‘Poppycock': Prosecutors contest claim from Kouri Richins of problems in detective's testimony
"This strategy holds no place in this serious proceeding or our profession," Summit County chief prosecutor Brad Bloodworth said in a response filed Monday.
Richins was arrested in 2023 and later charged with murder in the 2022 death of her husband, Eric Richins, who was 39. During the year between his death and her arrest, Kouri Richins published a children's book about grief.
Last week, attorneys for the Kamas woman asked the court to reopen the opportunity for testimony about what evidence should be presented at trial — including cellphone and electronic data — claiming there were problems with a state's witness testimony at a recent hearing.
Defense attorney Wendy Lewis said in the motion she would like to question at least four additional witnesses before she submits written briefs addressing the motions that were being considered when detective Jeff O'Driscoll and others testified.
The short motion asking to reopen questioning did not elaborate on what the problem was but cited Giglio — a U.S. Supreme Court case that established prosecutors are obligated to disclose evidence that could impact a witness's credibility.
Prosecutors opposed Lewis' request on Monday, saying the detective testified truthfully, and objected to Lewis publicly bringing into question the detective's character without citing any facts. "Defense counsel's feelings do not matter. Objective facts matter," the response says, adding that the facts show all detectives had testified truthfully.
Bloodworth did, however, cite a discrepancy between O'Driscoll's recollection and a second officer's recollection in preparation for the hearing, which the prosecution had outside attorneys investigate. Bloodworth's legal filing said they told Richins' attorneys about this discrepancy on Jan. 31 and provided them a report from the outside attorney on Feb. 6. The report, he said, found no evidence that the recollections were inappropriate or that either detective was not truthful.
The objection said Richins' attorneys filed their request on that same day without talking to prosecutors. In a conversation the day after, the document said Richins' attorney told prosecutors they feel O'Driscoll testified untruthfully, specifically when he testified that he did not think he knew Richins was represented by an attorney when he went to her home and spoke with her for multiple hours.
According to Bloodworth's legal filing, Richins' attorney also cited that O'Driscoll was prepared for questions from prosecutors but would respond that he "did not recall" to many of the questions from Richins' attorneys.
"It's shocking that detective O'Driscoll testified well to the state's questioning after the state exhaustively prepared him to testify, and equally shocking that he could not recall insignificant-at-the-time details about events that occurred nearly two years earlier in response to the defense's questioning. Poppycock," Bloodworth's opposition says.
Bloodworth said calling this disclosure of a potential conflict from prosecutors "potential Giglio information" was "inaccurate and irresponsible."
He said prosecutors had told attorneys they would be fine reopening evidence if it was deemed appropriate after the outside attorney presented findings. He also claimed Richins' attorneys did not talk to prosecutors before filing the motion only because they wanted to publicly bring doubt to testimony from the lead detective on Richins' case.
Bloodworth asked the judge to deny the motion, allowing the process to decide what evidence should be shown at trial to move forward.
For her part, Lewis asked for a hearing as soon as possible to address her motion, but the court has not yet scheduled a hearing.
The next hearing in Richins' case is scheduled for Feb. 21, and attorneys plan at that hearing to go over questionnaires that will be sent to potential jurors for her murder trial scheduled in April.
Richins is accused of administering a fatal dose of fentanyl to Eric Richins in March 2022 and has also been charged with giving a lethal dose of drugs to her husband on Valentine's Day a few weeks earlier.
The jury during Richins' upcoming trial will be asked to determine whether she is guilty of charges of aggravated murder and attempted murder, first-degree felonies; two counts of filing a fraudulent insurance claim, a second-degree felony; and one count of forgery, a third-degree felony.
Richins is also charged with two counts of mortgage fraud, a second-degree felony, and two additional counts of forgery, a third-degree felony. Those charges will be addressed in a separate trial.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Kilmar Abrego Garcia Scores Major Legal Win
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man at the center of a long-running legal and political controversy over U.S. immigration enforcement, must be released from custody and returned to Maryland, two federal judges ruled Wednesday in separate decisions. The decisions come after months of legal battles following Abrego's controversial removal to El Salvador in March, a deportation that the U.S. Supreme Court later determined to be unlawful. Late on Wednesday, in a third ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes delayed Abrego's release from custody for 30 days, following a request from his attorneys. They cited government advice that the Department of Homeland Security would begin removal proceedings if he were released. Newsweek approached the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice for comment. Why It Matters The orders from U.S. District Judges Waverly Crenshaw Jr. and Paula Xinis mark a significant turning point in the case. The orders are the latest developments in a high-profile saga involving immigration, criminal proceedings, and alleged violations of constitutional rights. While the decisions represent a significant legal victory for Abrego, federal immigration authorities have signaled that efforts to deport him may soon resume. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is seen in a courtroom sketch sitting in court during his detention hearing on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, in Nashville, Tenn Kilmar Abrego Garcia is seen in a courtroom sketch sitting in court during his detention hearing on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, in Nashville, Tenn Diego Fishburn via AP What To Know Abrego, who entered the U.S. without authorization over a decade ago, was living and working in Maryland under an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) supervision order when he was detained and deported to El Salvador on March 12, 2025. The deportation directly violated a standing immigration court order from 2019 that prohibited his removal to El Salvador due to credible fears for his safety there. After being expelled, Abrego was held at El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, a prison known for violence and overcrowding. His removal prompted legal challenges that reached the Supreme Court, which found the deportation violated both the Immigration and Nationality Act and Abrego's constitutional right to due process. Following the ruling, the federal government delayed for nearly three months before returning Abrego to the U.S. in June. Upon arrival, he was placed in U.S. Marshals custody to face unrelated criminal charges in Tennessee. On Wednesday, Judge Crenshaw, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled that Abrego should be released on bail while awaiting trial in the Middle District of Tennessee, finding that prosecutors had not demonstrated that he posed a flight risk or danger to the community. Crenshaw noted that although the government accused Abrego of immigrant smuggling involving a minor, he had been cooperative when stopped by law enforcement in 2022 and had not attempted to flee. Judge Xinis, acting in a civil case brought by Abrego and his family over his deportation, ruled to both restore Abrego to his pre-deportation immigration status and protect his due process rights if officials attempt to remove him from the U.S. again. Her ruling criticized government attorneys and ICE officials for failing to prepare adequately for court proceedings and for offering limited details about possible third-country removal options. The court noted that although DHS has existing diplomatic agreements with countries like Mexico and South Sudan to accept deportees, no specific plans had been confirmed for Abrego. Nor had federal officials explained what process would be available to him in the event of a third-country removal. The court's ruling underscores that any further attempts to remove Abrego must begin in Maryland, where jurisdiction over his original immigration case lies. Officials had previously indicated that any removal proceedings could be initiated wherever ICE found space to detain him, raising concerns about due process and judicial oversight. Tennessee U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes has delayed the release of alleged MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia from custody for thirty days. His attorneys requested the delay on Monday, citing advice from the government that the Department of Homeland Security would initiate removal proceedings if he were released. What People Are Saying U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Tennessee, said in his ruling: "It is not difficult to see why one might seek to avoid ICE after experiencing what Abrego did in recent months," adding that is was "pure speculation" on the government's argument that Abrego would flee to avoid ICE highlighting that it was the government itself that had created the circumstances now cited as justification for detention. While U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said: "The requested relief is necessary not only to fulfill this Court's prior order, but also to provide the kind of effective relief to which a wrongfully removed alien is entitled upon return," emphasizing that the action was necessary to restore the "status quo ante"—Abrego's legal standing before his unlawful deportation. Tennessee U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes said: "Abrego shall therefore remain in the custody of the United States Marshal pending further order, as previously directed." Despite these rulings, Tricia McLaughlin from the Department of Homeland Security said: ""He [Abrego] will never walk America's streets again." What Happens Next Despite the rulings, Abrego's legal battles may be far from over. While the courts have ordered his return to Maryland and implemented safeguards against sudden deportation, immigration authorities have maintained their intent to pursue removal. As the case moves forward, it remains a focal point in the broader national conversation over immigration enforcement, executive power, and the limits of constitutional protections for noncitizens.
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Man accused of attempting to assassinate Trump returns to court and hopes to represent himself
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The judge told Routh earlier this month that she doesn't intend to delay the Sept. 8 start date of his trial, even if she lets him represent himself. Routh, who has described the extent of his education as two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understood and would be ready. Advertisement In a June 29 letter to Cannon, Routh said that he and his attorneys were 'a million miles apart' and that they were refusing to answer his questions. He also suggested in the same letter that he could be used in a prisoner exchange with Iran, China, North Korea or Russia. Advertisement 'I could die being of some use and save all this court mess, but no one acts; perhaps you have the power to trade me away,' Routh wrote. On Wednesday, the federal public defender's office filed a motion for termination of appointment of counsel, claiming that 'the attorney-client relationship is irreconcilably broken.' Attorneys said Routh refused to meet with them for a scheduled in-person meeting Tuesday morning at the federal detention center in Miami. They said Routh has refused six attempts to meet with their team. 'It is clear that Mr. Routh wishes to represent himself, and he is within his Constitutional rights to make such a demand,' the motion said. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a right to represent themselves in court proceedings, as long as they can show a judge they are competent to waive their right to be defended by an attorney. Prosecutors have said Routh methodically plotted to kill Trump for weeks before aiming a rifle through the shrubbery as Trump played golf on Sept. 15 at his West Palm Beach country club. A Secret Service agent spotted Routh before Trump came into view. Routh allegedly aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire, causing Routh to drop his weapon and flee without firing a shot. Law enforcement obtained help from a witness who prosecutors said informed officers that he saw a person fleeing. The witness was then flown in a police helicopter to a nearby interstate where Routh was arrested, and the witnesses confirmed it was the person he had seen, prosecutors have said. Routh has another, unrelated hearing in Cannon's courtroom scheduled for Friday on the admissibility of certain evidence and testimony that can be used for the trial. Advertisement In addition to the federal charges, Routh also has pleaded not guilty to state charges of terrorism and attempted murder.
Chicago Tribune
3 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
‘You had the power to stop this:' Ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore sentenced to 2 years in prison in scheme to bribe Speaker Madigan
Once a rising corporate star, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore was sentenced Monday to 2 years in federal prison for her role in an elaborate scheme to funnel more than $1.3 million and other perks to associates of then-House Speaker Michael Madigan in exchange for help with the utility's ambitious legislative agenda. In handing down the sentence, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah acknowledged Pramaggiore's transformative leadership at ComEd and her history of charitable works, but said the evidence at trial showed she also participated in a nearly decade-long scheme that undermined the public's trust in government. 'This was secretive sophisticated criminal corruption of important public policy,' Shah said. 'When it came to Mr. Madigan … you didn't think to change the culture of corruption. Instead you were all in.' Shah said the dichotomy in Pramaggiore's life led him to 'conclude that people like you, good people in positions of power and authority, need to be deterred too.' 'You had the power to stop this,' the judge said. 'You could have said 'No, this is not how legislation should be done.' You had the power to change the culture at ComEd.' He also found that she had lied repeatedly during her testimony at trial, particularly in denying knowledge of the connection of ComEd's no-work subcontractors to the powerful Democratic speaker and telling the jury she made no effort to cover it up. Pramaggiore, who turns 67 in two weeks, showed little outward reaction as Shah announced his sentence, which also included a $750,000 fine. A few minutes earlier, Pramaggiore had been given the chance to address the judge but declined to do so. 'Thank you your honor. I will stand on my able attorney's commentary and submissions,' she said while remaining seated at the defense table. Shah ordered Pramaggiore to report to prison by Dec. 1. However her attorney, Scott Lassar, told the judge he will ask for Pramaggiore to remain free on bond pending appeal, given what he said are significant legal issues in the case. Shah asked Lassar to submit something in writing in three weeks. After the hearing, Pramaggiore walked out of the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse without comment. Lassar also declined to make a statement to reporters. The defense later issued a statement through a spokesman maintaining Pramaggiore's innocence and vowing to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. 'We are disappointed by the sentence imposed today,' the statement read. 'It is nearly impossible to reconcile the sentence — two years in prison — with the federal Probation Department's recommendation of no jail time and probation.' The sentencing comes more than two years after Pramaggiore's conviction in the 'ComEd Four' case, one of the biggest political corruption scandals in state history. Last week, her former colleague, ex-ComEd executive John Hooker, was given to a year and a half in prison. Sentencing for the other two defendants, Michael McClain and Jay Doherty, remain pending. The investigation, which came to light more than six years ago, ended Pramaggiore's stellar career in Chicago's male-dominated C-suite corporate world, where she'd recently been named chief executive of Exelon, a major Fortune 100 energy company that delivered power to millions of customers in the Chicago area and beyond. Prosecutors asked for a stiff prison term of almost 6 years and a $1.75 million fine, writing in a recent filing that despite all her success, money and professional status, 'she made the choice to participate in a years-long conspiracy that corrupted the legislative process in Springfield' and subverted her own company's internal controls. In asking for a 70-month prison term, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sarah Streicker, Julia Schwartz and Diane MacArthur also wrote that Pramaggiore lied repeatedly in her testimony during the 2023 trial. which ended in sweeping guilty verdicts. 'She could have remained silent,' Streicker argued in court Monday. 'She had every right to do so, but instead she chose to try and obstruct the jury's process…With her back against the wall she chose to testify and lie in order to protect herself.' Pramaggiore's attorneys, meanwhile, argued for probation, writing in a court filing of their own that the conduct for which she was convicted was 'a true aberration' in an otherwise exemplary life, not only in her professional path but also in her dedication to her family and charitable works. They also submitted nearly a hundred letters from friends and supporters attesting to her good character. 'She has lost her reputation, her career, and her law license, and she faces even more potential consequences, including further enforcement actions,' Lassar wrote in a 49-page filing. 'Imposing a prison sentence that takes her away from her family, friends, and community will not serve the ends of justice.' In court Monday, Lassar argued the arrangement to pay Madigan's associates as subcontractors 'was set up by other people,' including McClain, Hooker and former ComEd CEO Frank Clark, who preceded Pramaggiore. Lassar said ComEd's Smart Grid legislation, which was at the center of the alleged bribery scheme, only became law because of years of tough negotiating and broad coalition building in Springfield, bringing in including big labor, environmentalists, and myriad legislative caucuses. 'She never asked Madigan for help in passing legislation,' Lassar said. '…And she was never aware that Madigan helped do anything to get it passed.' Pramaggiore and her three co-defendants — McClain, a former ComEd lobbyist and longtime Madigan confidant, Hooker, who was ComEd's vice president for legislative affairs, and Doherty, a consultant and former City Club of Chicago leader — were convicted on all counts in May 2023 after a two-month trial. The case was then beset by a series of delays, first due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reset the rules for a key federal bribery statute and then again after the death of the judge who'd presided over the trial, Harry Leinenweber. After he was selected to take over the case, Shah earlier this year tossed the underlying bribery counts due to the Supreme Court's decision, but kept intact the main conspiracy count as well as guilty verdicts for falsifying ComEd's books and records, which were charged under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In their statement Monday, Pramaggiore's legal team referenced both the Supreme Court's decision and President Donald Trump's recent pausing of enforcement of the FCPA, citing overreach and prosecutorial abuse. 'That has happened here,' the statement read. 'Ms. Pramaggiore faces jail despite the documents at issue being true. Chicago is not a foreign jurisdiction…There is nothing foreign or corrupt about the facts here.' The bulk of the ComEd allegations centered on a cadre of Madigan allies who were paid a total of $1.3 million from 2011 through 2019 through allegedly do-nothing consulting contracts. Among the recipients were two former aldermen, Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski, precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, and former state Rep. Edward Acevedo. In addition, prosecutors alleged ComEd also hired a clouted law firm run by political operative Victor Reyes, distributed numerous college internships within Madigan's 13th Ward fiefdom, and backed former McPier chief Juan Ochoa, a friend of a Madigan ally, for an $80,000-a-year seat on the utility's board of directors, the indictment alleged. In return, prosecutors alleged, Madigan used his influence over the General Assembly to help ComEd score a series of huge legislative victories that not only rescued the company from financial instability but led to record-breaking, billion-dollar profits. Among them was the 2011 smart grid bill that set a built-in formula for the rates ComEd could charge customers, avoiding battles with the Illinois Commerce Commission, according to the charges. ComEd also leaned on Madigan's office to help pass the Future Energy Jobs Act in 2016, which kept the formula rate in place and also rescued two nuclear plants run by an affiliated company, Exelon Generation. Pramaggiore is the second of the ComEd Four to be sentenced. Shah handed a 1 1/2-year prison term to Hooker last week. A hearing for McClain, a retired ComEd lobbyist who doubled as Madigan's right-hand man, will be sentenced Thursday, while the fourth defendant, Doherty, is scheduled to be sentenced in August. Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted in a separate trial of an array of schemes that included the ComEd bribery payments. He was sentenced in June to seven and a half years in prison. Defense attorneys for the ComEd Four have repeatedly argued the government was seeking to criminalize legal lobbying and job recommendations that are at the heart of the state's legitimate political system. They ripped the government's star witness, former ComEd executive Fidel Marquez, as a liar and opportunist who was so terrified when FBI agents confronted him in January 2019 that he flipped without even consulting a lawyer and also agreed to secretly record his friends. Marquez testified in March 2023 that the roster of 'subcontractors' hired by ComEd was curated by McClain and read like a who's who of Madigan's vaunted political operation, including two legendary precinct captains, a former assistant majority leader in the House and two former Chicago aldermen at the center of Madigan's Southwest Side base of power. Over the course of eight years, ComEd paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though they had no particular expertise and ultimately did virtually no work for the utility. Some seemed to be downright incompetent, Marquez told the jury. On cross-examination, Marquez, who pleaded guilty to bribery conspiracy and is awaiting sentencing, acknowledged there was 'no guarantee' that Madigan was going to help pass ComEd bills. But he added the company still tried to make Madigan happy because 'not doing it would cause us to be negatively looked on by' the speaker. He also admitted he initially told the FBI he didn't believe any of it was bribery. Pramaggiore's lawyers argued in their sentencing memo that she should be punished only for the remaining counts of conviction, which all have to do with falsifying ComEd's books. But prosecutors say the entire scope of the scheme is still fair game, even if the specific bribery counts were dropped — a position that Shah has agreed with. At Hooker's sentencing July 14, Shah said the evidence at trial showed the four co-defendants 'were jointly undertaking the quid pro quo bribery of Mr. Madigan, paying out his cronies in exchange for favorable official action.' 'The instructional error doesn't change my factual assessment,' Shah said. 'Not only could a jury reach that conclusion, I reached that conclusion based on my own review.
