Defense attorneys for Kouri Richins have accused prosecutors of violating professional conduct rules by engaging in personal attacks in their court filings. They have requested sanctions against the Summit County Attorney’s Office and urged the court to remove the contentious filings from the record.
Richins, 34, faces charges of murdering her husband, 39-year-old Eric Eugene Richins, in March 2022. Prosecutors allege she poisoned his Moscow Mule cocktail with a fatal dose of fentanyl. After his death, she wrote a book about grief, claiming it was meant to help her three sons cope with the sudden loss of their father.
Earlier this month, her defense attorneys filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that investigators had violated her constitutional rights. They claimed that police failed to inform Richins of her Miranda rights upon arrest, questioned her without legal representation, and improperly seized her cellphone without a warrant. The defense also sought to exclude a handwritten letter she allegedly wrote while incarcerated.
The defense team later submitted a request to reopen the questioning of certain law enforcement witnesses, citing new disclosures regarding the credibility of the lead detective in the case. They argued that prosecutors had recently provided what is known as “Giglio information”—material that could be used to challenge the credibility of a prosecution witness.
According to the defense, the information in question pertains to whether the lead detective knowingly proceeded with an interview despite being aware that Richins had legal representation. The detective testified that he was unaware of her attorney’s involvement at the time of the interview. However, the defense maintains that three separate witnesses have confirmed a prior discussion in which the detective acknowledged Richins had legal counsel.
In response, prosecutors dismissed the defense’s request as a strategic maneuver designed to manipulate public perception. They characterized the motion as a “cheap litigation trick,” asserting that every detective involved in the case had provided truthful testimony. They accused the defense of attempting to undermine law enforcement officials in an effort to sway potential jurors.
“The objective facts establish that every detective in this case, including the lead detective, has testified truthfully, without exception,” prosecutors wrote in their opposition filing. They argued that the defense’s strategy of publicly discrediting witnesses was inappropriate for such a serious legal matter.
The defense team strongly refuted the prosecution’s response, arguing that it was the prosecutors themselves who had disclosed the issue regarding the lead detective’s statements. They accused the county attorney’s office of attempting to downplay its own disclosure while simultaneously attacking the defense for bringing the matter to the court’s attention.
“The prosecution’s faux outrage is utterly bewildering as they are the ones who felt compelled to make the disclosure,” Richins’ attorneys wrote. They emphasized that the state had initiated the issue by revealing an internal investigation into the detective’s potential misstatements on the stand. They further asserted that the prosecution’s claim that the defense’s motion was based on emotion rather than facts was blatantly false.
The ongoing legal battle between the defense and prosecution underscores the contentious nature of the case, with both sides accusing the other of misconduct. The defense continues to argue that key evidence was obtained improperly and that the credibility of the investigation is in question, while prosecutors maintain that the case against Richins is based on solid evidence and that law enforcement officials acted appropriately throughout the process.
As the case moves forward, the court will have to determine whether the defense’s claims regarding constitutional violations and potential witness credibility issues warrant further hearings or impact the admissibility of certain evidence. The legal battle surrounding these pre-trial motions could play a significant role in shaping the trajectory of the case.
