‘Poppycock': Prosecutors contest claim from Kouri Richins of problems in detective's testimony
Prosecutors in Summit County are calling a request from Kouri Richins' attorneys to reopen the questioning of witnesses before moving on in the murder case 'a cheap litigation trick.'
"This strategy holds no place in this serious proceeding or our profession," Summit County chief prosecutor Brad Bloodworth said in a response filed Monday.
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.
Last week, attorneys for the Kamas woman asked the court to reopen the opportunity for testimony about what evidence should be presented at trial — including cellphone and electronic data — claiming there were problems with a state's witness testimony at a recent hearing.
Defense attorney Wendy Lewis said in the motion she would like to question at least four additional witnesses before she submits written briefs addressing the motions that were being considered when detective Jeff O'Driscoll and others testified.
The short motion asking to reopen questioning did not elaborate on what the problem was but cited Giglio — a U.S. Supreme Court case that established prosecutors are obligated to disclose evidence that could impact a witness's credibility.
Prosecutors opposed Lewis' request on Monday, saying the detective testified truthfully, and objected to Lewis publicly bringing into question the detective's character without citing any facts. "Defense counsel's feelings do not matter. Objective facts matter," the response says, adding that the facts show all detectives had testified truthfully.
Bloodworth did, however, cite a discrepancy between O'Driscoll's recollection and a second officer's recollection in preparation for the hearing, which the prosecution had outside attorneys investigate. Bloodworth's legal filing said they told Richins' attorneys about this discrepancy on Jan. 31 and provided them a report from the outside attorney on Feb. 6. The report, he said, found no evidence that the recollections were inappropriate or that either detective was not truthful.
The objection said Richins' attorneys filed their request on that same day without talking to prosecutors. In a conversation the day after, the document said Richins' attorney told prosecutors they feel O'Driscoll testified untruthfully, specifically when he testified that he did not think he knew Richins was represented by an attorney when he went to her home and spoke with her for multiple hours.
According to Bloodworth's legal filing, Richins' attorney also cited that O'Driscoll was prepared for questions from prosecutors but would respond that he "did not recall" to many of the questions from Richins' attorneys.
"It's shocking that detective O'Driscoll testified well to the state's questioning after the state exhaustively prepared him to testify, and equally shocking that he could not recall insignificant-at-the-time details about events that occurred nearly two years earlier in response to the defense's questioning. Poppycock," Bloodworth's opposition says.
Bloodworth said calling this disclosure of a potential conflict from prosecutors "potential Giglio information" was "inaccurate and irresponsible."
He said prosecutors had told attorneys they would be fine reopening evidence if it was deemed appropriate after the outside attorney presented findings. He also claimed Richins' attorneys did not talk to prosecutors before filing the motion only because they wanted to publicly bring doubt to testimony from the lead detective on Richins' case.
Bloodworth asked the judge to deny the motion, allowing the process to decide what evidence should be shown at trial to move forward.
For her part, Lewis asked for a hearing as soon as possible to address her motion, but the court has not yet scheduled a hearing.
The next hearing in Richins' case is scheduled for Feb. 21, and attorneys plan at that hearing to go over questionnaires that will be sent to potential jurors for her murder trial scheduled in April.
Richins is accused of administering a fatal dose of fentanyl to Eric Richins in March 2022 and has also been charged with giving a lethal dose of drugs to her husband 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.
Richins is also charged with two counts of mortgage fraud, a second-degree felony, and two additional counts of forgery, a third-degree felony. Those charges will be addressed in a separate trial.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Straight Woman In ‘Reverse Discrimination' Case
Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
BREAKING: Supreme Court sides with straight woman in so-called 'reverse discrimination' case
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with an Ohio woman on Thursday who claimed she was discriminated against for being straight. She said her gay boss didn't promote her. The ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services will now allow similar suits to be brought in the U.S., making it easier for members of majority groups to claim job discrimination over their identity. Marlean Ames brought the case. Ames, a straight former Ohio Department of Youth Services (the state's juvenile justice department) employee Ames alleged that she was denied a promotion and later removed from her position while less qualified queer employees were given the roles she sought. At issue was whether so-called majority-group plaintiffs — such as heterosexual employees alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or white employees claiming they were discriminated against because of their race — must meet a higher evidentiary standard than other plaintiffs in discrimination cases. Related: That standard has been used in about half of the federal court circuits in the U.S., according to the New York Times. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. Jackson wrote that the court's case law "makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. ... The 'background circumstances' rule flouts that basic principle." 'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Jackson also wrote in the opinion. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas — joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch — wrote that the higher standard was "judge-made." "Courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII's anti-discrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so," he wrote. He added that the court's decision Thursday, "obviates the need for courts to engage in the 'sordid business'" of dividing people by their race or other identity. The Human Rights Campaign in a statement emphasized the need for civil rights laws. 'Our civil rights laws must protect all people from unlawful discrimination—whether based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics,' said Cathryn Oakley, the organization's senior director of legal policy. 'Today's unanimous decision, written by Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, emphasizes the ongoing importance of federal civil rights laws. It also comes as we're witnessing an alarming wave of political attacks targeting LGBTQ+ people across the country, the weaponization of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and unprecedented hostility within parts of the federal government toward our community. LGBTQ+ people, in particular, face heightened and increasingly dangerous forms of discrimination — and too often, fewer paths to remedy it. This ruling must be understood in the context of that rising tide. Fighting discrimination is not just about one case or one person — it's about defending the broader promise of equality and justice for all.' Allen Morris, policy dreictor at the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the decision "underscores the need for congressional action, and the prioritization of federal non-discrimination protections." Morris also noted that the primary target of employment discrimination is still people "with intersecting needs." "This moment must also be met with clarity and urgency: underserved communities continue to face a systemically challenged and unleveled playing field in workspaces, schools and public life," Morris said. "Nearly 1 in 2 transgender people report experiencing mistreatment in the workforce. We must not excuse or dismiss the lived realities of communities who are fighting to be treated with dignity and fairness. Congress must act to pass comprehensive, explicit federal non-discrimination protections, including the long-overdue Equality Act."
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Rejects Mexico's Lawsuit Against US Gunmakers
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a high-profile, multibillion dollar lawsuit filed by the Mexican government that sought to hold American gun manufacturers legally accountable for the rampant cartel violence south of the border. In a decision authored by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court ruled that Mexico's claims were barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)—a 2005 federal statute that largely shields gunmakers and sellers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. This is a breaking news story—more to follow.
