor replaced by fentanel um we saw uh you know a a we we saw much much less in the way of the you know prescription abuse uh and much more of the uh illicit uh stuff being used and some of that was in the form of uh what was heroin. Most heroin in this area was black tar heroin which then became uh ended up having fentinel within it. So people that had been heroin users would still be using what they thought was heroin and it would have fentanyl in it. Many times mixed with heroin um eventually sometime some cases was not mixed at all but was just straight fentinyl. Um uh counterfeit fentanyl pills uh or counterfeit oxycodone pills. Fentanil in pill form made to look like it was an oxycodone pill also became a a fairly common thing. Um and as we discussed before with other pills, people will abuse those in different ways. Sometimes they can ingest them directly. Um but they can also grind them up and inject them or smoke them. Um so the they can be used in all kinds of different ways. But in in the phone call what I'm referring to uh you know we mostly did not see anybody eating fentinil um before elicit fentanil with the advent of these counterfeit pills we saw it somewhat you know more often or would assume that was the route but we even then most the time don't know how somebody gets the fentinel into them even if they have it on their person >> in in this case there's there certainly wasn't Any injection sites noted? >> No. >> Um, are there tests uh forensic tools that could aid in the determination of whether one is a chronic or or you know habitual or a naive user? >> Um, it's a good question. So, there's been a lot published on uh the assessment of fentanyl levels in people that have died um and ways that you can try and parse some of those things out. Um uh the bottom line for all of them is is you can't look at a number in isolation and make a determination based on you know this is a lethal level so this level has to be the cause of their death. There are certainly people uh who uh you know become tolerant. Most opioids uh people will develop tolerance over time and so they can have very very high levels and not have the same effect as someone who doesn't take it all the time. Um we had no history in this case in particular to suggest long-term chronic use but also didn't know. Um and there are things that could potentially be looked at um to try and assess uh longer term use. The only published data I've seen around that uh revolves around comparing the fentanyl to the norfentinyl level. Um and levels that are where that ratio is more than eight are believed to be consistent with an acute intoxication. Ratios of 2 and a half or less are consistent with chronic use. Uh in this case that ratio is about 4.6. So it's right in between. So it doesn't really provide us helpful information either way. Okay. That's the the ratio between fentinol and its metabolite. >> Correct. >> As you find it. >> Yes. >> Um, have you ever heard um of pseudo allergic reaction to opioids? >> Yes. >> Could you tell the jury a little bit about that? >> Sure. Um most allergic reactions um are because the body has developed has developed an immune response to some specific protein substance whether it's nuts or grasses or whatever pollins of different types and your body reacts to that and triggers a reaction through your uh uh uh immune system that elicits what we typically think of as um allergy symptoms that can range everywhere from you know a stuffy head um all the way up to anaphilaxis and death. Um in the setting of opiates, opiates do not elicit a true allergic response, but there are many people that take opiates um who have an allergic reaction. Um but it's because the drugs themselves are directly triggering those cells that cause those symptoms as opposed to going through the immune system route. And so some people will uh that chronically take opiates and opioids for pain uh will uh premedicate or medicate around the same time with things like benadryil and other things to minimize those symptoms because they know they have that reaction. Certainly most people that take them do not have that reaction, but some do. And that's >> if if one didn't know and one took some opiate, um could they have hives and those sorts of allergic like responses? >> Yes. Given all the symptoms that you've talked about the the u the lungs the edema and uh the data from NMS labs do you have any concern about the cause of death in this particular case? >> No. And the 15 nanograms as you explained to Corey Richens was a lot. >> Yes, it's it's well within the range of uh levels that we see in people that die from fentanyl. >> Do you remember when that phone call took place? >> Do I remember what >> when that phone call took place? >> I don't off top of my head. >> Okay. would um does your office take notes uh when you receive calls and reply to calls etc. Okay. >> Over the that changed a little bit over the time I was there. It used to be we'd get a little scrap of paper with a note written on it. Return this call and we turned that into a digital log before I retired. But yes. >> Would it help to look at one of those notes to refresh your recollection as to when the call took place? >> Sure. They approach the witness. >> Of course. >> Do you recognize that, sir? >> Um, yes. This is from the log. Um, just said that an incoming call came to me uh from Corey Richens and she had questions. Um, and that this is my notes. >> And so, what day did that phone call? on January 12th of 2023, couple weeks after Dr. Mer's retirement. >> Thank you. That's all I have. >> Could I get some more water? >> Of course. Thank you. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Uh we've spoken before. Uh going to ask you some follow-up questions to Mr. Burmeister's. >> Sure. >> I'll start off with that uh final thing that Mr. Burmeister showed you. Uh, you indicated that you would take calls from different individuals. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And did you receive other calls in this case um from law enforcement? >> Um, I believe I did. Yes. Mhm. >> Would to refresh your recollection uh or do you recall a call around the same time in this case? >> I don't recall the timing of it. >> I'm going to approach you with uh the same case case notes. >> And it's that first one. >> Yes. Uh-huh. >> Okay. And was that did you in fact receive a call before Miss Richens? >> Yes, the day before. >> And uh was that law enforcement? >> It was. >> And was that also regarding the supplemental report? >> Um yes. >> Okay. And either your recollection or what's in your notes, do you recall if most of the questions were the same that Miss Richens uh asked you on the 12th? I I don't have any specific recollection, but my, you know, general recollection was that we discussed the supplemental talks findings. >> Perfect. I'll take that back. >> Now, the questions that Miss that we just heard Miss Richens ask you very similar to what we're asking today. Correct? >> Yes. I'd like to talk to you about the allergen um discussion you just had. Um you indicated that perhaps an individual could have a reaction like hives. >> Yes. >> If someone is allergic uh in this case to an opioid as you indicated, does that allergy disappear? >> I'm not sure. You mean does it does it go away over time? >> Over time or within a certain amount of time or >> I mean allergies certainly are things that can fluctuate. Um people can receive treatment and their responses to different things will go away. >> Was there hives? Were there hives on Mr. Richen's body to your recollection? >> No. >> We were talking about illicit fentanyl um and counterfeit uh pills. Yes. >> Containing traces of fentanyl. >> Um, milligram amounts. >> Okay. >> Now, the tablets that or pills that would contain these traces, what kind of pills would those be? >> Generally, >> objection. >> The u discussion if we're talking Oxycontton, is that what you're saying? >> I I've not said it. I've just said pills. >> Okay. Well, there's no pills um that they have that you can make. >> Uh would you provide a little more foundation for your question so you know what we're talking about? >> Absolutely. Your testimony just now was that in your experience you started to see that fentanyl or fentanyl overdoses were coming in through your office. Correct. >> Correct. And in those overdoses, you gathered information and because you would see that there was a presence of acetal I say that right? Acetal fentanyl. >> Acetal fentanyl. >> Acetyl. >> Acetal is also fine. >> Okay. Acetyl fentinyl that that was more likely a result of elicit fentanyl. Correct. it. So it is a form of fentanyl that in some cases um is there were a variety over time um of different fentanyl variants that were developed um primarily in response to controlled substance legislation. If fentanyl is outlawed, then we'll add an acetal group to that molecule and then it's no longer controlled and so we can distribute that as a non-controlled substance and then that one gets controlled. And so then I mean there were dozens of variants of fentanyl that were developed over time. Ail fentanyl was one of the more common ones um that we saw early in this wave of uh progressions but um was one that we saw not infrequently. Now with that what what was the acetal fentanyl contained in usually in your experience? >> I don't recall ever having seen uh a fentanyl as a in a substance form in any of our specific cases >> because it was always inside whatever pill or however it was administered. Correct. >> I I don't even know if it was pill administered. I don't know. or injection >> or yeah, I don't know how we would see it in people. Um, but I don't recall ever seeing uh seeing that uh correlate with a specific pill that we had tested that was shown to contain that. I know generally the crime lab identified a fentanyl in some pills, but I don't recall a specific instance in my case work um where those two were correlated. describe counterfeit pills. >> Uh counterfeit pills are uh essentially um illicitly manufactured pills and sometimes very sophisticatedly um where people will buy a the same kind of a pill press that a drug manufacturer uses and they put their stuff into it and press pills um that look very very similar uh to uh legitimate prescription pills. Um the most common counterfeit pills that we've seen uh have been uh fake 30 milligram oxycodone pills um uh that when tested contained only fentinyl. Um and there are also some benzoazipene pills things like Valium and Xanax and other things where those uh what look like Xanax pills have also contained fentanyl. And you just indicated two different things that in in some instances it was purely fentanyl. Those pills contained only fentanyl. Correct. >> Correct. >> And then there were other times where perhaps they were still uh traces or there were still the other benzo for example. >> Those would be different pills. I don't know. I I'm not aware of any where it was both fentinil and benzo, you know, made to look like benzo that didn't have we've seen counterfeit benzoazipene pills and counterfeit oxycodone pills, both of which contained only fentanyl. >> Correct. Now, in this case, you were provided or your office rather was provided with a hydrocodone bottle. Correct. >> Correct. Now, uh, that bottle you keep in your office, correct? >> Uh, we do until the case is done. Eventually, it's discarded. But yes, >> you talked about the would it be fair to say that fentanyl right now? You discussed how we you would find uh acetal fentanyl and that was one part of it and then you had to make sure that legislation got that specific one into the books so that it would then become a controlled substance. Correct. >> Yes. >> And so I imagine that was really fastly evolving. >> Yes. I mean, I was a member of the state's controlled substances advisory committee that would provide recommendations to the legislature to include in the controlled substances act. And every year uh for, you know, this time from the late teens to the early 20s, it seemed like every year we were adding things. They did eventually make some changes where relatedness uh became, you know, if if it wasn't changed enough, it was still covered. Um but uh that uh it was an evolving process and what we would see in the deaths that we saw related to fentanyl and fentanyl analoges also changed >> and with that also peer review literature um as to the effects of fentanyl. Correct. >> Um I would assume so. >> It it that would make would you you kind of hesitate? I would assume so. Well, I I mean, yeah, the peer-reviewed literature is evolving all the time and so I don't know if there's a specific thing you're referencing. I don't know. But certainly, um, initially there was not a lot of, uh, as the fentanyl supply changed from primarily pharmaceutical to primarily elicit. Um there in the early stages of that there was not a lot of uh uh you know new literature to you know look at the post-mortem levels in people that have died of this you know elicitly manufactured fentanyl as compared to the different ways that people used to take it as a diverted pharmaceutical before. >> And that's exactly where I was going the postmortem um these levels that we've been discussing. Uh Mr. Burmeister asked you about the post mortem um levels and you received from NMS uh reference comments. Correct. >> Yeah, that's part of their report. >> Correct. And do you recall what those numbers were in ter in terms of the femoral blood um as it relates to accidental drug overdoses? I I don't recall specifically what the numbers were but generally speaking the levels that we see in uh uh accidental overdose deaths from fentanil you know overlap the levels that are seen u as described with you know prescription usage and part of the reason for that is going back to the literature is that there is no um I'm trying to find the right words for it. There's no set number universal number that we can that the medical community can attribute in terms of what becomes lethal. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And the reason for that or part of the reason uh and add add to this is both the individual's own use prior use if any. >> Yes. uh perhaps the toxicity or the rather the amount of fentanyl in it. Correct. >> The dose. Yes. >> Uh the the potency of that dose. Correct. >> Um I mean fentanyl is going to be relatively equipotent, but the fentanyl analoges may have different potencies. >> Okay. A fixed fatal threshold. Does that sound >> Yeah, there isn't one. >> Okay. Um, you were discussing the ratio of fentanyl with norfentanyl with Mr. Burmeister. Do you recall that? >> Yes. >> I I got lost to be frank. Um, >> not surprising and not always as good as explaining as I'd like to. >> No, I think it was just going over my head. But tying it together with the post-mortem uh literature out there and this ever evolving world that unfortunately we're we're dealing with now with fentanyl. >> Is there any literature on how that ratio can be affected >> um >> that you're aware of? I'm not aware of any specific literature that looks at uh the ratio of fentanyl to norfentil um in determining uh you know is it a cause of death is it you know is it a uh you know a recent you know a one-time use or multiple time use I'm not aware of any literature that discusses that. There certainly has been some literature added over the years to discuss uh comparing uh for example the amount of fentanyl seen in the heart to that seen in a peripheral site we call it like something like from the femoral vein um uh to try and assess uh you know things or looking at other uh uh what we would call substrates, other sample types uh fluid from the eye, testing the liver, urine, other things of that nature. >> Let's talk about then we discussed this when we spoke. Um could you you talked about things that you looking back you could have done. >> Yes. Mhm. >> Could you explain to the jury some of those? >> Sure. Um there is uh I guess they say hindsight is always 2020, but you can you can certainly uh there are a number of things that are in the literature now suggesting that you might gain additional information um if you test uh for example urine uh which is not something that medical examiner's office routinely does in any case because what's in the urine is simply a reflection of you know what has gone on before and what we need to know is what's in the blood, what's in their system circulating at the time they die. So we don't routinely test that. There is some suggestion that that can help you sort out how uh quickly or not quickly uh a given death uh related to fentanyl might have occurred. Um and then there's been other evaluation of other substances like fluid from the eye, what we call vitrius fluid um as well as liver. um and looking at both of those as a means of uh you know perhaps augmenting the understanding of what's going on uh in in the blood as well. Um when you take something for example by mouth um it goes through you know down into your stomach gets gets absorbed and then anything that gets absorbed goes through your liver before it goes anywhere else. And so an oral ingestion in theory might show up as a higher level in the liver um than u than if it's take an IV or something uh in some other method. So there are other things we could do that would certainly uh you know potentially help our our understanding of how uh you know how the fentanel played out in Mr. Rich in this case >> and you had also mentioned the in our discussion the brain the heart and maybe I think maybe you mentioned blood is that are those also helpful um looking back again hindsight >> yeah so the brain I mean there's good literature that suggests the brain takes up fentanyl and that is the cause of both the central nervous system and the respiratory depression um be it's interacting with opioid receptors in in the brain um there's not any published literature that I'm aware of that talks about what a given level in the brain would mean. Um, same with other solid organs. There's starting to be some literature discussing what a liver level might mean, but I'm not aware of any other specific uh organ sampling sites that might add add light to that. >> What about uh hair follicles? Um hair testing uh in uh the setting of uh drug use is primarily used as a means of evaluating drug use over time. Um it does drugs do get taken up into the hair. Um and when we collect samples uh to send for hair testing, which pretty much we only do uh when we're requested to, but um we will you you tie off a bundle of hair. Um, they want usually about a centimeter, so a little over a little under half an inch bundle of hair. And we tie it off at the roots, cut it off, and then that gets sent to the lab and they take sections of it starting at the root going back to see, you know, based on how fast hair grows, how long has this person been exposed to this substance? >> And you indicated unless you're requested, I imagine, for example, law enforcement. >> Yes. >> Okay. That wasn't done in this case. >> That was not done in this case. >> Now, as we heard, Miss Richen, she indicated that uh she that Eric was was not using fentanyl. Correct. >> Correct. >> And there was going back to the initial conversation or the initial testimony regarding the different categories when you're trying to really determine what to put down on the death certificate. One of the things that one of the unanswered question was well was he using correct? >> Um yeah that was part of it certainly >> and in our prior discussions you've indicated that you know at times individuals didn't tell family. Correct. >> But that would be not uncommon. Yes. >> And certainly in this case a hair follicle test should if it had been um requested of your office you would have sent it out. we would I don't know and I think as I told you I don't know uh what the literature says around about hair follicle testing for fentanel specifically whether that's a useful endeavor or not I just I don't know >> fair enough um certainly it wasn't asked of you and certainly you didn't get the results back >> no >> now had that been done had you gotten the results back and it did show uh long-term that certainly would have played into your determination as to the manner of death correct >> objection calls for speculation the testimony has been. >> Yeah. Why don't we have a Mr. You you are not aware of a hair follicle test in your experience being done for fentanyl. >> I am not. >> Okay. You don't know if it can be done? >> I do not know. >> Had a hair follicle test just for any drug including fentanyl. any just hair follicle test to be sent out to see if there's any type of drug use whatsoever. Your office would have done that. Correct. >> Overruled. >> Um, if we were requested to, that's certainly not something we would ever routinely do. >> Absolutely no. And I'm not implying that. >> Um, and and to be fair, the reason you wouldn't do that is because your office is tasked with what's at hand, which is what do you have in front of you to determine the manner and cause of death. Correct. >> Correct. Why are why is this person dead right now? Correct. >> As opposed to some other time. >> And in terms of your checklist, the hair follicle just doesn't come in in terms of what you do. Correct. >> Um I mean it can or it could in theory. Um but yeah, mostly no. >> But if it were to be requested of you, you would or could do it. >> We could. >> Objection. I think the answer was for this particular >> What's the objection? Mr. Burmeister asked and answered. >> Asked and answered and calls for speculation. >> Sustained. I'm going to ask you a different question. >> So, I'm going to go back with all that in mind. Had you sent out a if you send out a hair follicle test, is your practice generally when you receive the results of said hair follicle test to use those said results in your determination of whether or not to change a manner of death? >> They would be part of, you know, all the information that we look at to come up with our final cause and manner of death. Yes. >> Thank you for that. Mr. Burmeister asked you about the uh sequence of items that were ingested or not ingested. Do you recall that? >> Yes. >> You indicated that there's simply not enough um information at hand to be able to determine that. Correct. >> Yeah. not just from this case in in forensic toxicology generally you can't tell when something was taken just based on a number >> and and that's what I wanted to make clear whether it was just in this case or just generally >> generally you can't do that >> and that means uh that there are no tests uh or nothing else that you can go back and do to make that determination correct >> correct Bear with me. I'm almost done. Okay. Now, in your involvement in this case, something unusual did occur in this case in terms of the investigation. Correct. >> Um, in terms of >> You have to be more specific. >> Sorry. Yes, I will. >> In terms of >> talking about >> I'm I'm going to refer. >> We're about to find out. >> Yeah. I apologize for poor question. I'll start all over. >> We saw your case notes. Yes. >> And there you spoke with one law enforcement officer, correct? >> Yes. >> Now, you also received other communications from other law enforcement officer, correct? Officers, correct? >> I believe so. Yes. >> And do you recall being invited to a meeting um to have a discussion about this case? >> Yes. >> And uh do you recall the DA was involved in that case? >> I believe so. >> And other prosecutors, correct? >> I believe so. Yes. >> As well as other law enforcement agencies. Correct. I don't know. >> Okay. And that was unusual in your practice. >> It's not common. It happens uh but not commonly. >> Okay. No further questions, Mr. Thank you so much, doctor. >> Mr. Burme, you're within the scope of cross, please. >> My apologies. Maybe not yet. >> Apologies. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Very good. We're good. Thank you, doctor. >> Thank you, >> Mr. BS. >> Just trying to figure out this this meeting you said. Is it the one you testified earlier when you got a call from law enforcement? >> I believe so. from my notes that were in the log that I looked at. Um, I was invited to a meeting. It was a my recollection it was some sort of virtual meeting. I don't know if it was WebEx or Zoom or whatever. >> Um, and I believe it was with Mr. Hemingway's computer, but there were other people in the room who were introduced to me, but I don't recall exactly who was that. >> You don't know who that was? >> I don't know who I couldn't give. >> And when when defense council says the DA, presumably the Salt Lake DA was not interested in this case, Oh, I think you said DA DEA. >> DEA. >> Oh, yeah. I don't recall. >> I misunderstood that. I thought I was asked DA as well. >> So, my apologies. I want to make sure I don't get involved in any confusion here. Would you please clarify what his testimony is? I think you've said you received notice to attend a a virtual meeting and law enforcement was there. >> Yes. >> And you don't know who specifically in law enforcement was there? >> Uh besides Mr. Hemingway now. >> Okay. >> And this was the day before Corey Richens called. >> That's what the log says. Yeah. I don't have any recollection of that specifically. um hydrocodone uh doesn't look like this M30 you talked about um imprint of M30 that >> No, I've not seen any counterfeit pills made to look like hydrocodone pills. >> Okay. Um in this case um there were no traces that is you said you testified there was a lot of fentinol in the blood. >> Yes. >> And there was no traces of anything else related to fentinol. >> In the blood. Yes. Correct. Um these other things you you talked about urine, vitrius, liver, brain, heart, blood. Um none of those based on your understanding of the literature etc. would give you a definitive forensic proof of long-term use or not long-term use. >> Definitively, no. >> I have no more questions, >> Mr. Almos. Anything further for Dr. Christensen? >> Yes, Judge. One second. I apologize. >> We're good. I apologize, sir. Thank you so much. Thank you, doctor. >> Is this uh is this witness released counsel? >> Yes. >> Yes. You're free to go, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Please watch your step. >> Did we What time did I start? >> Okay. You want to keep going, counsel? You want to take a rest break? >> Your honor, may I just confer briefly with >> Of course. Yes. Can we This might be a good time for a break. >> Okay, folks. Let's take a rest for a break. Please rise for the jury. Please have a seat. >> Mr. Blair. >> Uh, your honor, back to the video of the May 4th, 2023 interview. I I I think I don't want to speak for him. Defense had a chance to review it, but we'll still have an objection. >> Ms. Lewis, please. >> Yes, your honor. We still object under on two grounds. One is still here say there's not only um just the statements of Mr. Kroger and Detective Davis and Detective I think Hamilton maybe was the other one there. >> It was Ben Corino. >> That's okay. That's fine. >> I'm certain it was Van Corino. You can think all you want. It was Ben Karina. It >> we have law enforcement side and then we have the Mr. Croer side, >> right? But then we also have um law enforcement making statements to Mr. Croer, statements from Nicole Cummings and Carmen Lober. So there's those hearsay statements in there also. And the other thing is it says that it can be admissible under 801D if when the person's subject to cross-examination. I know Mr. Croer was subject to cross-examination, but he's no longer subject to cross-examination. It seems as if this video should have been introduced prior because then we would have had the opportunity to show portions of the video and cross-examine him on the video. That opportunity is now lost. >> Why? >> Well, he's been released from his subpoena. We don't know if he's been out talking about the case, I suppose. >> Well, you could ask him about that, but he's not unavailable. >> Well, that's correct. We could we could subpoena him and bring him back in. That's true. And I just want to make sure I understand the procedural history here. Defense had the video, right? >> Yes. >> To the extent it had wanted to cross-examine him regarding the video when he was on the stand, you had the opportunity and there may have been uh good reasons to not do it at the time. >> Well, the main reason was he had no memory of it. So that made it difficult. >> That's exactly the condition that triggers 801 D1A. Well, 801D 801D1A is if there is inconsistencies in it >> or has forgotten. I'll take your word for it. I don't have a >> mean I think that is the basis to have a discussion regarding uh admission of the video, his side of it, right? uh under 801D1A is that he was testified numerous times under oath in open court that he couldn't remember the interview >> even to the extent of saying that piece of transcript does not refresh my recollection. >> Correct. >> Um so I can instruct the jury to not consider anything other than Mr. Croser statements for the truth of the matter that they can only consider the law enforcement half uh for context as to provide context for why Mr. Croer is responding other than that. Any other hearsay concerns? >> No. No other concerns. >> Any other concerns? >> No. >> You had two reasons. You said >> Yeah, I gave them the hearsay of the other people and subject to cross examination. All on the video. >> Okay. Mr. Bworth, anything further on that? >> No, your honor. >> Uh, how would you propose we do this? Mr. Bulletworth, play the video with the scrolling transcript for the jury nowish. >> Yes, your honor. Um, maybe in 5 minutesish. >> Sure. >> State drank a lot of coffee. >> No, no, you you and I both. Uh, let me make a ruling here and see if either side needs clarification. >> Mr. Bledworth, as I understand it, the state seek the state seeks to admit and publish to the jury a 13-ish minute uh audiovisisual recording of Mr. Croer's interview with law enforcement in May of 2023. The recording is accompanied by um the transcript that plays below the video in real time. Is that correct? >> That is correct, your honor. It is labeled 8-64 D as in dog. >> Okay. Um >> you repeat that. >> 864. >> Thank you. >> Having had the opportunity to listen to Mr. Croer sworn testimony uh in open court and given that defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine uh Mr. Croer when he was on the stand has had the video and that there's no evidence before the court currently that Mr. Croer is unavailable to be reuboened and brought back into the courtroom by defense if they determine it's necessary to do so. The court determines that Mr. Croers's half of that interview with law enforcement for May 2023 is admissible as categorically not hearsay under rule 801D1A because he testified under oath that he couldn't remember the statements he gave during that interview and therefore uh these statements that he makes in the interview uh qualify as statements regarding which he has forgotten. quote unquote. The court will instruct the jury that they cannot consider any portionment of the law enforcement side of that interview for the truth of the matter uh which resolves any hearsay issue with regard to the law enforcement half of the interview. Mr. Bworth, any clarification? >> No, your honor. >> Ms. Lewis? >> No, your honor. Okay, it will be 8-64D as in delta is admitted on that basis. Let's uh take a 10-minute break. This clock in here shows 10 of 11. No, 20 of 11. We'll come back at 10 of 11. Thank you. >> Before we may get just a lineup just so while we're on the break, we can take advantage of that and be prepared for whoever who's coming in. Yeah, it's it hasn't changed from what I emailed you on Saturday, so I think >> Okay, perfect. >> Yeah. >> All right, folks. 10-minute break. Thank you. Courts in recess >> and publish 8-64D. >> Miss Lewis, any uh other objection other than the one I've already ruled on? >> No, no, nothing further. >> Okay. States 8-64D is admitted. We'll get that queued up now. Please proceed. >> Robert, >> how are you? >> Confused. >> I imagine you are. We'll get to why we're here in just a minute. Real quick, let me get a little bit of basic information from you. Okay. How about an address for you? >> 216 East, 35 South. How was it? >> Your honor, I'm so sorry. But um you were going to give an instruction. >> That is true. I appreciate that. Thank you for the reminder. Uh ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Croer's side of this interview, this conversation. You may consider that for the truth. Give it as much weight or as any as you uh determine it deserves. There are other speakers during this conversation. So the other side of the conversation, there may be two or three other people on the other side of the conversation. You cannot consider any of what they say for the truth. The only thing you uh can consider them for is to explain why Mr. Croer is responding or to provide context for his responses. But the non Robert Croer side of this conversation is hearsay that cannot be considered for the truth. Anything further, Miss Lewis? >> No, your honor. >> Okay, please proceed. >> That's all right. I'll fix it. >> Scott, please give it a try. and a phone number for you county. >> Yeah, >> we'll get to it. >> I'm about to say I haven't been in Summit County. >> I know you haven't, but you've had involvements with people in Summit County that we're looking at. That's what we're going to talk to you about. What >> phone number for you, Robert? Uh 385. Uh I couldn't even tell you. I'm so confused right now. >> Okay. I really can't. My phone's new. >> Okay. >> You don't know your phone number then? >> No. >> Okay. So, we'll get to why we're here to talk to you in just a minute. But before I do that, I'm an adviser of your rights cuz you're obviously in custody here at jail. Okay. So, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say could be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to attorney with you during questioning if you wish. If you can't afford to hire an attorney, want to be appointed for you before questioning. If you decide to answer questions now without having a lawyer here, you can stop the question any time until you spoken to a lawyer. You understand those rights and explain to you. That's right. >> Have those rights in mind. Do you want to talk to us today? >> I mean, >> okay. So, we are here to talk to you about a transaction that you made a little over a year ago with a female named Carmen that Nicole put you in touch with. He met her at a Maverick and Draper on two separate occasions in February of last year. So, a little over a year ago. >> Okay. She's not ringing a bell at all. >> Not okay. Well, let me give you a little more information then. So, we've talked to Carmen. We've talked to Nicole. We talked to Nicole yesterday. Got her phone and downloaded everything we needed off of her phone. You sold Carmen Blues on two separate occasions. They're the Draper Maverick. As a result, somebody died from that transaction. So, we're not interested in jamming you up or anything like that. We're simply here for information. But, we know that you sold those and we can prove that through cell phone records and that kind of stuff. But, right now, your information for us is more valuable than you being charged federally with selling fentanyl results in the debt. I know you're in on some drug stuff. Do you know anything about the federal rules with fentanyl and 30s and >> I don't know anything. I know like you have got a distribution of cop 30 of them in December and then >> the M30s. >> Yeah. Okay. So, so tell us what you know. Like I said, right now your information is more valuable, but at this point we can prove we know that you met with Carmen that Draper Maverick on two separate occasions, sold her fentanyl. That fentanyl is then used in a death case basically. So, we've tracked it back to this point. But we're not interested in jamming you up. We're here to try and corroborate information. >> Valid what Carmen and Nicole have both already told us. So you're in the position right now of either telling us what you know about it and basically not hurting anybody because Carmen and Nicole have both already talked to us. In fact here and you're verifying information we have or if you don't want to talk to us that's fine. We'll pursue it federally because we know that you sold them the fentanyl that resulted in the death. So that's kind of where we're at. >> And I'm I'm not trying to [ __ ] you. I'm just kind of laying it out exactly how it is right now. >> So, I know who Nicole is. >> Okay. >> About a year ago, >> February 5th and 25th is when Carmen messaged Nicole. Nicole gave her your information. >> Okay. When you guys set up two transactions at the Maverick and Draper, okay, last year? >> Yes. It's not this previous February, a year without that. It's been a bit. >> Yeah. And be honest with you. So, still quite a bit. So, I'm not trying to be better than nothing. So, remember that much time passed. Um, and do you have a number that she bother me? Was it was it a quantity? >> She said between 20 and 30 pills both times. >> Okay. probably. Yeah. >> Do you remember going to that Maverick and Draper? Were you living down there at the time or >> um She lives I want to say she lives pretty far away. >> She lives in He >> Yeah. So like that was just where we were being cuz it was >> Where were you coming from? Where were you living at the time? >> Um I've been living a little bit everywhere. You know what I mean? The last couple years. So >> So it's kind of ringing back. You're kind of getting a little bit more Well, tell me what you can remember about. Um, I just I I remember Nicole calling me and saying, "Hey, can you will you be my friend?" And I was like, "Oh, she was a lot." I was like, "Is 30 a lot for you or is that for Nicole?" >> I mean, it was a lot for Nicole. It was a lot for me, but I was like, "All right." I didn't know anybody died. You know what I mean? >> Yeah. And we didn't expect that you knew that. And like I said, that's why at this point, your information, we're not interested in jamming you up or the distribution up or anything like that. We're doing our investigation. you're kind of just on the on the edges of it a little bit as kind of an involved player as being a hook basically for it. We're not interested in jamming you up or anything like that, but we are interested in the information you have you provide to us that validates what people have already told us. >> As far as I know, yeah, I've met Yeah, I met her just two times. I think I talked to another a couple more times >> after >> after. But just to see, you know what I mean? Hey, you know, cuz when somebody spending, you know what I mean? you know, five, six00 bucks is >> cuz that was 30 round about five or six hundred bucks. So, something like that. >> Okay. And did you hit her up afterwards to see if she wanted more or did she hit you up afterwards? >> I think I I think I asked her one other time and then she just didn't >> like, "Hey, you looking for any more?" or something. >> Yeah, something like that. She just didn't respond to me. You know what I mean? >> Do you remember how you contacted her? Was it through text messaging and messenger? >> I want to say it was through text messages, but I don't haven't had that. I haven't had it on her long time. What >> What phone would it have been on? my phone. Ah, [ __ ] Maybe a 33 36156 number. >> You still have that phone? >> No. >> Okay. The phone you have now is a newer one then. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Have you contacted that guy in at all? No phone or anything? >> Do you know where that old phone would have been that would have had those text messages on it? >> No, I lost that phone a while ago. >> Okay. But what did you think the phone number was? You said >> 333 uh 385 333 uh 6152. >> Okay. So, with these transactions, when Carmen hit you up, what did she tell you? >> She told me she had a friend that wanted, you know, >> did she ask for blue specifically or fentanyl specifically or did she ask for oxygen? What did she ask for? >> No. >> I think she might have asked for blue I can't remember. >> But you sold her, right? >> Yeah. I told her what she knew what she was buying. >> Okay. So she it wasn't like she's asking for oxies or something like that and she got the answer. >> Okay. So she knew that there was one pill. Okay. You remember where you got those pills from? >> Uh I don't. >> Okay. What else can you tell us about that? That's that's all we're here to talk to you about was that transaction those two transactions I guess a little over a year ago. We don't care about anything else but what else can you remember about those? >> She was with the older guy. You remember what kind of car they showed up in? >> No. One time it was like a truck, a white truck or something. >> Okay. When you say she was with an older guy, do you remember about ballpark how old he would have been? >> I don't know. 50s probably. >> You thought maybe one time in a truck, but you couldn't remember the other one? >> No, they were in a car the other time. I don't remember what car. >> Okay. >> The first time she was in the truck for sure. >> When you guys go to show up with Maverick, where would you go? Would you go around back to Maverick or just rather? >> Just a quick hand to hand. >> Yeah, big handle. >> And she said that was about 600 bucks or so. What you charge for those? >> Okay. Do you remember? So I think she would have ordered more the second tank. Do you remember the quantity? >> I don't remember exactly. >> But you remember meeting her twice? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I really remember meeting her twice. I twice once. But do you remember now they're kind of jogged your memory? Yeah. >> Okay. Can you think of anything else about those meetings with her or anything? >> No. Like I those only two times I talked to her. >> Okay. How do you know Nicole? >> Uh this dude named Cam and I was staying with him Roy for a while and then she stayed there for a little while and then she took off and then Cam's a [ __ ] widow and we all >> Okay. So Nicole just hit you up and said, "Hey, would you belong to be with my friend?" >> Yeah. >> You're like, "Yeah, that's cool." When you were in the apartment, did she call you or text you? Do you remember? >> I believe she called me all the time or just that one time or >> I think she was like saying like she would text me like, "Hey, what's up?" And then one of us probably Nicole's friend or whatever. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. How long How long was your Nicole's friend or whatever? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. How long How long was your game with her? >> I think she was like say like she was saying like, "Hey, what's up?" And then one of us call the other. >> Would you press pause? We'll fix that. >> Yeah. >> My apologies. Go ahead, Scott. out there or drug court or some [ __ ] wherever she was living. She was on Yeah, she was in around 8:00 p.m. P on drug court or something. I don't remember. And like she had to hurry. It was always in a hurry. Like she was like, "Okay, well I'm leaving here now." So I can meet you like halfway. Can you meet me halfway? Yeah, I can do that. >> Halfway was that Maverick there? >> Yeah. >> Okay. You said one time she came with an older guy. Do you remember that was the first time or the second time? >> I believe it was the second time. >> First time. remember she showed up with anybody? >> I know. >> Okay. >> Okay. I think those are all the questions we had for you. Um, if we have any more followup questions, you want to talk to us again as we kind of progress with this a little bit further. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I appreciate you talking to us, Robin. Like I said, we're not here to jam you up over anything. We're just here to try and get some information and >> see what you wake up with up with some [ __ ] mass charges. >> No. No. We're not going to pursue that. Like I said, if you didn't want to help us out or anything, we kind of have this view right now that the people we're interviewing. We've got enough information and we're just trying to verify it. >> You're kind of either helping us out or you're not. And if you're not, you might honestly, but all you've done right now, so we've already talked, Karma's already talked, and Nicole's already talked. So, you're not telling us anything we didn't know. You're not protecting anybody by not talking to us. All you'd be doing is basically rolling the dice for your future if if you didn't talk to us as a prison. >> We're when the deaths are involved, the prosecutors do get a little spun up over it. And with fentanyl in the federal system, if you don't know this, if you get if you get caught dealing fentanyl that results in the death, you could potentially face federal charges. It doesn't matter if you intended to cause the death or anything else like that. They're they're cracking down on it. So, I don't know how long you're in for with I know you're on possession with the tent stuff, but if you are still dealing, don't be dealing with that [ __ ] anymore because the feds are coming down hard on it and you're just it's only a matter of time, especially with how nasty that [ __ ] is. >> And these both gave you money. >> Well, we we'd already verified it through phone records. We already knew who they got it from. >> It wasn't like they told us anything we didn't know either. Yeah, >> we've been able to find everything we need through digital evidence. Like all the contacts, all the messages on Facebook, all that stuff. >> Yeah, we knew all of that before we made contact with anybody. >> So, it wasn't like that they were dying out or anything like that. >> Me and Carmen even were friends on Facebook. >> We actually were the ones that brought up your name to Nicole cuz we already knew that Nicole had put you in touch with Carmen and we already knew all of that information. So, >> we're just trying to verify stories is all we're trying to do at this point. So, >> do you have any questions for us or anything like that? >> Other than other than this isn't going to back door me here. >> No. >> No. All right. We're here to jam you up or anything like that or we don't give a [ __ ] about what's going on down here or anything. >> I was just going to ask you, do you have do any of your people ever tell you what they're going to if they're going to use it for themselves, if they're going to try to sell it to anybody else, >> what their intents are? >> Everybody that I deal with uh does it themselves. You know what I mean? Like I do it myself, they do it theirelves, you know what I mean? >> Okay. >> So, it's >> Carmen never mentioned anything about hooking it up for somebody else or anything like that. >> No, like I said, like she was just like I met her twice, but you know what I mean? >> Yeah. I figured it was a long shot twice. You met her a year ago. I knew it was going to be >> a bit of a stretch for you to remember, but >> Okay. >> Anything else you can think of or anything else you remember? >> No. >> Okay. As you think about it, if you do think of something, let one of the CEOs know or one of the investigators here at the jail know. They'll reach back out to us if they do anything else you want to talk to us about or anything like that. Okay. >> Any other questions or anything like that for us? >> Okay. >> I think we'll go grab the let know you're ready. Okay. >> Mr. Bworth, the state's next witness, please. Your honor, the state calls Mali crossflight. Miss, if you would step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. Please. >> She's a great, >> can 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 faints and penalties of perjury? >> I do. Thank you. Please have a seat. >> Thanks, sir. Please proceed. >> Thank you, your honor. Good morning, ma'am. Hi. >> What ma'am is your name? >> My name is Molly Crosswight. >> And is the last name spelled C R O S W H I T E? >> Yes. >> Do you know who Corey Richens is? >> Not personally, but through this trial, yes. >> Okay. Did you purchase um a home from Corey Richens? >> I did. When did you purchase that home? >> It was uh January 26, 2022 is when we closed on that property, >> Scott, can I get 8-12, please? >> Your honor, permission to publish. This has been admitted already. >> It's objection. >> Miss Crossweight, do you recognize that house? >> I do. >> Is that the home that you purchased from Corey Richens? >> Yes. Did you ever move into that home? >> No. >> Did you rent that home? >> I did. >> When did your renters occupy that home? >> They moved into the property? March 30th of that year. Their lease began March 1st, but they did not move here till the 30th. >> You said you closed on that home, I'm sorry, the 26th or 27th? >> I think it was January 26th. >> January 26th, 2022. >> Yes. >> And was that home occupied between the date of the closing and the end of March when your renters moved in? >> It was not. Were the locks on that home the same as they were on January 26th when you closed to the time your renters moved in? >> They were the same. >> And did Corey Richens rehab that home for you? >> Prior to us purchasing it, she it's our understanding she had done a renovation. And did she have the keys to that home throughout that renovation process? >> I would assume so. >> Am I right then? As far as you know, that home was unoccupied between January the 26th, 2022 and the end of March 2022. >> That's correct. >> Thank you, ma'am. That's all the questions I have. Please lose. Good morning. >> Good morning. >> So, oh, excuse me. Can I grab some water? >> So, before you closed on the home, you entered into a real estate purchase agreement. >> That's right. >> Right. And can you pull up defense exhibit 1024, Katie? Thanks, Alex. >> Miss Crossro, do you recognize that as the real estate purchase contract that you entered into? >> Yes. >> And do you know the date that you entered into that? Looks like it was January 14th, 2022. Your >> honor, we'd move to admit defense exhibit 1024. >> Defense 1024 is admitted. Would you like to publish? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> And then, Miss Crossweight, you closed on the home January 26th was your testimony. >> Yes. >> Between January 14th and January 26, did you do a walkthrough of the home? >> Yes. And what was in the home at the time that you did the walkthrough? >> The home had been staged when they were marketing it for sale. So at that time there was furniture in it. Um I think by the time we did our final walkthrough, which was a couple of days before we closed, all of the furniture had been removed from the property. >> Was there anything else in the home once the furniture was removed, such as boxes? Not that I recall. I I don't remember exactly what was still there, but I do know that we had wanted the home to be fully vacated and all of the debris and there was some garbage and things on the premises like old cars even that we had asked to have removed. >> So, do you recall if there were any boxes or cups or any items left in the closet of the home? >> I don't remember. Had there been, would you have asked that that be removed when you did the walkthrough a couple of days before closing? >> I think that if it was something significant that we would really notice as a bunch of garbage or something that was going to be troublesome for us to remove from the property, we would have asked for it to be removed. Um, like a small item like a cup, I can't say would have stood out. >> That's fair. Now, you said the renters their lease began March 1st. They didn't move in until the end of March, but was there work being done on the home during the time you closed and the time the renters moved in? >> There was. >> And particularly, was there work being done throughout February of 2022? >> Yes. I think I provided a list of dates that was on record with our contractor. Um, I think there was maybe seven different days in February when there were contractors working on the property. >> Okay. Would some of those dates have been February 10th, 11th? >> Yes, that sounds familiar. >> 12th, 13th, and 14th. Does that sound familiar? >> Yes. >> All right. And you think there were additional dates other than those five? >> I think there was two more dates the following week. Maybe that the 19th and 20th if that's I' I'd have to look back at the records, but according to my contractor's records, there was two more dates in addition to those five that you named. >> Okay. And when they were working on the house, do you know if they were there all day, most of the day? >> I don't know how long they were there. Um, we were having things like insulation added into the attict and mortar added to the pot rock because there was there was animals coming into the home and things like that. We need to get it ready for the tenants. >> Okay. When you closed on the home, did you take possession of the keys? >> I think that the key that was provided for us to access the home when we tooured the property and made our offer remained at the property. I can't remember if it was hidden underneath like somewhere at the front door and we left that same key there for our contractors to use while they were working on the property. >> All right. Did they keep the home locked? >> I don't know. >> Did you ask that they kept the home locked? >> I would expect for them to. I mean, that's the point of a key, >> right? And the key wasn't in a visible spot. True. >> No. I I remember us having it hidden somewhere near the front door, maybe under a pot or under where anybody would think to hide a key. Probably not a great place to hide a key. >> And it was your expectation the home would be locked throughout that time. >> Yes. >> Is that fair? >> All right. After you closed on the home, did you have any further conversations with Miss Richens? >> No, I never had any conversations with her directly. She was represented by another real estate agent. Did you have conversations after you closed on the home with that agent? >> I doubt it. I can't remember, but I would be surprised if I did. >> Would you have been um would you have told them the work that was going on on the home and who was in and out of the home? Would they have been aware of that? >> I think that prior to us closing on the property, we definitely communicated our plans. Um it was part of our negotiations because we discovered quite a bit of work needed to be done in addition to the renovation that Miss Richens had done. So um I definitely had communicated, hey, we're not going to be able to rent this out the way that it is. We need I think it was a $10,000 credit so that we were able to, you know, complete the renovations in a way to make the home habitable. >> Okay. And is there any reason they would have known um the p not the purchasers, I'm sorry, the Miss Miss Richens or her agent you were talking to when in fact renters were moving into the home. >> I don't know. I don't I don't know if we shared that or not. I know that we definitely communicated we could not rent it out right away and we had to take care of quite a bit before we felt comfortable having people move in. >> All right. >> Could I have one moment? Just one or two more. Do you recall Miss Crossway being interviewed by Mr. Bertram in this case, our the defense investigator? >> Yes. >> And do you recall telling him that when you took possession of the house, there weren't there was nothing in the house at that time? >> Yes. >> All right. And do you recall telling him at that time that you actually turned the key over to the contractors? >> I don't remember. I don't I never met the contractors on site, so I'm sure I did communicate to them where the key could be found on the property. >> All right. Um, nothing further. >> No, your honor. >> You may step down. >> Is this witness released, council? >> Yes, your honor. >> Yes. >> Okay, you're free to go. Thank you. Mr. Bledworth. Oh, Miss Shervin. I shouldn't make assumptions. I apologize. >> Allison, right, your honor. >> Let's do it. Miss, if you'd step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. Right here, please. >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the courts be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? If you can see the number on this one 8:49 >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> If you could please state your name and spell your last name. >> Allison Wright. W R I G HT. >> Ma'am, where do you work? >> CN Stonemasonry. >> How long have you worked there? um since established in 2010. >> Did you know Eric Richens? >> Yes. >> How did you know him? >> Um I first met him in junior high. Um he was a friend of my sisters. They were both in high school. He spent time at our house and eventually we ended up in high school at the same time. >> And um your husband uh was his business partner. Is that correct? >> Did you know Corey Richens? >> Yes. How did you know Corey Richens? >> Um, when I met her when she was dating Eric. >> I want to talk with you about uh a couple of handwriting items before I ask you a few other questions. That states exhibit 8-49 for the record. Sorry, I've got too many things on my podium here. All right. So, I'm going to hand you this booklet. Okay. Okay. If you could turn to tab four for me. Do you recognize those items in tab 4? >> Yes. >> Is it? And if it's multiple pages, you can look through all the pages. >> Is it just the one page? >> Um, there's multiple pages. >> Okay. And the first page is the one that you recognize. Is that right? >> Correct. >> And go ahead and turn to tab 12 for me. Okay. And do you recognize those items? >> Yes. What are uh in tab 4 and in tab 12? What are those items? >> Um they are returned checks from CE Stonemason's banking account. >> And are those checks that you gathered um and gave to Katie uh Richen Spencson? >> Correct. Okay. And you gathered those from CNE's accounting books and things like that, their bank records, >> correct? Uh the check on tab 4 uh was collected on an online banking uh and the other ones were printed checks from our uh file files. What do you do for CE? Um admin and bookkeeping. Okay. So I want to switch gears. I want to turn your attention to February of 2019. Do you recall that time frame? >> Yes. >> Was there a time um in February of 2019 that you took a vacation with Eric Richens and Corey Richens and your families? >> Yes. >> Um no, just the adults. >> Just the adults. Okay. No kids were there. And do you remember a conversation during that trip with Corey Richens that stood out to you? >> Yes. >> Go ahead and describe for the jury what you remember about that conversation. Um on our vacation, Corey and I ended up alone for a moment and um we're just talking about our families um life, kids. Um >> your honor, objection. Can we approach? >> Yes. Please stand up and stretch your legs. We'll invite you out of court. Please rise for the jury. Please have a seat. We're still on the record. Miss Sherbanick, if you would just ask your next several questions. We'll see where this goes. >> Certainly. And so, uh, now that we're outside the presence of the jury, we're just going to get a a preview of what how you would answer the question that I just asked you. So, describing what you remember from that conversation with Corey Richens um, from the vacation. >> Um, while we were sitting there, we were discussing uh, life and uh, Corey then explained um, how things weren't super great in her marriage. um how she felt trapped. Um she explained to me that there was a prenuptual agreement uh that was put in place and I had never heard of that. Um, she continued to uh say how I think the trapped uh was mostly due to financial is Eric would because of the terms of the financial agreement, Eric would end up bene benefiting financially and continue to live as they currently were where she would uh be in a a different circumstance. Um, she explained how uh she feared that the kids would be drawn to Eric's life and um and felt like she was unhappy in there but uh feared what it would look like if she uh ended the marriage. >> And did that is it okay if I ask a follow-up question? >> Of course. Did that conversation kind of give you context or inform you about Corey kind of what she was doing with her business at that time? >> Um, yeah. I um things started to make sense like uh I was impressed that she went and got a master's degree. Um Corey's motivated, hardworking. Um I always admired that. Um and she was very motivated it felt like to become financially independent. Your honor, this conversation, can we get a foundation of exactly when in 2019 this conversation took place? Sometime in that year, >> February, >> midFebruary. >> Okay. I think the trip started on the 17th. >> And I'm not sure what day. >> Do you want to have this discussion with the witness president? >> I do. Outside the if she could step down and step out. Do you want any more for recollection before we have the conversation? >> No. >> Okay. Do you mind just waiting out in the lobby for us for a minute? >> Thank you. >> Your honor, may it please the court? Um, according to Miss Mrs. Wright, this conversation took place in February of 2019. Um, three years prior, more than three years prior to Mr. Richen's death. In the interim in between 2019 and, um, 2022, the Richens attended marriage counseling um, and worked on their marriage and a bunch of water under the bridge. um this to allow a conversation on a vacation in a situation where two women are just chatting about the condition of their marriage 3 years. There's certainly no allegation here that Corey Richens was planning to murder her husband 3 years in advance. Outrageously prejuditial due to the temporal um distance in the uh statement that is being made. Um, no relevance because it's 3 years prior. I am >> Why isn't it relevant to show that Ms. Richens was aware of the outcome financially that would flow to her uh from a divorce based upon the prenuptual agreement? >> She's aware of that when she signs the prenuptual agreement. They've entered the agreement that she signed. >> This is Well, I mean, I think you've answered my question. It is relevant to show she's aware of it. >> No, sir. The conversation in 2019 certainly isn't relevant. They have introduced a prenuptual agreement that she signed. It's clear that she knew. >> I apologize for interrupting you. It's not clear because it doesn't I have no evidence that she read it. I don't have any evidence that she understood it. Here I have a witness saying she understood it, was aware of it, was fearful of it, was taking steps to mitigate. >> Okay. If that's going to come in over my objection, certainly respect your ruling. We've made our record, but I would ask that all the rest of that conversation be stricken as too far away about being trapped in her marriage, about being unhappy. Everything about that is utterly irrelevant and outrageously prejuditial. And we would ask that it be stricken and only be allowed to say that she discussed her prenapal agreement and that's it. And we also would like a continuing objection to any questions of this witness about any conversation in 2019. We respect your ruling on that. >> Okay. So, uh defendants objection to this series of questions of Ms. Wright is overruled. The uh testimony that was put on the record through the border requested by defendant is relevant because it shows defendants uh genuine subjective awareness of what she believed were the financial consequences that would flow to her if the she and her husband divorced. ith provides additional probative value because it shows that she was concerned about uh having less money than her husband if they divorced by virtue of the prenuptual agreement. She was taking steps to mitigate that potential um those p potential financial effects. She was concerned about how her children might associate more with her husband by virtue of the lifestyle that he would be able to maintain in a post divorce financial environment. Uh that is all probitative to the issues in this case and it is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. >> Your honor, can I also get a ruling just to avoid having to take another break when the jury comes back? Um, obviously I have a right to go into her credibility and bias at this point, no matter what's being asked on direct. Correct. >> That's a very broad statement. You can certainly go into potential sources of bias. >> Thank you. That's all I need. >> Okay. Okay. Uh, folks, let's uh take a 10-minute break. We'll come back at 10 of 12. Thank you. Uh, no one is allowed to speak to Ms. Wright during this break. Please give her some space. Thank you. Courts and recess. >> All rise. >> Yeah, >> they can come in when they're ready. >> You have a glass of water? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. All right, jury. Please have a seat as you come in. All right, please have a seat. >> Miss Sheranette, please proceed. So, Miss Wright, before we took our break, I had asked you about a conversation you had with Corey Richens on a vacation you took. When did that vacation take place? >> Um, February of 2019 >> and what was that conversation? Describe for the jury uh what happened during that conversation. >> Um, Corey and I were finally in a position where our husbands were no longer with us. Um we were just discussing life. Um we both have kids. Um our marriages and um Corey uh opened up and shared that um things were difficult at home. Um she a word I remember is that she felt trapped. At this time, um, I learned that, uh, their marriage had a prenuptual agreement. Um, and she explained that she felt like, um, she was frustrated in the relationship, but also um, it would be difficult to leave. Eric uh, would end up uh, financially secure and her the opposite. Um she feared what would happen in divorce. Um she mentioned that maybe the kids would prefer him with the lifestyle that they had uh four-wheelers and uh toys and opportunities um where she would have less. She feared um how she would be represented by him in the community. Um I felt I felt for her. I um it was a hard conversation. I knew that um things had been hard since their youngest child was born and I was tendered towards her uh current circumstance. >> Thank you. And and did that conversation give you any context to what was happening in terms of Corey's um business at that time? Yeah. Um Corey is super ambitious. Um she went back to school and got a master's degree. I was impressed. Um I had young kids. I wasn't sure I could do that. Um she then went and got a real estate license and uh was trying uh to build that business. um that conversation kept playing in my mind as I think this is a way to become financially independent and secure. >> Thank you. Those are all my questions for you. The defense may have some. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> May I please the court? >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> This conversation you're talking about happened in Hawaii, didn't it? >> No. >> Where was it? >> Costa Rica. >> I'm sorry. Costa Rica. Um, and the reason you all were talking about your her marriage, there was a reason she was upset and her marriage at that time, wasn't there? >> Not that I No. Um, think hard. She was upset. What I understood from the conversation is things were frustrating at home. >> And that's because she believed he was having an affair with a coworker. Is that right? >> Overall, >> is that right? >> Um, she and I never discussed uh her thinking about an affair. Is that the context of the conversation you were having that day that she believed he was having an affair with a coworker and that's why she was upset with her marriage and talking about divorce? >> I don't recall that. Were you aware of it at that time that there was an affair going on between Eric and a coworker? Um, I I don't recall that conversation versus when I found out. >> When did you find out? >> Um, or what? I'm sorry. Will you repeat that question? >> When did you find out that Eric was having an affair with a woman that worked with him? >> These are facts, not evidence. As soon as facts, not evidence. >> Foundation. You got to lay foundation for this. I'm not sure this witness knows anything about it. Why don't you ask? >> But you just testified that when you found out, you weren't sure if it was during this conversation. So, when did you find out? >> That's not accurate. You have to ask it open-ended. >> Okay. When did you find out? Was it anytime near this conversation? >> Will you repeat that question with more detail? When did you find out that Eric was supposedly having an affair with another woman? In context to this conversation, before, after, during? Um, I'm having a difficult time understanding because help me understand affair. Um because like I think there was a friendship with a lady but I don't know to I don't know exactly what was going on. >> Understood. That's fair. So let me rephrase it. Did you become aware that Eric had intimate feelings towards a woman that he was working with? >> Your honor. assumes facts not evidence argument >> asking whether this person ever became aware of it overruled it's a yes or no question right could we start there >> can you repeat the question did you become aware that Eric at around this time 2019 had intimate feelings towards a woman that another woman that he worked with that was causing problems in their marriage I don't remember when I became aware of it >> ballpark Um, I'm sorry. I think I'd heard of it like twice and I don't remember. I'm sorry. I don't remember. When you were having this conversation with Corey, did you know at that time? >> I don't believe I did. >> Okay. >> All right. These vacations, you had vacations with Eric and Corey on more than one occasion, didn't you guys? >> Yes. >> And then at some point, those totally stopped, didn't they? >> Yes. >> And what happened that made you guys stop going on vacations together? >> Um, co was the next year. Besides co >> um our family life was busy. >> In fact, didn't Cody and Eric have a big falling out? Your husband is Cody, right? Correct. >> My husband is Cody. >> And how does Cody Wright know Eric? >> Um we were friends in high school. They went on to work together, broke off and started a business together and maintained their friendship. >> So they were they were business partners. >> Correct. And they both own Cene Stonemasonry together, right? >> Correct. >> And at some point, your families quit hanging out personally. >> Oh, we continue to go to birthday parties and like that kind of an event. No longer I Yeah, no longer vacations. I think we had a vacation planned in 2020 that got cancelled due to CO is the one I that I recall. In fact, didn't Eric and Cody have a falling out over Cody calling the police on Eric? >> Cody didn't call the police on Eric. >> Did Cody provide testimony against Eric with relation to an investigation against Eric for violating hunting laws? >> Lack of foundation. >> Well, this is a different question. Ask her if she's aware. >> Are you aware that Cody provided information to law enforcement against Eric for a violation of hunting laws? Okay. And Eric and him, as I would say, fell out over that. I don't know another word. Had a disagreement about that. >> Yes. Temporarily. >> And you guys never vacation together again after that, did you? >> No. >> All right. Now, you said that you did the payroll and the bookkeeping at CE. Is that right? >> Um, we have a payroll service company. >> Oh, sorry. Sure. Okay. Okay. But you do the bookkeeping. >> Um, yes. >> So, you know how much money is coming into that company, right? >> Correct. >> And you know how much money is going out, right? >> Yes. >> And do you and your husband uh have joint do you share your your marital money or does he keep his business money separate? >> Um, we share our marital money. >> Pause for one second, Mr. Go ahead, Mr. Sherman. >> This is outside the scope of correct >> sustained. >> All right. Setting aside your personal financial affairs. You're very aware of CNE's financial affairs. Correct. Because you do the bookkeeping. >> Correct. >> All right. And >> other is still outside the scope. >> No, it's not. >> Yeah. Please approach. I'm not sure where you're headed here. Your next question, please. Miss Nester, >> since Eric's death, you and your family have grown pretty close to the Richens family. Is that fair? protection, your honor. >> Goes to bias. >> Goes to bias. >> Overruled. If you would please restate the question. >> Since Eric's death, you and Cody have become very close to the Richens family. Is that fair? >> I would say the relationship didn't change. >> So, you were very close to them before? >> Yes. >> Right. And it's true that since Eric's death, um, your husband has even accompanied them to court hearings and sat beside them. Is that right? >> Yes. >> All right. Have you? >> Yes. >> Um and I think everything else is going to be when we recall. Ma'am, we're going to recall you later. We would ask that you not you're not released from your subpoena and the judge will instruct you about that. That's all we have at this time, your honor. >> Okay. Anything within the scope of cross miss could just have a minute. >> Of course. >> No, your honor. >> Okay. Uh is right. You're free to go today. You're still subject to the subpoena that you were served with. You may be called back between now and then. Please do not speak to anybody about your testimony, including your husband. Okay? And please don't watch any coverage of this case. Don't read, listen, watch anything about it. Do you agree to do those things? >> Yes. >> Very good. You're free to go. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Good time for a lunch break, council, or do we have another short witness you want to get on and off? Your honor, we can break. I understand there's some legal issues to address, too. So, >> understood. Okay. Uh, any objection to a lunch break, council? All right. Please rise for the jury, folks. Quick reminder. You know what I'm going to say. Please don't discuss the case. Don't read, watch, or listen to anything about it. Please don't do any research. Enjoy your lunch. Uh, 12:40. Council, is that reasonable? Yes, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. 12:40. Thank you. >> Have a seat. Thank you. >> We're on the record, Mr. foot. >> Um, your honor, we're going to quickly next call Detective O'Driscoll just for a uh phone download. He'll have perhaps more time later. >> Okay. >> Um, but then it's Mr. Coach Dimos and I understand the defense has some objections related to Mr. Coach. >> Mr. Ramos, tell me more. >> Thank you, Judge. I figured we'd do this just outside that way we can speed things along. Uh we've been provided with some uh exhibits that appear to rely, correct me if I'm wrong, on some CDR data uh called detail records um from Verizon and T-Mobile I believe and AT&T. Those items um we were not provided notice of their use under 9011. Um and so we would just make an objection under that. Um >> forgive me. Uh they were provided some reasonable time after being received by the state. >> Yeah. No, no. The the information was provided to us. We've had that for a while. Just notice of their use under that business record exception. Um and >> give me that citation one more time. >> Yeah. Oh, it's rule 902 11 I believe is what we would be coming into in through specifically I'm referring to the written notice. Why isn't inclusion of these records on the state's exhibit list fair notice under 90211? >> Uh just based on the case law, judge, I could give you a citation. Um I have two cases I think are fairly on point. Um 32P 3D 976 state vster. >> What's the other one? And then 7 oh I'm sorry 322 P3D 624 state v Peda Perea. Um we just bring this up judge. Now um we could have a ruling after lunch is fine. Um and that would be our only objection. >> Okay. >> Thank you judge. >> Uh Mr. Bledworth I I made an assumption there. If you could just confirm it for me. These call detail records were in fact concluded among the state's proposed exhibits on its exhibit list. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Anything further? Done. One transaction for a home where I work. Any concerns, Mr. Bworth? >> No. Yeah. >> Regarding the call detail records that I understand Mr. Katraimos is going to testify regarding. Is that correct, Mr. Blick? Miss Sherick, >> that's my understanding. >> Contra Demos is the gentleman that they'll come in through. >> I'm not going to be seeking to admit the call detail records. >> I'm confused. >> I I imagine they were used to for some of their demonstrative exhibits. >> He he relied on call detail records to create some of our exhibits. >> Got it. But but I'm I'm seeking to admit the visual representation of those call detail records that he helped create that will he'll testify came from the call detail records. Although the call detail records themselves the state is not seeking to admit as an exhibit. >> Got it. Okay. I've looked at the Webster case. It certainly talks about notice uh with respect to rule 807 which has a notice provision and case law talking about how that notice provision works. The Webster case doesn't mention 902 at all. Did I I'm not sure I was following your argument, Mr. Ramos. Judge, the 902 803 um rules and those identified in the residual exception in Webster, they reference the same language uh which is the notice language. Um that's what we were focusing on. Uh, I think your honor has enough to make a ruling. Okay. I understand your position. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, under rule 902 subsection 11, um, records that can be self authenticating under that rule. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent, in this case, the state, must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record and must make the record and certification that makes the record self- authenticating available for inspection so that the other party in this case defendant has a fair opportunity to challenge them. All of those things have occurred. the call detail records and the certifications under rule 902 um that are included with them from the mobile service providers have been made available to defendant for inspection through the discovery process. And by virtue of the fact that those records have been part of um or at least the portions of those records that uh the state seeks to publish to the jury have been part of the state's exhibit list. The state has given the adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record. The court finds that defendant has had a fair opportunity to challenge those records. Any objection to the admission of that call detail record information under 90211 is respectfully overruled. Anything further, Mr. Ris? >> No, judge. Uh, there will be through Mr. Coach Deus some testimony regarding the PMG files or the GIFs. Uh, I would at that point uh probably ask why he or the witness assuming they're going to be asked to be introduced to evidence. Uh, so I just select the cor now and basically sharpen that. >> Um, >> which file type was that? >> They're like GIFs. They're those GIFs that were presented during the >> Oh, the pathways that link to those. >> Correct. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> Can I ask just a general question just to avoid because I think it's going to come up. So, it's my understanding that the extractions have now been put into evidence. Correct. >> The the phone. Yeah. Not the physical documents, >> the extraction, but the testimony about who extracted or downloaded the phones. >> Yes. And we put the phones in, but we have not put in the actual um we've not put in the the >> reports >> the report the data that's been fed into the celebrate software platform. Is that in the raw the raw data is not readable? I know the raw data is in through the phone but is the the celebrate data that has been extracted by inga was that put in >> not yet. >> Okay. So if that's not in, how do we have the from Costa Ros? How can he put in the demonstratives that are based on that? Because it's just basically a different it just makes it into a picture, but it's the data from what's not in yet. So you have witnesses talking about the physical device containing electronically stored information was secured. Correct. >> You have testimony creating a chain of custody >> to the people that >> downloaded it through a two-step process. >> Right. >> The gray key, right, forensically mirrors that phone. >> Uh and then Celbrite is how among other people I imagine Mr. Katraimos would say, "I was able to read and process and parse out quote unquote that information." Not everything on that phone is relevant. So, not all of it goes in. We're going to see what parts the state believes are relevant uh through Mr. Katraos. He hasn't testified yet. So he's going to be allowed to testify what's the data the information that's in something that hasn't been put in yet because without putting in the extraction >> there is no basis to admit the extraction there is a lot of information on that phone that I imagine is not relevant under 401042 >> so there's no basis to put in the entire extraction >> it's not like an incite Well, then this is getting to the core of what my concern is. >> And I'm just I'm just thinking out loud to try to avoid wasting cotmosis's time. But let's say hypothetically we want to get some of the extraction information in at a later time. Do you have an expert that has looked at those extractions with Cellbrite and can testify and lay Foundation? >> We do. >> Okay, >> no problem. Um, but my question is whether our expert can do the same thing theirs is doing, which is relying on data they saw in Celebrate and parsing it out without the CRA extraction coming in. Because as long as we can do it, too, I'm totally fine with this whole process. But what's worrying me is we're going to get to my side and they're going to say the extraction's not in. Your expert can't testify. So, I guess I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. the extraction doesn't have to come in as long as our expert has reviewed the extraction and they've laid a foundation for authenticity of the extraction, which by the way, I don't think either side is challenging the authenticity of the extraction ultimately, but the same thing's going to apply when our side gets up and our guy says, "This is the what I pulled out of Celbrite. I'm going to use this in what we're going to present." >> Are you talking to me or then? I'm talking to you. I just >> I'm not sure what you're asking for. >> I'm asking if we need to have a hearing now about whether the extraction has to be admitted for all this to come in or if the extraction doesn't have to be admitted, there's no problems. >> The only reason we've talked, as I understand it, about the extraction process at all is to lay foundation for the expert testimony of people like Mr. Katraimos. >> Perfect. So you will not require for Costa Rimos to testify about the data that he read from the extraction. You are not going to require the extraction to be admitted into evidence because if if that applies then that applies to us too and we are fine with that >> as long as your expert is an expert and doesn't have say or do something else objectionable. I don't know who your expert is or what they're going to say. So I I need to be a little bit circumspect here. The fact that an ex a copy of the extraction from gray key on a portable hard drive has not been admitted as an as an exhibit is not an impediment to this kind of expert testimony. >> That is exactly what I needed to know because if it is, we need to have a hearing on it and if it's not, then there's no problem. But I just want to make super clear that we're all on the same page that it doesn't have to come in for us to pull things out of it and and admit it. >> Yeah. I think we need to keep in mind the life cycle of these things. There's information gathering, there's chain of custody and information preservation, and then there's what's admissible and how it comes in. >> Sure. The only reason it's just unique is because the phone itself without the extraction, the hard data is not readable as the witnesses have talked about. >> I mean, like if the juror was given what was extracted out of the phone, they couldn't do anything with it anyway. >> You and I agree. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we don't do that wrong so that the extraction, the hard drive extraction itself doesn't have to come in and we can all pull pieces out of it that we want because the foundation's been laid. >> Yeah. I want to be careful. You're saying the extraction there are several. I'm familiar with the ones for which foundation has been laid so far. I don't know whether you're talking about some other devices regarding which foundation has not yet been laid. >> Eric Corey's phone. >> This is again I feel like you're talking to the state, not me. >> No, I just I think we're all in agreement that the extraction doesn't have to come in. As long as the extraction doesn't have to come in and we can use pieces of it, I'm totally fine. >> Provided sufficient foundation has been laid >> to show it's admissible under other grounds. 41 43 >> authenticity. Yeah. >> Well, authenticity is an issue, right? >> If you're talking about a device that we haven't talked about yet, you're going to have to lay some foundation. >> No. Assume for purposes of this conversation, it's only devices that have been admitted. So, >> so for the purposes of this conversation and putting aside other 702 related objections that the state may make when your expert witness is testifying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander with respect to the extractions. >> Perfect. Cuz Perfect. That's all I needed. Thank you very much for taking the time. I do think that's really complicated and strange because of the way that the extraction is a different data set than the actual um guts of the phone which is unreadable. So that's why I just wanted to clarify that. So thank you very much. >> Okay. >> I forgot how that began. Um >> oh the juror issue. We got to talk about the juror issue. >> We can switch to that. Anything else regarding Mr. Katraimos before he takes the stand. Miss Sherbanick. >> Nothing from the state judge. >> Mr. Ramos. >> Your honor. >> Yeah. Nothing. >> Okay. Uh the juror note. Go ahead, Miss Lewis. Your >> honor, we do have some concerns about the note that came out from the juror. Um first off, I believe that had we had this information during jury selection, this juror would have been waited out in the process because they had a business transaction with the witness. So now we have someone on the jur jury who I think who I I believe based on our parameters wouldn't have even made it to the final pool. So that's concerning. Um the other concern is we don't know anything about the rea the um interaction with Miss Crossite White Miss Cross white positive negative. I did have to push back a little. I that concerns me a little bit that you know if he thinks very highly of her that that that could be some bias that I did have to get up and push back. And um our position would be out of an abundance of caution we dismiss that particular juror. >> Are you prepared to address this now, Mr. Bworth or Dean? Some time to think about it. >> John, we can address this now. Um >> I I want to be transparent. I'm not going to rule in this moment. I will need to just take a look at what legal standards, if any, there are regarding this. But if there's anything you want to put on the record now, >> can I just add I'm sorry, Brad. Um, it is our understanding that Miss Crosswite went by a different name. So, I don't I'm not implying this juror intentionally withheld information. He may have known her by a different name. >> Understood. Go ahead, Mr. Ber. >> Your honor, I don't know that the jury note provides the court with sufficient information to make a a determination at this point. It seems to the state that a little bit of voadier would probably benefit the court, but based on what the note the information the note contains, I don't see cause to strike or dismiss this this juror. >> All right, Miss Lewis, I don't my sense of this is I don't need to rule on this right now. I can give it some thought. There's no harm in leaving the juror right where they are for the time being. >> Agreed. Okay, I won't lose track of this. Let me think about it for a minute. It may be that I just need to ask this person a few questions and then we'll go from there. Okay. Motion for MR is next. >> Sure. Just really briefly, um, as the court will recall, um, during the time that I had Ms. um Chelsea Gibson on cross. I was trying to lay a foundation to later get in some of the homewave calls that had been downloaded. She according to her reports that we were provided, she was the individual who downloaded all of them and stored them into evidence and I believed that I had to make at least lay a foundation of authenticity if I later wanted to admit those calls. Um so I was trying to do that. I was trying to do it very carefully. I warned her to please copy my language. I looked right at her. I used very specific language. And her response was, "You mean the jail calls?" Um, I understand things like this happen in trial. Um, but the case law that's relevant, um, I believe is it implicates Miss Richen's sixth amendment right uh, to, um, a fair trial. um it affects the presumption of innocence because if the jury is aware that she's been incarcerated, there's been case law that says that can impact your presumption of innocence. There is a case, a pretty recent case in Utah State versus Berno, Ber N. Uh the site is 476 P3 148 which acknowledges that evidence of custody status can carry the risk of prejudice. I will absolutely concede all the case law gives you so much discretion in this area because every circumstance is different, every situation is different. They really really do rely on the trial court judge to make a call in the moment. Um and um you know now we have this situation through no fault of mine where the jury now knows that at least for some period of time my client was in jail and communicating with family and she did use the phrase calls with an s to indicate there were multiple calls although she didn't say how many or for how long and I I concede that. Um so we would and also the case of state versus atken at kk i n 135 p3 894 again there's a quote it may be prejuditial in certain cases. Um full disclosure both of these cases the court did not find sufficient prejudice to um overturn the call the court made in the moment. I think actually Berno may have been uh not that they weren't um they were challenging whether the lawyer was ineffective I think for failing to make a mistrial objection um if I'm not mistaken. I think that was Berno. Um so I'm not even sure the judge made a call on that case but I do believe on Atkin they did. Um, so based on the authority, the recognition that it can bring prejudice, um, based on the fact that, um, this case did happen so long ago, um, so the jury would put two and two together and realize my client's been in jail the whole time, possibly. It's an inference that could be made. Um, we did move for mistrial. Um, I will say for the record, the court did provide a special instruction, limiting instruction, uh, warning the jury not to consider that. Um, that's one of those, you know, difficulties because it does then again highlight that that comment was made, but we were trying to do in the moment the least amount of damage going forward. Um, I did agree to that instruction being made. I did not object to it. Um because at that point I felt like something needed to be addressed. Um but that was the basis of the motion and um that's all the record we need to make. >> Okay. Anything further, Mr. Blair? >> I think I have this firmly in hand. >> Yes, your honor. The the state rests on the the record that we made at at the sidebar. >> Okay. Very good. Uh, the issue before the court is a motion for mistrial made by defendant following Ms. Gibson's reference to jail calls quote unquote during her cross-examination. A court finds that that statement, while improper, was not intentionally elicited by either party. It was uh inadvertent. It was made in passing. It was a short uh quick reference. It it is relatively innocuous in light of both the volume of testimony that the jury will hear in this case over the course of 5 weeks. It is relatively innocuous in light of the fact that this is a homicide trial. And so it would not come as a surprise to jurors that the defendant in a homicide trial may have been in custody at some point in the case. And moreover, the court gave a curative instruction uh that specifically instructed the jury not to consider that comment and not to speculate about whether defendant was or is in custody at any time in this case. Based upon those findings, the court finds that uh a mistrial is not required. Defendant's motion is respectfully denied. Anything further on that, Mr. Bledworth? >> No, your honor. >> Ms. Nester? >> No, your honor. >> Okay. Uh, Miss Shervin, anything else before we invite the jury in? >> No, DJ. >> M. Lewis. Miss. >> Okay. We're ready for the jury. Is that okay? Sorry. Thank you. for the >> folks. Have a seat as you come in, please. Thank you. Please have a seat. Miss Sherman, act of states. Next witness, please. >> Detective Jeff O'Driscoll, please. >> Detective, let's get you sworn. Of course, >> 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? I do. >> Thank you. Have a seat. If you can state your name and spell your last name, please. >> Detective Jeff O'Driscoll. O apostrophe D R I S C O L L. >> Where do you work? >> Summit County Sheriff's Office. >> How long have you worked there? >> 10 years. >> What's your assignment with the Sheriff's Office? >> I am a detective in the major crimes investigation unit. During your investigation of this case, did you seize a cell phone uh belonging to Miss Carmen Lobber? >> Yes, I did. >> Was that in April of 2023? >> Yes, it was. >> Was that a black Samsung phone? >> Yes. >> Was the phone number on that phone ending 6127? >> I believe so. Yes. >> Did you book that phone into evidence at the Summit County Sheriff's Office? I think it was collected by crime scene technicians on the scene and they booked it into evidence. >> Did you later retrieve that phone from evidence and with the help of Miss Chelsea Gibson download that phone? >> Yes. >> Was that done using the Celebrate software? >> Yes, it was. >> Those are all my questions for you. Just to make very clear. Uh, good afternoon, sir. >> Good afternoon, M. >> You are the O'Driscoll. That's the chief investigator in this case, right? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, that's all I have for now, your honor. Thank you. >> May this witness step down, Miss Sher? Uh, >> for now, please. >> Yep. Okay, very good. >> The state's next witness, please. Chris Kotraus, >> sir. If you 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, and nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? Right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Please proceed. >> Sir, if you could state your name and spell your last name, please. >> Sure. It's Chris Coimos. K O T R O D I M OS. >> Let's go through your employment background. Where are you currently working? >> I currently own my own business. I own a company called M20 Solutions. >> What does it what's that company? >> We do investigations, training, and consulting for prosecutors, defense teams, and law enforcement. >> Is part of that business um focused on digital forensics? >> Yes. >> Prior to that, uh where did you work? Um, I worked in law enforcement. I was, uh, I started my career in North Carolina with the Raleigh Police Department. I worked there until 2003. I took a position with the Salt Lake City Police Department, um, where I worked there until 2017. My last 5 years at Salt Lake City were spent in the homicide unit. Um, in 2017 I took a position with the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office as an investigator in a homicide unit and worked there for just shy of six years until my retirement in 2022. >> And that's when you started your own business? >> Yes. >> Were you asked to analyze phone downloads and phone records for this case? >> Yes. Were you asked to do that process, the look at the phone downloads and the phone records for three phones belonging to Corey Richens? >> Yes. >> One phone belonging to Eric Richens. >> Yes. >> Phone belonging to Carmen Lobber. >> Yes. >> A phone belonging to Josh Gman. >> Yes. >> And phone records related to Robert Croier. >> Yes. >> Let's talk a little bit about your uh qualifications. What type of specific education or training have you received to be able to analyze all of this phone data? >> Sure. As a as it relates to this case, um I've taken some formal training, of course. Uh once you get the formal training, then you um you get a lot of your experience in the field um in practical experience using that training. I'm a Selbrite certified uh operator course. I took that. Um I took the Selbrite certified physical analyzer uh course as well. And then um from the call detail records standpoint um I am certified and took a course in uh it's called uh tracks. It's owned by Lexus Nexus. It's a uh location and data analysis program for call detail records and geoloccation. >> Have you testified before um as an expert in digital forensics? >> Yes. >> How many times? at least a dozen times in major cases. >> And have you uh pro testified for prosecution and defense in those cases? >> Yes. >> How many uh how many phones have you done analysis for um in in your time doing this work? >> Uh phones hundreds. Um and I'm call detail records are probably over a thousand. Have you done downloads yourself? >> I have. >> For other cases, >> I have. >> So, let's start. Um, we'll treat it like a funnel. We'll start big picture. Let's talk about digital forensics. What What is digital forensics? >> Um, the best and easiest way to describe it is anal the analysis of electronic devices. um as relates to this case and my specialty is mostly phones and some computers. >> So let's talk about specialties within digital forensics. >> What is uh you mentioned that you're certified celbrite analyzer user or certified in that program. What uh what is celbrite? uh Cel Celite they have several products but generally what they do is they provide extraction tools to extract data from devices and then they also provide analysis tools so that you can an analyze then those readable files >> you mentioned call detail records is there an acronym we refer to those um in shorthand >> yes CDR >> what is a CDR >> so a call detail record or a CDR is exactly what It sounds like pretty much okay. It's a um it's a record from your carrier from your cell carrier like Verizon or AT&T. And what it is is it it um it is a record of all your call details. So your incoming and outgoing calls, texts, data sessions, things of that nature. >> You mentioned uh location analysis. How how do you perform something like location analysis using cell phone data or CDR data? >> Yeah, so you can map both, but prevalence prevalence is call detail records. So law enforcement can obtain call detail records that include location data with them. And location data is essentially it the carrier reports and maintains a record during their normal course of business which towers you're using, where that tower is located, and what antenna or sector of the tower that you're utilizing for that communication. >> When you're analyzing FO data, what are um the two main sources of that information? Oh, so like for phone data like in general um >> yeah when you're when you when you analyzed phones for this case what were the two main sources of of the data? >> So the phones themselves which is the content of the device and then the call detail records which are the communication records associated with those devices. >> So when we're talking about call detail records um I think most people understand the phone contents that comes from the actual device. Correct. >> Correct. And the call detail records, you said they were stored by the carrier. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And the call detail records, would those be located on anyone's device or are those solely um maintained by AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile? >> Yeah, there the the records themselves are maintained by the carrier. >> And what is contained in a call detail record? >> Um there's a lot of information in there. Um there is uh typically a time stamp. So there's a date and a time that the communication occurred um amongst whom the communication uh took place between which car or which numbers the car the uh communication took place. So um you know which phone numbers whether it's incoming or outgoing um the duration if it's a phone call um and then of course the tower information the tower location information. Would a CDR record contain for example uh it would say a text is incoming or outgoing. Would any of the content of those messages be in the call detail record? >> No, not in a not in a call detail record. >> How do you start um or how do you analyze the contents of a phone? What do you use to do that? So in this case I used um Celbrite physical analyzer. >> And how do you use Celbrite physical analyzer? What does that uh provide you to allow you to analyze the contents? >> So Celbrite physical analyzer is a software package and what it does is it allows you to um an analyze readable files from the extraction. So the phone is downloaded, a readable file is created, you load that readable file into analyzer and then you can analyze those results. >> How often is uh well are there other programs besides celbrite that can perform that function? >> Yes. >> Um is is celebrate the most commonly used one? >> Yes. >> Why is that? Um it's got a I mean it's very popular because of it's got a very userfriendly uh interface. Um it's widely known. It's w it's widely regarded. Um analysts and and people that do extractions and downloads and have learned that they can rely on the results of those they're they're pretty good. And so um so it's common place in this industry particularly in law enforcement. So now you testified that you've done um downloads yourself of some phones. >> Yes. >> Can the person doing the download, extracting that raw data from a phone um can they change the contents of the phone when downloading it? >> No. >> Can they manipulate it in any way when it's going from the raw down raw data into the Celbrite reader format? >> No, I don't know of a way to do that. Why might a cell phone be downloaded or extracted more than once? >> Um, usually it's different products are being applied to the phone. Um there are software updates but more importantly there's uh different products that um might be available to uh obtain more data versus the other um particularly >> when you receive the um the download report from the phone in the readable format what is contained in that report? >> Uh in the report is going to be all the system files. So there's going to be as a most importantly is the calls, texts, um the web history. There can be biometrics, there can be like activity move, you know, movement of the device, um biometric information, um web searches, uh there's pretty much everything that is contained in the phone that a user might utilize or um it would be available in that download. Can a download report show if there have been things deleted off of the phone? >> Yes. >> How does it show that? >> Yeah. In physical analyzer, if a uh if the extraction software recovers something from a database that has been set for destruct or uh for deletion, it can find that and then repopulate it with into the phone as to where it actually into the report for where it belongs. And when it does that, it in the program, it signifies that with like a small red X in a column next to it to let you know that it had been previously deleted from from the device as an active user or by the active, you know, the I'm sorry, the active file, but they've the software has been able to go in, find it in the database, and repopulate it. >> So, if a user deletes an item, it might still be stored on the phone that can be pulled by that report. Correct. They may not be able to see it and think it's gone, but it may still be within a database that can be retrieved and repopulated. >> Now, is that possible for all items that a user deletes? >> No. >> Why not? >> Some of those deletions are system files and so they are maintained in the background. The average user would not or probably be able to delete system files. They are just they they literally run the phone. >> So if if I'm a common user of a phone and I delete a a photo, how long uh would it be in kind of in the background of that phone and able to be downloaded by this report before it's gone forever? >> Well, it it kind of varies and it varies by there's a lot of variation there. Um but typically when an item like an image is deleted, the image itself that process the original like if it was sent to you or whatever it would and you deleted it, it would be gone from your view in the phone, but it would be in a deletion file. And so that deletion file eventually has to make room for more deletions. So then it pushes it pushes deleted files out to make room for more deletions so that it can kind of so it can refill it. It only has so much room. So it has to it has to purge that at some point. And that time can vary. More deletions are going to make that process typically happen more rapidly um than less. So, if a phone if items have been deleted by a user and that phone gets downloaded in maybe that sweet spot where it's still somewhere in the background of the phone, right, >> that could be in the report. >> It could be. >> But if you miss that window and then the item is gone for good and can't be found in one of those extraction reports. >> Um, pretty much once it is once it's deleted from the system file, it there's there's a process called a vacuum. Once it's vacuumed out and those files are reduced, it's essentially you're probably not going to find it. >> Now, if a user deletes a text from a phone from their own phone, does that affect um how the text message would show up on the receiving end? >> No. >> Shifting over to uh the CDR, the call detail records. you kind of described what that is. Um, and that it's stored by the cell phone carrier. How long is that data stored by the different major cell phone carriers? >> They're all different. So, they maintain their records for different for varying amounts of time. Um, Verizon typically will keep call detail records for 18 months to 24 months, but they will only keep the associated location data for about a year. Um whereas AT&T and T-Mobile will keep that information for uh a much longer time. >> Now because this data is maintained or kept by, you know, AT&T or Verizon, can a user access that information? >> No, those are business records uh maintained by the carrier. >> Okay. Okay. I feel like we have a good groundwork now and I want to turn your attention to what you did what you did in this case. Um, when were you brought on to work on this case? >> Uh, I came on in May of 2023. >> And in general, um, what were you asked to do for your part in this case? >> Uh, analyze phone downloads um, and analyze call detail records for pertinent information related to the case. And so you analyzed phone downloads for this case and and you talked about the process for doing that. Did you perform any of the downloads for the phones in this case yourself? >> Does it downloads? No. >> And in viewing um the download reports for the phones you analyzed, did you learn who the phone belonged to? >> Yes. >> How do you do that? Um well besides the record or file being designated as belonging to that person when you open the physical analyzer report it gives details about the phone number the IMEI number for the phone and whatnot and that could be matched to the user whomever was using it at the relevant time. >> As you analyzed phones for this case did you generally become familiar with the people involved? >> Yes. >> Did you become familiar with what they look like? >> Yes. How did you become familiar with what these people look like? >> Um, again, um, law enforcement shared that information with me, but in most instances when I looked into the phone downloads, um, there are pictures of those people inside those phones doing various things, hanging out with family or, you know, contact photos, that type of thing. >> I first want to turn your attention to Eric Richen's phone. Did you do an analysis of Eric Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> And was that a phone with the number 801792-9317? >> Yes. >> Did you receive a download report from the Summit County Sheriff's Office for that phone? >> Yes. >> And was that download performed by um Changi Entau and Marcos Gary Kacia? >> I believe so. When you reviewed uh the report for Eric Richen's phone, did you find any evidence of mass deletions on his phone? >> In Eric's phone, mass deletions? No. >> How would you be able to tell if somebody had made um batch or mass deletions from their phone? Um, usually if you if it's not evident in the actual phone download, whereas you can actually see the the the software has reported that those items were found as deleted and recovered. Outside of that, you would compare it to other types of evidence such as like the call detail records. >> So, how would you be able to tell if there were deletions when comparing the phone to the call detail records? It's very it's it's basic. You just take the call detail record and you look and you see who that person was communicating with through their call detail record and then you would be able to verify if that those communications were maintained in the call logs on the phone themselves. So, if I called you five times today, um, it would show in my call detail record. But if you downloaded my phone, it would also show in my call log that I called you five times today and what time of day and how long our phone calls were. >> Did you review text message conversations from Eric Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> And in addition, um, did you review device activity data? Yes. >> You mentioned biometric data. What what type of biometric data can you recover from a phone or or review? >> Right. It's kind of handinhand with the activity report that you just mentioned. Um when a device moves or a connected device moves, it reports that movement to the device and it's found in that activity sensor uh report portion of the download. Did you look at Eric Richen's phones for evidence or phone, excuse me, for evidence of THC gummy use? >> Yes. >> And did you find text messages between Eric Richens and Corey Richens as it related to THC gummy use? >> Yes. >> Was that three conversations? >> It was. >> Okay. Was that one conversation in November of 2021? >> Yes. and two conversations in January of 2022. >> Yes. >> Scott, if we could show the witness 2-118D. >> Is it on your screen? >> It's not. I got >> Okay. >> desktop. >> You have blueberry law showing. >> You're not on my screen. You're on my phone when I unplug. That's okay. One second. Council, >> is this the conversation you referenced from November of 2021? >> You may need Scott to zoom in. It's pretty small. >> It is. >> I'm wearing my >> There we go. >> Yeah, there. Yeah, better. Thanks, Scott. Yes, this is the this is a November of 2021 conversation >> and that's between Corey Richens and Eric Richens. >> Yes. >> Scott, if you could show the witness 2-119D, please. >> Is this a conversation between Eric Richens and Corey Richens in January of 2022? >> It is. >> Thank you. And Scott, if you could show the witness 2-124D. >> And is this another conversation um from January of 2022 from Eric Richens to Corey Richens? >> It is. >> Did you also analyze Eric Richens for um information about illicit drug use? >> Uh yes. Did you find anything in Eric Richen's phone about elicit drug use? >> No. Outside THC, I didn't find anything. >> Any communications um on Eric Richen's phone about buying drugs? >> No. >> Now, I want to talk about Corey Richen's phones. Did you analyze three phones that belong to Corey Richens for this case? >> I did. Yes. Scott, if you could put up 3-37D, please. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> What is it? >> Uh, this is an exhibit uh that rep that represents the three phones that you just mentioned that were being used by Miss Richens um that are relative or relevant to this case. >> Did you help create this exhibit? >> I did. >> I'm going to move to admit 337D. >> No, judge. Okay. Uh, states 3-37D is admitted >> and published, please. >> Done. >> Okay. I have pink pointer that I'm going to try to use. >> All right. >> What do you think, Scott? >> Okay. Let's start at the top. >> All right. What um what phone is at the top of this exhibit? >> Okay, so the the phone at the top of the exhibit on the left hand side is um Miss Ridgen's white iPhone. And the two numbers that are there, the next to the one and the two, those are those represent the phone numbers that were being used on that device during uh the time of September 2020 to April of 2022. >> What do those dates represent? Um, those are that's the duration of the time that that phone was being utilized. >> So, you mentioned for Corey Richen's white iPhone that there were two numbers on that phone. What number were you able to determine was maybe the primary or most used number for that phone? >> Right. So, the the number ending in 1987 is going to be the primary number. that is the carrier subscriber number uh through Verizon that that phone was uh utilizing and then the 1152 number is uh a number a VIP number that was being used on that device as well. >> So you said VIP number but tell tell the jury how do you get two phone numbers on one phone? >> You just use an app. >> Okay. How is um in this case the number 1152 how is that different than what you called the subscriber number the 1987 how is it different? >> Right. So that number a VIP number it uses the internet to make calls um make and receive or make and receive calls make and receive texts. Um you can use that number like you would your normal carrier number. The difference is it uses data and so it typically doesn't show up on your call detail records when you use it. >> Did you view a download from Corey Richen's white iPhone? >> I did. >> And that came from the Summit County Sheriff's Office. >> It did. >> And that download was performed by Cheney or and another download by Marcos Gary Gary Kuchia, >> I believe. So, yes. Did that download contain um text messages, call logs, web searches, things like that? >> Yes. >> In addition to that, um were you also able to view um what we were calling activity data or device sensor data for that phone? >> Yes. >> When you did the analysis for that white iPhone, was there evidence of deletions? >> Yes. >> Was there evidence of text message deletions? >> Yes. evidence of call log deletions. >> Yes. >> Describe um what time frame you were able to recognize those deletions happening. >> The time frame essentially for that device is premid. So, specifically as it relates to some of the other items we looked to I looked at related to this case, we're looking basically January 1st through middle of March 2022. >> What was missing from that phone for January 2022, February 2022, and March 2022? >> Uh, hundreds of text messages at least. Um there's there were also missing um most of the web history artifacts in that device, >> call histories as well, >> call logs, etc. >> So turning your attention to the middle um phone here, what are the dates for uh the use of that phone? April 14th, 2022 to May 8th, 2023. >> Now, I noticed that silver iPhone has the same number as the white iPhone. How did that occur? >> Uh, so this is a new device that Miss Richens began using um on April 14th, and she basically just had her old number assigned to this new device. >> Were you able to view a download? um for this phone. >> Yes. >> And that was performed by the Summit County Sheriff's Office. >> Yes. >> Now, comparing Corey's silver iPhone that she began using in April of 2022, compared to the prior phone, the one that she was using leading up to that point. Were there patterns of deletions in this phone similar to the white iPhone? >> There were some deletions noted, but not in the same manner as the previous phone. No. What do you mean not in the same manner? >> Uh meaning there were the there were not big chunks of hundreds of texts missing from the device that I noted compared to the the new phone did not have that type of deletion in it. >> So now let's talk about the third phone on this exhibit. It says Corey Richen's blue iPhone. Did you also view an extraction for this phone? >> I did. >> Or I I guess extraction and download. I'm using them interchange interchangeably. Is that okay? That's fine. >> They're the same thing. >> Um and that download came from the Summit County Sheriff's Office. >> Yes. >> Now, similar questions about the blue iPhone. It it seems that the date ranges for that are the same as the silver iPhone. Is that correct? >> Correct. So based on your analysis, Corey Richens was using the blue iPhone and the silver iPhone at the same time. >> Correct. >> Same question for the blue iPhone. Um, were there mass deletions on the blue iPhone when comparing it to what you looked at for the white iPhone? >> No. >> Okay. Now, you did an analysis of uh a phone belonging to Carmen Loberers. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And that's the phone with the number ending 6127. >> Yes. >> Did you analyze CDR data for Carmen Lobers's phone? >> I did. >> And did you view uh an extraction or a download for that phone? >> Yes. >> And that came from the Summit County Sheriff's Office? >> Yes. on Carmen Loberers's phone, were you able to tell if there were uh deletions on that phone? >> Yes. >> What were you able to note about items being deleted? um essentially in the same manner um as with Miss Ridgen's original phone. Um when comparing Miss Loberers's call detail records, um there were hundreds of texts and dozens of calls contained in those call record detail records for that period of time, but they were no longer contained inside the device. Like there was pretty much all of it was gone. Did you also look at um call detail records for Robert Croier's phone? >> Yes. >> And was that for a phone with a number ending 0540? >> Yes. >> All right. Turning your attention to uh Robert Josh Gman. Did you analyze a download for a phone belonging to that person? >> Yes. And that uh download was given to you by the Summit County Sheriff's Office. >> Yes. >> The download uh two download or sorry one download that was performed by Marcos Gary Kacia. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And that phone is uh had two different numbers associated with it. 1260 and then 0904. >> Correct. When looking at all of these different phone downloads, did you analyze communications between Eric Richens and Corey Richens? >> Yes. >> Scott, if you could show uh Mr. Cooimus exhibit 2-3D, please just zoom in a little bit so he can recognize it. Is this a message between Corey Richens and Eric Richens from December of 2020? >> Yes, it is. >> Scott, if you could show the witness exhibit 2-5D. Is this another message um between Corey Richens and Eric Richens from June of 2021? >> Yes. Scott, if you could show the witness exhibit 2-17D. >> Is this a me a text message between Eric Richens and Corey Richens in January of 2022? >> Yes. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Before we jump into communications between some of these other other parties, I want to see if you um have analyzed these messages as well. Scott, if you could show the witness exhibit 2-121. Do you recognize this message as uh a text message thread that you analyzed from Corey Richen's phone from December of 2022? >> Yes. Scott, if you could show the witness 2-112. Similar question. Do you recognize this as a text message from Corey Richen's phone um that you analyzed from February of 2023? >> Yes. >> And exhibit 2-113. Do you recognize this message as a text thread with Corey Richens from March of 2023? >> Yes. >> And Scott 2-14, please. Do you recognize this as a message from Corey Richen's phone from March of 2023? >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Scott, did you analyze communications between Corey Richens and I I know he goes by Josh, but Robert Josh Gman? >> Yes. >> Did they communicate um as far back as 2020? >> They did. Yes. >> And and through October of 2022. >> Yes. >> What were the typical volume of calls and texts between Corey Richens and Josh Gman? um particularly from November of 21, which was essentially when the 1152 number showed up on his phone um daily with a few exceptions. >> Now, Scott, if you could put up 337D again, please for the jury as well. >> One moment. Now, you mentioned that um the 1152 number showed up on Josh Grossman's phone. What number did Corey Richens and Josh Grossman um from Corey Richen's side, what number did she use to communicate with Josh Gman? >> Um by text 11152 1152. >> Were you able to tell if she communicated with other people using that phone number or was it mostly Mr. Grossman? >> Mr. Grossman. Did you find information um on Corey Richen's phone about these communications or was that mostly from Mr. Grossman's phone? >> Uh I found none on Miss Richen's and everything I found was on Mr. Grossman's. >> In analyzing Corey Richen's communications with Josh Gman, did you locate documents that pertain to this case? >> Yes. Scott, if you could show the witness exhibit 3-1 and then if you could I believe there's a second page. If you could show this the subsequent pages. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> What is it? >> This is >> generally speaking document you found. Yeah, this is is a it's a vacation reservation made or that was located inside Miss Richen's device. >> I'm going to move to admit um 3-1. >> Uh can you zoom out for a second, Scott? >> Go back to page one for me. It's a two-page document. Is that right? >> I don't know if there's a third page. There's a third page. That's the >> fourth. Okay. Four pages. >> Mr. Roman objection authenticity as well as your state. >> Uh talk to me about authenticity. >> Why don't you folks approach for a second? >> All right. Let's pause here for a moment. Let's see. You can see that document, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, would you lay the found ask the foundational question one more time? >> Certainly. >> Mr. Cooimos, in analyzing Corey Richen's phone, did you find documents that were pertinent to this case? >> Yes. >> And you located those on Corey Richen's device? >> Yes. >> And looking at exhibit 3-1 in front of you, is this one of those documents that you located on her phone? >> Yes. Move to admit 3-1. >> Mr. Any other objection? >> Yep. >> Okay. Uh so the record is clear. The objection uh asserted at sidebar is overruled. Uh Scott, forgive me. You got to go back to page one. Uh 3-1. A four-page document is admitted. >> Do you want to publish? >> Yes, please. >> And Scott, if we could zoom in on Thank you, Scott. >> Did you analyze communications between Corey Richens and Carmen Lobber? >> Yes. >> Did they begin communicating around December of 2021? They communicated prior to 2021, but in relation to this case and in relation to the cell phone, the CDR records in relation to that extraction or her phone download. Yes. 2021, December. From January of 2022 to say March 15 of 2022, what was the volume or approximate volume of text messages between Corey Richens and Carmen Lober for that 3month period >> between the two of them? About 800 text messages. >> Doing some quick math, that's about 11 per day. Yes, about 10 or 11 a day on average. >> So from March 16th, 2022 to the end of that year, so March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, how many approximately how many text messages between Corey Richens and Carmen Lober for that 9-month time frame? >> About 600 650. Okay, we're going to do some quick math. Is that about three per day? >> It's about three per day. >> Now, to be clear, I I'm not asking you if they communicated three times a day, right? Just doing the average, that's about what it would come out to, >> right? It's about a 70% decrease if my math is right. >> Where does that data come from? the the call detail records between um Corey Richens and Carmen Lauder Lobberger. >> And because it's a call detail record, we don't have the content of any of those messages. >> Correct. >> They've been deleted from Corey Richen's phone. >> Yes. >> They've been deleted from Carmen Loberers's phone. >> Yes. >> We don't know what they said. >> Correct. >> I want to turn your attention to February 11th, 2022. Did you analyze CDR records for Corey Richens from that time frame? >> Yes. >> If you could look at exhibit 3-6, please. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Is this a call detail record for Corey Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> Is this one of those documents that you reviewed um in your analysis for this case? >> Yes. removed to admit 3-6. >> States 3-6 is admitted. >> If we could please um publish that document. >> Okay. We've been talking about call detail records. Is this a call detail record? >> Yes. This is the billing version of it, but yes, this is a call detail record. >> Why does it say uh Eric Richens at the top? >> He's the subscriber, the Verizon subscriber. So, it has his name on it. >> Now, when we're looking at the phone number at the top, it this clicker is not liking me, but I wanted to point it out. Um, it says 1987, and that's the number that, uh, belonged to Corey Richens, correct? >> Yes. So, when we're looking at each of these individual calls on this particular document, um how do you know if it's an incoming or outgoing call? >> Um on destination, so there's uh what is that about seven columns over where it says destination? Um there is a it it denotes that in there. And so it'll say incoming. If it's got a switch location on there like Salt Lake, Utah, that typically is an outgoing. >> Does this call detail record show the duration of a call? >> It does. >> Where is that on the back? >> Just to the right where you where it was highlighted where it says minutes. Min, right? The abbreviation. That is the minute or that is the amount per minute of the call. Sorry, it's in seconds sometimes. So yeah. >> Is this duration in >> this is in minutes? Yes. I apologize. >> Did Cy make Corey Richens make phone calls on February 11th, 2022 at 11:27, 12:36, and 12:39? >> Uh, yes. I think it was 12:27, but yes. Yes. >> I might have said the wrong minute. >> It's okay. Yeah. >> Did you determine who these calls were made to? >> I did. >> How did you do that? Um, I Googled the numbers. >> Okay. And who do those numbers come back to? >> Uh, those are IRS numbers. >> So, on those three occasions, Corey Richens was calling the IRS. >> Correct. >> Still talking about uh Thank you, Scott, for that. Still talking about February 11th of 2022. Did you analyze communications um or CDR records for Corey Richens and Carmen Lobber from that day? >> Yes. >> And did they communicate that day? >> They did. And do you know that from the CDR data? >> Uh yes. >> For February 11th, 2022, do you have location data related to Carmen Lobers's um cell tower use on that day? >> Yes, from her device. Yes. >> And did that come from the call detail records? >> Yes. >> Scott, if you could show the witness exhibit 3-8 D. Sorry, 38D. if you could zoom out just a little bit so that um we can see the whole >> we we can it's that screen. >> Oh, it's my screen. I see. Everyone else can see the whole thing. Okay. Um do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Did you help create this? >> I did. >> And did you do that using the CDR data we've been talking about? >> Correct. I provided the call detail information to the graphic designer that created this exhibit. >> Does exhibit 3-8D accurately depict the raw data that you analyzed? >> Yes. >> Move to admit 3-8D. >> Objection. States 3-8 delta is admitted. >> If we could please publish. So what are we looking at here? describe for the jury. And if it's easier for you to step down, you can. Um, but what's at the top? >> Um, you know what? Yeah, maybe I will step down actually >> because I have this clicker, but maybe it will work better. >> It's >> you can try to use a little >> tap it. That does not work. >> Thought it wasn't just >> Mr. Would you tap that mic? See if this work. Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, go ahead and describe what we're looking at here. >> Right. What what we're looking at is a is a representation um of the call detail records uh that Miss Sherbanick uh mentioned. Um what you have on the right hand side is going to be the uh text communications between Miss Richens and Miss Lobber for February 11th, 2022. Um there's a just a a photo so you know whose device we're referring to. Um a photo of Miss Richens, a photo of Miss Lober. Uh the blue uh bubble with the three dots indicates that this is a uh a text message. And then the arrow is going to uh depict which direction that call. So for instance, the very first one at 32244 um is an outgoing message from Miss Ridgens to Miss Logger at that time. And so these are on the right hand side. These are going to come up so that you can see um when they communic when the two communicated the volume of the communication and then also the direction. Okay. On the left hand side is a representation of essentially the uh Davis County and Salt Lake County uh valley areas. And you're going to see locations pop up on these uh on this map as we move through the record um chronologically. Um what those for instance there you go. Thanks Scott. So this is a tower location. It's pointing to the location of the tower. That's important. not the device but the tower um of that Miss Lobber is device is utilizing at 4:11 p.m. for instance. Okay. Um Mr. Croier's record was also um populated into this as well. And at the same time at 4:11 p.m. Mr. Croier uh is pointing towards a tower location in the Davis County area. So you know which tower their devices are using. On the left hand side these are going to move. And what that depicts is the movement of the device as they reacquire different towers. Okay. Um and then on the right hand side as we go through the slides it's going to start populating. So Scott you can Scott you can start populating. So at 411 this represents a phone or a communication between Miss Lobber and Mr. Croier and this is their respective locations. Um, you can see on the right hand side through the 4:00 and the 5:00 hour, um, beginning in the 5:00 hour, uh, Miss Richens and Miss Lober continue to communicate via text. At 50:05, Miss Lober is still in the Hebrew Valley area. And that picture that you just saw was a photo from that time frame that was uh, recovered from Miss Loberers's cell phone device. All right. So, you can see at 505, Miss Lober is now uh her device is now um hitting on a tower um in the Provo Canyon area out near the reservoir. And Mr. Croier's device is using a tower at 5:20 p.m. up in the Davis County area. And on the right hand side, you're going to see um Miss Richens and Miss Lobber continue to communicate with one another. And Miss Loberers's device is traveling down Provo Canyon and into the Utah County area. That device is now heading into the roughly the Utah County area. It's utilizing towers in those locations and eventually it's going to move north. Um, and you can see Mr. Croier's device has now jumped significantly. I want to explain this to you the jury because this is important. Um, Mr. Croier's carrier is T-Mobile. Okay. So, his carrier does not provide location data for these records for texts. It's only calls. So, only only time Mr. Croier's location is going to appear to change is when his device is utilizing a tower for a call. Mrs. Miss Lobers was more detailed. This isn't all of every single pinpoint of every single tower because every single text she made utilized a tower. But for the sake of not cluttering this up with a bunch of repeats on top of each other, you can assume that from the previous point to the next point, she was utilizing the same the tower before it. So she was utilizing the tower near the reservoir for several texts and then now she's using this one in the Utah County area. All right, Scott. Yep. So Mr. Croier's device is now moved a little bit farther south and utilizing a tower there. Uh, in the 6:00 hour, Miss Lober, and Miss Richens are communicating via text. And Miss Lober is now arriving on a tower at or near the area of uh, it's in Draper, Utah, near the area of a Maverick store that's there. Mr. Croier is heading in the same general direction, utilizing a tower in the same area. You can see on the right hand side, Miss Richens and Miss Lobber are uh continuing to communicate via text. And then at 7:21, we have uh Mr. Croier and Miss Lober utilizing the same tower. They're on different they're not talking to each other. Um but they are utilizing the same tower near that Draper location. And this is that location. So on the left hand side you can see their Mr. Croier and Miss Lober at 7:21 are making their respective communications. Their devices are using this tower which is located across the freeway from this Draper uh from this Maverick store in Draper right off the freeway. Miss Ler and Miss Richens continue to communicate into the 7 o'clock hour. This photo um was recovered from Miss Loberers's phone download um depicting her with another uh woman uh during this time. And there's another photo. And by 8:20, Miss Loberers's device is now moving south and utilizing towers south of that Draper location. And by 8:47, Mr. Croier has made or received a phone call because we know that's the only records his denote towers. and he's moving back north um towards the Davis County area. And then Miss Lber by 856 is utilizing a tower in the uh Hebrew Valley area. Miss Lober remains in the Hebrew Valley area. And then on the right hand side, sorry Scott, but if you can go back one slide, uh Miss Richens and Miss Lber continue to communicate into the 9:00 hour via text. Uh yeah. So from 3:42 to 902, the defendant, Miss Lber, communicated 34 times via text. Um during the same time, Mr. Lober or Miss Lber and Mr. Croier communicated 50 times via text and six times via voice call. >> Yeah, you can just But I think I think I can walk them through it from here now that they >> Yeah. Did you also look at communications from February 11th, 2022 between Carmen Lober and Robert Crosier? >> Yes. >> Did they communicate on that day? >> Yes. >> And is that information from the call detail records? >> Yes. >> Scott, if you could show the witness exhibit 3-33D. Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Uh, similar to the last exhibit, something that you helped to create? Yes. >> And using the call detail records that you were just describing? >> Yes. >> Does exhibit 3-33D accurately depict the raw data that you viewed in this case? >> Yes. >> Move to admit 3-33D. >> Uh your honor, no objection. U if the following testimony is going to be similar to the last one, if perhaps we could have some questions. I I think we all understand where they're traveling and what it means now. Um just to move the moment >> 3-33D is admitted. Would you like to publish? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. So, similar to the last exhibit that we looked at, is this one laid out the same way? >> It is. Yes. >> And the last exhibit was depicting communications between Carmen Lober and Corey Richens. And this one is between Carmen Lober and Robert Crocher. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Otherwise, um the different indicators, the bubbles, the arrows, those things remain the same as the previous exhibit. >> Yes. >> The map that we're looking at, the area of the Salt Lake Valley remains the same. >> Yes. >> And then similarly, uh as we see the different uh pictures of the people moving, that is the cell phone towers that their device is utilizing at those different times. >> Correct. Scott, if we could move through um this exhibit and Mr. Kraimus, if there's anything um that you want to note regarding the communications between Robert Croier and Carbon Lobberger. >> Right. I I I think if we just for the sake of time like Mr. Ramos just said, um we can just click slow through those quickly or quickly slowly click through those Scott and I can just describe to the jury what they're saying. It's uh um the Miss Lober or Miss Lobber and Mr. Here are communicating at 11:00 p.m. almost noon and then into the 5:00 hour. And then again, you see Miss Loberers's device move out of the Hebrew Valley area into the Utah County area where it will ultimately end up in the south end of the Salt Lake County um um uh area and I believe utilize a tower at or near the Draper once again. And Mr. Croier's devices moving south out of the Davis County area once more. um uh they're located in at or near the uh exact same location for you know a period of time and then they return Mr. Crocher returns back to the Davis County area and Miss Lober returns back to the Heber Valley area. Yeah, there's there's another that's that representation of that 721 phone call. Y >> thank you, Scott. >> I want to turn your attention to February 14th of 2022. Um, if we could put up exhibit 3-6. That one's already been admitted. Um, >> do you want to show it again? >> Yes, please publish it to the jury. And Scott, if we could expand on the phone call at 8:53 a.m. So, from these records, did Corey Richens make an outgoing phone call on February 14th at 8:53 a.m.? >> Yes. >> Did you determine who that number belongs to? >> I did. >> Who does it belong to? >> That is the Mirror Lake Diner. Thank you, Scott. For also uh for February 14th of 2022, did you analyze communications between Corey Richens and Josh Gman? >> Yes. >> Scott, if you could show the witness 2-27D and scroll through so we can see all of it. Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Did you help to uh create this or did you create this? >> I created this one. >> And does exhibit 2-27D accurately depict the raw data that you analyze for this case? >> Yes. >> I'll move to admit 2-27D. >> I just can't see it from over here. No objection. Thank you. >> States 2-27D is admitted. >> If you could publish that, Scott and if you could scroll through um the pages and then I'll ask Mr. Kotraus about the last page. Just looks good. What are we looking at? um that's depicted here on the last page of this exhibit. >> So, this is an image that was contained within that text thread that was sent by Miss Richens to Mr. Grossman. >> And it was sent approximately an hour before that arrival time. Is that correct? >> Correct. This follows the text in which Mr. Grossman asked Miss Richens about an hour and she sent this photo. >> Thank you. Scott, >> did you also analyze communications between Corey Richens and Eric Richens on Valentine's Day 2022? >> Yes. >> If you could show Mr. Cotraimus 2-28D and scroll through it so he can see the whole exhibit, please. Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Is this an exhibit uh that you created? >> Yes. >> Does exhibit 2-28D accurately depict the raw data that you analyzed in this case? >> Yes. >> Move to admit 2-28D. >> States 2-28D is admitted. If >> we could publish, please. And Scott, similar to the last exhibit, I'll have you move through. And and Mr. Mr. Coach Deimus, it's it's kind of clear from the to and from, but who is going to be typing the messages that are in the green bubbles. >> All right. So, the green is from and that's the 9317. That's Eric Richens. And the two or the receipient in this would be 1987, which is um Corey Richens. >> And so her responses, Corey Richen's responses are in blue. Is that correct? >> Correct. If I may, perhaps for purposes of these messages coming in, if your own we could give the instructions that you've done in the past as to the uh state as to Mr. Riches. Maybe we can just do it once. We all know that it applies to all of them. >> So fair reminder, uh the statements by Ms. richins on her side of that conversation. You may consider those for any purpose. You may give them the weight you deem appropriate. Your >> honor, may we approach? >> Sure. Okay, this is a good time to take a restroom break. If everybody would please rise for the jury. Have a seat, folks. Thank you. Did you actually want to take a break, Mr. Vers, or do you want to have further discussion regarding this issue? >> Both, your honor. >> Which order would you like to do it in? >> Perhaps discuss first, break second. >> Understood, Mr. Ramos. So, we're talking specifically regarding 2-28D. >> And Scott, I don't have control over these, so I need you to go back to page one. Zoom in for me. Okay. Do we need to excuse the witness or are we good? >> He's an expert. I imagine the state's going to tell me the exclusionary rule won't apply to him, but >> I was just curious. >> Yeah. So, I don't think so. Yeah. If you need to use the restroom, that's one thing. I'm good. Okay. Um, so the first green bubble in 228 I've already ruled is a present sense impression and is admissible. Any further record there, Mr. Ramos? That was early on. >> Yeah. >> So, keep scrolling, Scott. Then we have a blue bubble that represents I need the second green bubble, please, Scott. >> Just the green ones. >> Oh, okay. >> Second green bubble, please. Scott, >> that's the first one. on the first page. >> There's your first page. There's only one green on ours. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Can we go to the second page, please? And then the >> No, we did that one. >> No, we didn't. It's okay. So, highlight that one for me, Scott. I can see it. Uh, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry, Scott. Go back to page two. Unzoomed. Uh, green bubble states, are you home? Any objection, Mr. uh, Ramos? >> No. >> Okay. Third bubble says in the office I've been sleeping out here. That I think is also present sentence impression that I've previously ruled on. Okay, go to page three, Scott, if there's one. Green bubble. No, it's quiet out here. I think it's the same. And then Mr. Ramos, I'm going to pause if I just Okay. >> And then get to the end of this 228D. Scott, >> it's a total of seven pages. This is >> Oh, I'm sorry. One page at a time. I just need to analyze each green bubble. >> This is the next set of green bubbles here. >> This one's good. You can go to the next one. >> Yeah, we're not seeing the same thing. Scott is. Hold on a second. >> Oh, we're not seeing what you're seeing. That's why >> my apologies. Scott, if you'd unplug and plug back in for me, I'd appreciate it. >> Think we're on page four. >> Page four. Your honor, I didn't have any green. >> Understood. Let's go to page five. >> Okay. Wish you were here and then a question mark. Mr. Ramos, any objection? >> No. >> Okay, go to page six. Thanks for answering. Any objection? >> Okay, page seven. I can't read it. It's got a Sorry. Can you Thank you, sir. We are headed in there. Food is on the front seat of my truck. Any objection, Mr. Almist? >> No. >> Okay. So, with respect to 228D, uh there are no hearsay issues. We've already admitted certain exhibits. Miss Sherbeneck makes a fair point at sidebar. We'll need to be a little bit uh precise about these going forward. So, we can just slow down. If there comes a time when you need to make a specific objection regarding a specific part of a conversation, just say objection. May we approach >> if we can go slow through them. Um and then I'll just >> Yeah, we'll be fine. >> Okay. Anything further on that, Miss Sherman? >> Yes, your honor. Only that. Um can you give the jury a an instruction now that what you told them before? >> I didn't complete the thought, but I can clear it up. >> If we could just clarify for them that >> that blanket rule does not apply to this exhibit. Well, and also I shouldn't call it a blanket rule. So, um that they may consider both sides of 228D for any purpose. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> What we'll do is uh we'll meet with them during this break real quick and see if I can just go through them. >> I appreciate that. All right. Let's come back at uh to allow you time to do that. Uh 240. Thank you. >> Courts in recess. >> You're welcome to use the restroom. Don't talk. States exhibit 228D as a February 14, 2022 uh text exchange between Eric Richens in green and Cory Richens in blue. >> No, judge. Only one other There was only one uh other message and we're good with it. Okay, very good. Anything before we invite the jury into Sherbnick? >> No, your honor. You'll give them a clarifying instruction about Okay. >> I intend to fall on my sword on that one. All right. Uh, we're ready for the jury. >> We're ready for the jury. All eyes for the jury. >> Folks, feel free to have a seat as you come in, please. Have a seat, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, uh, before we took a break, I misspoke and created some confusion. Let me clear that up. Now, states exhibit 2-28D as in Delta is a February 14, 2022 text exchange between Eric Richens as depicted in the green bubbles and Corey Richens as depicted in the blue bubbles. The jury may consider either and both sides of that conversation for any purpose. You may give either and both sides any weight you think they deserve. Miss Sherbanac, take it from there. >> Thank you, Judge. >> If we could put 228D up on the screen. I don't know if we got through the whole conversation before. I forget where we left off. So, I'm going to have Scott go through this conversation for the jury with that um new instruction in mind. Good. Just In addition to these text messages, did you also analyze Eric Richen's um device data um sensor data, I guess, for February 14th of 2022? >> Yes. >> If we could show exhibit 314D, please. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. Is this an exhibit you helped create? >> Yes. >> Does exhibit 3-14D accurately depict the raw data that you analyzed from Eric Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> Move to admit 3-14D. No objection. >> States 3-14D is admitted. >> If we if we could publish, please. When you analyzed the movement data from Eric Richen's phone on Valentine's Day 2022, we're looking at a graph here. What does this graph depict? The graph depicts um travel. So in distance um in blue and in energy exertion basically in green and the uh in frequency um hour to hour on February 14th, 2022. Was there a gap in Eric Richen's movement? Um, and the other data that you just referenced during the middle of that day? >> Yes. >> Is that denoted here? Um, in in the blown up portion, what do we see? >> It is. There's a data set on the left hand side for uh flights climbed, distance traveled, and steps um depict. So, this is a portion well actually this is the 12:00 hour. Um and then in the on the right hand side there is uh device activity for uh depicting steps and distance traveled um at 132. >> And so from this data we can tell that from approximately 12:05 to 1:32 there was no movement uh data recorded on Eric Richmond's phone. >> Correct. Did you analyze his phone for similar types of movement on other days? >> Yes. >> And did you compare the data from Valentine's Day um to those other days? >> I did. >> Was it unusual for Eric to have uh Eric to have an 87 minute gap in his activity in the middle of a workday? >> It wasn't typical. No. Thank you, Scott. I want to turn your attention to February 26th of 2022. Did you analyze communications between Corey Richens and Carmen Lobber on that day? >> Yes. >> Scott, if we could show Mr. Cotraimus 3-16D. Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Did you help create this? >> I did. >> Um, is this using the CDR data that you analyzed for this date? Yes, this is essentially the same type of exhibit um that was created for February 11th. >> Does exhibit 3-16D accurately depict the raw data that you viewed for February 26th? >> It does. >> Move to admit 3-16D, please. >> No objection. >> States 3-16D is admitted >> and published to the jury, please. So, we saw an exhibit like this before for February 11th. Yes, we did. >> Are we looking at um information now pertaining to February 26th? >> We are on this uh this exhibit is communic text communication between u Miss Ridgens and Miss Lober on that day. >> And similar map of the same area. >> Yes. >> Arrows denoting who sent the message. >> Yes. the times they were sent and received and direction. Yes. >> Now, these pictures are kind of small, but similar to the last exhibit from February 11th, um, Miss Richens is denoted with the red background. Is that correct? >> Correct. She's on the left side there. >> And Miss Lober is denoted with the green background. >> Correct. >> And then we also see Robert Croier on these exhibits and he's in the yellow background. Is that correct? >> Yes, he will come up. There he is. It will come up on the map there on the lefth hand side. >> And again, um, Scott, if we could move through this exhibit and Mr. Kraimus, if you could describe what we're seeing as we go through this. >> Sure. >> For February 26th. >> Sure. On the right hand side, uh, similar to the other day, um, there was uh, text communications between Miss Ridgens and Miss Lobber through the 2:00 hour. Um, it picked back up in the 5:00 5:00 p.m. hour. Um and at some point during the 5:00 PM hour, Miss uh Lobers's device um started uh utilizing towers in those same locations from the previous day. Um Provo Canyon um Utah County area traveling north until it finally um uh stopped in the area of the southern end of Salt Lake County. Uh same thing with uh Mr. Croier's device um beginning once again in Davis County and moving south and utilizing towers uh along the way. So, Miss Lubber is now on the left hand side. You can see by 700 p.m. or so, she is utilizing towers back in Provo Canyon. Um heading back to the Hebrew Valley area where she ultimately uh ends up. Uh Mr. Crocher has returned back into the general area of the Davis County area by 8:00 p.m. And then uh you saw all the communications between Miss Richens and Miss Lobber. Uh 71 texts between 2:25 p.m. and 10:33 p.m. that day. And uh Mr. U Kier and Miss Loberers, 65 texts and three phone calls. Now, similar to February 11th of 2022, did you look at the communications between Carmen Lober and Robert Croier for February 26th of 2022? >> Yes. >> If we could show Mr. Cotraimus 3-34D, please. >> Excuse me. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Is this an exhibit that you helped create? >> It is. >> And does 3-34D accurately depict the raw data that you analyzed for that date, February 26th? It does. >> Move to admit 3-34D. >> Objection. >> States 3-34D is admitted >> and published to the jury, please. >> Okay. We've seen one of these before. >> Yes, we have. >> We know the data that's on here. If we could Scott move through this um at Mr. Kimus, as you just described. Uh >> yeah. So, there's the 401 p.m. uh call uh in from the previous slide. Uh Mr. Crocher is in Davis County. Miss Lober is in the Hebrew Valley area. Um to the right, those are the communications between the two. There's texts and some phone calls. Um you can see the date stamps next to those. Um essentially what this exhibit shows is um the other side of that um uh communication or that incident or event um between Miss Lobber and Miss Croer or yeah, Mr. Croer and Miss Lobberger. Sorry. Um the two devices um appear to travel in the same direction until they come to the same generalized location um utilizing those towers and then return back to their respective starting points >> and that location that they're um meeting up at same as February 11th, 2022. >> Yes, it's consistent with that uh with the Draper area near that Maverick. >> Thank you. Scott, did you analyze uh and moving now, sorry, to March 2nd of 2022, did you analyze CDR data for Corey Richen's device from March 2nd, 2022? >> Yes. >> Scott, if we could show Mr. Cooimas 3-17, please. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Is this the uh call detail records for Corey Richens that has March 2nd? Yes. >> I'll move to admit 3-17. >> Okay. 317 is admitted. >> And if we could uh show the call from 10:22 a.m., please from March 2nd and 10:27 a.m. Is that the same uh same number that we see from the call at 10:22 and the call at 10:27? >> It is the same number. Yes. again 10:40. >> Are those outgoing phone calls from Miss Corey Richens? >> Yes. >> Who was she calling at 10:22 and 10:27? >> That the That's the IRS. >> What is the duration of the call made at 10:27? >> The first call is 3 minutes and the second call at 10:27 is 101 minutes. still talking about March 20 uh March 2nd of 2022. Did you look at communications between Corey Richens and Eric Richens on that date? >> Yes. >> If you could show the witness 2-37D. Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> And is this an exhibit that you created? >> Yes. Is this an a text message thread between Eric Richens and Corey Richens? >> Yes. >> We will um talk about the content of this exhibit at a later time. I just wanted to lay out the information that you're aware of what it is and where it came from. >> Okay. >> I now want to turn your attention to March 9th of 2022. Same questions as February 11th and February 26th. Did you look at communications between Corey Richens and Carmen Lobber for March 9th of 2022? >> Yes. >> We could show Mr. Cotrais 3-35D. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Is this an exhibit that you helped create? >> It is. >> Using the CDR data that you just talked about. >> Correct. >> Does 3-35D accurately depict the raw data contained in that CDR information? >> Yes. We'll move to admit 3-35D. >> Okay. >> States 3-35D is admitted >> and published to the jury, please. Okay. So, we've seen these before. >> We have >> um we're looking at the same area of the Salt Lake Valley. And again, communications for March 9th, 2022 between Corey Richens and Carmen Loberers. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Scott, if we could move through this exhibit, please. And this is just the same representation of those records. It shows essentially the same travel and it depicts the conversations um text conversations or communications between uh Miss Richens and Miss Loberers's devices. We've got 10:00 hour, 11:00 hour. Miss Lobber is moving. Um she moves a little north in this. Um if you want to stop it right there, Scott, just for the 1211, 1213, she's she moves north out of the Heaver Valley for this um particular event. Um those tower that tower at 12:11 p.m. is um located very close to the Richens residence. Um other than that um the travel is going to be depicted in a similar manner. Um Miss Lobber is going to travel uh same route through Provo Canyon into the south end of the Salt Lake County area. Um in an area consistent with being at or near the Draper, the Maverick and Draper. And Mr. Croier is going to do the same thing. He's going to travel south and his device is going to utilize towers um in that direction as well. Um on the right hand side you're just seeing more communications between Miss Lobber and Miss Richens from that day. So Mr. Croier and Miss Lobers's devices are coming together utilizing a the same tower in in that area. Again that's the tower across the freeway from the Maverick in Draper. Uh then the two will depart or presumably depart and their devices are utilizing different towers until they return to their respective starting points. >> Did you look at communications between Carmen Lober and Robert Crosier for March 9th, 2022? >> Yes. >> If we could show uh the witness 3-36D. Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Is this an exhibit that you helped create? >> It is. >> Is it using the raw data from March 9th, CDR data from March 9th, 2022? >> Yes. >> Does 3-36D accurately depict the raw data you just described? >> It does. >> Move to admit 3-36D. >> Okay. >> 3-36D is admitted. >> Again, we we've seen this before. This is for >> March 9th of 2022. And uh this exhibit uh who are the communications between in this exhibit? >> These are this is uh communications between Mr. Croier and Miss Lober for that day, March 9th. >> And Scott, if we could move through this exhibit, please. >> And you've essentially seen the map before on the previous slide between Miss Croier and Miss Lober. Um the thing that's different on this is the uh uh the communications are just between Mr. Croier and Miss Lober or uh Miss Rich, excuse me, Mr. Kosher and Miss Lobber again 11:00 hour 12:00 hour they're communicating the devices essentially come together into the same general location utilizing a tower there again that depicts the tower and across the freeway from the Draper Maverick. The two parties continue to communicate until they return to the Hebrew Valley area and the Davis County area uh respectively. So, so far we looked at um communications and location data for February 11th, 2022, February 26th, 2022, and March 9th of 2022. Other than those three occasions, did Carmen Lobber ever visit that Maverick and Draper in all the data that you reviewed? No, her device never um was never in that general area. >> Did she ever meet up with Robert Crosier? Did their devices come together at any other time other than those three occasions that we've talked about here? >> No. >> I want to turn your attention to March 3rd, 2022. Did you analyze data from Eric Richen's phone from the night he died? >> Yes. >> You looked at call records? >> Yes. >> And you looked at text messages and web searches? >> Yes. >> We could show the witness 3-39D. Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Is this an exhibit that you helped create? >> It is. Does it accurately depict the raw data that you reviewed from Eric Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> Move to admit 3-39D. >> 3-39D is admitted. >> You could publish this to the jury, please. >> So, you might want to step down for this so we can just describe for the jury uh what we're looking at here. Sure. So, this is um at the top it's headed the heading is Eric Richen's phone activity March 3rd, 2022. This is from 8:30 p.m. that evening until midnight. Um it's basically just a moving timeline. So, you can see what Eric's device was doing during that time period in in context to uh text messaging and uh web searches, that type of thing. So, at 8:30, um there's a text to a contact named Pedro Sonora. Um and then there's a text from like 9 seconds later. Those continue. Um there's there's a few of those. And then there are uh texts between um Eric Richen's device and um a um a contact named Scott Wagner in that device. Um those continue into and through 8:30. Um there is a discussion going on between uh Mr. Richens and um Scott Wagner kind of back and forth during that time. Um um and then at 8:50 p.m. on that day, Scott Wagner calls um Eric Richens and they talk for 8 minutes and 32 seconds. Um, at 9:45 p.m. a Google search is made from Eric Richen's device. There's a misspell in it, but it is basically searching how far is it from Scottsdale to Ngalas. And then at 10:18 p.m., there's an incoming text from a contact titled Raul Cene. Thank you. For that last text message that's listed in the 10:00 or 10 p.m. hour, was there any indication that that message was opened by Eric Richens? >> No. >> During this time frame from 8:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on March 3rd, how many phone calls were made on Eric Richen's device? Uh, >> one. That's the phone call that you talked about to Scott Wagner, >> correct? >> No other phone calls made um on that device that night. >> No, between 8:30 and midnight. No. >> Talking about um same time frame, the night of March 3rd, 2022. Did you look at Corey Richen's phone for that same time frame? >> Yes. >> Did you analyze the data and device events for that phone? >> Yes. If we could show 3-18D1. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Is this an exhibit that you helped create? >> Yes. >> Using the raw data from Corey Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> Does 3-18D1 accurately depict the raw data that you reviewed? >> It does. >> I'll move to admit 318D1. >> Okay. >> 318D1 is admitted. If >> we could publish this, please. similar to Eric Richen's device I guess not showing communications but what are we what are we looking at here for this device data >> so these are these are act activity sensor and device events for that device >> when you say device events what do you mean >> so there are certain events that are captured in a device in the system files that detect various things one of those things is locks and unlocks meaning when you uh locked or unlocked your phone. Um the activity sensor is device movement. So there are accelerometers and gyroscopes and whatnot inside your device. And when it moves and it detects movements, it's reports that to uh the system files and it retains that. I now want to talk about uh March 4th of 2022 for Corey Richen's phone. Did you look at movement and device events for Corey Richen's phone for March 4th of 2022? >> Yes. >> If we could show exhibit 3-18D. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> Did you help create it? >> Yes. Does it fairly and accurately depict the raw data um that you reviewed from Corey Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> Move to admit 3-18D. >> Okay. 3-18D is admitted. >> So, walk us through uh there's some different things here and maybe you want to step down to the screen to show the jury what these different uh markers on this exhibit mean. Sure. So we have a device event. Uh the first thing we have for device event on that day uh in that morning is uh 30650 the phone is unlocked. Um that unlock is for 28 seconds. At 30704 there's a speaker activation. What that is is there's an audio output route. There's audio routing um in a device through the system files and it detects when the speaker is activated. Um, so anytime the phone is using the external speaker, um, you should get a system file report or an audio output report on that and it'll tell you that the speaker is in use. Okay. Um, at 30810, um, the, uh, activity sensor um, picks up that a device travels uh, 243 ft. So the 30810 is the beginning of that trip. It's not the end of that trip. And at 3:1037, the phone is unlocked for 1 minute 40 seconds. At 3:159, the phone is unlocked again for 37 seconds. At 31907, the phone is unlocked once more for 28 seconds. And at 3:19 a.m., the phone is unlocked uh briefly for 3 seconds. Um we have a time stamp for a 911 call at 30 3:2105. Um we have a receiver activation uh I'm sorry we have a device another activity movement meaning the device uh is reporting that it had moved again and then at 322 there is a receiver activation and a receiver activation is um when you hold the phone a phone or a device up to your um up to your ear say presumably your face to make a phone call, there's a proximity sensor inside the device that activates the receiver and so there's an activation there at 32212. >> Thank you. You talked about the receiver activation. Is it possible that a call can start before the receiver is being used? >> Yes. >> How does that work? Uh if you dial the if you dial a number for instance um the receiver activation only reports when you place the phone up to your it has to detect the proximity sensor. >> So it's a movement. >> It's a movement. Yes. Did you also pull um or look at data from Corey Richen's phone from the morning of March 4th, 2022? >> Yes, >> we could show the witness exhibit 3-19. >> Do you recognize this? >> I do. >> What is it? >> Uh these are Three thumbnails, PNG files recovered from Miss Richen's device. >> Does 319 accurately depict the raw data that you analyzed from Miss Richen's phone? >> Yes. >> Move to admit 3-19. >> Judge may the witness approach Shervin. Please proceed. Looking at exhibit 3-9, uh, you you testified these were located on or in the analysis of Corey Richen's phone. Where specifically in that data were these images located? >> They were in the image folder. They were in the image files. >> What does uh describe what the image file is? Is that a camera roll or just more description about what an image file is? So as it relates to these these are PNG files they were located in the image portion of so if you were if you open the extraction and you're analyzing it and you look under images these are actually found in the timeline as well like you can just see them in there but um when you when you click into those there's information that's presented to you and it will tell you the file path where these belong um or where they were last seen by the device. And so in the image file there's a pathway and so these images were last seen in a SMS so a text like an iMessage um photo search section is the pathway for those meaning it was related to the uh messaging system inside the device. >> I'll move to admit 3-19. >> Mr. if we could just lay a little bit more foundation in terms of which people in the text message chain indicated that they were indeed >> I'm not sure that's what he said but uh >> or if we could get clarification on that was kind asking another question about um the I heard the words photo search related to the SMS function >> right so let me uh be a little more precise with my questions >> okay >> were these part of a text message >> at some point. Yes. >> Do you know if that text message um was incoming or outgoing from Miss Richen's device? >> No. >> Why not? >> Because the original images and the source of these images was deleted from the phone. It no longer exists on the phone. Um these three PNG files are what we call ghost or orphaned images. Um when an image is like when a text is built and you add images to it or when you receive images and you click those it creates a print of it like basically a thumbnail of it. Now, if you send that text or receive that text and then you delete it from your system and then the database overwrites it because of time has passed and there's no more room in that file, you'll never know the source of that text, whether it was incoming or outgoing, who sent it, that type of thing. All you're going to see is the remnant of that. And that's what these are, the small PNG files. >> Again, move to admit 3-19. We would renew our objection. At this point, it seems like it's a of what Mr. found is a remnant something. >> I understand defendants's objection. It is respectfully overruled. You can explore these topics during cross-examination. >> Uh, states exhibit 3-9 is admitted. >> We could publish, please. So, these are the images you were just describing. >> Yes. >> And you described that they were found in the image files as a a remnant of possibly a text message, >> right? I wouldn't say a remnant, it's a thumbnail. I mean, it's a PNG file. I mean, it's a thumbnail. Yes. >> From the data that you analyzed, were you able to tell if these images were accessed by Miss Richen's phone? They were accessed by her the system in her phone. Yes. >> How do you know that >> the device was accessed and it will give a time stamp. >> When we say accessed, what does that mean? It just means when the file or when that image was either selected or viewed or I mean it's accessed. Yeah. >> But it means it was selected or viewed by the person with that device. >> Correct. >> You mentioned there was a time stamp. When were these images accessed on Corey Richen's phone? >> Uh 8:29 a.m. on March 4th. Was the phone also manipulated in some way during that same time? Uh >> there was activity on that on that device. Yes. >> What do you mean activity? >> Uh there was a prior to that at 8:28 there was an unlock event uh that lasted the duration of this access point. Um there was um the device event log shows um that the device was actually turned into portrait view and then turned I'm sorry turned into landscape view turned back into portrait view until ultimately was it was locked again. Uh I think the lock was at 8:34 but I I I'm not 100% sure on the time. So those um the turning of the phone, the unlocking of the phone, those um correlate with the time that these images were accessed. >> Yeah. Around the same time. Yeah. During the same unlock event. >> So now I want to turn your attention to the postappril 13th, 2022 phones. >> Okay. >> From Corey Richens. We know from um Scott, if you could put up 3-37D, please. And you can publish that to the jury. It's been admitted. So, I'm I'm referencing this uh the date on here when the silver phone and the blue iPhone were being used by Miss Richens, >> right? Did you look at uh when you were analyzing the blue phone, did you find web searches during April u that time frame the phone was used that were relevant to this case? >> Yes. >> Scott, if you could show the witness 3-26D, >> do you recognize this? >> I do. Are these web searches that uh were located on that blue iPhone? >> Yes. >> If you could show uh Scott 3-29D. >> Do you recognize this? >> Yes. >> These also web searches that were located on the blue iPhone. >> Yes. >> And then Scott also 3-30D. Same question. Is this a web search that was located on that blue iPhone? >> Yeah, this is a web history. >> A web history. >> Yes. Which meaning the difference is one one thing is a search, the other is a site visit. A website visit. >> And do these three exhibits uh 3-26D, 3-2090, and 3-30D accurately depict the raw data that you analyzed for that blue iPhone? >> Yes. I'll move to admit those three. >> Mr. Ramos, >> we don't have an objection to the searches at the We have an objection as to how they're going to be presented, meaning that that redaction. My understanding is that Mr. Coinus did not make those redactions. So, I'd like to approach and um present um a proposal on how to submit it. So it was 26, 29, and 30, correct, Miss Sherback? >> Yes. >> States 3-26D, 29D, and 30D are admitted. We're going to publish those. I have an instruction for the jury. Uh Scott, could you go to 26 for me for a moment? Uh, ladies and gentlemen, as you look at 26, 29, and 30D, you'll see these blue blobs that have no text behind them. Those are intentional redactions of information that has no relevance to this case. Please do not speculate about what was behind the blue bob. It's irrelevant. Just ignore it. Miss Shervin, please continue. So as we were talking about these three exhibits that we will go through in turn, you mentioned web searches versus site visits. What are we looking at here? >> These are web searches. >> What's the difference? So, when you when you uh type a search into your device and uh to presumably search for something on the internet, when you type it in and you hit send to search, it um it logs the search that you had typed into your device. >> And so, someone could search for any multitude of things. We're all aware of that. But maybe not uh if the results come up, if they actually click on a result, that would be a web a site, >> right? We normally see um analysts will normally see um corresponding web histories related to those searches. So if you were looking for a type of vehicle, you would have a search for a type of vehicle like a, you know, 2026 Toyota 4Runner, you're looking to buy one. And then right behind that, you'll see uh web history, meaning what happened was you typed in that search field. It popped up and then there's some suggested websites for you to go to based on your search. And if you click through to those, those will show as a web history, meaning a site that you actually visited. >> And so what are we looking at here? >> Right here, we're just looking at the search function. These are just searches that were inputed into the device. >> And this is in that blue iPhone, right? >> In the blue iPhone. Yes. Scott, if we could um do the same um expanding for each page of 2-26D so the jury can see the different entries. It's amazing. Where is she? Heat. Heat. So, we saw some web searches on 3-26D that related to remotely wiping an iPhone or remotely deleting text messages? >> Yes. >> Was the blue iPhone being used by Corey Richens in the time after her original phone, that white iPhone, was seized by police? >> Yes. Scott, if we could put up 3-29D What's interesting? So when we're seeing uh this activity on the phone, does that indicate a website visit? >> Yes. again. And this indicates a website visit. >> Yes. Come on. Okay. And Scott, if we could move to 3-30 D And these are the website visits. >> Yes, correct. Just a moment, >> sir. Those are all my questions for you at the moment. I think the defense may have some as well. >> Thank you. >> Some more. Need some more? >> I need a little more. That would be great. Thank you, sir. >> Can we get a read over the witness, please? >> Thank you, sir. Mr. Ramos, >> did you want a break before beginning? >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I take a break. We'll get out of here on time. >> Don't commit to anything. But let's uh just take a stretch the leg break. I will come back at 3:45. Thank you. Please rise for the jury. I'm going to go back in the room really quick. How much time did you give us? I don't know about to ask. Maybe he didn't say so. >> All right, folks. We'll be in recess until 3:45. Mr. Carter, if you want to stretch your legs, use the rest. That's fine. Just don't talk to anybody. >> Yes, sir. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Possibly have 10. >> Uh, no. All right. Go ahead and have a seat, folks. Thank you. >> All right. Please have a seat. Thank you, >> Mr. Ramos. Please proceed. >> Mr. Coach, how are you? >> I'm doing great. Mr. Ramos, how are you? >> Good. Good seeing you again. Good to see you. >> Um, you know what? Let's just dive right into the gifs, >> the TNG files. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Sure. >> Um, could we pull up those uh that exhibit >> and just just for the witness judge? So, I have this document here. It's been marked as states exhibit 340. Do you recognize that? Yes, sir. Now, when you were uh testifying earlier, you informed the jury um that it was all the the image files uh that you received. Correct. >> Uh well, just for >> this representation is just for that for the fourth. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Yes. >> So, what we're looking at are >> it's part of that. Yes. >> Images, data files for that day. Uh specifically though, I think there was a range. It was for the March 4th. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Now in that there were 39 images. Right. >> Correct. >> Now of those images obviously we've seen three of them. Okay. >> Yes. >> So I want to focus on those. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to pull up uh these those three images that you've seen. >> Okay. >> And I'm going to show you the uh the Mac, right? Which is the modified it modified access created. >> Okay. >> Y. >> All right. We can pull that out for you. >> Now, could you see those on the left hand side there? >> Uh, I do. Yes. >> Okay. One second. That's what he can see, right? Sorry, I have a smaller screen here, so I just want to make sure we're on the same page. >> All right. Yeah. >> Okay. on the left hand side. Can you tell me or tell the jury um if all of these images were accessed on the same date and time? >> Yes. >> Down to the second. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, you mentioned that these arePNG files. Okay. Yes. Now, if we look to the right, there is what appears to not be um a u a gif, I guess, or it is a thumbnail, but um it is of a how would you describe it? Uh what's the picture? What's that picture of? >> I don't Which one are we looking at? >> The one on the right hand side. It looks like a house almost in the distance. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. There's a photo of a piece of property it looks like. Yes. Are you familiar with that property? I can't tell what it is from the photo. >> Fair enough. >> Now, can you just look at the time and date? >> Yes. >> Okay. Does that match the PMG files that we saw? >> It does. >> Okay. >> To the second. >> It does. >> Okay. >> So, just practically speaking, okay, we can take that down. >> Do you find that odd? >> Not necessarily. Okay, let's walk through it. Okay, I'm going to I'm going to walk through an example for you. >> Okay, and then I want you to explain it to me. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Now, if I in fact, let's do this. My phone. >> So, if I pull up my phone right now, I just unlocked it. >> Mhm. >> Now, I'm going to send a text message. Okay. >> Okay. >> To my son. >> All right. >> Okay. Now I'm going to go ahead and add a uh thumbnail >> or photo. Yeah, >> photo. Okay. >> And I'll do a GIF. Okay. >> Okay. >> And so I'm looking for one. I found one. So I just clicked on that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now I just clicked on another one. >> And I just clicked on another one. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now I'm going to add also a picture. Okay. Just for my folder. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now I've selected those four items. Okay. >> And I'm I'm about to send it. Yes. Okay. So if you were to get my phone and put it in your system, extract it and you analyze it, obviously it would be a text message. >> It would. Yes. >> Correct. Yes. >> Now the modified access created would all of those be the same date, time down to the second? They could be. Could be. Yes. >> There's a lot of reasons for that. >> Yes. >> Okay. For example, the type of iOS I have >> that could affect it. Yes. >> Um the type of extraction that's done. >> I don't know if the extraction type would determine that or not. >> Logical versus physical. Uh I still don't think in the way this in the way this uh these images were in the database. >> Okay. >> Um I don't think that would be uh I don't think that would be accurate. >> So then let's look at the database. >> Okay. >> Where exactly were these images? >> So they were they were in the database. That >> is there's a pathway in there. >> Yeah. Let's pull that up. >> Yeah. So that's where they're that's where they're at. >> Okay. So they they are in a they're in the an SMS photo database essentially. All right. >> So is it up there now for you? >> Uh it is not. >> Not yet. Okay. >> Now the source file is that what we're referring to? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yep. >> So I see here has a bunch of numbers underscore files full.zip, right? >> Yeah. >> Private var mobile library cache. Yes. Right. >> Yep. >> Okay. Talk to me about cache. >> All right. So, you know, caches are folders or just places where the system stores data. >> Okay. >> And if I were to go to my phone right now, I could find those.png files, that image I just sent, right? If I go directly to my text message, correct? You could. Yes. >> Yeah. Right. Because I just sent it. >> Okay. Now here in this file, this doesn't lead you straight to a text message. Correct? Okay. And so it is and I think what you said in your uh direct I think it was it was the system I think is the word you were very specific. The system in her phone I logged it. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. But it's those are databases. Yes. Okay. >> So fair to say and you indicated in your testimony early so I think I'm right >> that there are certain things in our phones that are there but we can't necessarily access them. >> Correct. >> We have to we need a process to go kind of below the surface. >> Right. Okay. Now in this case these uhpngs you had 39 of them correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now you only selected three. >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you select those? I shouldn't put >> I provided what I provided. I I provided the the entire extraction report and then I provided an extraction the part of the extraction report for that day. >> Okay. So you provide the full 39. >> Yes. >> Okay, understood. Now that I want to go back to that other image. Okay. >> Okay. >> Now these have the exact same date, the exact same time down to the second. Okay. Are they tied together? >> I don't know that. >> You don't? >> No. >> In fact, it's impossible to know. >> It really is. Now in what you do there is uh we we heard the word a lot analysis right you analyze >> right okay >> now we know that you can we we get the information from great key it's extracted then we put it in celbrite the analysis comes in reviewing the report correct >> correct okay now and you were also very careful in your uh direct testimony that it's not necessarily uh I don't think you use these words but it's not infallible right this this celebrate report >> correct >> okay um in fact celebrate itself recommends its uh operators is that the word >> yes >> to make sure that they validate their data >> correct >> right >> yes >> and there's a lot of reasons for that >> yes >> uh for example you do have a hardware uh that you use correct >> yes >> you want to validate it's working >> correct And then also the software that you use, you want to validate that that's working. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, >> this might be an oversimplification. Um, so that's okay. >> But I'm trying to I'm trying to process it. Okay. >> A lot of money went into making those phones. >> Yes. >> A lot of the data and how it works is all of it's proprietary. >> Correct. Yes. Now, in a way, Celbrite is trying to hack the phone to get the information. Doesn't really hack it, but it it parses the data. >> It parses the data. Yeah. Okay. >> And when it spits out, that's not that's not a common term. Uh when it when the report gives you this information, you can't take it as God's truth. there's context to a lot of stuff. So yeah, I mean I can take it as I can take it as God's truth quote unquote um that that is how these system files in within the construct or are constructed. You can take it that that's how Celbrite put the data or extracted the data. Correct. Now you've heard um I suspect of the epoch time. Yes. Okay. Now let if you could explain to a jury epoch time in terms of digital forensics. >> I cannot >> cannot. >> No. >> Why not? >> I don't have enough familiarization with it. I just don't. >> Okay. >> Not on the stand. >> All right. Well, is it fair to say that let's look at this created and modified and access that date and time? >> Okay. >> Are you aware that that time isn't actually how it's stored on the phones? I I'm not sure I understand the question. >> Sure. So, the epoch time, if you're not familiar with it, it's the number of seconds that has elapsed since January 1st, 1970. >> Are you familiar with that? >> I am. >> Oh, sorry. >> What was the objection? He said he couldn't testify about what epoch time is. >> So foundation I think you're laying foundation. >> I am judge. >> Let's see where this goes. >> Overruled. >> If you would I interrupted you gentlemen. If you would ask that question. >> Absolutely judge. So the epoch time and I'm just going to I'll I'll explain it how I know it and if it refreshes your recollection great. If not we'll move on. >> Okay. Okay. So epoch time is the number of seconds that has elapsed >> since January 1st, 1970. Okay. >> Yes. >> I don't know why they did it this way, but that is how the phones have registered the information. They are Were you aware of that? >> Yes. And I don't know the technical aspects of it, but it is a it's a programming reason. >> Correct. And and because you know, we're not going to do the math together. >> No, we're not. Um we rely or in this case you were relying on celbrite to do that. Correct. Correct. Now you also a way to validate your data because things even as you know little as time you also have the ability to cross reference the data that you have in your phone uh in the celebrate report excuse me. Okay. The extraction um with other information. Correct. >> Correct. >> So for example the call logs the text messages that you sent out. Right. um that's presented in the extraction. Yes. You could then compare it to the call detail records. >> Correct. >> Right. And you could say, "Oh, yeah. You know what? This this is this matches up." >> Yes. >> Okay. And you do that in a way to make sure that the information you're getting is correct. >> Yes. Okay. Now, when we look at this four images, the three I'm going to call them the uh what's been admitted as the three PGs, okay? Which we all saw. Um or let's call them GIFs, even though I know they're not right now, >> but just so everybody's aware. >> Um and then we have this photo that appears to be of a uh of a home. Okay. >> Right. Now you have records and you have call logs for March 4th. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you can see who all was communicated, who all communicated that day. >> Correct. >> Correct. Um and you could also get that through call detail records. Correct. >> Not always. >> But the call detail records you indicated mark the time that a call was sent out and a text was sent out. if it hits the carrier. So, if it's a Wi-Fi call or if it's um like iMessage, like I iPhone to iPhone messaging, it can route around it and it won't hit it won't hit the call detail record. >> Perfect. So, you had on March 4th at least some information in what you received from the extraction report that some calls were made, some text messages were sent uh from Miss Richen's phone. >> Yes. Okay. Now with that information you can if you wanted to you can attempt to see whether this image was sent or received by somebody. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. You did not do that. >> I did do that. >> Okay. And who did you who did it come back to? >> I don't know. It was not available in the system file. >> Okay. >> Would you like can I explain why? >> Sure. Yeah, that'd be great. >> I why I think based on Yeah. >> Yeah. There is from the time this event occurred on March 4th till the time the phone was seized on April 13th >> I believe 2022. Um there's an extended period of time has passed in data terms. Okay. So the reason why going back to the source on this is challenging is if the text source of this incoming or outgoing is missing. >> Mhm. >> You can sometimes go into the data file like from the timeline and from the extraction you can go into the database information. You can go in there and you can look at that to see if that information is contained in the database still. The problem is that data is overwritten once it's deleted. The database then overwrites it. So then what happens is the source in there goes away. There are small there's small amounts of data that are in there >> like traces well like PGs. >> Yeah. >> Okay. that are still there. But like I kind of explained with the the data space, think of it as a >> Oh, one sec. Is that the is that like the garbage collection? >> Yeah, we're talking about that, right? So, yeah. So, so deletions. So, think of that as >> think of the that deletion file is like the trash can in your house, like in your kitchen. Okay? So, you delete things, you throw things into that. Well, eventually it gets full and you got to take it out to the curb and the garbage man comes and gets it and it's gone, right? Okay. So, the more you use it, the more you have to take it out. >> So, let me let me stop you there. Yes. >> Because what I'm asking about is I understand that you tried >> I'm getting there. I promise. >> Oh, no. Real quick. >> Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead. All right. So, those databases store that information for a while. Okay. Then what happens is that text information that the text threads, they're stored in a different place than these. What happens is every I don't know 30-ish days, don't hold me to that, but it's r, you know, roughly this iOS system performs a vacuum and what it does is it takes deleted information that's in there that it no longer thinks it needs for the system files and it vacuums it out and it it take basically takes it out to the curb and then it goes away. So to answer your question, I did attempt to look for the source for this, but there is none of that data remains in the device or in the databases at all. All I have is these what I referred to previously as orphaned images >> or ghost >> ghosts. >> Yeah. No. And I understand that. >> Okay. >> My question is there are other things you can do outside of that. You obviously that's your first one, right? You try to go straight to the source. for whatever reason, it's not there. Okay. >> But there are other things you can do to see if you can locate whether they're tied together or where they could have gone. Correct. >> Correct. >> So, you indicated that at a minimum this is this is on the mobile messaging system, right? >> Yes. >> It says mobile SMS, correct? >> Yes. >> So, you know that at one point it was sent or received to somebody from Miss Richen's phone. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you have contacts in her phone. Correct. >> I do. And if you had call detail records for example or just in her log or um you know any number of things right you can go to those and see if the individual on the other end maybe did still have that message correct >> potentially. >> Yeah potentially. Now you didn't do that in this case. >> Are we talking physically contacting these individuals and >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Yeah. So I I agree with that statement. >> Okay. that you didn't do it >> that I didn't do it. Okay. But I would also add to that that my role in this case is as an as as an analyst and I provide the information and then any following you know any update or following a follow-up investigation is 100%. >> Yeah. I mean what you I imagine that when you were asked to pull those images on that day I imagine you explained all of this to the prosecution. >> I did. Yeah. >> Right. that and you explain to them that hey you know what these did pop up >> 39 of these >> and I and and to your point and your question I did go through call detail records I did go through those types of things to see if there was >> a corresponding uh communication that would be contained in the call detail records that matches this >> absolutely and you did this because that is your job >> correct >> right you're trying to say hey I have this orphan ghostpng I'm going to try to find its home. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> And hey, prosecution, I know you're going to use this. Just so just so you know, I can't tell you who received it. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> I can't tell you who sent it. >> Correct. >> I can tell you if it was viewed by Miss Richens. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> But I can tell you that at that time and date, the system in her phone, as you said, registered it. >> Correct. Now, for example, if we were to find out that the image there, right, uh of the of the home, >> okay, if we were to find that other recipient, right, >> okay, >> and in that recipient's cell phone, it had the day prior, okay? So, March 3rd, >> okay, >> say around 5:00. >> Okay. >> And that individual sent the image, okay? >> Okay. And then Miss Richens opened her text message with that home there. Okay. And maybe those GIFs or those.png, those thumbnails were attached. >> It could have been that the computer registered as it accessed it as it was opening up. Correct. >> Correct. Cuz it would create a thumbnail. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Now, like you said, we don't know that, right? >> Correct. We don't. >> Okay. Now I'd like to move on to the web searches. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yes. >> A lot of those web searches as we saw have no dates. >> Uh correct. >> Right. >> Yes. >> And we do see some of them when they were searched. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Are you familiar with um I think it's called like lifestyle analysis? >> No. >> Okay. Um did you perform any searches um around the time on those that you can see on the web searches that you can see the date that they were searched? Okay. Did you do any searches on Google uh or any validation to see what if anything was relevant to what was being pulled up? >> No. like did I perform the searches myself and >> not the not the searches. Um so for example, did you are you familiar with a a real a certain real housewife in Salt Lake City? >> Recently in April 2022? >> Oh no. >> Okay. Are you aware of somebody maybe being sentenced around that time? >> No. >> Okay. And now that would provide context to you, correct? >> I could. >> Yeah. Because right now, just as we see the searches, we don't know why that would be a search. Correct. >> I don't know content or can't speculate on anything like that. >> You can't speculate. >> No, >> you shouldn't speculate. >> No, you also can't tell me with the information that you have uh who actually did the search. Correct. Right. It's It was done on the phone. It >> was done on the device. Uh you could tell us the location of the phone possibly when those searches were done. >> Correct. >> You could tell us possibly the Wi-Fi that it was connected to if it was connected to one. >> Correct. >> Okay. But you can't tell us who searched him. >> Correct. >> Now, you can't tell us if we were at uh if this happened on the 4th. Let's go back to the to the GIF images. Okay. >> Uh on that day, at that time, um are you aware? Were you told that uh there were other people in that home? >> Uh I'm aware of that. >> You are aware of that? Yes. Okay. And so did you reach out to those or I guess that's not your job. >> Um you could not tell us who opened that phone at that time. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Now I do want to talk to you about something you just brought up. Um it was the you said oh the Wi-Fi you said not necessarily because it could be an iMessage right correct >> uh was one was one option and then the other one was that it was connected or sent through Wi-Fi. Yeah, the the the P file path on here indicates that is it it is a mobile SMS which went through iMessage and iMessage can iMessage iPhone to iPhone typically will not hit a call a carrier so it won't be in a call detail >> right and that but that also is helpful to you right because you're able to see of all the people that she could have possibly contacted that day you could then narrow it to like who has an iPhone >> correct okay and so because of the communication and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm guessing here between iPhone and iPhone. It's a different connection. Correct. It makes it easier to communicate. >> Um, it's it's a typical Wi-Fi connection. So, it's not a different connection. It's just a different system or it's the same they're on the same system. It's it goes through Apple servers versus the carrier. >> So, for example, if Can we pull up um the Mr. Richens uh mobile activity on the night of March 3rd. Um do you recall that state's exhibit where you um laid out a graph of all the text messages that were sent from Mr. Richens to a Pedro Sonora? >> Yes. >> Right. Yes. >> I think it's up on your screen now. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh when we were talking about this, one of the last questions was about the text from Raul at 10:18. >> Okay. Um, and I believe Miss Shervinac asked if he if it had been read or if you could tell if it had been read. And you answered it very curiously, which is I I'm left to wonder. I just want clarification whether or not you could actually tell if it was read or whether there just wasn't enough data to determine whether it had been read. >> I didn't see any I didn't I don't remember. I'm sorry. I just don't remember the following up. That's why I'm following up. There's no there's no response. The indication was that it was not read. >> Okay. >> Now, here we see all these text messages, correct? >> Yes. >> And we just talked about the iMessage that you just discussed. >> That sometimes that won't register on call detail records, for example. Right. >> Correct. >> Now, that's different than this, right? >> That is different than this. >> Okay. You would expect an iMessage to show up here. >> Yes. cuz this is from the the phone's timeline itself cuz these are system >> file, >> correct? Just want to make sure. Could we take that one down, please? Thank you. >> Okay, so the the movement of the iPhone. Let's start with Eric's. Okay. You had indicated that you had done a make sure how did you phrase it? You had actually compared it. It said um you had done some sort of analysis with his uh overall use in terms of his activity on his watch, right? Yes. And that those 87 minutes, that gap >> was uh uh was off, I guess. >> I don't think I said it was off. >> What was your What were your >> I think I said it was atypical. >> Atypical. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, can you please walk us through um what exactly you did to get to that conclusion? >> So, those are those are spot checks. Those are looking at those are looking at random locations within his activity. I did not take the totality of his activity and compare it daytoday to one another. Those were spot checks and looking at the device patterns in his phone to see if there was large types of movement. Now, there are sometimes large spaces of inactivity. >> Mhm. >> But not in this context. >> So, what spot checks did you do? um just just periodically throughout the throughout the timeline through that activity timeline just to look at and see if if his mo if his phone if his activity indicates that he stays his device stays in motion. Um and to what extent dayto day >> over how many days? >> Oh god I I probably looked at maybe 20 days or so just random days. >> And how did you log that? >> Uh I didn't report it. I just made a mental note of it. Just a mental note. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, what was the largest deviation? >> I don't know that, sir. >> What was the smallest deviation? >> I don't know. >> How did you come up to the fact that it was atypical? Um, well, it's like I said in context, right? So, there's communications about with presumably Mr. Richens on the device and there is >> Mr. Rich, >> I'm sorry, Mr. Richens on the device with M. origins, right? And so there was a >> So right now, just so you're clear, we're talking about the physical activity. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. Physical activity. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But in in conjunction with that, there are text messages. There are there are other things going on around this time indicating the other exhibits. I don't know if we published them, but there's some discussion about what Mr. Richens was doing that day around. >> Sure. So like this one. >> So this one specifically dece on on uh February 14th, 2022. >> Yes. >> It was you indicated that it was that the gap was atypical. >> Yes. And maybe I didn't cont that in good context. >> Sure. Put it in context. >> But in context with what was going on at the time, it is not typical based on what I looked at for Mr. rich to like lay down and take a nap for instance in the middle of the day. >> So you could tell that he took a nap from this? >> I cannot but he indicated he was going to in the text. That's what I'm talking about in context. >> Okay. So there there's a there's a bit of confirmation bias there. You would agree >> there and there's there I would agree with that and there's probably a little speculation there on on that. The thing with device activity is you only know if the device is moving or not, >> right? There is a a bit of speculation like you said and we shouldn't do that. >> Probably not. Let's talk about you can take that down. Let's talk about the activity sensor data. Okay. Not in context of what was registered. Okay. But in the context of you as an analyst, okay. Okay. Now, we talked about how what you do is digital forensics. Yes. And that's considered a forensic science. >> Okay. >> Uh do you disagree with that? >> Yes, it is. >> It is. Okay. >> And part of that and part of that field, right, is what we I guess grew up knowing as the scientific method, right? >> Yes. >> And so for example, here we identify a phone uh an electronic device. Okay. And then we go from identifying that to preserving it. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> And we either put in a Farad bag or we plug it in and we make sure that the hash values and the hex code and everything matches. >> Correct. >> And we do that so that when you get the information, you know that it's the cleanest version possible. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then once we preserve it, we then collect the information which would be the extraction. >> Yes. >> Right. And then we examine it. Okay. >> And then we get into the analysis. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we examine it. And I'm going to go off of the um the activity sensors. Okay. Activity monitors. >> Um so, we identified it, we collected it, we examined it. Now let's talk about the analysis of it. Okay. >> Okay. Tell us what you did to validate the information about the activity sensor data and we'll start specifically with the u distance traveled and this could be for either Mr. Richens or Miss Richen's phone. Okay. in general. >> Yeah. What did you do in the in this case for Mr. either Mr. Richens or Miss Richens? Okay. >> To validate the information that was presented to you in Celbrite regarding traveled distance or distance traveled. >> So the the distance traveled is just reported by the device based on the sensors that are contained within the device. >> Correct. Yeah. So then what did you do to validate that that information was correct? Um I'm not sure I understand the question. I I I did nothing to validate that information like outside of that. >> Okay. So for example, that information that was there, it indicates uh you know uh let's pull up Miss Richens if we wouldn't mind. Um the uh states exhibit where it shows Yeah. This one right here. >> Okay. >> Okay. So can we publish this one, Judge? It's been admitted. >> So let's look at that. 30810 a.m. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, the 74.14 meters that comes straight from the extraction report. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And the 243 ft I imagine that's something that you converted. >> Yes. >> Okay. And using what? >> Just a Google conversion. >> Google conversion. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And in this device travels, um, we know that it was 74.14 m that was registered on the device. >> Correct. >> Okay. Now, what kind of iPhone was this? >> Uh, I believe it was an iPhone 12. >> Okay. And do you recall what iOS system it had? >> I do not. >> Okay. Now, did you, for example, going back to so so I could explain myself, did you grab your phone, a phone, and measure the distance from point X to point Y, put the phone in your pocket, walk over there, knowing the distance, walk back, plug in the phone, and see whether the Celbrite data that you received for what you just did in that controlled old environment matched what was being produced? >> No. >> Okay. Did you purchase or have access to the iPhone make and model uh in of Miss Richens? >> No. >> On either of her phones that she had? >> No. >> Did you have access to Mr. Richen's iPhone maker model? >> No. >> Okay. And you did not do any tests. Correct. >> Correct. >> So these numbers right here that we're seeing, you are speculating that it's correct. >> Uh I'm not speculating. I'm relying on the data being correct inside the device. >> But you have no way of knowing that. Well, I mean the examples you're giving are not 100% wouldn't wouldn't 100% verify this anyway. I don't think I think you would have to use the exact device under the exact conditions in any in any way for for one. >> Yeah. So, let's go with let's go with that. So, >> and two and which I didn't do, >> right? Which I didn't do. >> Real quick real quick. I'm gone. So, let's let's be clear. We understand you didn't do it. >> You did have access or could gain access to the environment, correct? >> Uh, I could. >> Okay. So, then let's go from there. >> There are body cams in this case. Were you aware of that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Have you been to the Richens home? >> No. >> Okay. Have you seen those body cams? >> I've seen some images of the body cams. >> Okay. Have you seen videos of the body cams? >> Uh, very few. >> Okay. Do you recall a video where one of Miss Richen's phones is handed from one of the EMS to an officer and then the officer walks over all the way to where Miss Richens is to provide her the phone? >> No. >> Okay. Had you been aware of that or had that rather I'll be fair to you, had that been told to you by the prosecutors or law enforcement having that controlled environment, having this data, having access to the same phone, downloading the same iOS, could you have could you have run a test to see if it was similar? and specifically referring to the 41 m that's indicated there. I I could Okay. But I mean your your statement just actually opened up why there's movement later on. >> It tends my questions sometimes tend to do that. Uh okay. So now let's let's talk about even the um the phone unlock lock. Okay. Um that seems pretty intuitive. >> Yeah. The locking >> the locking and unlocking. >> Yes. >> So for example, when we look at the 319 um I'm sorry. Can we go back to the other one? I don't know if it was me. Thank you. at 31939 at the bottom. Phone unlocked 3 seconds. >> Mhm. >> So, it was unlocked 3 seconds. Does that mean it was locked at 3 seconds? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then, to be honest, this is just out of curiosity. Why don't we show an unlock before the 321? >> Um, oh no, that cuz that three night that Oh, I don't know. Sometimes just things happen, right? >> I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. We could take that one down. Now >> going back to the web searches. Okay, just briefly. This was all after to your knowledge, you're a I imagine you're aware that this was all after all these searches were done after Miss Riches knew she was under investigation. Correct. Yes. Okay. And I imagine at that point, and if not, you probably have been made aware of it now. Uh, and we've all seen during that January to March time frame that you mentioned that there was a massive deletions between in in her phone. Correct. You remember that? >> Yes. >> As well as Miss uh Loberers's phone. >> Yes. >> You know that they were purchasing Oxy's. Correct. >> Objection. You're on the foundation. >> Are you aware of what Miss Richens was doing during that time? Either then or now? >> Yes. Okay. Now, you're a former law enforcement officer? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you ever deal in narcotics? >> No. >> Okay. You're aware of them? >> I am. >> Okay. You're aware of purchases? >> I am. >> You're aware of the criminal mind perhaps? >> I am. I am. >> And you're aware that most individuals dealing in drugs might want to delete their information. >> Yes. >> And like you said, context matters, right? >> Context does matter. Bear with me. >> Are you familiar with Beijian inferences? No. >> Okay. >> Or probability statements. >> No. >> I'm getting there. I promise. Just want to make sure. Oh, can we pull up the call record for um Miss Richens? I think it was the 101 110 minute one, please. You remember this? >> I do. Yes, sir. >> To be honest, I don't know why it was why you were asked the questions. Um, but this was in March. >> Could you zoom that in? Sorry. Those >> No, I I know things are zooming in when you find it, >> please. >> Oh, don't worry about it. It's fine. We remember you remember what we what we're discussing, right? >> I think I do. Yes. >> Yeah. Um, if you can pull find the date, that'd be great. Believe it was March uh 4th or 8th. >> And your honor, this exhibit on the screen is not March. Oh, >> it's February. >> It says February 11th. It's 3-6. whatever it is. >> Oh, okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> We're on March on March 1st. Is it March 2nd? >> So, let's be clear for the record. The jury can't see what you and the witness. >> No, we understand. I'm just I want to make sure that Katie finds it first and then we'll >> Let me know when you're ready. >> Is that it? >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's it. Yes. If we could publish it and it's we could see the 101 minutes. Now, >> the date is March 2nd, correct? >> Correct. And you indicated that you reached out and you found out that that was the IRS. >> Yeah, I Google searched the number. I know the number. >> Yeah, I was going to >> It ends in 1040. I mean, it's >> Well, and and it's a month before tax season. >> Yeah, correct. >> So, context wise. >> Okay. >> Not unusual, right? >> Yeah. >> Not unusual. >> Yeah, we could take that down. Uh, I do want to make sure you did you come on in May 202 when were you when were you brought on? >> Retained. I was retained in May of 2023. >> May of 2023. >> Yes, sir. >> Now, you indicated that uh Verizon holds locations only for 12 months. >> Correct. >> Now, Miss Richen's phone was seized on April 12th, correct? >> I'm sorry. April uh 2022. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. April 13th I think. Yeah. Of 2022. >> Of 2022. Correct. Now, so by the time you had come on, that information was no longer available. >> The records were still available, but records with location data were not correct. >> Tower data. >> Correct. Yes. Okay. And to your knowledge, that's never been obtained. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. We went through a lot of those uh uh powerpoints uh indicating where Miss Lobber were was and the communication she had I think with Cory on the right hand side and then kind of following. >> Yes. >> I think you made it clear uh those aren't their actual GPS locations. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Those are cell towers. >> Those are the tower locations. Yes. >> Right. So every time that the jury sees that little image going with uh Mr. Croier, >> right? >> Those are all cell towers, >> right? You're seeing >> the tower that that device is communicating with at that at that time. >> And so um there was a time during your direct that you indicated um that uh I think it was Miss Lobber was near um the Richen's home. >> Yes. >> Do you remember that? >> Yes. To be clear, it's not that she was there. >> Her device was >> her device was connected to a cell tower. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, with all this information that you have, the call details records, the uh cell tower information, the Carmen's phone, right? um all of that. Were you a ever able to see or were you asked whether she went to 75 East, 100 North in Midway? >> I believe I was asked to look at that. >> Okay. And did you find anything? >> I've It's the the data is not that specific. >> Okay. >> It's not GPS location. It's tower location. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. We talked about those. Okay. I think I'm almost done. I think I am done. Oh, two things. Biometric data. Okay, >> let's go back to the activity sensor data. Did you go into anywhere in the extraction to locate the height Miss Richens put in her phone? >> I don't recall seeing that. >> The uh whether her weight, >> I don't recall seeing that either. >> The stride. I again I don't recall seeing that. >> Did you do that or recall seeing that in Mr. Richens? >> No. >> Okay. These SMS previews that we had been discussing. Yes. Are you aware of the different settings um that one can do on their phone to either show a preview or not show a preview? >> No. >> You're not familiar with those? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. Do you have an iPhone? >> I don't. >> Okay. We disagree on a lot of things then. >> Um fair. So, you don't you wouldn't have done anything there to check or did you do anything to check her settings? I did not. >> Okay. So, you don't know if on her settings in her iPhone there was an automatic play previews? >> No. >> Okay. >> One second. May I have the white noise judge? Okay, for clarification purposes, okay, cuz as I was talking about the web searches, I did not specify and I want to make sure we get it clear. Those were those came from the blue phone, correct? Okay. So, those were after the April 13th, April 12th when the white phone was seized. Correct. >> Correct. >> After Miss Richens obviously had been under investigation, >> correct? >> Correct. After her I'm not sure if you're aware after her home was searched. >> Uh, I don't know anything about that. >> Don't know about that. Okay. But it was on the blue phone. >> None of these web searches were on the other phones. Correct. >> Uh, correct. >> Okay. That's all I have. Thanks so much. >> Appreciate you. >> Yeah. Thanks M. Sherman act within the scope across sticky notes. A few things I want to follow up with you on. We talked a little bit about CDR data and Wi-Fi. Maybe why things wouldn't show up on Wi-Fi. >> Sure. >> What type of messaging um can happen over Wi-Fi? >> U most app messaging happens over Wi-Fi. Um so third party apps like WhatsApp, uh Kick Signal, those types of apps. Um but also again iMessage. And so when talking about those three image files located on Miss Richen's phone from March 4th, 2022 at 8:29 a.m. We don't know all of the information about those because it was deleted. >> Correct. >> If it hadn't been deleted, we'd know more. >> We might. Talking about the web searches on the blue phone, when you looked through and analyzed that blue phone, nothing indicated to you that that blue phone was being used by someone else. >> Correct. >> I want to talk about uh exhibit 3-14 D. And this is the device. Uh, if Scott, if we could put that one up. >> One moment, please. >> The witness has it. Do you want to publish it? >> Please. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Now, you you made this exhibit in conjunction with the context of what was happening during this time frame. Is that correct? >> Correct. Meaning that you looked at messages between Corey Richens and Eric Richens during this time frame. >> Yes. >> And in those messages, Corey Richens was telling Eric Richens to go take a nap. >> Yes. >> And based on what you've created with this exhibit, does this movement um in context indicate to you that during this time frame, Mr. Richens could have been laying down or not moving. >> Yes. >> I want to talk about this activity sensor data. That data is proprietary to Apple. >> Yes. >> And tell me if I'm wrong, but Apple probably puts a lot of money into making that data. >> I'm sure they do. They want it to be correct for their users. >> Yes. >> And they would want it to be accurate for their users. >> Yes. >> Because their users want that activity data to reflect what they're actually doing. >> Yes. >> Have you looked at activity data um in other phone downloads that you've analyzed? >> Yes. and looking at phone activity data for other hundreds maybe thousands of phones that you've analyzed um have you been able to tell if that data is can be checked in other cases meaning that if somebody said hey I went for a onem walk today um giving you a hypothetical and then you could look at their phone and say that they want went for a onem walk have you been able to look at that type of data in other phones and verify um that it reports in the way you would expect. >> Are you are you talk asking about corroborating witness statements based on their activity in their devices? >> Right. >> Yes. >> That that activity data in other cases when you've analyzed it has been accurate and corroborated by other information >> in my experience. Yes. >> Just a moment. >> That's all I've got for you, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ramos. within the scope of a redirect. >> Yes, of course. Thank you, Judge. You indicated that Oh, you indicated that the U Murban was talking about the information that was deleted. >> Yes. >> Um, regarding those thumbnails, GIFs, correct? >> Yes. Um certainly it would have been better for all of us. >> It would have. >> Um does that file path and the information tell you who deleted it? >> No. >> Uh and as you explained with the garbage collection, it could have been that way. Correct. >> Uh it would have to be it would have if it wasn't deleted from the device, it would not have ended up there. >> There would be a remnant of it, >> right? >> Yeah. It would it would be a data line. Okay. Now, um you were also asked about that you did not investigate or you don't have any reason to believe that anybody else had the blue iPhone. Do you recall that question? >> Yes. And you said that no. Yes. How how do you come to that conclusion? The big thing for me is there is a text in that phone from that device to Mr. Grossman in which the defendant indicates that. >> So to be clear, >> yes, >> not saying that the phone wasn't Miss Richens. >> Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. In >> my question is >> Okay. Well, I'm trying to answer it. >> Yeah. So, I want I'll clarify my question to make sure I'm I'm asking it right. >> All right. >> Is your testimony that there was nobody else who had access to that phone at all? >> I don't know that. >> Okay. That's my question. Now you were asked about Apple software and proprietary software and did did you attempt to get information from anywhere else whether it's Apple whether it's another peer whether it's another case where you can get the information that you have in these extractions to validate it. I kind of don't understand that question. I I'll rephrase. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> I understand that you don't work for Apple. >> No, I don't. >> That you don't know how it works. >> Uh that you don't Sorry. That you don't know how the the activity sensor data is logged. Correct. >> I don't Yeah, I don't know what their programming looks like. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Did you make any efforts in this case with this information to try to validate that the information you had was up to Apple standards? >> No. >> You indicated that you've been able to rely on other cases before. How many cases? >> At least 100. And so in those cases with activity sensor data in those you did >> test. Oh okay. So analyze data in phones at least a 100 phones. There are probably been I apologize. There have probably been a dozen or so cases where I've had to cooperate um like witness statements and suspect statements that type of thing against their phones. And I have not found any inaccuracies. >> I I misunderstood. You in those cases corroborated the data that you received, but you did not run tests to make sure that the data you had was accurate. >> Not physical tests. No sir. >> Correct. Okay. >> That's all I have to. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> I have one question. >> You started to describe how you knew that no one else was using Corey Richen's blue phone. >> Yes. >> There was a text message that indicated to you how you know that. Yes. >> What did that how did that message indicate it to you? >> Not word for word or verbatim. >> Summarize the message. >> Yes. The message summary was a it was a text from the new number, the 9592 number, which is the blue phone number, to Josh Gman's phone. And Miss Richens indicated to Mr. Grossman in that text that she had activated one of I I believe it was her mom's phones and she would be using that now. So to that effect >> so she told him this is the phone I'm using to contact you now. >> Yes. >> That's all my questions. >> May we release this witness council >> subject to rebuttal if we need him? >> Understood. If we cannot release him from the subpoena, >> you uh are still subject to subpoena. So that means you can't Well, he's an expert, so the exclusionary rule does not apply to him. Correct, Mr. Okay. >> Maybe we'll see you in the future. You're free to go today. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Okay. Um, now's a good time to recess for the day, Miss Sherbeneck. Yes. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Ramos. >> Very well. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to recess until 8:30 tomorrow morning. As always, please affirmatively avoid talking about or listening to anything about this case. Avoid any person that's trying to talk to you about the case. Please do not read, watch, or listen to any report about the case at all. No online, or other research about the case. Please travel safely. Enjoy your evening. Please rise for the jury. I guess council have a seat, please. Miss Shermanack, Mr. Bworth. Anything else on the record today? >> No, your honor. >> Ms. Lewis, Miss Nester, Mr. Ramos. >> Do we want to address the general issue? What I propose and let me just uh say it out loud and then you can tell me whether you have any objection to this is to let uh let all of you consider whether you want to have the court for eyeire that witness regarding his prior interactions with Ms. crosswite >> crosswite uh tomorrow morning and if so we can do that or if you'd prefer not to do that but uh give that some thought overnight we can pick it up first thing in the morning any objection >> no sir >> Mr. Bworth. >> No. Jackson. >> Okay. We'll be in recess until tomorrow morning. Please travel safe.