Kouri Richins Trial Juror Tells ALL, Kohberger’s Creepy DMV Visit, Bloodstained Rock Analyzed in Hawaii Doctor Trial

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Ashley Merchant. I'm a criminal defense attorney from Atlanta, Georgia. Here's what's on the docket today. We're excited to be joined by a juror from the Corey Richens trial. We'll speak with Kristi Halberstyn, juror number three later in the show. And there's new surveillance footage of Brian Coburger casually chatting about Moscow murders at the DMV. That's been released. We'll bring you all the details. And the trial of a doctor who allegedly tried to kill his wife while they were on a hiking trail continues this week with key evidence on display. I'm joined today by my co-host Dave Ehrenberg, the Florida law man, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida and managing partner at Dave Ehrenberg Law. Welcome Dave. So Dave, the MK True Crime audience is definitely interested in this case because it's an interesting case. It's the case of Gerhard Koenig. And it was one of our most popular topics last week. So we're going to continue to cover this wild case out of Hawaii. Just a reminder to our viewers, Gerhard Koenig is charged with second degree attempted murder for an alleged assault of his wife, Ariel Koenig, last year. She took the stand last week to share her side of the story. Watch this. You know, I'm screaming and I'm saying, what the fuck are you doing? Get off me. And he's saying like, fuck you. You're done. I'm so sick of your shit. I'm so done with you. And I'm trying to kind of protect myself and get out of there. But also he's gripping his hand closed really hard. And there's a vial in his hand. So I was trying to pry his hand open so I could grab that vial out. Oh, I mean, I'm screaming and he's telling me, shut the fuck up. Nobody's going to hear you out here. Nobody's coming to save you. And I'm saying like, you can't do this. Everyone knows we're on a hike. They'll know this wasn't an accident and our kids will be orphans. You'll go to jail and I'll be dead. Like you have to stop. And again, he's saying like, you're done. We're done with you. We don't need you anymore. You're done. You're done. And then he just starts hitting my face in my head with a rock. Well, and he said, she said, Dave, her testimony is going to be extremely important. So, you know, getting a glimpse of what she said on the stand and her credibility is going to be going to be one of the key things that the jury has to decide. How did you think she did on the stand? Well, actually, I thought she did fine. But now it's important for the jury to see her as a petite woman because the defense is claiming self-defense that he was somehow scared of her and she was the aggressor. So that's important. The question I have for you is I noticed that she decided to go all in and drop the F bombs and curse like a sailor on the stand. I know she's quoting him. Right. I've seen it both ways where some jurors may be like, oh, wow, she's got a mouth on her. And, you know, if they're like old school, maybe that is not great to have in front of the jury. Or maybe it's just important because you don't really get to be there unless you hear what this guy actually said. Which way do you go on having the key witness in the case of the victim curse on the stand? Yeah, that's a really good question. And I would wait and see what my jury was like. I had a jury that tended to be a little bit more liberal, a little bit younger, maybe a little bit. I don't want to say hit her because, you know, cussing isn't really a hip thing, but you know, just a different type of juror. I would be less offended. Yeah, I would just be a little bit more comfortable where, you know, depending on the location, when I tried cases, I've tried cases in South Georgia, you know, in a South Georgia jury, they're very different than Atlanta jury. Cussing, you know, in Atlanta wouldn't be so frowned upon, but I would definitely not do it in some of the more rural areas of Georgia. I'd just be a little bit more cautious about offending someone. So I think I would hope that the defense lawyers have taken that into consideration. I would hope that the state's lawyers, the state's attorney know their jurors and know their area before having her testify about that. And she seemed very comfortable with it, you know, and maybe that makes her more believable. Yeah, but you know, you're right, it depends on the jury because if you have conservative jurors, and I'm sorry that sexism is real, but it is, right? So you have a woman who is, who wants to be the victim here. She is the victim. I mean, I believe her. I believe her. But you may have conservative jurors wanting to sympathize with her and then she's out there throwing out the F bombs and that could be off putting to some of them. So it is interesting because, I mean, I assume he'll take the stand and he's claiming self-defense. He better take the stand. He's like better, right? Yeah, he's in trouble if he doesn't take the stand. Let's put it that way. I think at least. Almost in almost every case where you claim self-defense, you take the stand because you got to show your unreasonable fear of your life. So you got to explain it. You can't really do it through a third party testimony. You got to talk about yourself. What's in your mind. But I thought overall she, she did fine. I think the real key is the videos. I mean, there's that video of her blood all over her, the body camera video. I mean, there's, there's stuff. And then you'll have no key witnesses like the officer who chased this guy down. It is important that this guy, the defendant fled and tried to hide out and probably ditch the syringes because I guess although his bag full of medical supplies was found, I don't believe the actual syringes that he allegedly used were found. But this officer who is an unmarked van managed to chase this guy down and that goes the conscience of guilt where you're fleeing. Not if this really were self-defense and your fear of your life, you wouldn't be trying to hide from police. In fact, we do have the officer is sought from him, how he described the struggle to arrest the defendant. We place that too. You said you kept yelling police stop. Yes. How many times. I just kept yelling as I was writing. I could multiple times. I just was yelling police. And going forward again now after you grab the defendant's arm, what did the defendant do? He tried to pull on, like break my grip. So he tries to pull on and continue running away from me, together with me. And as the defendant's pulling away from you, when you're grabbing his right arm, what happens with you and the defendant? We're in this like grassy, like muddy area. So we both, I lose my balance. He loses his balance. We both fought on and I fought on top of him. Yeah, just like any innocent person who is in fear of his life, he's wrestling with a guy saying police, police in a grassy knoll. Yeah. Yeah, that is definitely the worst fact I think that they have. You know, a lot of the evidence they have is corroborating her story, but it could potentially corroborate his except for that. I think that is very, very difficult, very difficult witness and a difficult thing to get over. Now he is a doctor. There is an anesthesiologist and so he's smart. I think we'll see him testify. You know, when I was reading through all of the information about the trial and the witnesses that have testified, I started thinking, well, what if this, you know, gentlemen had come to me and I was trying to defend him? What if I was thinking about this, you know, how I would present it to a jury? And I mean, what his story is, what we heard in opening is his story is really going to have to be, you know, my wife, she did on me. I was hurt. I was angry. I got a recording device because we know that that recording device will talk about that in a minute. He is recording device, you know, the email where he ordered one to record her, that's going to come into evidence, you know, and he needs to own that. He needs to say she was cheating on me. You know, I didn't want to continue being lied to. I felt like I was being gaslit. I didn't want to think I was imagining things that she wasn't really cheating on me. So I did, you know, I tracked her. I had her listened to and he's going to need to explain why he had a medical bag. He's going to have to say, you know, I carry a medical bag with me for hiking for precautions. A lot of doctors do. He's going to have to back that up. And then he's going to have to say, and it's going to have to be believable. Because this is what he said. She said that, you know, he couldn't believe it when she picked the rock up and hit him and that he was just in shock. Didn't know what to do other than protect himself. So he grabbed the rock, hit her back in self-defense. And then he was just in shock whenever he reacted to this police. 10 times? I know. Right. He has no injuries from her, but she has severe injuries from him and he's hitting her 10 times. Isn't that overkill? Oh, definitely. I mean, he's going to have to really convince the jury that he was just terrified. And I think it's going to be hard, especially for a doctor who's smart, because you learn through certain professions to control your emotions, you know. And so he's going to have to explain somehow to this jury in a believable fashion that he couldn't be, you know, he was overcome with fear or something like that. It's definitely going to be difficult. It's going to be an uphill battle. The one fact that I do think is probably the best one for the defense and it may change is as of right now you mentioned, Dave, they don't have the syringe. So, you know, that is a crucial thing that's missing from this. And I think that that, you know, outside of obviously the rock, I think the syringe is a crucial part of the state's case to prove that he had the motive to try to kill her. You know, that syringe is bad. And if they had the syringe, I think that would be just the nail in the coffin. So it'll be interesting to see if there's something that comes out about the syringe later on. Yeah, he had eight hours to hide it. Yeah. So that's, that's something. It's easy explanation why they couldn't find the syringe. Right. I thought they were trying to find the, her, with her phone, the text messages between her and the lover. And I, I use the term lover like very broadly because she said it was an emotional relationship. It wasn't a physical one. And if they could show that it was a physical one, if they could show there were, there was evidence of a physical relationship, then they could say, see, she lied. She lies in the stand. She lied then she's lying now. But to my knowledge, they have not found anything that contradicts anything she has said. So so far, so good for the prosecution at my place. Right, right. No, they haven't, they have not yet. So, and you know, she's, she's withstood cross-examination. Nothing crazy happened with that. That's why many smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals. And that's why you should consider buying gold from Birch Gold Group. For thousands of years, gold has been a store of wealth. And today it's a crucial part of any balanced strategy. Even better, Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered retirement account in gold. Just text MK to the number 989898 to receive your free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information. With an A plus rating with a better business bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, let Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. Now that's peace of mind. Again, text MK to 9899898 today. I think one of the things that's really going to be crucial piece of evidence for the jury to see, and they've already seen, is if we can place thought free, it's the detective actually showing the rock that was allegedly used. And then we can talk a little bit about the testimony that we've heard about this rock and the DNA on it. What does this photo show, detective? It shows a photo of the rock. Which part of the rock? The jagged side with blood, or what appears to be blood on it. Okay. And why did you take this photo? Just to get, I just wanted to take this photo just to, so you can see the side of the rock that possibly had made contact with human skin. This photo shows, it depicts a close up of the rock with strands of possible human hair. This exhibit depicts the rock and one of the measurements it was taking with a ruler. Okay. You know, Dave, why are they up there testifying possible human hair? Why have they not got that locked down before they put this man on the stand? It's like that is a big miss, you know? So there is rock testing that was done. And you know, you have the Michelle Amarin. That's the, that's a criminologist. And we have a sod on her testimony about the rock test. And we should play that, sod four. I want to clarify something with the rock one more time. From the stained area at the bottom. How many contributors were there? There was one female. One female. Okay. And from the unstained area that you swabbed, how many contributors were there? There were two. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. I'm going to retrieve the exhibit from you. Just a brief follow-up. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Amarin. Just to be clear, there are parts of the rock that were not stained that was not tested, correct? Yes, whatever was left on the swab that I preserved and didn't test. And there may be parts of the rock that you didn't actually even swab, right? Yes, the, yes. Thank you. That's huge. That's huge. And if it was me, what I would do then is I would tie it in and closing arguments, you know? I would leave that there so that they couldn't really try and explain it there. But then in closing arguments, I would hit it really hard that, you know, they had the chance to swab the rest of this rock. That could have corroborated his story. That could have supported him, but they had on blinders. They didn't want to see that. So they didn't swab it. What could be on that? And that's reasonable doubt. What could be on that rock? Why not swab the entire thing? You know, I think that's a, that's a significant weakness here. But one of the other things I wanted to talk about, I thought was interesting was this search warrant. This, you know, they got this search warrant. And I'm always, you know, piqued interest when I hear AI being used at all in court because it's such a hot topic for us. But what happened was there was a hearing, a 40 minute hearing outside of the jury's presence. So just with the judge and the defense essentially argued that one of the emails that they found from the defendant, that one of his emails should not be admitted into evidence. The prosecution said that that search warrant was properly executed. But what happened was it was what we call these CDW search warrants, like a communications data warrant, where you're actually getting someone's email. And how you're able to do that with the Fourth Amendment is you've got to narrow it. You can't just go and sift through someone's email because that's, you know, personal information. It's very invasive. And so how the government gets around it is they'll narrow it and they'll do search terms. So, you know, they use AI to search to essentially harvest these emails to find things that are relevant, you know, that way they exclude all the stuff that's personal. That's not relevant. And one of the search terms that they asked for, they said it was separate. That was one of the search terms. So they said the words separate, which I thought was interesting that that was one of the search terms. I don't really know why that would be a search term, but that was a search term and it didn't actually show up. So I guess search because, you know, divorce, but it didn't actually show up in this email, but it showed up somewhere in the metadata. And so that's why they found that's why the police found this email showing that the husband had bought a recording device to record the wife. And so that's why the state was saying, hey, we're allowed to present this. It doesn't violate the search warrant. It doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment because it showed up in the metadata. And the judge, of course, let it in as judges always do. Well, part of it is that when you have technology, you have judges who probably are not very proficient. And when they're told, well, the word separate and the reason why the word separate is in there is because divorce, separation, separate. That's it. But the word separate was in the source code. It's in the metadata. And oh, okay, great. Even though I don't think any of us knows what that means really. Maybe the audience is very smart and they know what it means, but maybe the judge because you said to me, source code. Sure. Sounds good to me. I'm pro prosecution. Let it in. So yeah, maybe that is something a little squirrely. In fact, we have a shot on Judge Wong allowing the email and we play shot for B. And when we're looking at the term separate, the inclusion of that term in conjunction with the term divorce may cast a wider net because it may impact the potential potential source code in electronic search. But when the terms are put together, separate and divorce, the court does not find the inclusion of that term to be unreasonable. Even if this court is wrong in this reasonable determination, hindsight does not allow the correction sought by the defendant. The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that when considering the options of law enforcement in the execution of a search warrant, and I'm reading from their language here, we must judge the constitutionality of their conduct in light of the information available to them at the time they acted. Those items of evidence that emerge after the warrant is issued have no bearing on whether or not a warrant was validly issued. Just as the discovery of contraband cannot validate a warrant invalid when issued, so it is equally clear that the discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant is issued. So it is equally clear that the discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broad does not retroactively invalidate the warrant. Well, he didn't really give him the source code too much, but he did give a full explanation and kudos to him. By the way, one more question about that. What's the deal with the recorder? Why is that so important here? He could explain that away. Yeah. No, I mean, you could definitely explain that away. And I think this was kind of just a red herring. I don't even know why they really wanted this. But next up on this is the Sun. Gerhardt's Sun is actually going to testify. That's a big deal. I know it is a big deal and we'll be able to bring you the highlights on Friday's show because he is up next. Apparently, by the way, the Sun, according to reports, FaceTime with his dad who admitted to it, who confessed. The defendant said, yeah, I tried to kill your mom. I know. I know. That's going to be hot. That's going to be interesting. And we're going to talk about it on Friday. It's a Sun from a previous marriage. So he said, I tried to kill her, right? I don't know why people do these things. I mean, you do such a great job as a defense lawyer, then you wake up when we're going to hear like your client actually confess. Oh, yeah. It's one of those things. You can't change that. But we've got some news I want to cover real quick about Brian Coburger. We had, you know, Brian Coburger, everybody knows he is the student who, the former student in 2022. He stabbed fatally several different undergraduate students from the University of Idaho. But why this is relevant now and why this we're talking about this now is there was some DMV footage that was recently released. It's new footage that was uploaded to YouTube. And it actually shows Brian Coburger at a Washington state DMV getting new license plates on November 18th, 2022. And why this is important and why everyone's paying attention to this is this was just five days after the murder, which is really interesting because, you know, early on they were searching for plates for his car and they were targeting certain vehicles matching a description. But at the time his car was registered in Pennsylvania, so his car would not have been flagged. So it's sort of important that he was there changing his plates. But watch it in a minute, but it's kind of creepy, you know, he's making small talk with the lady at the DMV. And she mentions the Margers and says, you know, I really like it though, I like how small, quiet, I would say safe, but the whole Moscow thing kind of makes me a little feel feel a little less. So if we could play Sot 6. Hi, I'm going pretty good. I definitely need to get my license plate changed. Okay. We should be able to help with that. I like how small, quiet and I would pay for the whole thing kind of makes you feel less like a word. Crazy. So, so, you know, theory, the prosecutors think that him changing his vehicle registration after the initial search would have made it more, you know, more difficult, harder for them to actually tie him to the crime. So it's definitely, definitely interesting and we'll bring you any updates. Was he wearing gloves? I thought when I watched that video he was wearing gloves. Yeah, I couldn't really stick black gloves to keep his fingerprints and his DNA off of everything. I know it's a short clip, but can we look at that again? We just replay that one more time. I want to look for the gloves on his hands. Hi. How's it going? Pretty good. I definitely need to get my license plate changed. Okay. We should be able to help with that. I like how small, quiet and I would pay for the whole thing kind of makes me feel a little less like a word. Oh, he just sounds so casual. It's just, he's a creepy dude. I know. Shame on the university to continue to employ that guy. He had a number of complaints. He looks creepy, acts creepy. And yeah, that guy, if you had said of all the people you know, who's the most likely to be serial killer? That would be the dude right there. It's always the ones you expect the most. Yeah, definitely. Well, next up we've got something really exciting. We've got Chrissy Halperston. She is a juror from the Corey Richards trial and she's going to discuss her experience with us. Stay tuned. When you're in a business growth mindset, it's wild how much the basic stuff matters. Like how you talk to customers or clients and keep your team aligned. More modern setup makes everything run smoother. That's why today's episode is sponsored by Quo spelled Q-U-O. The modern alternative to run your business communications. Quo works right from an app on your phone or computer and lets you keep your existing number, add new numbers or teammates, and sync your CRM. Your entire team can handle calls and texts from one shared number. So there's no miss messages or disconnected conversations. Everyone sees the thread making replies faster and customers feel generally cared for. Quo's AI automatically logs calls, generates summaries and highlights next steps so nothing gets lost. It can even qualify leads or respond after hours, ensuring your business stays responsive. Quo's the number one rated business phone system on G2 with over 3,000 reviews built for how modern teams work. More than 90,000 businesses from solo operators to growing teams rely on Quo to stay connected, professional and consistently reachable. Make this the season where no opportunity and no customer slips away. Try Quo for free plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to Quo.com slash MK. That's Q-U-O dot com slash MK. Quo, no missed calls, no missed connections. Welcome back to MK True Crime. We've got a real treat for you because joining us now is Christy Halverson. That's your number three from the Corey Richens trial. Welcome, Christy. Hi, thank you guys for having me. I'm so glad to be here. Oh, we have so many questions for you. We're going to just ask you the best ones. First off, just the basic. Is this the first time you've ever been on a jury? Oh, absolutely. I have been called before in other states where we've lived, but I never had the opportunity to serve until now. So it was a big one. Oh my gosh, did you want to be on the jury? Like, what did you think when you were there? Before I really knew what the case was about, I was quite excited to be on it. And as soon as I sat through opening statements, I wasn't sure I wanted to be on it anymore. I felt a pretty hefty responsibility. Yeah, I can imagine. I mean, responsibility is huge. When you first saw Corey Richens there sitting right near you, where you're like, there's no way. I mean, what could she have done? Right? Did you immediately think this sweet, doe-wide woman, you know, there's no way she could have done anything? Was that your initial reaction? That was my initial thought. We learned early on in the trial that she was a mother and a mother myself. I feel like it would be super hard to harm the father of your children and your partner and your husband and somebody you love. So we were just absolutely open-minded. At least I was prepared for whatever the prosecution and the defense had to say and just did not imagine that she would have been guilty, but the evidence was absolutely there. Well, actually, if I can ask one more follow-up because, Christine, at what point did your brain change? You looked at her like, murder! At what point did that happen? I think it was probably the cell tower data that we got. We had quite a bit of testimony prior to that. And that was the first point that I thought, oh my goodness, there's actual evidence that she really did this and really bought the drugs that ended her husband's life. It was devastating. I definitely wasn't fully convinced. I felt like going into it, I just wanted to kind of see what the evidence showed, and I wanted to give every opportunity to the lawyers to present whatever they had. And by the end of it, there was just no denying it that she was guilty. Did it surprise you or did you expect the defense to put on evidence? I mean, they sort of alluded to it in openings. Oh, absolutely. We were prepared for the defense to present. We knew prosecution was probably getting close to wrapping up just because of the length of time that they had presented. And as soon as we got back in after a recess and the defense rested, we were absolutely shocked. Absolutely shocked. Was not expecting that at all. Wow. So really, maybe inside, even though you thought what the evidence is really piled up, but wait till we hear from the defense, they're going to put on a case and then you're like, nothing here. Right. I mean, we remember. Yeah, we remember that the defense doesn't have the burden of proof, but I felt confident that if there was truly an investor that Corey had purchased the drugs for, we would hear from that person. And that would have made it really easy for us, but I don't think there was that person. And all of the things that they promised to show us were gone. We got nothing. So we went with what the prosecution presented, which was such a strong case. There was so much evidence. Yeah, I mean, that's like trial 101 as a defense lawyer. You don't promise things in the opening that you're not going to be able to deliver. That was, that was frustrating for us watching as well. So I'm sure it was for you all as jurors. I want to ask about Corey herself. Would you have liked to see her take the stand? I know we would and testify. I mean, and do you think that would have made a difference? I don't know if it would have made a difference, but I would have loved to hear what she had to say. By the time we did get to when the defense would, was going to present, we knew pretty much that there was a mountain of evidence convicting her. I've, I've seen a lot of things online where people have talked about her reactions and her, her smirks and her faces that she made. And as a jury, we didn't really get to see that. Our eyes were mostly on the witness. That was speaking. And so we would glance over at her periodically. At least I know I would and just never, never could get a read on or never saw much emotion. She seemed pretty cold. I didn't see her wiping tears away when they're showing the 911 body cam footage, the phone call. That would have been devastating to watch had you not been responsible for your husband's death. And so yeah, so we just never really got a read on her. I've since seen a lot of the smirks and a lot of the faces she made. But as jurors, we were, we were far away and we didn't, we didn't have our eyes on her every moment and we didn't get to see that. Okay. That's interesting. We talked about that on the show about how far she was and if you know, trying to guess if you all could see her or not. Yeah, no, we could see her, but we didn't have a straight on look at her face. It was always from the side from where we were. And we just had no idea what she was thinking. She was, she was stone cold the whole time. What did you think about the video of her when the cops first showed up and she was dressed almost to the nines like this with her full length pajama outfit or hair up and like she was ready for her close up. Did that strike you as weird like she was ready for that moment she was acting. It didn't actually strike me as weird. I, I know that Katie Richens in her testimony talked about Corey being in a sweatsuit. And then when we saw the actual footage it looked to me just like a pair of pajamas and I didn't particularly look at her and feel like she was made up. I was really trying to keep an open mind and not make judgments because that was very early on in the trial when we first saw that so so I didn't think anything of that I I tried really hard to not judge her reaction. Because I, I don't know how I would react and I don't know what the stress of that kind of situation would look like for me. And the only thing that struck me as odd was that she wasn't going in to be with her boys or to take care of her boys or to to, she knew they were awake and and talked about that to the officer but never went into tell him it was going to be okay give him a hug reassure him and that that was odd to me that was the only piece that I really thought was was incredibly odd. I could totally see that as a mother, definitely. You mentioned something on a show that you were on about feeling the weight of it, especially when facing the defense attorneys during closing I wanted to ask you about that because I know I've had those situations where you get close to jurors during a trial and and as a defense lawyer I hope the jurors trust me and like me. And then that doesn't always necessarily mean I'm going to win you know my facts are different than my personality obviously. So what was that like you know you you said it was difficult facing the defense lawyers just kind of tell me about that, you know during closing or after. It was really difficult during closing, especially since the four alternates were women and they were let out and that left me and one other woman on the jury and I know that doesn't matter but it. It's no matter significant to me as a woman I would want a jury of my peers and that would be at least half the number of women so so that was difficult and then the defense I felt there like I was on the middle seat of the front row of the jury box and I definitely felt the gaze of Wendy Lewis as she presented the closing arguments and just felt her almost looking into my soul, pleading with me with her eyes to to to find in their favor and and we just couldn't. The evidence just wasn't there. What did you think of Grossman, the ex boyfriend. I actually felt so sorry for him it. It was really quite odd when he was first brought into the courtroom and they went to swear him in and he made a comment about. Oh, what do you mean by the whole truth and and as a jury that was just shocking for all of us we did not know what to make of that and the judge sent us immediately out of the room so they could talk to him and work. And it just felt so awful to be a fly on the wall and read page and page after page of their text threads and their relationship and and get a peek into what was going on inside the relationship while he sat on the stand and cried. I think he was really emotional and he wiped away tears. He was overly emotional and it was absolutely just devastating to watch it made me sad I didn't I didn't feel glee at this misfortune I didn't feel excited for the drama of it I felt sad it just honestly was hard to watch. Do you think she tried to have him killed you think those hush puppies were poisoned. Probably yeah I do I definitely think there there could have been some way she was maybe setting him up to take the fall and it actually disturbs me the most to learn that after the fact she's after the fact I learned that she had taken out life insurance policies on her boys. That just really hurts my soul to think that that what if there was a possibility she was going to try to profit off hurting her children I would hope not but but who knows I think she did a lot of things that were just shocking and pretty stone cold. Wow. So there was some statements in closing arguments for the state I think we've got slot 10 or the state actually there was a search whether or not she had poisoned someone and then they recall they called her actually a black widow during the closing arguments if we can play play that I'm curious what you guys thought about her being called a black widow. This one's the most insightful. She's on receiver on her phone. The 911 call operator asks her are you on speakerphone she says yes. No. She's on receiver. We're going to listen to the first part actually most of the 911 call again. The first minute is not the sound of a wife becoming a widow to echo her friend Chelsea Barney. The first minute is the sound of a wife becoming a black widow. So I'm curious first what the jurors and yours response was to that black widow I mean what did that make you feel when you heard that it upset you or it didn't upset me it probably was appropriate if not a little theatrical. By by that point that it was fairly obvious that she she had harmed Eric and she had attempted to harm him she'd taken out all the life insurance policies committed the fraud. And so it didn't affect my decision it didn't affect what I thought. I just did feel like it was just a little bit of kind of dramatic which was probably certainly appropriate given the pretty intense closing that we had that we sat through. Did you think that the prosecutor was really powerful in his comments some people thought he was monotone. But I thought the power was in the evidence not necessarily his words what do you think about it. Oh absolutely I thought the power was in the evidence and the way that he presented it when they started the timer on that 911 call and it took her over six minutes to be able to administer CPR to her husband. That was absolutely just devastating to see it was something that probably wasn't as a parent the first time we heard that early on in the trial but to see the timer alongside and hear her not even try and hear her not even make any attempts to resuscitate him. I just try to think what would I do in that situation and I think I would be doing everything I could just save my partner so it was it was awful awful she here and did she give CPR at all that was. Wasn't there some evidence that she did but I honestly think she probably faked it given that once the EMT showed up and started doing CPR that he had blood and mucus coming out of his mouth and I think those things would have been present had she actually made a valiant attempt and and I don't know how you could do CPR without your phone on speaker. Right. She claimed at one point that she that she put her phone on speaker and the actual evidence showed that her phone was on receiver mode it was never ever turned on speaker while she was on with 911. Yeah, that's difficult. That's a fact. So we know you you've talked about the deliberations process and you know it lasted nearly three hours. And that some of the charges were a little bit challenging. So I'm curious if there were multiple votes if there was anything that hung anyone up if there were any charges that maybe were difficult. I know you said that the second, the second degree charge second degree attempted murder but were there any votes that that changed and we're always curious about the vote splits and things like that throughout the process. Sure, we actually did do a couple of votes but not early on when we first got in there. We did not we did not immediately take a vote I think we we may have been out even a little quicker than three hours had we done that but we decided to share pieces of evidence that were meaningful to us. We decided to go around the room and talk about things that had impacted us in the trial. And when we first did pass to vote there were a couple people that were a little bit on the fence about everything and as we talked through the evidence and talked through kind of some of the more damaging pieces it was, it was pretty hard for them to, to not come come around to that they were they were leaning with it but just a little hesitant. So that was, that was the only time that it, and it really was the second charge that had us stuck the attempted murder charge was a little bit hard for some people to come around but the law made it really quite easy the elements were laid out and we had the ability to go through and say yes yes and yes, and, and it was just clear and it was pretty straightforward and and we didn't have any problem doing what we felt was the right thing. Could anyone make a case that well, the both times were not related to each other like the first time when there was an attempted murder where she gave him the sandwich and he felt sick. That somehow didn't make it obvious that she did it a second time I mean shouldn't that have been really damning evidence. And also the fact that she told him sleep it off don't go to the hospital on the first time. That absolutely was damning evidence. It was more just the method of administration that I think was difficult for a lot of people on the jury to wrap their brain around. Ultimately we decided that we would just follow what the elements said on the charges and, and they were there that Corey rich and the attempted to murder. And so I think there was cell tower data that lined up with the purchases of the drugs from Carmen. Everything was there and the law made it really quite easy for us to convict on all counts really. Ashley it's interesting that Christie mentioned cell tower data. Yeah, she mentioned so that really is powerful was it as powerful for everyone else as it was for you as a pro former prosecutor. It's interesting that that's what you're focused on whereas I would have focused on other things that's the thing that really cinched the deal for you. Oh, that's interesting. Yes, that that was a big huge piece for me and, and I'm sure several of my fellow jurors I don't want to speak for exactly what was powerful for them but I know that came up quite a bit when we were deliberating that we felt that it was irrefutable. You cannot fake that data. It's either there it's not and it was there. The other piece of evidence that was pretty powerful for me was the testimony nobody got to hear unless you're in the courtroom with the undercover police officer. Yeah, tell us about that we're we still don't know what all was said. Yeah, I wish people could there was a way to read a transcript of that somehow but he testified right after we had Carmen then Robert Proger, and then this detective and he was a guy that worked the streets that was on the ground for the last, you know, 1520 years and I was a drug trade inside and out. And the piece that really kind of impacted me the most was where he talked about at the time that for he was purchasing fentanyl from Carmen. There was no oxycodone on the streets. It is, it was so well controlled the DEA and the the pharmaceutical industry had really controlled that prescription oxycodone purchasing on the street and he said you never found it and that he never busted a dealer with prescription oxycodone. Everything at the time was fentanyl and it was made to look exactly like the oxycodone 30s the m 30s or the blues that Carmen spoke about. And so for me, even though Carmen and Robert Proger maybe had some inconsistencies and some memory deficiencies, I just felt like knowing that what was actually being sold on the street at that time, according to a guy who was doing a lot of buy sell drug work that everything was fentanyl that was really powerful to me and really cemented in my mind that whatever those two said or didn't remember exactly precisely right we were confident by his testimony that it was going to be fentanyl that was found. That's, that's crazy. Yeah, we were very curious about that and maybe you know she appeals it's from sure she will we'll be able to read that transcript one day. I don't know if they'll keep it under under wraps or not. I hope not it was a great testimony he was a great witness. So walk the dog letter. Tell us about that. Okay, so you got you only got to see part of it. During yeah during the during the jury trial but then after that you've been able to read the rest of it right the unredacted version. Yes, I've now read the unredacted version and at the time, we did not know that that was taken from her jail cell. We were told as jurors that it was found in a book among her possessions and we just assumed in one of the searches at the house they had founded it makes more sense reading the letter now that it was something she was writing while she was in jail. And it was that was huge that was a huge piece of evidence for me that just spoke so heavily to her guilt. It was devastating. I think she could have gotten herself off if there was truth to that that Eric was buying drugs in Mexico and then I think she was a brother all about it. Why why didn't this come up and obviously didn't come up because it was her fabricating a story and her trying to find a way to get out of trouble after the fact. The defense lawyers lose credibility and trying to explain that away as a fictionalized book. Oh, thank you. There was credibility in your mind. Absolutely there was no credibility to that being a fictionalized version. First of all, she couldn't write for own children's book she had to hire a ghost writer to do that. I'm gonna ask about that but go ahead please. So there was no way that that was going to be something that she was starting a novel and and I really don't think if you've spent a couple years in jail and you're on trial for murder that you're going to then write a novel about that or a story about that it it just seems demented to me to think that that would be something someone would do so it was obvious that was written in an attempt to get herself out of trouble and to find some plausible explanation for the things that had happened. But it was too late by that point I and I think that was really really damning evidence. Now, Christy, I think I thought all along that the book that she wrote showed that this woman's a sociopath that she wrote a book and then I didn't know until the trial that it was ghost written by the way that she couldn't even do that herself she paid someone $15,000 to write a book for her and then she appeared on TV. When you saw that that just was that was by that point was already a done deal or was this like such a shock that it had to turn other jurors at that moment. It probably did turn other jurors. It for me it wasn't the absolute shock. It was a shock but it wasn't the nail in the coffin for me I was already there. I the evidence had already stacked up against her I felt that this showed kind of the low moral character that Corey had and and her inability to be in touch with reality that she would murder her husband write a book about grief. She sent the email to the television station herself offering to come on and talk about her book on their show it wasn't that they somehow had found it in a store and wanted to hear from her. She self promoted this situation and it's just it makes me ill it makes me sick for her boys and I just I just think it's so narcissistic and so sad. Did the other jurors discuss it in the deliberation room that was that a big topic of discussion the book and her appearance on TV. It was a topic and I don't think it was as huge of a piece of evidence for us because it didn't indicate there wasn't any evidence that that played into her murdering her husband I think that was evidence of kind of the type of person that she was, I didn't factor in hugely into our finding her guilty but it was it was just kind of disgusting it just felt really sad and it made us feel sorry for her. Yeah, definitely. So what do you think of the judge. I love judge. It's really quite funny to me to see all the things on Instagram now and tick tock calling him judge daddy and everybody had a great time for me. He really did and I just think he what impressed me I've never been in a courtroom I've never sat through a trial I've never watched any, you know true crime. I've never tried to play out so for me I was really impressed with his ability to be so fair to both sides. I felt like so many times he ruled on things and he never seemed to weigh one side or the other, and just tried to take the law and apply that the best way that he could I think he was the most fairest way. And I just was blown away by his ability to remember the information and keep track of everything and keep everybody in line and I loved him I thought he was fantastic. Well my last question is about sentencing I know Dave you may have some other questions before I ask about sentencing. That was gonna be my last question. So yeah so what are your thoughts on how this judge should we all agree is great. We'll sentence her how he will and how he should. And if you guys talk about that at all you know I'm curious if you guys talked about we did. We did talk about the implications of sentencing. I was brought up by one of my fellow jurors where they express a remorse and said we are taking her away from her boys they've lost a dad and now they're going to lose a mom and and I actually did pipe up at that comment and I said we didn't take away their mom. This has nothing to do with us she did she made these choices she got herself to this point. I know what the law says I know when we did meet with Judge M after everything was all done he came in and sat down with us and was just wonderful. We were able to ask him a lot of questions he told us some of the evidence that hadn't been able to be admitted. And he said that the first count is 25 to life or life in prison just for the first count. So I would imagine having been found guilty of all of them that she's looking at quite a bit of time in prison and she probably ought to I heard after the fact that her mom is also potentially being investigated for having a partner guy the same way. And I just wonder if the public might be best served if Corey is not let out again I definitely think that would probably help the rich and family. I just don't know what should be I am so glad I'm not in a position to have to decide that. Yeah that would be awful awful. That was a big topic of conversation on the Internet was the mother how she lost her partner by apparently a poisoning drug overdose oxycodone was found next to the next to the chair I think on a table next to the bed. So perhaps the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. But I got to tell you Christy you have been amazing I was awesome laughing it up. Thank you. Wisdom. Thank you so much. You guys are so kind. Thank you so much. Thank you for serving to it's a difficult we definitely understand how much of a sacrifice and how traumatic it is because what you said is true you know that's nobody wins in these situations that's the thing with trials nobody ends up winning. So. And you gotta. It was yeah it was a way to carry the whole time of the trial and to not be able to talk about it with anybody not be able to share anything with my husband every day at the end of court it was it was a it was tough but. I feel like we did the right thing and I feel like we performed our duty with open minds and with good hearts and serve to the best of our ability and I'm grateful for having had the opportunity. Well thank you for doing that and thank you for sharing it with us it's been extremely insightful so we really appreciate your time. Yeah you're most welcome thank you so much for having me. Thank you Christy Halvorson an amazing guest and even better juror number three. Well done Christy and next will be our closing arguments and your questions stay tuned. Cozy Earth makes relaxing at home easy with their unbelievably soft robes and slippers the fabric is breathable lightweight and incredibly comfortable. It's the kind of robe you put on and immediately feel more relaxed and their slippers have this plush shearling lining with supportive footbeds so they're warm comfortable and easy to wear around the house all day with Mother's Day coming up Cozy Earth makes an amazing gift something she'll actually use and appreciate every single day and here's the best part Cozy Earth backs everything with a hundred night sleep trial and a 10 year warranty so you can try it completely risk free. Go to Cozy Earth dot com and use code Megan for 20% off that's Cozy Earth dot com POMRO code Megan for 20% off and if you see the post purchase survey please mention you heard about Cozy Earth from this show. Welcome back to MK True Crime. Now it's time for our closing arguments but first your questions from Sanjita. Hello team. I just had to pause Friday's episode when Dave said that trying to stab someone with a spoon isn't intent to murder but a machete is. I feel like Dave hasn't seen Robin Hood Prince of Thieves where the sheriff of Nottingham the great and late Alan Rickman threatens to cut someone else's heart out with a spoon because it would hurt more. I'm going to cut your heart out with a spoon. Then it begins. Why a spoon cousin? Why not an axe? Because it's dull you twit it'll hurt more. You're going to argue that in closing Dave? That was brilliant. First off thank you Sanjita the great question. I did see the movie I just forgot about it's been so long. I remember Kevin Costner the star of the movie couldn't keep up his accent throughout the movie. He kept having an American vs British accent just make up your mind dude and as far as that that was great except I think it cost our show a bunch of money and royalties now. So hey it's worth it Sanjita you're worth it. I love it. Well Dave I'm going to do my closing argument and then you can get on your rant. Let's do it. All right. Well so recently on February 23rd of 2026 a judge here in Fulton County and for those that have been watching everything transpiring over the last couple years Fulton County is the Atlanta, Georgia area where Fawney Willis prosecuted President Trump and some other people but that's where we learned all about Fawney Willis so that's why I'm talking about Fulton County. So recently on February 23rd 2026 Fulton County judge Sharmila Williams stepped down from the bench but not quietly. She stepped down after being found guilty of some serious misconduct by what's called a jury of her peers which would be some other judges and figures in the judicial system. And this time we're not talking about minor lapses. We're not talking about something that is minor that can just be overlooked. We're talking about improper ex parte communications. What does that mean? That means talking to one side without the other. It's a big no no. Failure to rule. Failure to issue rulings which is kind of what a judge does. Their whole job is to rule. So she failed to rule and also she illegally arrested and falsely imprisoned a witness, a daughter and a family divorce custody battle. She imprisoned that girl as a witness and put her in the Fulton County holding cells. She also used her prestige of her office for personal gain. It was not a close call. This was a complete collapse of the justice system and she was found guilty by the panel of all of these charges and it was going up to our Supreme Court for her to be sanctioned. So when the writing was on the wall, what did she do when removal by the Georgia Supreme Court was inevitable? She didn't fight it. She resigned. Not out of accountability, but trying to salvage what she had left of her career, her law license and her future. But because that resignation in that moment was not accountability, it was damage controlled. But here is what is hard to ignore about what happened. The same lawyer who represented her, Gabe Banks, also represented a key figure in the Fawni Willis, Nathan Wade controversy. Represented one of the witnesses who tried to quash one of my subpoenas so that that witness wouldn't have to testify. And guess what? This lawyer's wife also happens to be a top administrator for none other than Fawni Willis. So what happens next? Well, this former judge, she's now former, founder of abused for power, violated basic due process rights, legal duties and unlawfully jailed someone is hired by none other than Fawni Willis. To do what? Prosecute criminal cases. But that's thinking. A judge who just broke the rules is now being charged with enforcing them. A judge who violated the rights of people is now charged with protecting them. At some point this stops being a coincidence, and it starts raising serious concerns and questions about judgment, accountability, and who we trust to yield the power in the justice system. Dave, take it away. Ashley has a very powerful closing statement. And you and I both without communicating with each other, we both are doing our closing statements about judges. So. What that's thinking. Yeah, well, you know, we do give judges enormous power in our justice system and we expect back from them fairness, integrity, patience and a dose of humility. Admittedly, it could be tough for many people to remain humble when everyone addresses you as your honor, you get to wear a black robe and carry a big gavel. It'd be tough to stay humble when everyone in a room rises upon your entry is only allowed to sit when you say so. The many good judges out there deserve our praise, as well as our gratitude. But when judges demonstrate boorish conduct, they deserve to be called out just like the rest of us. If you've seen the viral video currently blowing up out there from Harris County, Texas, you know exactly why the public is losing faith in the system. Judge Nathan Miller on who won his seat by razor thin margin of just 304 votes decided to use his bench not to deliver justice but to deliver a lecture to an IT worker who was just there to fix his computer. Let's play the clip. She don't. And you're disjoined from the audio here. Yeah, it should be. Sorry. Mariah, did I make this up? Five seconds. You don't have to go far. You're disjoined. Okay. Yeah, you're good. Okay. False alarm. No, it wasn't a false alarm. False negative. Don't choke around. I'm serious about this. It was happening. I can understand. I'm just saying I can see us. We're good. Thank you. Get out of my courtroom. And then the judges, the judge throws out a few curse words. Jesus Christ. Second time is bullshit today. So because the technician had the audacity to call a technical fix a quote false alarm, the judge verbally dressed him down, threw him out of the courtroom and started cursing on a live feed. It was a stunning display of judicial hubris. Here's a lesson for judge Miller on and anyone else who gets a little too comfortable in that black robe. Be nice to the people you see on the way up because I guarantee you you're going to see them again on the way down. Judges are incredibly important to our system, but they lose their moral standard. The second they start acting important. So let's hope this national spotlight makes this judge rethink his behavior and become a better jurist. And more importantly, a better person. That's my closing statement. And thank you so much, Dave. And thank you to our guest, Christy Halverson. It was an amazing session with that former juror from the Corey Richens trial. Thank you so much, Dave. And thank you for joining us. Have a great week.