UT - Kouri Richins, 33, Author, wife, mom, charged in husband’s unexpected death last year, May 2023 #3

Wednesday, May 15th:
*Preliminary Hearing (@ 9am MT) - UT - *Eric Eugene Richins (39) poisoned with a lethal dose of fentanyl by wife on Mar. 3, 2022 in Kamas. - *Kouri Darden Richins (33/now 34) arrested (5/8/23) & charged (6/5/23) with 2nd degree aggravated murder & 3 counts of possession of drugs with intent to distribute. [These charges were dismissed on 3/25/24-see recharges]. Re-charged (3/25/24) with 2 counts of 1st degree criminal homicide aggravated murder (DV), 2 counts of 2nd degree distribution of a controlled substance, 2 counts of 2nd degree mortgage fraud (Iron Bridge Financial & Boomerrang Finance), 2 counts of 2nd degree insurance fraud & 2 counts of 3rd degree forgery. Held without bond. Bond denied (6/12/23). DA will not seek DP (8/18/23).
Judge Richard Mrazik presiding. Prosecutor Patricia Cassell & Brad Bloodworth & Defense attorney Skye Lazaro.
Case & court info from 6/5/23 thru 4/17/24 reference post #12 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...unexpected-death-last-year-may-2023-3.711978/

5/5/24 Update: Kouri Richins pleaded no contest last February to assaulting the sister of her late husband two days after his March 2022 death [Case #221200316]. She took a plea deal to settle the subsequent misdemeanor charge. Third District Court would dismiss the charge after a year if she abided by its terms. Prosecutors argued in court March 19 Richins failed to pay a $1,105 plea fee by January 2024 & attend grief counseling or a thinking errors class within 90 days of her no contest plea. Judge Brendan McCullagh threw out the first allegation because Richins is being held without bail for the duration of her pending murder trial. So McCullagh scheduled an evidentiary hearing for 5/13/24 @ 2:30pm, two days before a hearing will decide if Richins is put on trial for murder & an evidentiary hearing (murder) at 8am. With a preliminary hearing on 5/15/24 @ 9am & motion hearing (virtual) [Case #220500076/property rights case] on 5/20/24 @ 3pm.
5/13/24 Update: Civil case: After Kouri failed to show evidence she complied with the agreement, Justice Court Judge Brendan McCullagh found Kouri guilty of the assault. The crime carries a punishment of up to six months in jail. No sentencing date has been set. Criminal: Lawyers addressed exhibits they intend to admit for this week’s preliminary hearing & corrected a few errors in those exhibits. State attorney Brad Bloodworth told Judge Richard Mrazik the prosecution intends to call on two witnesses on Wednesday while Richins’ defense attorney Skye Lazaro said she plans to call on one additional witness. Judge Richard Mrazik: prosecutors were given permission to admit additional evidence ahead of the preliminary hearing. Representatives from the Gordon Law Group in Heber City also appeared at the hearing as prosecutors attempt to have the law practice supply records regarding a divorce consultation Richins previously had with the firm. Prosecutors claim Richins was unfaithful during her marriage to Eric & believe subpoenaed records could help supply a motive for killing her husband. Finally, Judge Mrazik heard from the Gordon Law Group regarding a subpoena requesting records relating to a consultation with Richins about possibly filing for divorce from her late husband, Eric Richins. 5/15/24, Wednesday's preliminary hearing is scheduled to begin at 9am.
 
I wonder if Lotto from her ‘Walk the Dog’ letter is the alleged paramour.


Also, please text Lotto or call. Tell him do not text me anything about us doing things together ever! Like church, skiing, trips! Nothing that puts us together, it doesn’t look good.

What about asking Lotto to do a loan solely in his name and not have you on there. I know he can do a home equity line of credit on his house in hideout. Not sure if he would but I know he has like a million in equity. Maybe he just doesn’t know about a HELOC (home equity). If he wants to help me, taking care of those loans is most important.
 
@cathyrusson

Today is #KouriRichins preliminary hearing where prosecutors will lay out their case and ask the judge to bind her over for trial.

Judge denied livestreaming.

We'll bring in the hearing afterward and publish it on our YouTube channel.
The state will call 2 witnesses.

BACKGROUND: Kouri Richins prosecutors go into deep detail on murder case
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/watch-a-murder-documentary-and-snuggle-prosecutors-detail-case-that-grief-author-poisoned-husband-over-money-and-pursued-new-life-with-lover/


9:40 AM · May 15, 2024
 
@KUTV2News

Kouri Richins will be in court at 9 a.m. today for a preliminary hearing, where the judge will hear witnesses and see new evidence in order to decide if Richins should be bound over for trial for the murder of her husband, Eric Richins.

 
The good news is it's postponed due to the prosecution needing time to prepare to present 3 days of evidence against her.

Good if she is guilty and this evidence helps prove it.
agreed. but did the state only need more time because of SL's objections to exhibits? seems interesting that the exhibits objected to are 1-18, which were pre-admitted. wondering if this was a delay tactic by the defense (despite saying they were ready to go) or truly the prosecutors' prerogative.

ETA: based on some of the reporting seems like the continuance was more of a decision by prosecution
 
Last edited:
agreed. but did the state only need more time because of SL's objections to exhibits? seems interesting that the exhibits objected to are 1-18, which were pre-admitted. wondering if this was this a delay tactic by the defense (despite saying they were ready to go) or truly the prosecutors' prerogative.

ETA: based on some of the reporting seems like the continuance was more of a decision by prosecution

Could be related to the defense complaining. Nothing surprises me anymore with defense delay tactics.

I would be surprised if the prosecution isn't ready considering the specific detail in the indictment.

Read the state’s brief here.
 
Even though this delay after delay... she is still in jail and can't have any freedom.

I know it's bad for the family of the victim, but at least every delay doesn't change Kouri's status as being jailed.
 
Last edited:

Not surprised about this at all.

As I questioned earlier, one day scheduled for the preliminary hearing never made sense to me.

Nonetheless, I am sorry for Eric's family and friends, and understand they want answers yesterday.

Also, I think this delay might be explained by how unprepared SL was on Monday. However, she did advise the Court that she was meeting with the prosecution following Monday's hearing. MOO
 
From Monday's hearing, did we ever learn who the defense intended to call as their witness at the preliminary hearing?

State attorney Brad Bloodworth told Judge Richard Mrazik the prosecution intends to call on two witnesses on Wednesday while Richins’ defense attorney Skye Lazaro said she plans to call on one additional witness.

Defense attorney says she plans to call one additional witness.


ETA: During Morphew's preliminary hearing, his defense attorney contacted a CBI agent the night before the preliminary hearing, and proceeded to call him at the prelim as a defense witness. His testimony for the defense had a dramatic effect on the proceeding-- given Morphew was deemed eligible for pretrial bail release after the CBI agent failed to testify as he'd been prepped by the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
I dunno. From the preview of today's prelim before it was shut down, I'm seeing a pattern here with the defense.

The State put out the bench brief for the prelim on 5/13 which was discovered to the defense. The pre-admitted evidence exhibits from the bond detention hearing is outlined in the brief, and already part of the record, where it should not be necessary to repeat the effort.

For example, part to the evidence (exhibit) previously admitted, includes a crucial witness with state immunity where the transcript of their entire police interview was long ago discovered to the defense-- as long ago as the bond detention hearing.

IMO, it seems disingenuous for the defense to allege today that the State quoting the witness from their transcript is the equivalent of preparing the witness's statement for them. The State did not author the words out of their mouth! Making an objection to this critical witness for the probable cause hearing at the 11th hour on a technicality (at best) does not work for me. :mad:

This reminds me of the advance, joint agreement the parties made regarding the content of the envelope (book draft) only for the defense to withdraw the agreement at the hearing. This defense take-back cost the defendant an incredible delay in moving the process forward. So let's not hear defense concerns about the defendant's custody status when rescheduling the preliminary hearing!

So now we know SL's defense strategy: frustrate the prosecution and confuse the Court while doing so.

MOO
 
I dunno. From the preview of today's prelim before it was shut down, I'm seeing a pattern here with the defense.

The State put out the bench brief for the prelim on 5/13 which was discovered to the defense. The pre-admitted evidence exhibits from the bond detention hearing is outlined in the brief, and already part of the record, where it should not be necessary to repeat the effort.

For example, part to the evidence (exhibit) previously admitted, includes a crucial witness with state immunity where the transcript of their entire police interview was long ago discovered to the defense-- as long ago as the bond detention hearing.

IMO, it seems disingenuous for the defense to allege today that the State quoting the witness from their transcript is the equivalent of preparing the witness's statement for them. The State did not author the words out of their mouth! Making an objection to this critical witness for the probable cause hearing at the 11th hour on a technicality (at best) does not work for me. :mad:

This reminds me of the advance, joint agreement the parties made regarding the content of the envelope (book draft) only for the defense to withdraw the agreement at the hearing. This defense take-back cost the defendant an incredible delay in moving the process forward. So let's not hear defense concerns about the defendant's custody status when rescheduling the preliminary hearing!

So now we know SL's defense strategy: frustrate the prosecution and confuse the Court while doing so.

MOO

I certainly agree that the particulars of the case appear to be significant, and the repeated posturing by SL that the state has no case and this shouldn't even go to trial seems quite ludicrous to me. The standard the state has to meet, at this point, is incredibly low, which makes me wonder who SL is trying to convince -- I can't imagine the judge will buy what she's selling.

Never say a case is a slam dunk, but the evidence (much of it from KR's own words and actions) appears overwhelming.

But that having been said, I do have 2 strong disagreements with this ^ post:
1 I do not agree that 'SL shouldn't be doing what she's doing.' In fact, I think it is the right thing, to mount a vigorous objection, and to try to do whatever she can to defend KR, even if all the facts are against her. Maybe even more so.
... I have to think she's working to produce some concern by the state, in hopes of getting a good plea agreement offer. Because it looks to me like KR is buried by facts, and by the likely of being convicted on one charge after another. KR's own words have put a noose around her own neck.
2 The statement above that the defense "withdrew" or "took back" an agreement on how to deal with what to do about the so-called book is completely false. No such thing ever happened!! In fact, what happened was the opposite of that claim - the defense voiced their objections to the state getting the book, agreed to a process for their claims to be examined, and then they participated as the process played out 100% just as agreed. Moreover, there wasn't even a way for the defense to renege on the agreement at any point.
So the court took possession of the "book," then farmed it out to an attorney for the state ("taint attorney") not involved in the case, who was allowed to examine its contents (but can't share it with the state for use in the trial), who then wrote up the reasons why it should be allowed as evidence. Then the defense was given a few weeks to respond why it should be marked as privileged attorney-client stuff instead. Eventually they had a closed hearing on the matter. But all the info in the "book" and the arguments, and maybe even motions, were kept out of the public domain.
At the hearing, the court heard arguments from both sides, then ruled that the book is attorney-client stuff. Nowhere in that did the defense ever fail to honor its agreement. Here's an article on the results of all that process.

 
Last edited:
2 The statement above that the defense "withdrew" or "took back" an agreement on how to deal with what to do about the so-called book is completely false. No such thing ever happened!!
^^rsbm

To be clear, whether OP disagrees with the State's Motion and/or the quotes from the defense in their Motion not does not make my reference to the actual Motion as filed a "completely false statement!"

Just the same, my quoting directly from MSM about the subject Motion supports my post OP alleges as false so perhaps OP can take it up with the reporter linked below, and cease attacking the messenger.

Again, BOTH SIDES HAD AN AGREEMENT and the DEFENSE LATER TOLD THEM THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND after consulting with their general counsel. End of story.

At the time, the change by the defense impacted the schedule, and the same tactic by the defense on 5/15 caused the State to request the preliminary hearing rescheduled, causing another delay when their client is in custody. MOO

The motion claimed both sides agreed the writings would be handed over to a “taint attorney...” an independent lawyer who would read the documents, take out the protected information and give the rest to the prosecution. However, the state claimed the defense later told them they wouldn’t hand over the pages.

The motion quotes the defense attorney as saying, “I have consulted with our [General Counsel] on the matter, and unfortunately from an ethical standpoint and duties to my client, my hands are tied.”
 
I dunno. From the preview of today's prelim before it was shut down, I'm seeing a pattern here with the defense.

The State put out the bench brief for the prelim on 5/13 which was discovered to the defense. The pre-admitted evidence exhibits from the bond detention hearing is outlined in the brief, and already part of the record, where it should not be necessary to repeat the effort.

For example, part to the evidence (exhibit) previously admitted, includes a crucial witness with state immunity where the transcript of their entire police interview was long ago discovered to the defense-- as long ago as the bond detention hearing.

IMO, it seems disingenuous for the defense to allege today that the State quoting the witness from their transcript is the equivalent of preparing the witness's statement for them. The State did not author the words out of their mouth! Making an objection to this critical witness for the probable cause hearing at the 11th hour on a technicality (at best) does not work for me. :mad:

This reminds me of the advance, joint agreement the parties made regarding the content of the envelope (book draft) only for the defense to withdraw the agreement at the hearing. This defense take-back cost the defendant an incredible delay in moving the process forward. So let's not hear defense concerns about the defendant's custody status when rescheduling the preliminary hearing!

So now we know SL's defense strategy: frustrate the prosecution and confuse the Court while doing so.

MOO

You are conflating two witnesses. At the 23 minute mark of the video above skye is talking about an 1102 from the new witness 3.

CL or Witness 4 is the witness with immunity from the detention hearing that claims she sold Kouri the fentanyl she asked for. The prosecution never got an official signed 1102 statement from CL like they have for all the other witnesses. Skye said she got the list of 1102s on Monday night and just realized they didn’t get one for CL. The judge seemed to agree this was a major oversight on the prosecutions part and it seemed to be the main reason the prosecution had to delay things.

Witness 3 is a brand new witness that was also in drug court and given similar immunity for their statement saying Kouri asked them for fentanyl. This is the witness that Skye complained about the prosecutors writing up the 1102 statement for them. She didn’t say that about CL from the detention hearing.
 
Last edited:

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
1,447
Total visitors
1,595

Forum statistics

Threads
594,934
Messages
18,015,704
Members
229,553
Latest member
Nursestump
Back
Top