Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns · Hidden Killers Podcast

Kouri Richins: Eric Faddis Predicted Every Pressure Point — Then the Jury Confirmed Them

March 21, 2026·1 hr 11 min·4 clips

Why some defendants can't stay silent even when silence is their best legal strategy.

Tony Bruschi treats the case like a pressure test. The conversation opens with the defense's choice to rest after three weeks, with no witnesses and no counter narrative, and asks what that means when the prosecution still gets the last word. Eric Faddis then walks through how prosecutors can argue intent by reading a defendant's words beside the outcome, even when the drug name itself is muddy. The show keeps coming back to the alleged request for the "Michael Jackson stuff." That phrase becomes the fulcrum for the discussion, because it lets the prosecution argue the point was not a technical prescription but something strong enough to kill. Bruschi keeps pressing the practical question. He asks whether it matters that the people involved seem to use different names for the same substance, and Faddis answers by separating the broad story the state tells from the narrower fight the defense wants to win. The back and forth is the engine here. It turns legal theory into something a listener can follow: what gets proved, what gets inferred, and what the jury is allowed to connect for itself. The episode also lingers on background behavior. References to coded phone messages and a drug dealing history are used to show how prosecutors may try to build a chain that feels bigger than any single text or call. No one in the conversation treats those details as decoration. They are the pieces that can make a motive narrative feel inevitable. The defense's task is narrower. It has to break that chain, narrow the meaning of the language, and make the state's story look less certain than it sounds. That tension gives the segment its bite. The tone stays blunt and argumentative rather than polished. That works because the audience hears the legal dispute in the language of ordinary judgment instead of courtroom fog. The episode also keeps the focus on how a jury processes ordinary phrases. If a request sounds sloppy, that may still be enough if the surrounding facts line up. If the defense can make the language look ambiguous, then the meaning of the whole case can start to wobble. Faddis keeps returning to that problem from different angles. Bruschi keeps pressing it from the listener's side, asking what should matter and what can be dismissed as noise. The result is not a neat courtroom recap. It is a running argument about how words become evidence. By the end, the episode has become a straightforward map of how prosecutors and defense lawyers fight over intent, motive, and what a jury thinks is obvious.

As heard by us

A plainspoken look at how trial wording and intent can shape what the jury is left to weigh.

The episode keeps its attention on the last stretch of the trial, where Tony Bruschi and Eric Faddis examine the defense resting without witnesses and what that choice leaves for the jury to sort through.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

You want a clean read on why the wording choices in the Corey Richens trial mattered.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns