John Jefferson
Left: Eric Richins (obituary photo). Right: Kouri Richins, a Utah mother of three, who wrote a children’s book about coping with grief after her husband’s death and was later accused of fatally poisoning him, appears in court on May 15, 2024, in Park City, Utah (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, Pool).
Defense attorneys for alleged murderer Kouri Richins are accusing prosecutors of violating the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct by leveling a “snarky screed of personal attacks” in recent court filings, urging the court to levy sanctions against the Summit County Attorney’s Office and strike the filings from the record.
Richins, 34, stands accused of murdering 39-year-old Eric Eugene Richins in March 2022 and by poisoning his Moscow Mule with a lethal dose of fentanyl and subsequently going on the local news to talk about a book on grief that she claimed to write so her three sons could understand and cope with the sudden loss of their father.
Earlier this month, Richins’ public defenders — Wendy Lewis, Kathy Nester and Alex Ramos — filed a motion to suppress evidence. In that motion, the defense accused investigators of violating Richins’ constitutional rights and sought to have evidence from her electronic devices and a hand-written letter she wrote while incarcerated to be ruled inadmissible.
Specifically, Richins’ lawyers alleged that police failed to inform their client of her Miranda rights after she was arrested, performed an interview without her attorney present, and claimed authorities seized her cellphone without first obtaining a proper warrant.
They later filed a request asking the court to re-open questioning for some of the law enforcement witnesses, claiming the State had recently provided “Giglio information,” which is evidence that could be used to impeach or harm the credibility of a prosecution witness.
“The State has disclosed potential Giglio information to the defense, which puts into question at the very least the accuracy, and quite possibly the truthfulness of Detective O’Driscoll’s testimony at the January 23, 2025, evidentiary hearing,” the defense filing stated.
The information dealt with the lead detective in the case supposedly knowing that Richins was represented by an attorney before he interviewed her without the attorney present. He testified that he was not aware she had an attorney at the time, but Richins’ defense attorneys say three witnesses confirmed a conversation before the interview about the defendant having a lawyer.
Prosecutors responded by characterizing the defense’s request as a “cheap litigation trick,” adding that
“The objective facts establish that every detective in this case, including the lead detective, has testified truthfully, without exception,” the State wrote in an opposition to the defense motion. “The Motion is nothing more than defense counsel’s latest implementation of current and former defense counsel’s longstanding strategy to publicly malign honorable people to influence potential jurors. It is a cheap litigation trick. No more, no less. This strategy holds no place in this serious proceeding or our profession.”
The defense team earlier this week fired back, accusing prosecutors of burying the results of an internal investigation into the lead detective’s testimony, emphasizing that the county attorney’s office brought the situation on itself when it notified the defense about the alleged discrepancy.
“The prosecution’s faux outrage is utterly bewildering as they are the ones who felt compelled to make the disclosure,” Richins’ attorneys wrote, according to a report from Salt Lake City CBS affiliate KUTV. “The State began with a shockingly false allegation that the request to reopen the suppression hearing was based on feelings rather than facts knowing full well that their own written disclosure of an internal investigation into a witnesses’ potential misstatements on the stand is what precipitated their request.”
Read the full article here