Recapping Interview Kouri Richins Attorneys Gave & The Judge's Ruling On State's Motion To Show Caus

The state requested a ruling that Kouri Richins attorneys are in contempt of the court’s authority for violating the protection order with certain statements they made during an interview with KUTV2.

The state asserts defendant’s counsel violated the protection order which incorporates Rule 3.6 of the UTAH Rules Of Professional Conduct by participating in an interview with KUTV2 News to influence future sworn jurors because counsel believes that the playing field in the courtroom is not level. In response, the defense says they complied with the safe harbor provisions of Rule 3.6 and their public statements were necessary to respond to numerous false narratives.

Link to interview with Kouri’s attorneys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66XSjYpm6PU&t=115s

• ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES 
• Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) 
• PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibis
• Venmo - @prettyliesalibis
• Buy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesr
• Cash App- Prettyliesandalibis
• All links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibis
• Merch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com
• Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis
• (Weekly lives and private message board)

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Watch you know Alibier's Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm Gigi a Sunday, December seventh. I
wanted to take some time this evening to knock out
some of these filings in the Corey Richins case. It's
really hard when I'm covering a trial to do anything
else but closely following Corey Richins. She'll be going to
trial in February, and there's a good chance I will

(00:21):
be out there for some of that. I've never been
to Utah, but I have some very dear friends that
live out there, so hopefully that happens. Sky Lazarro was
originally Corey's attorney, but she withdrew due to a conflict
of interest. Next in line was Wendy Lewis, Kathy Nester,
and Alexander Ramos. They took over in May of twenty

(00:41):
twenty four. There was a ruling on November twentieth regarding
the state's motion for an order to show cause. This
is regarding a filing by the state saying that Corey's
attorneys are in contempt of court for violating the protection
order with certain statements that they made during an interview
with KUTV News. Now, before we get to the ruling,

(01:02):
I watched the interview and made some notes on the
most important parts they talked about. So let's go over
that first. First up was a coworker of Corey's from
home Depot, which is where she met Eric. She said,
you would never forget Eric's laugh. She encouraged Eric to
talk to Corey after Corey caught his eye and after

(01:22):
the first date, they were glued to each other, and
she said it was perfect. Moving on to the interview,
all three attorneys were on there and they were the
ones who called the station and requested the interview. Kathy
Nestor said that they did the interview to address serious
areas that have been discussed publicly in open court and
says the prosecution has declined to correct false information that

(01:45):
has come out in the media. Investigative reporter Wendy Holleran
asked Kathy Nestor if her client is the Moscow mule murderer,
and she says, they don't know the prosecution's theory regarding
a murder weapon because they've never told the defense their theory.
They never said the fentanyl was given in that drink.
She said she asked the lead detective during the preliminary hearing,

(02:06):
do you know how she administered the fentanyl to Eric?
And he said no, and the prosecution has never said
that was how it was given to him. She says
that came from a statement Corey made early on that
they had that drink before he died. And she says,
sitting here today, she can't say how the prosecution is
going to say Eric adjusted the fentanyl because they've never

(02:27):
said that in core or in any filings. She said,
they believe Corey is innocent and she wants what's out
there to be accurate. Now, Kathy and Nester went on
to talk about Corey's financials and Corey owing hard money
lenders one point eight million dollars and just being in
huge debt. She said the public failed to take into

(02:48):
consideration the huge piece of property she obtained, and she's
referring to this unfinished mansion that she bought two days
after Eric died. Now, remember Eric did not want Corey
to purchase this property. She said, the equity in that
house alone and the value of it was enough to
cover any debt Corey had in her business. And they
feel that's been improperly reported, and it's very misleading. All

(03:11):
the reporting is about debt service and not the values
of the properties that Corey had. Wendy Lewis talked about
the life insurance policy, saying it's been reported that Corey
took out hundreds of thousands of dollars in life insurance
policies on Eric before he died. She says that's not true.
Ory took out one policy that came in the mill.

(03:31):
She said, it's the one we all get from our
credit union, saying sign here for one hundred thousand dollars
in free life insurance and sign here for your spouse,
and that was sent in about a month before Eric died.
The other policies were taken out by Eric long before
he passed away. She said the extra one hundred thousand
would be a lot for a lot of people, but

(03:52):
for this family, it was not really all that much.
When asked if the prosecution had an ethical obligation to
correct these things that in the narrative, she said, if
they want justice to be served, they have an obligation
to do that. One thing that's been reported that the
state has not corrected is that Corey googled how much
fentanyl does it take to kill someone? She said, that's

(04:14):
been in the press and exploited, saying that she did
that before Eric's death, but that's not the case. We
discovered through court records and exhibits. She googled that a
day or two after Eric's death, after she was told
he died of a fentanyl overdose, not before, which she
says makes perfect sense. Corey does not know how Eric died.

(04:35):
That's a very different narrative than to leave out there. Oh,
the Moscow murderer googled how much fentanyl does it take
to kill someone? She says, no, that's not what happened.
She's asked if she feels the language the prosecution uses
in its filings has crossed the line, and she says, yes.
This has been interesting. She hasn't seen the language in

(04:55):
filings like they're seeing in this case. The prosecution has
a very strong opinion on this case, not just here's
the evidence. They seem to have a personal opinion, which
I think is reflected in their pleadings. Our job is
to protect our clients' rights and make sure she gets
a fair trial. Their job is to serve justice what

(05:16):
they think is justice and what we think is justice
is very often the opposite, and it begins to get
personal sometimes, and she says this has become quite personal
for the prosecution. When Ramos was asked if he thought
the prosecution is injecting a false narrative to the media,
he says, I don't know that they're necessarily injecting it,
but they're not correcting it. And he says that's why

(05:38):
we are interviewing today with a client facing serious charges
and the misinformation out there is not being corrected. It's
a disservice to justice. He thinks the public is just
adopting the narrative because it's the prosecution, it's the state
of Utah, this is a high profile case, and he
thinks people need to be more critical because if what's

(06:01):
going on in this case goes on to a lesser
degree in other cases that don't get the exposure or
the appropriate resources, that's when it starts to become a danger.
Their job is to stick to the facts, and that's
something they haven't done in this case with how it's
been portrayed in the media. If their goal is justice,

(06:21):
they have not lived up to it, at least in
this case. When asked why they reached out to two
news investigates, Kathy Nestor said, we have a lot of
confidence in you and we're hoping you can get the
word out. It's kind of the one pebble in a pond.
Once you throw the pebble in, the waves spread out.
We hope once we correct it in a place that's credible,

(06:42):
that's a well known news source, then maybe other news
sources will also start to question a little more about
what they're hearing and what they're covering. Ramo says, when
you hear these false narratives and you know what you
believe to be the truth, it's frustrating. When you're doing
your job and upholding the content institution, that's a high bar,
and we see these narratives come out, then it becomes

(07:05):
a game. We forget there's someone on the end of that,
and that's a client, a human, a mother, and it
does frustrate me. Wendy was asked if Corey was aware
of these narratives and how does she handle what you
claim is misinformation being spread about her. She said, Corey
is distraught and heartbroken. This has been very difficult for her.

(07:27):
She's been in jail for over two years and she
hasn't had the opportunity to tell her story until trial,
so it's been very difficult on her now. The prosecution
was asked for an on camera interview by the news
station and they responded, we're aware of the recent filings
submitted by the defense. We will address all matters related

(07:48):
to this case through the legal process rather than in
the media. Our formal response will be part of the
public record next week. We asked this comment be included
in your report to ensure our position is accurately represented
and the reporting remains balanced. So moving on to the ruling,

(08:08):
Judge Mrazik ruled on that motion for an order to
show cause. It says there's a protection order in place
which states, in part, lawyers who have participated, are now participating,
or will participate in the investigation or litigation of this
case in any way, shall abide strictly by Rule three

(08:29):
point six of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, among
other provisions, Rule three point six prohibits a lawyer from
making an extra judicial statement that the lawyer knows or
reasonably should know, will be disseminated by means of public communication,
and will have a substantial likelihood of materially causing prejudice

(08:51):
and adjudicative proceeding in the matter. The state requested a
ruling that Corey's attorneys are in contempt of the court's
authority for violating the protection Order with certain statements they
made during the interview. They also requested barring Defense Council
for making any further extra judicial statements in connection with
this matter without a neutral's prior approval. The state asserts

(09:16):
defendants Council violated the protection Order, which incorporates Rule three
point six of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, by
participating in an interview with KUTV News to quote influence
future sworn jurors because Council believes the playing field in
the courtroom is not level. In response, Council asserts they

(09:38):
complied with the safe harbor provisions of Rule three point
six and their public statements were necessary to respond to
numerous false narratives that threatened to deprive cory of a
fair and impartial veneer and jury, which the state has
allowed to percolate without correction. What is the safe harbor provisions?

(09:59):
I looked it up and it provides exemptions or safe
harbors for lawyers extra judicial statements allowing commentary on general
claims slash defenses, public record information, ongoing investigations with limits,
but prohibits statements likely to create a substantial risk of

(10:20):
material prejudice, like opinions on guilt, credibility, or evidence inadmissible
in court, with specific criminal case allowances like the accused,
identity and arrest details. The key is balancing free speech
with fair trial rights, focusing on what's necessary for investigations
slash defense versus what could prejudice the preceding So back

(10:45):
to the ruling, the Court expresses no opinion one way
or the other regarding the substance of the party's positions. Rather,
the Court merely recites their positions to highlight the nature
of the evidentiary hearing that would be required to resolve
their conflict. To prove contempt, the state must show the
Defendants Council intentionally failed or refused to comply with Rule

(11:10):
three point six as incorporated into the Protection Order. Given
the parties competing positions regarding whether Defendants Council's interview falls
within the safe harbor provisions of Rule three point six,
such a hearing would require a detailed discussion of and
detailed findings regarding the substance and timing of extra judicial

(11:32):
statements by several actors, as well as whether those statements
are consistent with admissible evidence on the record. Such a
hearing would be a distracting side show that would siphon
the party's resources away from preparing to try the merits
of this case based on admissible evidence. Moreover, such a

(11:53):
hearing would be counterproductive because it would re elevate the
media profile of inadmissible evidence and speculation during the period
immediately before jury selection. In a footnote, he refers to
a ruling where he denied the change of venue motion
because of the extreme media attention on the case. That

(12:13):
ruling says, compared to previous cases in Summit County, the
extent of media attention to this case has been extreme.
The nature of that coverage has been adverse to the
defendant because it has been incomplete and misleading, involving inaccurate
summaries of evidence that may be admissible, discussion of evidence

(12:34):
that the court has ruled is not admissible, and speculation
by commentators who have no personal knowledge of the facts.
The nature and extent of the coverage of this case
as compared to the relative paucity of coverage of other
criminal and civil cases, is an indictment of the involved
media outlets in our current media culture. Nonetheless, the media

(12:57):
coverage of this case has not been the present. Rather,
it has involved significant periods of media inactivity between court
hearings and significant filings. He goes on to say that
holding an evidentiary hearing on the state's motion to show
cause prior to trial is not in the interest of justice.
In so ruling, the court does not and not is

(13:19):
underlined minimize the importance of compliance with the Court's protection order,
which incorporates Rule three point six of the Utah Rules
of Professional Conduct. Council that fails to abide by the
order may be held in contempt and sanctioned. So that
was denied without prejudice, meaning that can be revisited again

(13:40):
if need be, if the State determines is in the
interest of justice to do so. The motion may be
refiled following trial. So that was it for that ruling.
But I will link that interview in the description below
if you guys would like to go watch the whole thing.
But that is it for this episode. Hope you guys
have a good rest your evening and we will see

(14:01):
you soon.