Judge denies request for more testimony as Kouri Richins' case moves ‘full speed ahead' to trial
A judge on Friday ruled against letting Kouri Richins' attorneys question more detectives.
Attorneys for Richins — a Kamas mom accused of killing her husband and then writing a children's book about grief — had asked the court to reopen the opportunity for testimony about what evidence should be presented at trial, including audio from an interview along with cellphone and electronic data. The defense attorneys claimed there were problems with a state's witness testimony at a recent hearing.
Summit County prosecutors called the request "a cheap litigation trick" and claimed the request was based on feelings rather than fact. Prosecutors explained that although one officer testified about not knowing Richins had an attorney, another officer when preparing for the hearing had said he did know she had an attorney.
In response to prosecutors calling the defense attorneys' request "desperate" and "poppycock," Richins' attorneys said they "will not sink to that level, and we will continue to do what we must to protect our client's rights and hold the prosecution accountable for their actions."
Richins' attorney Kathryn Nester said a summary provided to the defense team by prosecutors said three witnesses had relayed conversations about whether or not Richins could be interviewed.
Third District Judge Richard Mrazik said during a hearing on Friday that regardless of whether the officers knew Richins had an attorney, the interview did not violate her Sixth Amendment rights. He said the discussion of what the officer knew is irrelevant to the Sixth Amendment because prosecutors had not yet filed charges or committed to prosecuting her. He said this is a different question than her Fifth Amendment rights, which concern whether she had a right to counsel.
Richins' attorneys at the hearing on Friday said prosecutors and officers discussed whether to interview Richins on that day, which she claimed also breached attorney conduct rules. Mrazik said they could talk about that aspect again in court, but he would need her to provide Utah case law about it first.
During the hearing, attorneys also discussed the jury questionnaire in detail, but the judge said it would not be sent out yet because Richins' attorneys plan to ask for the jury trial to be held in another venue, likely Salt Lake County.
On Tuesday, Utah's Supreme Court issued a final decision confirming decisions made by the 3rd District Court that the jury selection in the case would be remote and that jurors could be pulled only from Summit County. Mrazik had said he was fine with the request to have jury selection in person and to include potential jurors from Salt Lake County, something attorneys on both sides agreed on, but the decision was ultimately up to the presiding judge in the district.
Likely because these requests were denied, Richins attorneys are seeking to instead have the jury trial in Salt Lake County with jurors who may be less familiar with the case and people involved in it.
On March 4, attorneys will present oral arguments around what evidence can be shown at trial. Richins is also scheduled for hearings on March 17 and 18 to discuss other motions before her trial begins in April.
Mrazik encouraged the attorneys to work together on timing and said there has been no motion to delay the trial. If there was a request to delay the trial, he would be "disinclined" to grant it. He said "it is full speed ahead" toward trial, noting to the attorneys that pressure from the time is only going to increase as it gets closer.
Richins was arrested in 2023 and later charged with murder in the 2022 death of her husband, Eric Richins, who was 39. During the year between his death and her arrest, Kouri Richins published a children's book about grief. She is accused of administering a fatal dose of fentanyl to her husband in March 2022 and has also been charged with giving him a lethal dose of drugs on Valentine's Day a few weeks earlier.
The jury during Richins' upcoming trial will be asked to determine whether she is guilty of charges of aggravated murder and attempted murder, first-degree felonies; two counts of filing a fraudulent insurance claim, a second-degree felony; and one count of forgery, a third-degree felony.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Could Trump pardon Diddy and end his trial?
Sean "Diddy" Combs is being tried in a New York courtroom for racketeering and sexual trafficking. Could that daily drama vanish instantly if President Donald Trump pardoned the embattled rapper? "Yes, it could," says Brian Kalt, law professor at Michigan State University College of Law, who focuses on legal issues and the presidency. According to Kalt, Trump — who appears to be in the middle of a pardoning spree — would be within his presidential rights to extend a preemptive pardon to fellow New Yorker Combs, who has been described by witnesses so far as violent and abusive. "These are federal charges (against Combs), so that's the main limit. The matter has be federal, it has to be criminal vs. civil, and related to something that's already been done," says Kalt. "But the person doesn't have to even be charged yet, or convicted. The Supreme Court has said preemptive pardons are OK." Trump weighed in on the possibility Friday, May 30, in the Oval Office. "Nobody's asked" about a pardon, the president said. "But I know people are thinking about it. I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." Trump added, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He really liked me a lot." 'Nobody's asked': President Trump doesn't rule out pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs Typically, one of the last gestures from an outgoing president is a pardon. In President Joe Biden's final days in office, he famously pardoned his son, Hunter, convicted of federal gun felonies and federal tax charges. At the end of Trump's first term, he granted clemency to political allies such as Roger Stone, found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and related offenses. But pardons can take place during a president's term, says Kalt. The right was established in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which among other things gives the president "power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Kalt says the power to pardon is derived from the British monarch's historic right and stems from a recognition that criminal law was often too harsh, and it was important to have a safety valve. "The president was the best person to be that safety valve because of his political accountability," he says. But that's where things get murky, he adds, noting that Republican lawmakers "don't appear willing to hold the president accountable" for granting pardons, meaning they aren't costing him in terms of political capital. In contrast, President Gerald Ford's controversial pardoning of disgraced President Richard Nixon was perceived so negatively "that it probably cost Ford re-election in 1976," Kalt says. In just over 100 days since taking office, Trump has issued pardons to a broad range of personalities. They include Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of the reality show "Chrisley Knows Best," who were convicted in 2022 of swindling $36 million from Atlanta banks and being tax evaders, and rapper NBA YoungBoy, who in 2024 was sentenced to two years in prison for weapons possession. He also pardoned former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of wire fraud and extortion, and Jan. 6 participant and "Bob's Burgers" actor Jay Johnston. The reason many presidents issue pardons at the end of their terms is precisely to avoid political fallout, says Kalt. In that sense, Trump's brash approach suggests he has no concerns about such ramifications. "I don't agree with these pardons on their merits, but the fact that he did them when he is politically accountable as opposed to slinking out the door does add some legitimacy to them in that sense," he says. "With pardons, you don't need Congress, you wave your magic wand and it happens. You can see the appeal for a president, particularly one like Trump." One can also see the appeal for those such as Combs, whose ordeal could end instantly should Trump's pardon "wand" wave his way. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Will Trump pardon Diddy? Trial could end, experts say
Boston Globe
8 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Discrimination cases unravel as Trump scraps core civil rights tenet
The Justice Department now is reviewing its entire docket and has already dismissed or terminated 'many' cases that were 'legally unsupportable' and a product of 'weaponization' under the Biden administration, said Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We will fully enforce civil rights laws in a way that satisfies the ends of justice, not politicization,' she said in a statement to The Washington Post. Advertisement The review includes cases and reform agreements forged after years-long investigations that the administration says lacked justification. Civil rights experts estimate that dozens of discrimination cases involving banks, landlords, private employers, and school districts could face similar action. 'What we're seeing is an attempt by the Trump administration to really dismantle a lot of the core tools that we use to ensure equality in the country,' said Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel and comanager of the Equal Protection Initiative at the Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit that has long advocated for the civil rights of Black Americans and other minorities. Advertisement At the center of this effort is 'disparate impact analysis,' which holds that neutral policies can have discriminatory outcomes even if there was no intent to discriminate. The legal standard stems from Griggs v. Duke Power, the landmark 1971 Supreme Court decision that became a staple of civil rights litigation. In that case, attorneys relied on statistical evidence to show how standardized testing prevented Black employees in North Carolina from advancing at the energy company. The legal theory has been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court, written into federal regulations and enshrined into employment law by Congress. But President Trump declared it unconstitutional in April, issuing an executive order that kicked off an intense review of civil rights regulations, enforcement actions, and settled cases. Now, government agreements and orders that relied on disparate impact in pursuing sex, race, and disability discrimination cases are being undone. On May 23, for example, the Justice Department terminated an agreement with Patriot Bank, a Tennessee-based lender accused of failing to lend in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods in Memphis, from 2015 to 2020. Prosecutors used statistical evidence to show disparities in the bank's lending practices alongside evidence of intentional discrimination, such as targeting most of its advertising in majority-white neighborhoods. A three-year agreement to reform its lending practices had been in place for a little over a year before Trump's Justice Department moved to end it, noting the bank was in compliance with the reform agreement. Patriot declined to comment. Civil rights advocates worry about the future of similar enforcement. Advertisement Disparate impact has long been anathema to conservatives, who say it can result in quotas and deny equal opportunity to white people. But past Republican administrations opted not to take this issue on, partly because of Supreme Court precedent and partly because it might prove politically unpopular. 'What changed is just political will,' said Kenneth L. Marcus, who headed the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights during both George W. Bush's administration and Trump's first term. 'The second Trump administration is more willing to take on potentially contentious civil rights issues than any Republican administration this century.' Trump issued a slew of executive orders to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs - calling them 'illegal and immoral' days after he returned to the White House in January - and ordered the government to close diversity offices and fire staff. His administration has since launched investigations into corporations, law firms and colleges over their diversity initiatives, while going to battle with Harvard University for its refusal to comply with a set of demands to alter its governance, admissions, and hiring practices. When Trump set his sights on disparate impact in April, he called it a 'pernicious movement' that ignores 'individual strengths, effort or achievement.' He ordered federal agencies to review any cases and reform agreements that rely on the theory - and terminate them as they see fit. The actions are long overdue, said Dan Morenoff, executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit law firm that opposes the use of disparate impact and diversity initiatives. He contends that the government's use of disparate impact has been, in many cases, legally dubious, adding that its assumptions are fundamentally flawed. Advertisement 'The people who most appreciate disparate impact appear, usually, to be deeply wed to the idea that any discrepancies are best explained by discrimination,' he said. The Supreme Court most recently upheld the use of disparate impact analysis in a 2015 housing case. But that decision was decided on a 5-4 vote in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired. Some conservatives believe the court's current conservative supermajority might give them their wished-for outcome. 'It's clear what the Trump administration is aiming for is to get this question to the Supreme Court in hopes the Supreme Court will take that tool away,' said Smirniotopoulos of the Legal Defense Fund. The rollbacks are already underway. In 2023, the Justice Department alleged that Atlanta-based Ameris Bank avoided providing home loans to Black and Latino home buyers in Jacksonville, Florida, in a practice known as redlining. The bank almost exclusively advertised in majority-White neighborhoods and made little effort to do business in majority Black and Latino neighborhoods, according to its lawsuit. Only 2.7 percent of Ameris's mortgages went to borrowers in Black and Latino communities from 2016 to 2021, the complaint said, while its competitors issued more than three times as many loans during that window. Ameris knew about the disparities but failed to correct them, the government alleged. Though it admitted no wrongdoing, Ameris quickly settled the case, agreeing to a set of measures whose progress would be monitored by the court. Then, on May 19, the Justice Department moved to unwind the settlement, saying that the bank has 'demonstrated a commitment to remediation' while freeing it from its legal obligations to implement the reforms. The bank did not object to the move. Prosecutors did note that Ameris had disbursed the entirety of a $7.5 million loan subsidy fund for borrowers in Black and Latino neighborhoods. Advertisement A judge granted the request a day later. Ameris declined to comment. The government moved to terminate cases involving two banks in Alabama and Tennessee that had agreed to court-monitored reforms tied to allegations of discriminatory lending practices. It also moved to dismiss a case in Kinloch, Mo., against property managers accused of refusing to rent to prospective Black tenants at disproportionate rates. There are at least eight other housing and lending cases across seven states that are similarly candidates for dismissal, according to a review. While the administration blamed the Biden administration for mishandling these cases, it has also dismissed cases going back decades. It did not directly concern disparate impact, but the Justice Department in April dismissed a 1966 consent order with a Louisiana school district concerning its desegregation efforts.
New York Times
9 hours ago
- New York Times
Mexico Votes in Sprawling, First-Ever Judiciary Election
Voters across Mexico went to the polls on Sunday to elect thousands of judges, from the local level to the Supreme Court, pressing ahead with one of the most far-reaching judicial overhauls ever attempted by a large democracy. The process will transform the judiciary away from an appointment-based system, a change that leaders of the governing Morena party say will help root out corrupt officials, democratize the courts and give citizens a voice in who administers justice. But although most Mexicans agree that their justice system is broken, the overhaul being enacted on Sunday has drawn sharp criticism from opposition figures and legal experts. They argue that it risks giving Morena extraordinary power over a third branch of government, throws out the old system's career requirements and opens the door to candidates who could be influenced by drug cartels. Because the election is so ambitious — more than 2,600 judges and magistrates will be elected, out of more than 7,700 candidates — some election experts expected voter turnout to be low. As voting got underway, relatively few voters could be seen lining up to vote around the country. In Tultitlán, in the state of Mexico, Jazmín Gutiérrez Ruiz, 37, was among those who cast ballots. She said that she hoped the election would root out corruption from the judiciary, and that her reasons were personal. Two of her brothers have spent two years in prison, accused of a murder 'they didn't do,' she said. 'I want the magistrates and judges to change, and for them to take the time to carefully look at the cases,' said Ms. Gutiérrez Ruiz, who works for a processed meat company. 'Just like my brothers, there are many people locked up unjustly.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
