Mr. Ramos, please proceed.
>> Thank you, Judge. Morning.
>> Good morning.
>> I have six post-it notes here of just
topics I want to talk about. Um, won't
take up too much time and I do want to
be fair uh to you. do have two things I
want you to look at that I think will
refresh your recollection in terms of
timing. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> And this is in terms of when you arrived
and when you left.
>> So I've highlighted them for you.
Have this. I don't think you need that.
I think you know the codes.
So take a look at those and let me know
if you recognize them.
Yeah. Yes.
>> Okay. Now, having reviewed those, would
those documents give you an idea of when
you were when you were when you arrived
at the Willow Creek uh home as well as
when you left?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And would it also uh refresh your
recollection to know who was there while
you were there?
>> Yes.
>> And seeing those, can you tell me
approximately how long you were there?
Um, as well, how long you were there
along with Detective Woody?
>> Um, I arrived at 3:40 and it looks like
Can I refer to this?
>> Of course. Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, looks like I dispatched
out of the residence
and in route to the station
around
549.
>> Okay. And then if you look at the what
should we the crime scene log
>> and you see the time in the timeout
columns.
>> Okay.
>> And go down to your name.
>> Yes.
>> And then it's followed by Detective
Woody, right?
>> Yes.
>> Now, when do you leave? I'm sorry. When
does uh Detective Woody arrive?
Uh, looks like she arrived at uh, 5:17
per the crime scene log.
>> And then what about you? What time did
you leave?
>> I left at
says here 5:41.
>> Okay. Now, and you just you gave us
another number just now. It was 5:49,
right? Um, that was the based on the
dispatch log, correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And so there's about an 8m minute
discrepancy, right?
Yes.
>> Now, that is simply you leaving the
actual residence and then walking to
your car, maybe doing some things in
your car, getting ready to leave, and
then you when you're formally leaving,
that's when you dispatch 549, right?
>> Yes.
>> So, just there's specific numbers, but
there's things in between, right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Now, the reason I want to bring
that up is obviously it's important to
know
who was there, how long you were there,
um approximately 24 minutes between
yourself and Detective Woody that you
guys were at the crime scene together.
Correct.
>> Yes. Possibly. Yes.
>> Well, she checked in at What do you mean
possibly? you checked in
>> because the these numbers
depends on who does the crime scene log.
If they log me out, let's just say their
watch at a certain time, that's their
time logging me out.
>> Okay. So,
>> so I'm not writing
the time I check out.
>> Okay. So, who
>> on the crossing lot?
>> Who did that?
>> Um I'm assuming Deputy Orle.
>> Deputy
>> or Oral. Now, you have no reason to
think that Deputy Oracle's watch would
be 10 minutes off.
>> I I can't.
>> Okay. But we can tell that more or less
5:41, 549. It's around that time.
>> Yeah, it's it's pretty close.
>> Okay. So, let's give it 15 minutes
instead of the 24. Uh based on the crime
scene log, you were with Deputy or
Detective Woody for about 15 minutes,
>> correct?
>> Possibly. Yes. You were in the same
residence
in the same vicinity.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I'm not saying you're, you know,
linked to arms with her, right? You were
just there at the crime scene.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. According to the crime scene log.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So,
just like you explained now,
things could be off, right?
Watch what you remember, right?
>> Yes. Okay. Now,
we all watched the video yesterday and
there was a portion in that video
where you informed
uh
officer Dvotello kind of the information
you're gathering. We talked about that a
lot yesterday. Okay. So, I want to
direct your attention there.
>> I don't expect you to remember exactly
what happened. Uh the state has
presented a transcript. Okay. So I'm
going to provide this to you. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> And I want you to review this area that
I am
circling. Okay. Just to refresh your
recollection. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
>> This area right here.
>> Can I grab it?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Thanks.
>> Can you tell me where you're looking?
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh it is page 14
on the top right corner.
>> Okay.
>> Is that refreshing recollection?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So tell us what you told uh
officer doello at that point. Doesn't
have to be exact. Just give me an idea.
So, I advised him that I gave him a
little brief of what I gathered and uh
what Miss Corey Richens stated was and
um I said that from approximately 9 9:30
she went to bed and then approximately
3:00 she went back into bed with Mr.
Richens at which time he was cold and
heavy.
>> Perfect. Now, I'm going to provide this
back to you and I'm going to be looking
at the last line of page nine and then
the first paragraph of page 10. Um,
okay.
So, it starts here,
this line right here, and then move on
to the first paragraph of this page.
Okay.
Okay.
>> Okay.
So, you were having this conversation,
and I say conversation, I think that's
important because
this isn't an interview,
>> right?
>> You're on a daily.
>> Yep.
Can
>> I just take it from the last judge?
>> Yes, please.
>> So, um,
as I was saying,
I say conversation because this isn't a
formal interview, right?
>> Correct. Okay. This is going off of the
death checklist that you mentioned
yesterday.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Now, in this conversation,
you do get information from Miss Richens
and in the paragraph that you just read.
Okay. And what did you learn at that
point?
>> Learn the second the second paragraph
that you showed me.
>> Correct. The one I just showed you. Yes,
>> that she stated that she placed a
blanket on him cuz she felt that he was
cold.
>> Correct. And then what else?
>> She turned on the light and realized
what um he wasn't responsive.
>> So, right now, that's exactly what I
want to talk about.
He said that he felt cold and then she
turned on the light. Okay. I want to I'm
going to give this back to you.
>> Focus on the time in between.
Okay,
>> I'll be looking at a minute.
>> Oh, just just this this uh underlined
portion. Okay, read just read that to
yourself.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. All right. So from the time
that she fell and got into bed and felt
his cold body, she put a blanket on like
you said. And then what did she do?
She turned the light. She felt that he
wasn't breathing. She turned on the
light.
>> How long?
>> It says in the statement one minute.
>> For a minute.
>> For a minute.
>> Correct. Now
we don't know just like there are some
changes for you as you testified earlier
between 5:41 549
a minute right like for a minute it's an
expression correct
>> correct
>> okay so she gets into bed she feels her
cold husband and she stays there for a
minute
and then he she doesn't hear him
breathing
Okay. Is that right?
>> Correct.
>> Or anything.
>> Says she didn't feel him breathing.
>> Or anything.
>> Or anything.
>> Now,
that's important. That's an important
detail.
Correct.
>> Correct.
>> That information
wasn't given to Deepotello couple
minutes later. Correct. in what we just
read earlier.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Now,
oh, I'm getting through these.
um
during this entire conversation that
you've had with her
um
we saw yesterday and just to reiterate
it was a edited clip. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And we could see on the bottom the
jury can follow along to see how quickly
the edits are. Okay. But I want to talk
about that entire conversation that you
had with her. Okay.
Miss Richens was emotional. Right.
Right.
>> Yes. She was emotional
>> and she was upset.
>> Yes. And that's common, right? I mean,
that that's not unexpected for somebody
who just lost their husband, right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Now,
would it surprise you
if
another one of your officers indicated
that you thought she was not emotional?
>> Would it surprise me?
>> Yeah. Like would you have made that
statement?
>> No, I I don't know Miss Richen so I
don't know how her emotion as in like
you know personal when I arrived what I
see but through the call then I start
putting things together
um details of
how how she acts.
>> Yeah. Those details are important. We've
talked about that.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. And just like you said, we saw the
video. She was emotional. She was upset,
right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So,
let's talk about the death invest in
investigation checklist. Okay.
We talked about yesterday
uh about what you did. Actually, scratch
that. I'm going to go to this one.
>> This was presented yesterday in
evidence. Uh that's the voluntary
statement. Do you recall that?
>> Yes. Okay. That is a voluntary
statement.
>> Now,
you didn't give this to Miss Richards.
>> I did not.
>> Okay. Um now, if you look around right
before Miss Rich's written statement,
you see there's a line there. I want you
to read that line. Okay. It's followed
by a bold lettering.
>> Would you do you mind playing for Mr.
>> So, right above
written statement. This line right here
>> where it says describe.
>> Correct. Just read that to yourself.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Now, you you didn't do this one,
but you've done lots of these voluntary
statements, correct? Give them out.
>> Yes.
>> Now,
the point of a voluntary statement is to
get details, correct?
>> Gather details. Yes.
>> And now there are different types of
voluntary statements. Uh, sorry, there
are different purposes for voluntary
statements. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> So, for example,
perhaps I'm a witness to a car accident.
You might give me this voluntary
statement. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> I'm not under suspicion of anything. I'm
just a witness. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Now, there's other ones where maybe I
was the driver and maybe I might be at
fault. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> And you would still say, "Hey, you know,
maybe you'd want to give me that
voluntary statement." Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. Now in that statement it indicates
that it gives a discretion to the
officer deputy who is giving this
voluntary statement. Correct.
>> And what discretion is it?
>> Uh the bolded part here that's
highlighted.
Okay. Yes.
>> Right. So, what I mean by discretion is
that it's the deputy who has to provide
instruction to whoever it is that he's
providing this to.
>> Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Because maybe what I think is important
is not necessarily important to you.
Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Now again to be fair, you're not the one
who provided this to Miss Richards.
Correct.
>> That is correct.
>> And you don't know what instructions
were given to Miss Richens. Correct.
>> That is correct.
>> And you don't know if any clarifications
were needed or anything. Correct.
>> That is correct.
>> And as far as you know, this is the only
voluntary statement form that Miss
Richens filled out. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So,
let's talk about the death investigation
information checklist. I'm going to hand
this to you. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Now,
when you arrived, you were the third to
arrive, correct? From not from EMS, just
from Summit County Sheriff's Office.
>> Correct.
>> Pimementel was there.
>> Correct.
>> Debautello was there.
>> Correct. Now, you were in charge of the
death investigation
checklist.
>> That is correct.
>> Okay. And how is that determined?
>> The initial officer,
>> which was who?
>> It was me.
>> Okay. And why were you the initial
officer even though you were the third
one to arrive?
>> I was assigned to that zone to take
calls in that zone.
>> Right. So, this is your case,
your scene.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, you're the one who gets to
direct people on what to do.
>> Me and the sergeant. Yes.
>> Fair. Now,
you've done I I suspect uh All right.
You You have this death investigation
checklist and you go through it.
Correct.
>> That is correct.
>> Okay. Now, I want to direct your
attention to the scene response section
and I'll walk you through it. It's right
here.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Now
there are
one, two,
3,
4,
5.
There are six things I want that are
highlighted there that I want. They're
in bold and we're going to go through
them in order.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> All right. I'm going to start with the
first one, which is securing the scene.
>> Correct.
Correct.
>> Okay. Now, even if it was my first time
doing a checklist, a death investigation
checklist, I would be able to follow
these instructions. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> All right. Now,
part of that securing the scene, which I
think we saw you do, was you need to
explain to everybody there kind of the
purpose, right?
>> Yes. And exactly what do you need to do?
>> It says find a comfortable location
outside.
>> Let's let's go back to the first
sentence there.
>> Explain kindly explain to the family
that the scene needs to be vacated until
the scene is processed.
>> Okay. Vacated. Right.
>> You want me to continue?
>> No. Vacated. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> And you know what vacated means?
Yes.
>> Okay. Now the following is what is your
duty in order to vacate a scene? What do
you have to do?
>> Remove people from the residence.
>> From the residence. Right.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And it actually gives you examples
of where you can go. Right.
>> Correct.
>> Such as uh a comfortable location
outside.
Right.
>> Yes. another family or member or
friend's house. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. That wasn't done here,
>> Mr. Ramos. In fairness, it's unfair when
you're asking your question.
>> That wasn't done here. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Now, then you have to use a cream a
crime scene log. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> And that's what we just read,
>> right? Just a little bit ago, the sheet
that I gave you.
>> Correct.
>> Correct. Okay.
Then you have to photograph the scene.
All right. I want to talk about this
specifically.
When do you need to photograph the
scene? After what?
>> After an investigation has started.
>> No. Read it right there. Photograph the
scene. After what?
The
>> first picture should be
>> No, before that.
Use a crime scene log to document
who comes and goes. Photograph the scene
after it is secured.
>> After it's secured.
Now, let's talk about the first picture.
We haven't seen any photographs come in
from you, so I'm just asking you. The
first photograph that you took, what
does it tell you to do?
You should
place a placard
with the case information.
>> And did you do that here?
>> I did not.
>> Okay.
Now,
I'll skip to the last one, the
medication log. We talked about that.
You assigned that to uh I believe it was
uh Mr. Pimeintel. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So, let's move to the second to
last. What does it say uh that you're
not supposed to do?
>> Can you clarify?
>> Yeah, absolutely. Let me walk up there.
Starting right here.
>> Do not disturb the scene unless
discussed with both investigations and
>> Okay. Now,
that's very important. You would agree?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Now, we kind of saw some of it in
the video. The jury can go back when it
goes back to him and and look at it for
themselves. But
you went around
>> testified yesterday that you took. Is
that right? That that morning.
>> Correct.
>> All right.
Above the head of Mr. Richens, under the
bed, there is a crumpled up sheet. Do
you see that?
>> Yes. And if you look directly above it
to the mattress, this is one of those
beds. I'm guessing it's one of those
adjustable beds that's divided in the
middle.
>> Yes.
>> Um but you can see that there is a sheet
on the mattress that's the furthest to
the bottom of the picture and there's
not a sheet on the mattress closest to
the window. Is that right?
>> Correct.
>> And do you have an understanding of why
there was no sheet on that mattress?
>> Yes. What is your understanding of that?
>> Uh my understanding was um dispatch had
instructed uh Cory Richens to do CPR on
Eric Richens and was then instructed to
try to get him on a flat flatter surface
for CPR. Um in order to do that,
especially with um a male, they're
typically larger in weight. And so she
instructed her to pull off the sheet in
order to get him off the bed.
So, in other words, you can't lift the
body because it's it's literally dead
weight, right?
>> Yes.
>> And so, the idea is to undo the sheet
from the bed and then pull him down to
the ground where you could do CPR on a
flat surface.
>> Correct.
>> And is that because I mean, I don't even
know if you know, is it is it not
successful to do CPR if you're on a
cushy surface because you go up and
down, right?
>> Uh, yeah. It's typically a little bit
harder on the person.
>> Okay. All right. And is it your
understanding that the sheet that's
crumpled up under the mattress that has
no sheet on it, that's the sheet that he
was pulled to the ground on?
>> I believe so.
>> Right. And did you examine that sheet
before it was put into evidence?
>> Um, I don't recall how much I examined
it, but I looked at it.
>> Do you still have that sheet in
evidence?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Right. And is there any blood on that
sheet?
>> I believe there was on this.
>> Okay. So, if there was testimony here by
EMTs that blood did not start coming out
until after the EMTs were there, is it
fair to assume that the she was under
Mr. Richens when the EMTs were working
on him?
>> Can you rephrase like the she
>> Let me ask this way. Why did you feel
that that was an important piece of
evidence to gather and keep?
>> Because it was where he died on.
>> Perfect. That's what I needed. Thank
you.
All right.
You can take that down, Katie. Thank
you. Um, you
>> Gibson close by.
>> She's ready.
>> Okay. Are we ready for the jury?
>> Yes.
>> I do. I'll get that happen. Miss Nester,
are we ready for the jury?
>> Yes, your honor.
Britney,
>> thank you for our screen.
>> Oh, is it working?
>> Very good.
>> That's really nice.
>> Thanks, Britney.
>> It's great.
Much better.
>> You can
Feel
free to have a seat. Thank you.
Please have a seat.
>> Good morning. Thank you for your
patience. We will continue with
crossexamination of Miss Gibson. Miss
Gibson, uh, you are still under oath. Do
you understand that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Ms. Nester, please proceed.
>> May I please the court? Good morning.
>> Good morning. Um, we're going to try
this one more time.
Um, so when we were last speaking
yesterday morning, we were talking about
um an ind excuse me, an individual
from the United States Postal Service
named agent Travis Smoot that was
present on the search on the 12th. Do
you remember that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. And you mentioned that one
of the reasons he was there was to just
look for any evidence that might have
come through the postal service, right?
>> Yes.
>> Was there another reason he was there?
>> I believe he was also there to test uh
any drugs for narcotics,
>> right? And the reason that you all asked
him to do that or well, I'm not going to
say y'all anymore. The reason that he
was asked to do that um was that there
was a thought there may be fentinel in
the home. Is that correct? Correct.
>> And the reason that you all thought
there might be fentinel in the home that
you personally thought there might not
be fentinel in the home or there might
be fentinel in the home was because you
all had been informed at that point from
the medical examiner's office that there
was a positive result for fentinel in
Mr. Richen's body. Is that correct?
>> Correct. So on the 12th when you and
your team
>> I'm sorry to interrupt Master but it's
April 13th.
>> I'm sorry. What did I say?
>> I don't want to confuse the dates.
>> I apologize. I meant to say April 13th.
>> Did I say March?
>> You said April 12th.
>> Oh, April. Okay.
>> I don't want the dates to get confused.
>> Thank you very much.
>> April 13th. Uh when you and your entire
team were in the home on April 13th, all
of you were aware that there had been a
preliminary finding that fentinel was at
least partially responsible for Mr.
Richen's death. Correct.
>> Correct.
When you were there, you noticed, I'm
sure, and you have noticed since you've
done the Matterport um videos that there
was a very large garage detached from
the home behind the home, correct?
>> Yes.
>> And in that garage,
um, did you all examine any vehicles
that were in that garage?
>> Not that I recall. Are you aware or were
you aware then of what vehicle Mr.
Richens regularly drove in?
>> Not that I recall now.
>> Did you know whether he had a work
truck, personal truck? Did you know any
of that?
>> I believe he had both.
>> And were those vehicles
within, you know, you're about a month
away from his death. A little over a
month and a week. Did anybody search his
vehicles?
>> I'm not sure which one you're referring
to. I believe we did search a vehicle
that was inside the main garage of the
home.
>> A personal vehicle, right?
>> I'm assuming it's a personal vehicle. I
don't know for sure.
>> Were any of the vehicles that Mr.
Richens drove in the detached garage
searched?
>> I don't believe so.
>> I'm also interested in that warrant that
you had on the 12th. It was also
included.
>> I did it again. It's because I have the
12th written on my paper, so I'm fixing
it right now. The 13th,
the warrant, the search on the 13th, it
was for also for electronics. Is that
correct?
>> Correct.
>> And
you were looking for electronics that
could have belonged to either Mrs.
Richens or Mr. Richens. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> And did you find in the home Mr.
Richen's computers?
I don't believe so. In the home,
>> at some point, you did take Mr. Richen's
computer into custody or into your your
custody. Correct.
>> Uh, we've located a computer in the
office shop. I'm not sure whose computer
that one was, though.
>> But in fact, didn't you actually get the
computer from Mr. Todd Gabler?
>> If that's who turned it in, yes. Uh, I'm
not sure who exactly turned it in. So,
being the person responsible for
everything that was checked in on the
day of the 13th when you all did the
search, did anybody turn in a computer
for Mr. Richens on that date?
>> I don't believe it was that day. I'd
have to double check the records on
which day it was booked into.
>> And if you check your records, would you
be able to tell? Um, well, strike that.
So, just to be crystal clear,
on the 13th of April, Mr. Richen's
computer was not in that home or the
detached garage where his office was
located. Correct.
>> I don't believe so, but it's a large
home, and I'm not sure who's who owns
what.
>> Okay.
>> Did you ever go back and get a warrant
to search that um truck that Mr. Richens
drove on a regular basis?
>> Which truck are you referring to? either
the one that was in the home or outside.
>> The red truck.
>> Yeah, I believe we searched it that day.
>> The red truck.
>> I believe that's the one that was inside
the garage.
>> Okay.
There was a picture in the um Well,
strike that. We're not going to talk
about that right now.
Did you ever go um
retrieve any of Eric Richen's personal
items, either vehicles, computers,
anything from his business partner, Cody
Wright?
>> I did not personally know.
>> Do you know if anybody did and brought
them to you?
>> I believe so. Yes.
>> And who and what items were taken from
Cody Wright and brought to you?
>> I believe it was a computer or a hard
drive from a computer.
And before
were you present when that hard drive
was obtained from Cody? Wright.
>> No, I was not.
And just to keep the searches clear,
when you were doing your Matterport, did
you prepare kind of like a um a key that
has all the purple dots are from this
search, all the orange dots are from
this day's search, all the green dots
are from this day's search. Did you
prepare a key like that?
>> Yes.
>> All right. Um can we please pull up
exhibit states exhibit 1-15
and just show it to the witness, please?
Can you see that?
>> I can.
>> Is that the key that you prepared?
>> Uh, it is.
>> And it has a link on it where if you
click on the link, it'll take you to
those Matterport walkthroughs, right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And has this been altered in any
way since you prepared it?
>> Uh, no.
>> Your honor, at this point, I would move
to admit states exhibit
>> Can we Sorry. Before we do that, can we
have a side note?
>> Yes.
>> Hold on. Let's make sure we know what
we're asking for.
>> Oh, you mean with the judge or what are
we asking?
>> Pause for just one second. Okay.
you for that redaction.
>> Now, M. Sherbanac, with that redaction,
any objection to states 1-50?
>> I can't show it to the jury.
>> Hold on. Yes.
>> No, no. I just I need to clarify. I
think I want to make sure this box is
going to travel when we publish it. So,
just one moment.
Sorry.
May we approach?
>> Of course.
below 121924
please.
>> Mack, I need a yes or a no here.
>> Just a moment. Yeah,
>> the redactions need to be in black so we
know something.
>> Yeah, if they could just be in black so
we know that they're they're not just
removed so that it looks like a redacted
version.
>> Sure.
>> That would be helpful.
>> Any objection from the state?
>> No.
>> Okay.
1-15 as redacted is now published.
So,
>> no worries. Thank you, your honor. So,
that um list right there, that is the
list of ev the dates of every single
time through December of 24 when the
home was searched by law enforcement.
Correct.
>> Correct. And in your Matterport
videos which have been introduced, if
the jury wants to use this key, they can
go back and compare. The little pink
dots were from the search on March 5th
and the magenta dots were from the
search on August 9th. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Um, since this list was prepared, you
all have been back to the home again,
right?
>> Correct.
>> And what date did you return to the home
that is not listed on this list?
I don't remember the exact date, but it
was
about a month ago, month or two ago.
>> So, sometime in February of 2025 or six?
>> I Yes, I believe it was February 6th
around that time.
>> Okay. Were there any other searches
after December 24 and between the one on
February 6th of 26?
>> I don't believe so.
And every single one of the times that
you guys went in this home, you're
trying to find evidence about what
happened in the six hours before Mr.
Richen's body was discovered, right?
>> Correct.
>> And you kept going back and back and
back.
>> Yes.
>> All right. I do want to talk a little
bit. You can take it down. Thank you.
>> I do want to talk a little bit about the
Matterport.
Um, you mentioned you did some
measuring,
>> correct?
>> With Is it the same device you do the
video with that does the measurements?
>> Yeah, it's the Matterport.
>> Okay.
And I believe you said you measured the
distance from the from the master
bedroom to the front door.
>> Correct.
>> And then from the
what is the second one you did? Uh
there's one from the master bedroom to
the kitchen. Um master bedroom to each
boy's room.
>> Okay.
And what's the purpose? Why did you make
those measurements?
>> I was asked to to try to figure out how
far they were to correlate with uh data
that was retrieved off of a cell phone.
>> Perfect.
Did you also take any measurements from
the master bedroom to the back porch
door?
>> I have not. No.
>> Did you notice the day that you were
there when Mr. Richard's dad was Did
they have a dog?
>> I believe so. Yes.
>> Did you also measure the distance from
the master bedroom to the master
bathroom? I did not.
>> Or to the hallway bathroom.
>> No.
Also, in your report from the search on
the 13th, you mentioned that you all
collected some hydrocodone pills. Is
that accurate?
>> Correct. Where did you find those?
That's okay.
>> Okay. My apologies, Miss Nester. Keep
going.
>> Where did you find those pills?
>> Uh, I didn't personally find them, but
they were located in the laundry room in
the cabinet.
>> And how many hydrocodone pills did you
find?
>> Like I said, I didn't I wasn't the one
that found them. I collected them. Um, I
don't know the exact approximately 10
around that time.
>> And were they in a bottle or were they
loose?
>> They were in a bag.
And in the garage, I know you were very
careful about marking where every single
thing was found. When these hydrocodone
pills were found in the garage, what
were they near?
>> They weren't in the garage. They were in
sorry,
>> laundry room.
>> The laundry room, which is right at the
door where the garage starts, right?
>> Uh, it's near it. Yes.
>> And what was it near?
>> It was inside of a inside the cabinet in
the laundry room
>> up high.
>> Correct.
Is there any way to tell if a
hydrocodone pill was purchased if you
find it loose like that, not in a
bottle? Is there any way for law
enforcement to look at it and say, "Hey,
this is uh bought on the street or this
is bought in the drugstore."
>> Um, not that I know of on scene. Okay.
You also had a picture that you referred
to um when Miss Shervinac was uh
questioning you that had the picture of
all the gummies on it. Um, I believe it
is exhibit number.
Um,
sorry, give me just a second.
>> Thank you. 9-112.
>> Um, can we put that up, your honor? It's
been admitted. Let's make sure it's the
one you want before I show it to the
>> Yes, sir.
>> Yes. Yep. That That's the one I want.
The one that's on the screen. Can we
publish that, your honor?
>> Any objection, Mr. Sherman?
>> No, your honor.
>> One moment.
And I need to approach the screen. Do I
need permission for that or?
>> No. Okay.
>> Just make sure your mic is working.
We're not going to pick you up.
>> So, this picture that you have in front
of you, you told Miss Shiver that all of
these gummies were seized together. Is
that right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. But I'm seeing these two little
plastic baggies of gummies up at the top
that are not labeled that don't have any
commercial labeling.
Are you saying these two were all in the
same place with all the rest of these?
>> Correct. That's what I was told.
>> Okay. So, if there's a picture of these
in the top of the kitchen where you
actually have a dot above the fridge,
then you would be incorrect that they
were all found together.
That's a different package that was
found above the fridge.
>> Oh, so there was at least three clear
packages that had no commercial uh
marking on them, correct? With gummies
in them.
>> Okay.
And the gummies that are on the screen
that have the red packaging, at least
one of those was found in that green
jacket in the closet, right?
>> Not these specific ones. That's a
additional one that was located.
>> So, there was another red bag of
gummies.
>> Correct.
>> Did anybody uh take that green jacket
into custody?
>> No.
>> Um do you recall um where in the closet
it was as compared to near men's
clothing or women's clothing? Uh, it was
in the north or sorry, the southeast
corner of the closet.
>> Is that where the men's clothing was
located?
>> I I'm not sure if it was men's or
women's to be honest.
>> Okay.
All right. Now, I want to move to the
search um
that occurred on
Can we put the uh key back up uh that we
just had on the key?
Get the make sure I have the right date.
I don't want to say the wrong date and
get correct.
Oh, there it is. Uh, March 14th of 2022,
right? Is that the next one that was on
your key?
>> Yeah, that's the second one. Correct.
>> All right. What was the purpose of the
search on March 14th, which was just
about um
I think that's a typo because you
>> That is Sorry, that is a typo. Yes.
>> Okay. Can we
>> It's April 14th.
>> Can you pull that out, Katie? Can you
pull that out? Make it bigger so the
jury can see it. So where it says 31422
sunflower yellow, that actually should
read April 13th, right?
>> Correct.
>> So is that the only mistake on there?
>> I believe so.
>> Okay. Just want to make sure the jury
remembers that. All right. So the next
search would have been May 8th of 2023.
Correct.
>> Correct.
>> And those are going to be forced green
dots on your Matterport.
>> Correct. And what was the purpose of
going back to the house a couple months
or a year later on uh May 8th of 2023?
What were you looking for that time?
>> I believe that one was to obtain u
additional electronics and also uh
documents and drugs.
>> And when you went to that search um was
any fentinel located in the home?
>> No.
All right. And then the next search you
did, which was October 24th of 2023,
um, what was the purpose of going back
for that search?
I'd have to double check my notes. I
believe that's one that we were
collecting some more electronics.
>> All right.
Was there ever a time prior to any of
those? Well, let's just keep going. On
the 31st, you remember why you guys were
searching a week later why you went
back?
>> I believe that one was also for
electronics um and or documents.
prior to all of these searches and the
ones that are listed below it
>> or I'm sorry I believe those two and
December were actually for some copper
cups and uh drugs.
>> Okay. And the copper cups you actually
found them, right?
>> Uh we found several. Correct.
>> And where were they when you found them?
>> I believe on the first one some were
located upstairs in the kitchen.
>> And they were tested, I'm sure. Yes.
>> All right.
And so if Ms. Richens in any of her
interviews stated that they had a gift
of copper cups and had a drink that
night, you found something that
corroborated that part of her story.
Correct.
>> We found copper cups. Correct.
>> All right.
And if Ms. Richens gave interviews that
said that her husband may have taken a
gummy that night, you found gummies that
could have corroborated that part of her
story, right?
>> We found gummies. Yes. And if she said
that she pulled him on a sheet off onto
the ground to try to start CPR, you
found a sheet that corroborated that
part of her story.
>> Correct.
>> And you measured the distances between
the bedroom, between the children's
rooms, not the whole house, but a good
part of the house. And so there were
steps that were recorded on her phone
that were consistent with her moving
around the house prior to calling 911.
Correct.
Correct.
>> So that corroborated her story that she
had been somewhere other than the
bedroom. Your
>> honor,
>> she's introducing her client statements
as hearsay through this witness.
>> Well, I think they've already all been
brought up. Okay.
>> Over.
>> Um and then
um
All
right. In these searches
um that you all were conducting,
was there ever a time where you were
conducting a search because the private
investigator had revealed to law
enforcement that there were items worthy
of going back to the house for?
>> Yes.
>> How many times did that happen?
>> At least one that I recall.
>> All right. I want to talk about that one
time. Does that involve the letter that
was recovered from the bed?
>> Okay, there's two.
>> Okay, two times. So, tell me about the
first one that you remembered.
>> Um, I believe it was a voice recording
or a recording device that was located
>> and you all got information from a
private investigator that had been on in
the scene on the house that he' found
something he thought you wanted to see.
>> Correct.
>> And so, you issued a warrant and went
and picked it up.
>> I did not issue the warrant, but
somebody else did.
>> Of course. I'm sorry. That's inaccurate.
a warrant was issued and you guys went
in.
>> All right. In the second time, um, what
did that involve?
>> A letter that was located
>> and the letter that was located in this
search and do you remember the date of
the search? Want me to refresh your
memory?
>> If you could, yes, please.
>> Sure. No worries. Um,
11724.
Okay. Um, your purple day. It's your
purple dot day. Um,
my understanding is a letter was
recovered on the foot of the bed of
Eric's side of the bed.
>> Correct.
>> Now, the jury has seen multiple photos
from that night. Um,
where there's no clearly no letter on
that bed.
>> Correct.
>> And there were several at least one,
two, three, four, five, six, seven
searches prior to November of 24 where
that letter was not seen on the bed.
Right.
>> Correct. And that included walkthroughs
of defense council, walkthroughs of
prosecution team, you doing Matterport
videos where there's no letter on the
foot of the bed. Right.
>> Correct.
>> And then when all of a sudden when you
guys get there in November, there's this
letter on the bed.
>> Yes.
>> Right. And you took that into evidence.
>> Yes, we did.
>> Same when you went and you got the tip
off that there's a recording device. You
went and were you showed exactly where
it was by the private investigator?
>> Uh, yes.
>> How many times when you all searched the
house was the private investigator there
and present?
>> I have I don't know. I wasn't told.
>> When you saw him with your own eyes,
right?
>> Just the one time.
>> Just once that you saw him.
>> Correct.
Okay.
At some point, and I just need to
clarify this for the jury, too. In
addition to the physical evidence that's
seized at the scene, documentary
evidence, uh, electronic evidence, you
also are in charge of maintaining video
footage of witness interviews. Is that
right?
>> Correct.
>> And every witness that was interviewed
that had an audio or videotape, you
saved it and did all those procedures we
talked about at the very beginning of
your testimony.
>> Correct. At some point did you become
aware that two
also one of the items you recovered on a
search on uh September in
uh well I'm not sure of the date so I'm
just going to say one of the searches
you you seized or or took custody of an
Apple Watch that belonged to Eric
Richards. Is that right?
>> Correct. And when you took uh custody of
that Apple Watch, um it had a massive
amount of data on it. Correct.
>> I wouldn't say a mass amount of data. It
had a gigabytes worth of data.
>> So it wasn't it wasn't deleted.
>> No.
>> So if someone testified that the Apple
Watch had been deleted, that might not
be true.
>> Wasn't true because you got it
>> on Eric's Apple Watch. We had very
little data off of it.
>> You had how much data? I don't recall
the exact amount,
>> but you had data on it.
>> We had some data. Yes.
>> So, it wasn't deleted.
>> I don't recall if anything was deleted
off of it.
>> Thank you.
In addition to the computer that Todd
Gabler turned over to law enforcement
that had originally belonged to Eric,
did Todd Gabler take physical possession
of any evidence first before giving it
to the law enforcement? Do you do you
know besides the computer?
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>> Thank you.
One of the things you found on the
search in November 7th of 2024,
uh, you all found what's called an
epinephrine medical injection unit,
right?
>> Correct.
>> And can you tell us what that is?
>> I believe that one was just a EpiPen
that's used to administer
insulin
>> or maybe not insulin, maybe something
for an an allergic reaction.
>> Yes. Okay.
>> And that's something that you normally
find on a scene if someone's severely
allergic.
>> Correct.
>> And where did you find that epinephrine
medical injection?
>> I believe it was in the kitchen. Um I
believe it was inside the refrigerator.
>> Wasn't there also one located in the
master bathroom
>> at one point? I believe so.
>> All right. And you did not take that
into evidence?
>> No.
>> You just noted it.
>> Correct. You also found syringes in the
master bedroom.
>> Yes. Uh, in the master bedroom,
>> I'm sorry, master bathroom.
>> Oh, there was some in the master closet.
>> And where in the closet were the
syringes located?
>> At the very top shelf in the northwest
corner
>> up high.
>> Correct.
>> And did you all take those into
evidence?
>> Uh, yes.
>> Did you test them? No, they were unused
>> and destroyed them.
>> They were not destroyed. No,
>> but you still have them.
>> Correct.
>> And there was one syringe that you found
in the master bathroom, I believe, that
did have residue of substance in it.
Right.
>> There was a syringe located in the
kitchen.
>> Okay.
>> And was that tested?
>> That one was. Yes.
>> And what was the what was the substance
that was determined to be inside that
syringe? I don't recall what was the
positive.
When you were searching the home, did
you also find oxycodone pills?
>> I am unsure.
>> And the kapine pills that we talked
about yesterday that was in the bag that
we had you open and untapeed. Equitipine
>> the kettapene pills that were in the bag
that we opened actually I think it was
yesterday or the day before I can't
remember but it had a little some little
substance in it that was
>> the two half pills
>> that's what I was about to ask
>> quitine quitine
>> yes
>> and that pill was cut in half correct
>> um I don't recall if it was it was it's
in two halves right now yes
>> so the pill was in two halves correct
>> and you didn't do that
>> no
>> and you've protected that so that must
be this the condition it was in when you
got it.
>> Yes.
>> All right.
Okay.
Court's indulgence for just one minute.
I think I'm wrapping up.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
Um,
I believe if it refreshes your memory
that the last search that was conducted
on the house might have been February
9th. Does that sound familiar?
>> Yes.
>> And when you went and searched the house
on February 9th, what did you take from
you from away from the house on the 9th?
a black Under Armour jacket.
>> Where did you find that jacket?
>> In one of the downstairs bedroom
closets.
>> And how many jackets would you say were
in that house
3 years after the death? Four years.
>> A lot of jackets.
>> Right. And that's the jacket you picked
and you took it with you out of the
house.
>> Correct.
>> And I want to be really specific about
the search of the truck. So, there were
two trucks. One was a brown work truck
and one was a red truck. Which is the
truck that you believe was searched when
you were present in logging in all the
search materials?
>> I believe it was red. It was the truck
that was inside the garage.
>> So, you have no notice or no note
anywhere that the brown truck that Eric
spent all day every day in was ever
searched on the date of his death or in
the month after?
>> I didn't personally know. And you didn't
note it down because that would be your
job, right?
>> If I didn't search it, then it wouldn't
be my job to note it down.
>> Well, if someone inventoried anything
out of the truck, it would be right.
>> If they took anything out of the truck,
yes.
>> Okay.
>> Anything else? One one moment, your
honor. Excuse me.
>> There was a canine search run at one
point with a dog.
>> Yes.
>> When was that approximately? You don't
need to know the exact date.
>> That was on the April 14th of 2022
search.
>> And was the canine just run through the
home?
>> Um, I can't attest to where it ran. I
believe it just ran through the entire
home.
>> To your knowledge, did the canine go
into any vehicles on that day?
>> I'm unaware.
Okay.
>> Thank you, honor. Attend the witness.
Thank you, ma'am.
>> Thank you,
>> Miss Sherman.
Let's see how many things I can stack on
this program.
Okay,
Miss Gibson, let's talk about March 4th.
That's the day that uh of 2022. That's
the day Eric Richens died.
>> Did you have a search warrant that day?
>> No, we did not.
>> Were you legally permitted to search the
house for anything you wanted?
>> No, not at that time.
>> Were you looking for prescriptions of
Eric Richens?
>> Yes.
>> And you weren't looking for
prescriptions of Corey Richens?
>> No.
>> Why not?
A little closer. Yeah.
>> How's that?
Are we better?
>> Yeah. Thank you very much.
>> And you weren't looking for
prescriptions of Cory Richens,
>> correct?
>> Why not?
>> Uh, typically in when it we have a death
investigation, we only look for um the
dissident medications or any other
medicine that could be potentially
misused.
I think we did note some uh prescription
bottles of Cory Richens just to verify
make sure there wasn't overdose
possibility on those.
>> And you didn't find any hydrocodone that
day?
>> No.
>> So
let's move forward 5 weeks, April 13th,
2022. That's the first time the house is
searched by a search warrant.
>> Correct.
>> You weren't in the house between March
4th of 2022 when Eric died and April
13th of 2022.
>> Correct.
>> There was no search warrant on the home
in that time frame.
>> Correct.
>> And you went back on April 13th with a
search warrant looking for fentanyl.
>> Yes.
>> Because fentanyl killed Eric Richens.
>> Correct.
Now, Miss Nester asked you about a truck
being searched on April 13th.
>> Yes.
>> And the truck that was searched was a
red truck,
>> I believe. So,
>> when you were at the home during any of
those searches, but in particular on
April 13th, was there a brown truck at
the home?
>> I don't recall.
>> If there was a brown truck there and
something was found in it, would you
have been made aware of that? Yes.
>> If we could um Scott put up
exhibit 1-16
and 1-18
side by side.
Are they up? I can see one picture.
Let me know when you're ready.
>> I messed something up.
>> Is this what you wanted to show the
witness?
>> Um, yes. Scott, is there a second page
to 1-18?
Okay, go. That's that's the view that I
would like. Please, if we could publish
that to the jury.
>> Any objection, Miss Nester?
>> No.
So, when we're looking at this these two
photographs, the photograph on the left,
I just want to make this clear for the
jury. These items were located on April
13th, 2022.
>> Correct.
>> And the items on the left were located
in the cupboard above the toilet.
>> Correct.
>> The item on the right was located in the
kitchen.
>> Correct.
Now, you also testified
um with Miss Netor there was hydrocodone
found in a baggie.
>> Yes.
>> And that was located um kind of like a
mudroom area.
>> Yeah.
>> Were those items sent to be tested at
the lab?
>> I I believe so,
but I'm not positive.
Scott, if we could show the witness
exhibit 1-17, please.
Is there a second page to that one?
Okay, that that view is fine. If we
could show that to the jury, please.
>> No objection.
>> Is this a photograph that you took? Yes.
>> Is that Did you look at that jacket?
>> I didn't look inside the jacket.
>> Not inside the jacket, but did you look
at the jacket?
>> Not really. No.
>> Could you tell if it was a men's jacket
or a women's jacket?
>> I can't tell. No.
>> You can take it down.
Now, I want to talk about um the black
jacket, the Under Armour jacket.
You went back and retrieved that jacket
from the home,
>> correct?
>> With a search warrant.
>> Yes.
>> Why did you retrieve that jacket out of
all the jackets in the home?
>> It was the jacket that a pair of
tweezers and a small piece of plaque was
plastic was located in.
So,
Miss Nester has has gone over these
multiple searches with you. Why do you
keep going back to the house?
>> Uh, we obtain additional information
that could potentially lead to something
else that we could have missed
originally. Uh, we're looking for
different items.
>> The investigation, is it developing
between those searches?
>> Yes.
>> You're receiving new information?
>> Yes.
And we talked about some phone calls
that you had retrieved and booked into
evidence. Were you ever, is that
correct?
>> Yes.
>> Were you ever involved in downloading,
storing, retrieving, preserving any
secret phone calls?
>> What do you mean secret phone calls?
>> Yes or no?
>> No.
Give me just a minute.
>> Those are all my questions for you.
Thank you.
>> Thanks.
>> Within the scope of redirect, please.
>> Absolutely.
So what you just said to Miss Shiverick,
um you would go back in case you missed
things
>> and we'd obtain add additional
information.
>> In case you missed it
>> with additional information
>> and you had to do that looks like a
minimum of 10 times.
>> Yes, we kept obtaining additional
information.
>> So each time you went back, you found
things you'd missed before. Uh, it's
things that would weren't being looked
for before.
>> Okay. At the very beginning of Miss
Chiron's questions, she mentioned that
you were not legally authorized to
search the home on the day of the death
pursuant to a warrant. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> However, you can certainly legally
search a home if someone consents and
says, "Hey, search my home." Right.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And Ms. uh Richens didn't stop
anyone from searching anything in that
house, did she?
>> I did not at any point.
>> I didn't have any interact interaction
with her, so I'm unaware.
>> I mean, she didn't stop you.
>> Correct.
>> And you knew when you arrived because
you were there to help Detective Woody,
you knew from the minute you got there
that somebody was making allegations
that she was involved in the death. From
the minute you got there, right?
>> Not the minute I got there. No.
>> How soon after you got there?
I don't recall how long it had been. I
was just there to assist Detective Woody
and there were some suspicious
circumstances.
>> And you knew that that day, right?
>> I know there was some allegations. Yes.
That day.
>> Did you ever go to Ms. Richensson and
say, "May I please photograph your
bathroom? May I please photograph your
kitchen sink? May I please have those
drink cups that are in the sink?" Did
you ever do any of that?
>> No.
>> Okay.
I think that's all I have. Thank you,
honor.
>> M Shak, anything else?
>> No, John.
>> Okay, Miss Gibson, you can step down.
You can take the things in your custody
with you.
>> Thank you.
>> Very good.
>> Am I released from my subpoena or am I
>> I'm actually not sure.
>> Let me ask. That's a fair question. Um,
>> are we releasing Do we need to release
her or just hold her?
>> If we could just not release her, but
um, we promise if we need her, we'll
give her much advanced notice that she
needs to come back.
>> So, you're not released. Uh, we'll make
sure you get fair notice.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> All right.
>> And if she could be advised not to
discuss her testimony.
>> Yeah. Council, would you approach?
>> Yes.
I'm a forensic toxicologist with NMS
Labs.
>> How long have you been a forensic
toxicologist?
>> Uh over 20 years.
>> And with NMS?
>> I've been with NMS since June of 2021.
>> Okay. So, you were um working there in
March of 2022.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
What is a forensic toxicologist?
Forensic toxicology. Um you analyze
biological samples uh for the presence
or absence of drugs and alcohol.
>> And um what is your education briefly? I
received my bachelor's degree in
chemistry from the University of
Wisconsin Lacrosse in 1997, a master's
degree in forensic science from the
University of Illinois at Chicago in
1999, and a PhD in toxicology from the
University of Georgia in 2007.
Since becoming a forensic toxicologist
20 years ago, have you had training uh
that uh continuous training?
>> Uh yes. So throughout my career, I've
received training specific to the
chemical extractions that are to be
performed on the biological samples, the
instrumentation that's used for the
analysis, and then also pharmarmacology
for the interpretation of the drug and
ethanol results and how they might apply
to either impairment or a medical legal
death investigation.
So, um, have you had a chance to, this
is kind of a funny question. Have you
had a chance to to check the data from
biological samples?
>> Yes.
>> About how many times have you done that?
>> So, my primary job duty is case review.
So, on average, I probably review 12,000
cases a year with NMS Labs. And uh have
you ever testified before as an expert
in a criminal case?
>> Yes, I have.
>> About how many times?
>> Approximately 160.
>> Um how does the toxicology
process work? I mean how does it how do
you get it uh at whose request and what
happens to it? So NMS receives samples
from various clients like medical
examiners, coroners, law enforcement,
hospitals. Um so we receive the evidence
and the client will request specific
testing to be performed
>> and um
you said they come from all over the
country,
>> correct?
>> And so how do they get there? Uh so they
can be shipped via FedEx, UPS, uh hand
delivery, US mail.
>> Then uh once they arrive at NMS, what
happens to the sample?
>> We have a specimen processing department
that will open up the packaging, compare
the evidence against the information
that was provided by the client on a
request form to make sure that the
information matches and then we create
our own unique case. Uh we have an
electronic laboratory information
management system where we'll input all
the information provided to us, what
testing was requested. Um and then we
give each case a unique 8-digit number
that we barcode. So all of the evidence
is barcoded so it can be tracked
throughout the time in the laboratory.
Once they receive it and it process it
as you've just described then is it
secured someplace?
>> Yes. So it's a secure facility in
general and then um so the building is
secure and then the laboratory also has
limited access to the people that um
need to use the laboratory and then
where the evidence is stored in like
walk-in freezers or fridges that also
requires um like a prox card access so
it's secure and then limited to staff
that need access to those areas.
So when it comes to testing
uh what happens we we heard about some
gray vials and stuff for example. What
happens to the how does it get into the
laboratory?
Uh so for this case we received two
blood samples. They were both in gray
top vials. Uh so each vial is going to
get its own unique barcode number and
then when testing is going to be
performed we will take out a small
volume of blood that's needed for the
test. So we have the original container
that was received and we just remove out
or aloquat the amount of volume that's
needed for the test and then sorry
that's placed into a clean new test tube
that also is barcoded and tracked. Then
um
this aloququat is forwarded to the lab
for the scientist to run through the
instruments.
>> Yes. So the aloqua is given to a staff
member who will perform the specific
test following a standardized operating
procedure.
>> Okay. Um
is it run by itself or in batches of
cases?
>> So we run batches. So there's going to
be many other unknown case samples and
then also every batch will have a set of
standards and controls uh that is also
run concurrently with the unknown cases.
>> So when the instrument runs its test on
any particular sample
um how is the data
entered?
So everything is being tracked by that
unique case number that we gave it. Uh
once um an extraction is performed, the
sample is run on an instrument. The
instrument has inputed like they they
scan the barcode to tell the instrument
this is you know this vial is this case
number. After the data is reviewed, it's
sent electronically from the instrument
to our electric electronic laboratory
information management system that
stores the results. So it's always just
following our unique case number.
>> Is there someone near in time who then
reviews that data to make sure that it
it um was processed properly?
>> Yes. So after the person in the
laboratory performs their procedure, it
runs on an instrument. When the
instrument is run done it done running
the entire batch, someone's going to
review all of the data for the known to
make sure that the positive controls
were positive, the negatives were
negative. Um, and then that all of the
unknown cases, that any results that
were found meet the acceptance criteria
for reporting. So, they'll look at the
batch in its entirety to make sure that
it's acceptable based on those standards
and controls. And then when they're
done, a second person is going to do the
exact same thing. So it's like a double
check of their work before that batch is
released and those results sent to the
computer system.
>> And that's the same process for each
test that you run on all the various
substances.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
When do you come into the picture? So
after all testing has been completed for
a case, then in my role as a
toxicologist, I'm going to review the
data from all of the testing that was
performed for this specific case. I also
um have access to the administrative
information provided by the client on
that request form. So I'm making sure
that the correct testing
was performed that was requested. So I
review everything and then I will issue
a final toxicology report um with the
findings from all of the testing.
>> So in this particular case um you
received um some samples from the Utah
Medical Examiner on March 8th.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And was assigned the unique number
at that point?
>> Correct.
>> Um and what did you receive?
We received um two tubes of blood,
vitrius fluid, urine, liver tissue, and
gastric fluid.
>> Okay.
And initially, what were you asked to
do?
>> Uh initially, it was just requested that
we um perform a test that screens for
alcohol and drugs in one of the blood
samples.
>> And uh did you do that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. in the
um in the screening. Were any of those
um did any of those come up positive for
substances that you subsequently tested
uh a confirmatory test?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And tell me about tell the jury
about that. So we first uh perform a a
broad drug screen that looks for
hundreds of different drugs. Um and then
based on those results, if there's any
positive findings, then we will perform
a second confirmation test that's more
specific and sensitive for that drug or
drug class. And so that's um we're
taking a separate aloquat performing a
separate test running on another
instrument to confirm those original
screening results.
And in this case, what did you find in
the confirmatory test?
>> Uh, fentinyl and norfentinyl.
>> Okay. And and to did did the
confirmatory test identify levels?
>> Yes. So fentinyl was reported at 15 nos
per milliliter and norfentinyl at 3.3
nanogs per milliliter.
>> What is norfentinyl?
>> Norfentinyl is a metabolite of fentinyl.
So when your body um is trying to
eliminate drugs, they'll break them down
into a different form called metabolites
sometime that are easier for the body to
excrete. So it's inactive. It doesn't
cause any effects, but it just shows
that some fentinyl has been metabolized
to norfentinyl.
>> Did you screen for hydrocodone?
>> Yes.
>> And um did the screen identify anything
for further testing?
No.
>> Okay.
>> Any other opioids tested
in the screening?
>> Yes.
>> And any others besides fentinyl
uh positive for further testing?
>> No.
Do you know how long
um hydrocodone stays in the body that
you're able to to find it in a
subsequent uh toxicology test?
>> Um so hydrocodone has a halflife of
maybe four to six hours. So a halflife
refers to how long does it take for the
concentration to go in half. And usually
drugs will be completely eliminated from
your body in five half- lives. So if
someone took a dose of hydrocodone, we
would expect it all to be um eliminated
within
20 to 30 hours based on that 4 to 6 hour
halflife times five.
>> Okay. Um
when when
uh the when a person dies
does it freeze in place whatever is
there? I mean you don't continue to
eliminate it or it doesn't evaporate
once it's the blood is drawn out. It
freezes it in place. Is that correct?
Um, in general, um, it's going to be a
snapshot of what was going on. There are
some drugs that might have limited
stability. Like cocaine can be broken
down after death just due to enzymes
that are are present that can break it
down into its metabolite. Um, so there
are a few drugs that we know have
limited stability in the biological
samples after death, but for the most
part, yes, it's, you know, your body has
stopped working like it's no longer
going to be metabolizing, etc.
>> Is that true for opioids then?
>> Um, that it should be a snapshot of
them. Yes.
>> Okay.
Um, have you ever heard of a uh
principle or a theory or something of
called post-mortem redistribution?
>> Yes.
>> Can you um give a brief explanation of
what that is?
>> So postmortem redistribution so after
someone dies um you know the pH of your
blood starts to change and the
permeability of the tissues isn't um
maintained the same. So it means if
there was like drugs stored in like
major organs like your heart or your
lungs, they might start to seep out of
those organs and go into the the
neighboring blood. Um and so this means
like they're being redistributed. So
maybe there was a concentration of drugs
in your heart and now after death due to
the changes the body might be undergoing
they might go into the blood and
increase the concentration. So the blood
might not be an the concentration that's
there might not be an exact
representation of the concentration um
at the time right before death. Right?
So it might have increased due to the
tissues releasing some of their drug
stores into that blood sample.
Um
when you obtain the blood um as when the
person uh or whomever is obtaining the
blood does it uh after death does it
matter where they obtain it from
with regards to this redistribution?
Um, post-mortem redistribution should
occur less if you take from a peripheral
blood source like the femoral vein
because those veins aren't as close to
the major organs versus if you take
blood from a a central source like a
cardiac that is closer to your heart and
all the other organs. So, it's more
likely to have post-mortem
redistribution in a central blood source
compared to a peripheral. But it doesn't
mean that it can't happen in a
peripheral blood source.
>> Okay. So, um
does the literature say
um identify what is a lethal dose of
fentinyl?
So studies are published um
that provide concentrations of drugs
found where it's been determined um that
fentanyl contributed to the death. So
there there are studies that give these
concentration ranges. Yes.
>> And um does it vary from person to
person?
>> Yes. So based on a individual's history
of use with the drug, they might have a
tolerance to it, which means that you
might need a higher concentration to
obtain the same desired effect. And it
also means that you might need a higher
concentration
um from someone a chronic user compared
to a naive user um for that drug to
cause their death. So it can vary what
is a lethal concentration for individual
to individual
>> from a for a person who has never taken
fentinol before what is um the
literature say is a lethal dose.
>> Um so just in general though the lowest
reported concentrations of fentanyl are
three nanogs per milliliter where it's
been attributed to contributed to their
death.
>> Okay. So in this case we had 15
Correct.
>> Which is five times that.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Now um
even assuming
uh this redistribution postmortem
redistribution
um is that s significantly still above
this three nanograms per milliliter?
>> Yes. 15 is greater than three.
Thank you. I I am just a lawyer, so
pardon my math. Um,
okay. Uh, at a later time,
were you asked to examine other of the
samples that you were sent by uh the
Utah Medical Examiner?
>> Yes. In October of 2022, the client
requested that we perform a alcohol and
drug screen on the gastric fluid.
>> And um did you do that?
>> Yes.
>> Did um
following that screen were you did you
get positive results for which you
subsequently
uh performed confirmatory tests?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Can you tell us about those?
>> Uh yes. So ethanol was detected at 279
mg per deciliter.
Quitipene was detected at 16,000 nanogs
per milliliter.
Fentinyl was detected at 20,000 nanogs
per milliliter. Norfentanyl was detected
at 52 nanogs per milliliter and acetal
fentanyl was detected at 29 nanogs per
milliliter.
>> We haven't heard about acetal uh
fentinyl. What is that?
>> Acetto fentanyl is a fentanyl analog. So
it's similar in structure um but it's a
elicit drug. So there's no prescription
pharmaceutical drug where it's going to
be prescribed. it's solely illicit um
and it's often seen in illicitly
manufactured fentanyl as a co-product.
>> So for um purposes of an analyst or um a
criminal investigator that would be a
marker that this came from a source,
this fentanyl came from a source that
was illicit.
Um,
you could provide that interpretation.
Yes.
>> Okay.
>> I mean, they could have just had a cetal
fentanyl and maybe a fentanyl
prescription, but um, often when you see
acetal fentanyl, it's an indication that
the fentanyl was elicit.
>> Okay.
This uh, 279 mg per deciliter of
ethanol. Um, I want to go into that
first of all. Um
h how much alcohol is that? Um
in layman's terms like in order of say
shots of uh liquor or 12 ounce beers or
whatever.
>> Um so this will be kind of a multi-step
answer. So the 279 milligrams per
deciliter is a a concentration. And so
your question was asking just about
milligrams. So like if you have a a beer
or a shot of alcohol, that's just in
terms of milligrams of ethanol. Um so to
figure that out, um you would have to
take the 279
times the total val volume of gastric
fluid that's available. Um
>> did you were you made aware of the total
volume? Yes, I was.
>> From whom?
>> Uh Dr. Ol.
>> Okay. And did she give you a figure?
>> 700 milliliters.
>> Okay. And so from that you were able to
make a calculation.
>> Yeah. So you would multiply the 279
times the 700 milliliters and
um doing the conversions for deciliter
to milliliters, but you end up with um
around 1,200 or sorry 1,900 mg of
ethanol versus a a standard drink of
ethanol is 14,000 mg. So, it's well
below the amount that you would find
just in one standard drink of ethanol.
>> Is there uh another possible source for
this alcohol than um
uh alcoholic beverage?
>> Yes. So, um
it's known that if you have a source of
glucose and bacteria that ethanol can be
formed post-mortem. So the bacteria
convert glucose because it's carbon,
hydrogen, and oxygen just like ethanol.
It can convert glucose into ethanol. And
so um obviously like in gastric
contents, you might have a source of
glucose if there's food there and then
your stomach naturally has bacteria. So
this postmortem formation can occur
either in the body prior to sample
collection, but it could also happen in
the collection container because often
they don't have a preservative that
would inhibit the bacteria from
doing this process of postmortem
formation of ethanol.
Is there any way you can chemically
identify whether it's this um
post-mortem decomposition or
vodka?
>> Not in the testing that we performed.
>> Okay.
Can you tell us um
based on your knowledge of the the uh
the the volume in the gastric fluid? Um
anything about this quitene?
um how much of a pill if you will would
be there or a dosage
>> right so again you would take the
concentration the 16,000 nanogs per
milliliter multiply it times the total
700 milliliters
um
and you get a very large number but
drugs are given in typically in
milligram doses um and there's a million
nanogs in one milligram Right. So after
you do that math, it ends up being 11 mg
of quitapene. Um I just want to state
like the assumption is that that 700 ml
of gastric was homogeneous. So that the
concentration was consistent throughout
the entire volume and that the sample
that was sent to us represents that 700
milliliters as a whole. Like that
assumption has to be made for the
calculations that I'm providing.
And so is it um that 16,000 come to
equal uh a standard dosage prescription
dosage?
>> I would say it's less than a standard
dosage. I mean it depends on a person's
prescription but typically like 75 100
250 milligrams of quiapene might be
prescribed versus
our calculation was 11 milligrams.
Um okay. Um
did you um a few minutes ago did you
have an opportunity to look at um states
exhibit 9-1
um a quitene bottle with its uh label on
it?
>> Yes, I did. Okay. You also uh
have u
the results that that you
obtained through
screening and and your confirmation test
with the known that you have available
to you. Are you um able to say that that
the quitapene and fentinyl had to have
been taken
sequentially
either one before the other one or uh at
the same time or anything like that.
>> I cannot make any of those conclusions.
>> Okay.
I have nothing for this uh witness.
>> He's loose.
>> Glass of water is for you.
>> Good morning, Dr. Peterson.
>> Morning.
>> I'm Wendy Lewis. I'm one of Miss
Richen's attorneys. Nice to meet you.
So, you've been working at NMS labs, you
said, for how long?
>> Since June of 2021.
>> All right. And prior to that, were you
still doing the same type of work,
forensic toxicology?
>> Yes, I was.
>> All right. So, part of your job isn't um
working with
live patients. True.
>> Correct.
>> All right. So, you don't deal with when
someone comes in who's maybe possibly
overdosing from some kind of drug.
>> That's correct.
>> All right. So you look at what's
happened only after death by looking at
samples. Correct.
>> I look at the data generated from those
samples being tested.
>> That's fair. That's fair. How a
scientist would describe it rather than
an attorney.
Okay. So I want to talk about um
fentanyl and follow up a little bit on
what Mr. Burmister asked you regarding
lethal doses of of fentanyl.
So here you said we had 15 nanogs per
milliliter of fentanyl in in the
bloodstream. Is that did I get that
right?
>> Correct.
>> All right. And fatalities for fentanyl
there is there's a fairly large range of
what could be a fatal dose of fentanyl.
Is that fair?
>> Correct.
>> All right. So a much lower dose could
cause the death of someone.
>> True.
>> Lower than 15. Yes. Yes. And in some
people who have some tolerance, it could
be a higher dose than that before it
would be fatal. Fair.
>> That's correct.
>> All right. So,
when someone um
takes fentanyl,
is it fair to say that it would take
about 30 minutes from the time the
fentanyl is ingested before it starts to
show up in the bloodstream?
Yeah, some of it's um
going to depend on
if the stomach is empty and if it's in
liquid form or solid, but I would say
usually 15 to 60 minutes it might take
for absorption for it to be um at a
measurable amount in the blood.
>> All right. And is there any way to tell
Let me rephrase that. There was also
fentanyl found in Mr. Richen's stomach.
We spoke about that.
>> Correct.
>> So we know that he for sure ingested
fentanyl. It wasn't given to him or he
didn't take it any other way
like he didn't use it. He didn't inject
it. True.
>> I mean he could do both but the presence
of it in the gastric contents does
um provide the interpretation that one
route of administration was ingestion.
>> All right. That's that makes sense.
Now you mentioned that also present was
norfanol.
>> Correct.
>> And norfentanyl is a metabolite. Did I
say that properly? A fentanyl.
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> So when the body starts to metabolite
the fentanyl, you'll see norfanol
also in in the system or in the samples.
>> Well, uh, correct.
>> Okay. Well, let me ask another question.
Maybe we can clarify. It's possible that
someone could die of a fentanyl overdose
so quickly you wouldn't see nor fentanyl
in the system. True.
>> That's correct.
>> All right. So,
in someone who's never taken fentanyl,
hypothetically,
it's possible that first exposure they
take it, they die so quickly, nor
fentanyl is not observed.
Yes, that can happen.
>> All right. So, when someone has a high
dose of fentanyl and we see nor fentanyl
on the report, the body has started to
metabolize the fentanyl.
>> Correct. And
wouldn't it be more
Well, strike that. Let me ask one
question before I get to that one. So
that would mean that after the fentanyl
was ingested, Mr. Richens was alive long
enough that his liver began to
metabolize the norfentanyl
or the fentanyl resulting in norfanol.
>> Correct.
>> All right. And
that would be more likely
for the body to start to metabolize it
before death in someone who it was not
their first time taking fentanyl.
Correct.
Um, I I don't think you can draw that
conclusion.
>> And well, let me let me back up. So,
it's possible someone has no exposure to
fentanyl, they take it, they die very,
very quickly.
>> That's a possibility. Yes. And someone
who has had exposure, I'm not saying
that 100% wouldn't they may show
norfanol, but it's more likely that
someone who's had some exposure to
fentanyl would start, especially at a
higher dose, would start to metabolize
it having the norfentanyl appear
as opposed to someone who had never
taken it.
>> True.
>> I don't agree with that.
>> All right.
You talked about um things that were not
found in the blood and was nalrexon
tested for?
>> Yes, it was.
>> Okay. And there was no Nalrexon in Mr.
Richen's blood.
um the the screening result did not
um meet the threshold to go to that
second confirmation test.
>> All right.
I want to move to um post-mortem
production of alcohol that you talked
about with Mr. Burmeister. So
post-mortem production of alcohol is
more likely to occur in some scenarios
than other scenarios. Fair.
Yes.
>> I mean, not every body is going to have
post-mortem production of alcohol. We
don't see that just because someone
dies. That's not there.
>> That's correct.
>> All right. So, some of the circumstances
that might result in post-mortem are
things such as a long delay between the
death and autopsy. True.
>> I mean, the the two variables that are
needed are glucose and the bacteria.
All right. But is it also true that
there are certain scenarios where it's
more likely to happen, such as a long
delay between the autopsy
and the death, you're more likely to see
it than an autopsy that happened fairly
quickly. Fair.
>> Are you talking about in any matrix or
gastric in particular or just general?
>> Well,
>> sorry. Well, now you're getting
scientific on me. Um,
>> I'll just answer your question that um,
yes, a longer post-mortem interval um,
is a pre-analytical factor that could
lead to postmortem formation of ethanol.
Yes.
>> All right. And I'm not saying every
time, but these are circumstances that
make it more likely.
>> It can be. Yes.
>> Okay. And we didn't have a long delay
here between death and autopsy.
>> No idea.
Well, is assuming he died somewhere
between
10:30 p.m. and 3 a.m. Autopsyy's done at
7:30 a.m. That's not considered a long
delay in terms of an autopsy. True.
>> That's just not
something I do. So, I don't have
>> So, that would be a question. I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to talk over you. Question
for an ME.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Fair. Um, does trauma to the
body increase the chances of post-mortem
production of alcohol?
>> It can because if you have trauma where
the gastric tract gets broken open, then
that bacteria is released and can be in
the blood and you need the bacteria to
do the postmortem formation.
>> Correct.
>> And that didn't happen here.
>> No idea.
>> So, a body being warm for a long period
of time, that also increases the chances
>> of postmortem. It could. Yes. And are
you aware if when a body arrives at a
ME's office, typically it's
refrigerated? Fair?
>> Yes.
>> All right.
Was there testing done for yeast in his
system that could produce alcohol?
>> No, there was not.
>> Because yeast in the system is something
that would result in porch modem. What?
Well, I might be phrasing that wrong,
but yeast in the system could result in
the production of alcohol that would be
seen such as it was here.
>> Yes.
>> All right. But that wasn't tested for.
>> No.
>> All right.
So, it's possible
that there was postmortem decomposition,
but it's equally possible that he took a
drink before bed. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> How long after taking a drink of
alcohol? Well, is it fair to say alcohol
takes about 10 to 15 minutes to hit the
bloodstream?
Again, it depends on um the stomach and
if it's full or not. So, if you have an
empty stomach, then uh the alcohol can
get to the intestines faster, which is
where the majority of the absorption
occurs. So, yeah, maybe 15 30 minutes if
your stomach is empty. But if you have
delayed gastric emptying, then it might
take longer um for you to reach that
peak alcohol concentration.
>> Peak alcohol concentration,
>> some alcohol to be in the blood. Sure.
15 30 minutes
>> within 30 minutes.
>> Yes.
>> And some fentanyl would be in the blood
probably within 30 minutes of ingestion
>> again. Yeah. Within 15 to 60 minutes in
general. Yes.
>> So
if Mr. Richens had fentanyl in the blood
but not alcohol.
A possibility is a real possibility is
that he ingested the fentanyl and did
not and then took a drink
give or take maybe 30 minutes later
maybe maybe less 15 to 30 minutes after
he took the fentanyl. Fair assumption,
correct?
>> I can't provide a a timeline of when
things were ingested. Some of it is you
say take a drink, did you take a sip?
That might not even become measurable in
the blood or how long did he live after
the alcohol was consumed and the body
could have just metabolized it below our
threshold for reporting. So I can speak
generally about both. Yes. can be
absorbed and be present in the blood
within the 15 30 minutes.
>> Well, that amount of fentanyl typically
someone would would pass away would die
from that dosage of fentanyl within
20 minutes.
>> I I can't provide an exact time frame.
Sometimes there's delayed deaths with
respiratory depression. So, I can't
pinpoint.
>> Okay. You can't pin I I understand. I
mean, we can't. We're talking in
generalities here. So, if someone takes
that dosage of fentanyl that you found,
what would you expect? Would someone
live for hours after that? They
wouldn't.
Again, I don't even know what dosage was
taken. And I don't know this
individual's history of use with this
drug. So I can just say what was
detected in the blood, what was detected
in the gastric and I can provide general
information about absorption of alcohol
and drugs and time frames.
>> All right. So he might have lived longer
had he this was not the first time he
took fentanyl. He may have lived longer
after he took the fentanyl.
>> Again I I don't know what dose was
taken.
>> All right. I'm basing it on what was in
the blood. you know how much was in the
blood which which can give you an idea
approximately of a dose that was taken.
fair.
Um
I mean assuming it I'm not sure what you
mean by dose like the
how many micrograms of fentanyl were
taken.
All right.
You've testified that 15
nanogs per milliliter is five times more
than the a lethal dose of fentanyl.
>> Correct.
>> All right. So
we and I understand we don't know if
that meant he ingested one pill of
fentanyl or five pills of fentanyl. We
don't know that.
>> True.
>> Correct.
>> All right. However, he clearly took more
than and and you're gonna have to help
me with the numbers because I don't know
how it converts from milligrams taken to
what's in the blood, but you said a a
lethal dose could be as low as three
milligrams or three nanogs per
milliliter.
>> A lethal concentration
>> concentration. So in your experience as
a toxicologist, wouldn't that give you
some idea of the amount of fentanyl that
was ingested to result in that in the
blood?
Maybe not exactly, but you would have an
idea. Well, again, we previously I
testified about postmortem
redistribution. So I'm not aware if that
happened or not and could have elevated
that concentration of fentanyl.
So there's limitations to being able to
say what dose ended up with this
concentration.
>> All right, let's try and put this in uh
terms for a lay person.
You're handed a fentanyl pill. It's got
1 milligram of fentanyl in it.
Is that a lethal dose of fentanyl? Could
it be? I know you don't know because it
would depend on the individual.
>> Yes.
>> All right. And if someone took one
milligram a pill one milligram pill of
fentanyl
and
what give me a range of what you would
expect to see in the blood would that be
more or less than what you saw here a
range. I know you can't tell me exactly.
Um,
so let's say you're given a 800
microgram dose of fentanyl because
fentanyl is very potent. So we actually
would be a lot of
>> Yeah. We don't give millig, we give
micrograms. So a thousandfold less.
>> Thank you.
>> Um, but therapeutically you're you're
trying to get into that 2 to 5 nanog
range because it's a very small window
of when it's therapeutic and when it's
fatal. So,
>> all right.
I I think that helps me with my
question. So, someone just given a
therapeutic dose of fentanyl in the
hospital, which apparently is nanograms
because milligrams is a lot when it
comes to fentanyl.
>> Micrograms.
>> Micrograms. Thank you. Uh yeah, I don't
know if I ever took a science class in
college. So,
um what would you expect to see
range-wise in the blood had someone had
a a therapeutic dose of fentanyl in the
hospital? Let's say they died. not for
some reason or another after they had
that therapeutic dose of fentanyl what
range would you expect to see in the
blood.
>> All right. So clinically when they dose
people then like two to three nanogs per
milliliter.
>> All right.
So he clearly took more obviously than a
therapeutic dose.
>> I can't make that conclusion. Well, it
would be pretty unusual to see 15 nanogs
per milliliter
if normally you think you'd see two or
three or I think you even said lower
than that. I'm sorry.
But again, I I don't know if postmortem
redistribution occurred. I don't know
this individual's history of use with
this drug and so if they had tolerance,
they could take a higher dose and be
able to be alive with a higher
concentration.
>> All right. And we don't know that. Okay,
let me just let me just boil it down. Is
it possible based on the findings here
that Mr. Richens ingested fentanyl and
then after he ingested the fentanyl he
had a drink of alcohol? We don't know
how much, but he had a drink. That's a
possibility. True.
>> True.
>> All right. I want to talk about the
quitapene for a minute. Now, quitene is
not naturally produced in the body after
someone dies, right?
>> Correct.
>> So, he had to have ingested quitine.
>> Correct.
And it appears that it was not a very
high dose. You said it was it was
probably a fairly low dose of quitene
>> in the gastric. Yes.
>> In the gastric. And again, the quitapene
had not made it to the blood.
He died before there was a chance for
the quitipene to make its way into his
blood. Correct.
There was no quitipene above our
threshold for
performing a confirmation test.
>> Well, you couldn't measure any quitipine
in the blood.
>> True.
>> No,
>> you did measure some in the blood.
>> Yes.
>> And where is that in your report?
>> It wasn't above our threshold for
reporting or perform performing a
confirmation test.
>> So in your report, there's no indication
that was found in the blood.
>> Correct.
>> All right. And your report's accurate.
>> Correct.
>> All right. So
again, quitene takes
about the same amount of time to hit the
blood as as fentanyl, more or less,
about 30 minutes.
>> Correct.
>> So a very possible scenario, likely
scenario, is that he ingested the
fentanyl before the quitine. Fair?
>> No.
>> Well, if he took them together, they
would have both been in the blood,
>> right? Not true. I mean, if you didn't
take a dose that would lead to a
concentration that's reportable in the
blood,
doesn't mean you didn't take it. It just
means that it wasn't at a concentration
high enough to be above our threshold
for reporting.
>> I understand that, but I don't maybe my
question was unclear.
Whatever amount of quitipine he took,
there was not a measurable reportable
amount in his blood.
>> That is correct. The fentanyl he took
there was
>> that is correct.
>> The fentanyl had made its way to his
blood prior to him passing.
>> That is correct.
>> The quitapene had not
>> not above a concentration that would be
reported by us.
>> Not even in a concentration that you
noted in any way.
>> Correct.
>> So it is possible that he took the
fentanyl and then later took quitine.
That's a possibility. Sure.
>> All right.
So, one possibility here
is that
Mr. Richens ingested fentanyl
and then within the next 15, 20, 30
minutes he had a drink and took a
possibility.
Correct. Sure. All right.
Just give me a moment, please.
Your honor, I have no further questions
at this time. Thank you, Dr. F.
>> Mr. Burmister, within the scope of
cross, please.
Taking up where we last were,
aren't there other equally possible
hypotheticals
such as
um a drink of alcohol with um quitapene
and fentinyl taken at the same time?
>> Sure.
>> Okay. Is the problem that
there aren't an
enough. There are too many variables
that are left unknown that we can't fix
any of those.
We can't fix the hypothetical and say
one is more likely than another because
there are too many variables.
>> Yes.
Um, one of those is that, um,
you can't tell this jury whether the
alcohol in the gastric fluid came from
the,
uh, an alcoholic beverage or
decomposition.
>> Correct.
Um
when you look at um the 15
uh
mil uh nanograms of fentinol and the 3.3
of norfentinol
can you give any um insight as is there
a relationship those numbers have some
sort of relationship that we can tell
anything from that
for example how long ago it was taken
uh that sort of thing.
>> So assumptions still have to be made. So
uh you would have one assumption is this
person has never used fentanyl before
then that means that they lived long
enough for the body to form nor
fentanyl. Um but
for me I have no idea their history of
use. So there could be norfentanyl still
present uh from a prior use and then the
the new fentanyl was taken and maybe
they never they died before it started
to metabolize but that norfentel is
still present from a prior use. Um but
you know once fentanyl is absorbed into
the blood as soon as that happens it's
circulating can get to the liver and
that norfentanyl can start to appear
right away. So within
a few minutes you're going to start
having norfentanyl formed and present in
the blood once the fentanyl is absorbed
into the blood
>> whether you're a a previous user or a
new user.
>> Correct.
Um
we have the marker
possible marker of um
the cetal fentinol
um and if we make an assumption that
that came from the same source as the
fentinol
>> no I think That's beyond the scope. I
didn't ask her anything about the issue.
>> Well, let's see what the rest of the
question is and then you can renew your
objection. Go ahead, Mr. or Mr.
>> Um,
we we can make the assumption that it
was an illicit source as opposed to a
listic source.
>> Same objection.
>> Sustain. Just keep
>> Okay, it's fine. I'll just That's all
the question.
>> Anything further, Miss Liz?
>> No, you're not. Okay, you're welcome to
step down. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Detective Frank,
>> uh, give me a sense. Is this a 15-minute
witness or a longer?
>> Shorter.
>> Okay, let's do it.
I need you next to a mic. Mr. Riverster,
my apologies.
>> He wants to know if the witness can be
released from her subpoena.
>> Ms. Lewis, any objection to releasing
Dr. Peterson?
>> No, your honor.
>> Doctor, you are released. Thank you for
your time.
Yes.
>> And during one of those times that
you've met with him, did you collect a
cell phone from him?
>> Yes.
>> Was that an iPhone 7?
>> Yes, I believe so.
>> When did you collect that phone from
him?
>> May 26, 2023.
Once you collected that phone, uh was it
booked into evidence?
>> Yes.
>> Was it later uh
transferred um to be downloaded the
contents?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, those are all my questions for
you. Thank you.
>> Just any questions?
>> Mr.
>> Oh, Mr. Ramos, my apologies. You
>> It's me. Um can we approach for just a
minute?
>> Sure.
And what color were the phones? One was
black, one was white.
>> Did you recover both of them at the same
time or did you do two trips to get
phones from him?
>> No, I recovered two phones at that time
>> together.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Was that the first time you'd ever met
Mr. Grossman?
>> No, it was not.
>> All right. So, you knew it to be Mr.
Grossman because you had met him before.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And the way you had met him before is
interviewing him.
>> Correct.
>> I can't go into the interview. Okay.
>> Not right now.
>> We're going to talk about that at
another time.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Um, at some point, were you ever asked
to return the phones to Mr. Grossman?
>> I was.
>> Right. And then were you ever asked to
go back and get them again?
>> I was. So, how many times total did you
pick up phones, deliver them for review,
take them back, pick them up, take them
back? How many times did you do that?
>> I transported phones multiple times.
>> More than two.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. And um did you give Mr. Gman a
reason why you had to keep coming back
and getting his phones over and over and
over again?
>> No, I think we're beyond the scope at
this point.
>> No, I'll Why don't you just ask him if
he had a reason? Did you have a reason
for why you kept going back to get his
phones? Take them. Bring them back. Take
them. Bring them back.
>> I was instructed to retrieve them by my
chain of command.
>> So you don't know the reason?
>> No, ma'am.
>> Right. And in those periods of time in
between when you'd pick up the phone,
take it to the station, bring it back,
pick it up, bring it back. In those in
between times, you don't know what he
did with that phone, do you?
Can you be specific about the he?
>> Mr. Gman. Sorry, I'll try not to use a
pronoun.
>> In one specific instance, Mr. Grossman
had the phones during that time. No, I
do not know what he did with them.
>> Okay. Did he ever show you things on his
phone when you were with him before you
took them into your custody?
>> On those phones? No, they were not
operable.
>> They were not operable.
Correct.
>> So, you took inoperable phones from him?
>> Correct.
>> Did you ever take operable phones from
him?
>> When I was instructed to get them back
from Mr. Grossman, they were operable at
that time.
>> And when you went to go visit him and
look at his phone, did he show you
anything on the phone?
>> On those phones, I don't recall.
>> Did he show you anything on any phone?
He has shown things on his current cell
phone to me, but the phones in question,
I don't recall him.
>> Did you compare his current phone to the
Excuse me. I'm sorry, your honor.
>> Uh, oh, my apolog I interrupted you. Let
me hear the question first and then Miss
Sherbanac may have an objection.
>> Did you compare the current phone that
he had to what was on that phone to the
inoperable phones that ultimately became
operable?
>> Pause for one second. You're right. I do
think we're beyond the scope now.
>> I agree. Sustain.
>> Anything else about the two phones that
Detective Route collected?
>> Did Mr. Grossman give you any reason why
he believed the phones were inoperable?
>> Yes.
>> What was the reason he gave you?
>> He had broken them on accident. Okay,
your honor, we'll reserve the rest of
our questioning for a later time, and we
would ask that this witness not be
released from his trial subpoena.
>> Understood. Uh, detective, you're free
to step down today. Uh, you may be
called back in the future. We'll give
you some notice.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> Very good, sir.
>> Yeah. Watch out.
appropriate time to take a break. Miss
Sherick,
>> sure.
>> Okay, let's take a restroom break,
folks. Thank you. Please rise for the
jury.
Mr. Bworth, Miss Sherbet, who's on deck?
>> Janie Enttow.
>> Okay, that person present.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. If you would let them know to be
ready to go at 10:45. Courts in recess
until 10:45.
>> All right.
>> Very good. Thank you.
>> Your last name, please.
>> My name is Cheney. Last name is spelled
echo November golf hyphen tango oscar
whiskey.
>> Where do you work?
>> I work for the state of Utah Department
of Public Safety Bure Bureau of Forensic
Services, but I'm assigned to the Inter
Mountain West Regional Computer Forensic
Laboratory.
>> How do we reser refer to that place in
shorthand?
>> IWR CFL.
>> IWR
CFL.
>> Yep.
And what do you do? U is it okay if I
refer to it as the RCFL?
>> Absolutely.
>> Thank you. What do you do at the RCFL?
>> I'm a uh digital evidence laboratory
technician there and my primary uh role
is to access data from Apple mobile
devices.
>> Are you trained to perform cell phone
downloads?
>> Yes.
What kind of u programs do you use to do
that work?
>> For Apple devices, we typically use uh a
device known as grey key.
>> Are you certified to Well, I guess do
you need to be certified to use that
program?
>> No.
>> Are you also familiar with uh Celebrate?
>> Yes.
>> Are you certified to use that program?
>> Yes. Certain aspects of it. Yes.
>> And what what are your certifications in
Celebrate? Cellbrite certified operator
and Cellbrite certified uh physical
analyst.
>> What is Celbrite?
>> Celbrite's just software that can be
used to download phones and it can also
be used to uh parse out extractions
which are uh obtained from phones. So it
it puts the data in a readable format
for for people. Did you receive a
request from the Summit County Sheriff's
Office to do extractions or downloads
from cell phones?
>> Yes, they submitted uh two phones to the
IWRC.
>> And were you able to complete downloads
of those two phones?
>> Yes.
>> I want to talk first about the white
iPhone 12 with the phone number ending
1987.
Were you able to perform a download of
this phone?
>> Yes. And did you get a full file system
acquisition from that phone?
>> Yes.
>> What does that mean?
>> It's just the type of um there are
different levels of information you can
get from a cell phone when you when you
extract them. In this case, we were
given the passcode to the phone uh by
Summit County when they submitted it. If
you know the passcode or able to break
the passcode of a phone, you will get
what's known as a full file system,
which is essentially all the data from
the cell phone. And so you were able to
obtain the raw data from that phone?
>> Yes.
>> And it was put into a readable format?
>> Yes.
>> And was that information um from that
phone ending in 1 1987 given back to the
Summit County Sheriff's Office?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
I'm going to ask you the same questions
for uh the second phone. You said there
were two phones. Did you do a uh able to
complete a download from a green iPhone
11? Phone number ending 9317.
>> Yes, I believe it was a 11 Pro Max
though.
>> 11 Pro Max.
And uh same question. You're able to
perform a download for that phone?
>> Yes, we were given the passcode to that
phone as well.
>> And did you uh similarly similarly get a
full file system acquisition?
>> Yes.
And was that raw data then put into a
readable format?
>> Yes.
>> And was that information given back to
the Summit County Sheriff's Office?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Those are all my questions for
you. Thank you.
>> Mr.
>> Very briefly.
>> Good morning.
>> Morning. Could we geek out for just a
little bit?
>> Sure.
>> All right. Um could you just walk us
through walk the jury through the
process um of how you use grade key,
what that gives you in what format, what
you then do with Celbrite, um what you
then get from Celbrite, what the format
is, and then ultimately how it gets back
to the Summit County Sheriff's Office.
So basically everything you've just
talked to, but break it down if that's
okay.
>> Sure.
>> Perfect. Go ahead. So essentially uh
we take the phone. Um now in this case
as I mentioned we knew the passcode. So
we would uh verify the passcode worked.
Uh I would unlock the phone and then you
connect it to gray key which is looks
like a little computer looks kind of
like a Apple uh Mac Mini is what it kind
of looks like.
Through a combination of the hardware
proprietary which is what Graia is
hardware and software. It then accesses
the data on the phone and and it gets an
extraction which in this case as we
mentioned was a full file system
extraction. That data is uh saved by
Grai in the form of a zip file. Now that
zip file is not readable. You couldn't
just connect it to any other computer
and just open it up and look at it. So
that data has to be parsed out
essentially. And
>> sorry to interrupt it. Could you explain
how the data would look if we were to
open it up before uh putting into the
celbrite system?
>> You couldn't really even open it.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. So it would not be accessible.
>> You need forensic software to access it.
>> Perfect. Thank you.
>> Yeah. So then we use a a program which
we was previously mentioned called
Cellbrite. Um, now in this case we're
using Cellbrite physical analyzer which
is just a a Cellbrite software that
takes this extraction. So you load the
extraction in and then it parses that
data that from the extraction into the
various uh types of data that you would
everybody would see on on your cell
phone today. So you would see it parses
it out into the, you know, SMS, text
messages, MMS, you know, messages,
emails, uh, word documents, pictures,
videos, all the data is just
put into a format that when you go into
Fis Physical Analyzer, you can you could
say, uh, show I want to see all the
texts that came from this particular
phone number or and then you could read
the texts that were
Um
once that information is parsed out, you
then create a report. Um so it generates
a report of all that data and we use it
creates something we call using a UID
reader which is just part of Cellright.
It's like a standalone uh reader that
allows us to give all the data from this
report along with the reader back to the
agency that's submitted to us and they
take it. It typically is put onto like a
Blu-ray disc. It depends how big the
phone is. It may be saved to a Blu-ray
disc. It may be saved to a thumb drive
or hard drive. But in any case, that
detective would then take what we've
given them. They would load it into
their computer, open up this reader
program. The reader then is populated by
the data from the extraction and then
they can go through and look for text or
pictures or videos or whatever
information that they're looking for.
>> And that's where that's when the
analysis will come in. Is that correct?
>> Or the uh
>> the review of that information.
>> Right.
>> Okay.
>> Right. Um you did mention uh that you
had two uh would it be called
certificates certifications for Celbrite
I believe. Could you explain what those
are and if they have any acronyms? One
is uh the uh Cellbrite certified
operator CCO. It just it it's a
certification that gives you familiarity
and experience with using Celbrite as a
whole. And then CCPA which is the
Cellbrite certified physical analyst is
using that physical analyzer program
which is what we use to parse that data
out from those zip extractions.
>> And when you do you have any other
certifications in Celebrite? Uh, I have
a certification with Celebrate Premium.
>> And what is that?
>> Cellright Premium is kind of a
competitor to gray key. It's it's used
to access
cell phones, mainly locked cell phones.
>> Perfect. Um, with the CCO and the CCPA,
those certifications, uh, do you need to
renew them at any point or are they are
they kind of lifelong?
>> Uh, yeah. I mean, you just it just you
do it once and
>> and you're solid.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, do you I imagine
because of the constant u updates and
technology in our phone, I imagine that
Celbrite uh also updates. Is that fair?
>> Yes.
>> In terms of what they can extract?
>> Yeah, both Celite and Grae are updated
constantly.
>> So, I imagine because of that you take
additional uh classes or trainings.
Would that be fair?
when and if I can. Yes.
>> Correct. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Um I imagine you're quite busy.
>> Yes.
>> The last question I had is you had
mentioned um I put it in quotes um
certain aspects that um while using
Celbrite that you were um certified to
use certain aspects. Are there certain
things that your two certifications
maybe wouldn't cover or that if anybody
was in the analysis process would need
something else?
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>> Okay,
those are all the questions I have.
Thank you so much for your time.
>> Thank you.
>> Just one question, judge. Um,
>> so you went through the process of of
how the raw data comes from the phone
and then it's placed into a a readable
format when that's taking place. Um,
it's is it correct that the data can't
be manipulated in any way?
>> Yes. So when we get an extraction from
gray key, gray key creates what is known
as a hash value. Um, you could think of
a hash value as kind of like a a digital
fingerprint. So,
every file is unique. For instance, if
if I went into a word and I created a
file with and I typed hello and then I
saved that file and then I ran a hash I
got a hash value from it which is just a
hash is just a mathematical algorithm
that looks at the file and and then it
it gives you a unique like fingerprint
which is basically a a big long
hexadimal um set of uh numeric alpha
numeric characters but they're unique to
that file. So in my example with this
word document, it would give me a a
value. Now if I opened that document
again and I put a period after the O and
then saved it and then I would hash that
value hash that file again, that hash
value would be completely different. So
the way we use that is now that I have
the hash value for the extractions that
I got from these two cell phones, I
copied those to staging media, which is
essentially a forensically wiped hard
drive.
Once I copy it to those hard to that
hard drive, I then hashed the
extractions on that hard drive. Those
values that I got should and did match
the values that Grey Key gave me. So now
I know my uh files on that hard drive
are identical to what Grey pulled off.
Mathematically, it's impossible for them
to be different. That hard drive was
then provided to an examiner in our
laboratory who then processed the data.
Uh when he was done processing that
data, he would then hash the extractions
again at the end. If those uh
extractions show the exact same hash
value, we can then say we did not change
those extraction which is the data from
the phone at all and we could say it's
identical to what gray key got
>> and that's what happened to this
>> yes and all in this case the hash values
all matched as they should.
>> Thank you.
So that's kind of like a double blind
kind of validation process. Correct.
>> If you want to refer to it that way.
Sure.
>> Just to make sure that everything's the
same.
>> Yeah.
>> Now, because of that, because it can't
be manipulated or you verify that it
can't be manipulated, there's no reason
to do another extraction. Correct.
>> Correct. Okay.
>> No further questions. Thank you.
>> Sherman, anything else for this witness?
>> No, judge.
>> You can step down, sir. May we release
this gentleman?
>> Yes, sir. Thank you.
>> Yes.
>> You're free to go. Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you.
>> Brian Holden is the next witness. Judge,
>> thank you. Um, can you please state your
full name and spell your last name for
the record?
>> Brian Holden. H O L D N.
>> Sir, um, are you employed?
>> Yes, I am.
>> By whom?
>> I'm employed by the Utah Bureau of
Forensic Services, also known as the
Utah State Crime Lab.
>> How long have you been with this the
State Crime Lab?
>> I've been with the State Crime Lab for
over 20 years.
>> And what is your current capacity?
>> Uh, currently I'm a senior forensic
scientist. Uh, I analyze unknown
substances, determine their
identification, and determine if it is
uh if that substance is controlled.
>> And were you serving in that same
capacity in March 2022?
>> Yes, I was.
>> Um, or
I guess continuing through 23 24 in that
same capacity.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. So um on this in this
particular case were you given a number
of items to
uh to test?
>> I was. Yes.
>> Um what were you asked to test?
>> Uh I was asked to analyze.
Can you clarify as are you asking what I
was asked to
>> look for or what items
>> you were given? No.
You were given a large number of items
to test.
>> Okay.
>> Were you given specific instructions to
look for
certain properties or certain
substances?
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh yes, I was asked to
look for a compound or a controlled
substance named fentinel in all of the
uh items that were submitted to the lab.
>> Okay.
And um of all those things um
yeah let me just back up. When you
receive something is there a a two
process
u testing that you do?
>> Yes. Uh to be able to identify a
controlled substance based off of our uh
operating procedures. uh we do a
presumptive test followed by a uh
confirmation test
>> and um the
initial presumptive or screening then uh
gives you tells you oh I can move on to
this next step
>> correct
>> I see okay so of all the items you were
given did you run this screening
>> I did yes
>> and after doing that did you find uh
what were you looking for? I guess is
what I should be asking.
>> Uh like I previously stated, uh they
asked me to look for fentinel.
>> No, nothing else.
>> No.
>> Okay. So, um
were you able to confirm any fentinol on
anything that you tested?
>> No, I was not. Okay.
>> May I have one moment, your honor? Of
course.
Um,
you were um, what items?
Let's go through this.
Are the items still up here?
>> Chelsea has them. Okay. Um, that's all
the questions I have.
>> Who's this?
>> Thank you.
>> May I please the court?
>> Good morning.
>> Good morning.
>> My name is Kathy Nester. I'm one of the
attorneys representing Corey Richens.
>> Okay.
>> I do have just a few questions for you.
>> Sure. Um, if we could pull up for the
witness only states exhibit 1-19.
>> All right, sir. Can you see that
document in front of you?
>> Yes, I can.
>> And can you tell me what that document
is?
>> Uh, it is a report that was issued
um
uh for this case, I believe. Was it the
report you issued to report the results
of your um testing of these items?
>> Uh I would need to see the second page
or the third page. Um
>> I think your name might be on the last
>> there should be. Yeah, on the last page.
>> There it is.
>> Yes, it is.
>> That's your signature. Correct.
>> Okay, great. Um can we go back to the
first page, please? Katie, just to
refresh your memory memory, sir, do you
remember um who was the investigating
officer responsible for getting these
items to you by looking at your
>> uh the investigating officer is Jamie
Jamie Woody, I believe that's how you
pronounce it.
>> And then who was the individual who
delivered these documents, if that
refreshes your memory at all?
>> Yeah, that would be Oh, hello. Uh
Chelsea Gibson.
>> Okay. Now on the documents that you
tested, I believe you said you were only
asked to test for fentinel. Is that
correct?
>> Correct.
>> Documents. I don't think there's any
mention of testing documents. So,
>> may we agree to items?
>> Did I say documents?
>> You did.
>> I meant items. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, and did were you ever asked to
run any tests on any of the pills or
other items that were seized from the
home um to see if any of them contained
oxycodone?
>> No, I was not asked to do that.
>> And that was And you've never been asked
to do that in the last four years?
>> No, I was not.
>> And have you ever been asked to test any
of the items that were pulled from the
home for hydrocodone?
No, I was not.
>> And I didn't hear you say, do you have a
chemistry background?
>> Uh, no. I have a Well, I have a degree
in forensic science, which is heavy in
chemistry and biology.
>> So, do you know the difference between
oxycodone and hydrocodone?
>> If I looked at the structure of them,
yeah, they have a different uh molecular
structure.
>> But are they both considered pain pills?
>> Correct. They're both opiates. Uh
they're both uh uh controlled uh
schedule two controlled substances
>> and you are also not asked to search any
items for Oxycontton.
>> Uh no Oxycontton would be like the brand
name uh which would be which would
contain Oxycodone. So no.
>> Thank you. And I believe you tested, it
appears to me, and please refresh your
memory if you need to, um, if we want to
go to page three of the report, but it
looks like you tested a total of 19
items that were brought to you. Is that
right?
>> Correct.
>> And, um, of those 19 items, were you
asked to test an empty pill bottle, an
empty hydrocodone pill bottle with
residue on the inside of it?
>> I would have to refer to my notes. Pause
for one second. What's the objection?
>> Mr. Burmeister.
>> Um, it exceeds it.
>> You want to may we approach?
>> Sure.
>> Notes that would refresh your
recollection if you were handed or asked
to test an empty hydrocodone bottle.
After reviewing those notes, what is
your answer to that question? Uh, there
was no empty bottle that was submitted
for me to test.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> At this point, that's all I have. Thank
you, sir. I appreciate your time.
>> Mr. Bur, anything further for this
witness?
>> No, your honor.
>> Council, may we release this witness?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Mr. Burmeister?
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Olden, you're free to go. Thank you
for your time.
>> Uh, council, the state's next witness.
Your honor, we're prepared to. Um, but
that might be splitting up a direct.
>> Uh, if you're comfortable doing that,
I'm comfortable getting started. If
you're would prefer to not do that, I
can understand why. And we can uh break
for lunch now.
>> Your honor, I think we also have some
other issues to discuss. So maybe if we
were to break for lunch now, we could
discuss those other issues outside the
presence of the jury.
That's fine.
>> And then um maybe reconvene
>> 12:30.
>> I think that's fair. Does that work?
>> Yes.
>> All right, folks. Um
you know, uh council, would you approach
for a minute?
South Associates
872
P2
462.
I quick and dirty that's kind of I think
the case at least to start with. I also
think um to be fair it's a little
unclear because it deals with
hypotheticals in a expert witness
context versus a fact witness context.
But it's the state's read of Utah law
that
for a fact witness, a hypothetical has
to involve
admissible evidence.
I think the defense and I can give
examples. I have a dirty of this
morning's transcript
is
um presenting hypotheticals to fact
witnesses based on inadmissible
evidence. That inadmissible evidence is
statements of the defendant
that I do not see a hearsay
um
a hearsay exception to.
Now um so I don't think those
hypotheticals
are as a matter of law permissible.
Now I can see a read under Utah
Department of Transportation
where
it is in the discretion
it is in the court's discretion whether
to admit those hypotheticals
and if that is the proper read of it
then I don't think it is but it might be
then the
state
asserts that in these instances, the
court should exercise that its
discretion and exclude the defendants
um you the kind of
the defense council's hypotheticals
that are based on inadmissible
self-serving evidence
of defendant
defendant statements.
That's the issue.
>> I appreciate the record. Uh just
practically speaking on a going forward
basis, I think it would be helpful to me
and opposing council if uh when the
state is objecting on this basis, you
just stand up and say objection
foundation. Let's see if they rephrase
or if they push back and then I can
exercise discretion as appropriate.
>> We'll do your
>> Okay. Uh may I also just ask a favor?
Can we have a one horse, one rider uh
rule going forward at sidebar? Uh you
are of course allowed to confer act as a
team, but I just need one speaker from
each side of the V at the sidebar.
>> Appreciate that, your honor. Certainly.
Can I clarify one thing?
>> Sure.
Does
the rider at sidebar have to be the same
rider that's examining the witness?
>> That would typically be the rule, but we
can just agree that that's not going to
be the case. I'm not sure how you feel
about your team dynamics if the person
behind you is jumping up to object. And
>> uh
>> I appreciate that, but I
>> I think
>> so.
>> Miss Guster has often argued regardless,
and I have often argued regardless. So
what I'm asking for going forward and if
you would please just give it the
college try on a going forward basis
that for example this is just an example
I'm not picking on anybody if Mr.
Burmeister is examining the witness and
an objection is made you're welcome to
confer with him right here as he comes
up but I need Mr. Burmeister to be the
one talking into the mic.
>> Well do you
>> okay any objection Miss Netor?
>> No sir we would appreciate that. Okay,
Miss Lewis, you're about to say
something.
>> No. Okay, I agree.
>> All right. Uh, anything else on the
record before we recess for lunch? Mr.
Bworth?
>> No.
>> M. Lewis, Miss Nester, Mr.
>> No.
>> Okay. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, thank
you for your patience. We will be back
on the record uh at 12:30. I need to
make this crystal clear. If any of you
see a juror out in the wild, you need to
turn around and walk the other way.
I cannot emphasize this more heavily.
>> All right, 12:30, we're in recess.