SALT LAKE CITY ā As the Kouri Richins murder case is on hold while defendants are preparing to appeal a decision against moving the trial to Salt Lake County, two Utah Supreme Court rulings concerning the case have been published.
Attorneys in the case already relied on both rulings, which were disclosed to them earlier, in hearings as the case moved toward a trial previously scheduled to begin at the end of this month.
One decision denies a motion by Richins and her attorneys to expand the jury pool to Salt Lake County residents. Richins, from Kamas, is accused of killing her husband, 39-year-old Eric Richins, in 2022 by secretly giving him a fatal dose of drugs.
The Utah Supreme Court denied the request, affirming a decision by 3rd District Judge Richard Mrazik, which led Richins’ attorneys to ask to move the trial to Salt Lake County altogether. That secondary request was denied by Mrazik earlier this month. He then granted a request to put the case on hold while Richins’ attorneys file yet another appeal.
“The trial judge correctly interpreted Utah law to conclude that jurors must be selected from a single county. We affirm,” the court concluded about splitting jury selection.
In the other decision officially handed down Thursday, the state’s high court looked at whether Laura Scott, the 3rd District Court’s presiding judge, abused her discretion by denying a request for in-person jury selection.
“The presiding judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied the parties’ stipulated request for an in-person jury selection,” the justices wrote in their opinion. “The trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied the parties’ stipulated request to expand the jury venire.”
Associate Chief Justice John Pearce, who wrote the opinion for the unanimous ruling, acknowledged that the presiding judge said there is “no question this is a high-profile case being covered by traditional and ‘new media.'” However, the judge also noted there are “many such cases” currently in 3rd District Court.
“The presiding judge reasoned that ‘as has been done in several other cases, issues regarding cameras and the number of people in and around the courtroom during a trial can be addressed with carefully crafted jury questionnaires, jury instructions, and decorum orders.’ The presiding judge concluded that the parties failed to ‘adequately explain why in-person jury selection is needed to address general concerns about ‘extreme media attention.'”
Currently, jury selection in 3rd District Court criminal cases is done virtually.
Richins’ attorneys have not yet filed their appeal seeking to move her trial out of Summit County, which they argued for based on significant media attention and the large portion of Summit County individuals with connections to the case.
She was ordered to stand trial on the charges of aggravated murder and attempted murder, first-degree felonies; two counts of distributing a controlled substance, two counts of insurance fraud and two counts of filing a fraudulent insurance claim, second-degree felonies; and three counts of forgery, a third-degree felony.
The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.