Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- Prosecutors oppose reopening witness questioning in Kouri Richins' murder case.
- The defense claims issues with a detective's testimony, citing potential credibility concerns.
- Richins faces charges including aggravated murder; her trial is scheduled for April.
PARK CITY — 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.
