Hey, everyone, welcome back to Crime Weekly News. I'm Derek Levaser. And I'm Stephanie Harlow.

And we're going to be talking about a case that we've covered before.

And it's making national headlines. It did when it originally happened. There were some

back and forths about this case. Some people believed this person was innocent. I like to think more

people believe she was guilty. And I'm talking about Corey Richens. If you didn't read the title of this episode. Who believed she was innocent? There definitely was. So I had originally covered this on crime feed, if you remember. And then you were like, oh, did you hear about Corey Richens? I'm like, why does that sound so familiar? And I'm like, oh, we just covered it. And yeah, I'm with you. To me, the evidence was overwhelming.

However, we're going to talk about the basic. Stephanie's going to give you the rundown for anybody. You know what I think it was? I just read because basically what we're going to talk about is that she was found guilty by a jury. No. Yeah. Okay. One of the jurors who was on, I don't, I don't think it's called a panel,

but she said she was, she and the other people on the jury were hoping that Corey was innocent,

like hoping that she was. And it only took three hours for them to come back, you know,

to say that she was guilty of aggravated murder and the other charges. But I guess they like, I don't know why. Maybe they, obviously,

Corey and her husband, Eric, who she was accused of killing, they had small children. So maybe the jurors

were like, well, we, you know, they already lost their dad.

We don't want to take their mom from them.

This was a jury in Utah.

So I don't know.

Take that as you want.

A case like this, when something occurs in your own backyard, it doesn't only affect the immediate people.

It affects the entire community because many people walk around believing stuff like this can't happen where they live, right? They hear it on the news or they watch it on a podcast and they think, oh, man, that's crazy. I'm glad I don't live there. And then it happens a street or two over and you're like, wow, even if it's not directly something you're connected to,

it does still have an impact on you and your family members and it causes some interesting

dinner table conversations. But that's what I was going to say. We're going to talk about

just the overview of what happened here, anybody who's not familiar with this case and what happened

to Eric. Yeah, and then you kind of just hit the nail on the head as far as jury members coming to a conclusion rather quickly, relatively speaking how it goes in most cases, but also still in a way, which is interesting for them to admit this, but wanting to find her innocent, wanting to acquit her and just not being able to do so with the overwhelming evidence. Because of the overwhelming evidence, yeah, which is why when you're like people, some people thought you, I'm like, who? Who? There were people. You have a whole jury of people who are like, we don't want it. They're going in biased, kind of. Like, we don't want to find her guilty. We want her to be innocent. And they still, after only three hours, had no other choice but to come back with a guilty verdict. And that's interesting. I think it's, I think not even necessarily people believing she's innocent, but thinking the evidence wasn't strong enough to find her guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. I think there's a big distinction there where you can believe the person's

...