PARK CITY, Utah (Court TV) — Prosecutors have accused a woman convicted of killing her husband of “misleading” the court after she asked an appeals court to delay considering her motion for a new trial.
Kouri Richins sits in court during closing arguments in her murder trial. (Court TV)
Kouri Richins, 36, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a jury convicted her of murder, attempted murder and insurance fraud in her husband’s death. Eric Richins died in 2022 after ingesting a lethal dose of fentanyl. At the defendant’s trial, prosecutors said she added the powerful drug to cocktails before giving them to the victim.
Kouri Richins previously filed a motion appealing her conviction, citing judicial bias, among other grounds. Months later, just as another filing was due in her appeal, the defendant filed a motion asking the appeals court to pause the process. That motion is sealed and unavailable to the public, but prosecutors’ response opposing it reveals its contents.
Prosecutor Brad Bloodworth wrote in his motion that an anonymous letter prompted an investigation into a detective with the Summit County Sheriff’s Office. That detective’s name appeared on both the defense and prosecution witness lists during Kouri Richins’ trial, but he never testified.
Bloodworth’s motion references an article from KPCW that claims Wasatch County Sheriff Jared Rigby brought concerns about the detective in question — whom the article refers to as his “political opponent” — to the Summit County Sheriff’s Office only after meeting with Kouri Richins’ friend. KPCW reported that on a recorded jail call, Kouri Richins’ friend said he had offered to help Rigby with his political campaign primarily because the Summit County detective “helped create this problem with Ms. Richins by investigating her.”
In his motion, Bloodworth said his office investigated whether Kouri Richins’ friend, whom he described as the defendant’s “admirer and media advisor,” used the allegations against the detective to hinder the trial. No charges were filed.
Bloodworth said the defense’s stay motion claimed that “‘the allegations of bias by the Court outlined in the defendant’s Motion for New Trial may be further supported by [an] ongoing [obstruction of justice] investigation and should be fully briefed prior to any ruling on the Motion [for New Trial].’ However, the New Motion’s judicial bias allegations only implicate the Court’s in-trial statements and conduct, and the Stay Motion does not allege judicial bias involving the Court’s in-trial statements or conduct. Instead, the Stay Motion alleges judicial bias involving the Court’s conduct outside of the trial itself. The Stay Motion’s judicial bias allegations are novel and do not connect to, much less support, the New Trial Motion’s judicial bias allegations. Accordingly, the Defendant’s stated reason for a stay is a misleading pretext, and the real reason is to develop a novel judicial bias theory or a novel obstruction of justice theory.”
The judge has not ruled on the motion for a new trial or the defense’s request for a stay.
