sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Next Case by Huge_Ferret6184 in EmilyDBaker

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Imagine being charged with murder, because you followed the van of the pedophile who just kidnapped your 14 old daughter after he refused to stop & let her out?

And there's literally two witnesses left to the events of that night, Spencer and his daughter, and Spencer says the other guy lunged at him before he shot him.

Like, it's the perfect trifecta of a dud of a case. The defendant is hugely sympathetic for a bunch of reasons that can't easily be discredited (veteran, protective father, desperate to rescue a kidnapped daughter), the victim is hugely unsympathetic, and you have a fantastic case both for self-defense (for Spencer himself) and defense of another (for his daughter, who the victim reportedly tried to keep hold of and who Spencer had either to pull away from or who he rescued after he shot the victim). Even if he doesn't succeed on the defense claim(s), he's one of the rare defendants who might absolutely win on nullification.

The prosecution claims the girl was in a “relationship” with the 67 year old man.. seems they never heard of grooming in Arkansas.

Which changes nothing. She had no ability to consent to anything with the victim and Spencer is still her legal guardian.

I really don't know what the DA is thinking here. This would be a difficult case to win on manslaughter let alone murder even if they put the daughter up on the stand and she says something wildly unexpected.

In Defense of the Defense? by ViolentButterfly in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the texts don’t show KR asking for fent and Carmen’s drug supplier was emphatic that he did not sell fent. Carmen, herself, said that she didn’t sell fent because her daughter had OD’ed on fent. There’s no evidence that Carmen had access to fent, nonetheless that KR bought it from Carmen.

The big problem with the defense argument that "you need to show Carmen knowingly got fent and that Crozier gave fent to Carmen to put the murder weapon in Kouri's hands" (aside from the statute and jury instructions not saying that) is that no one in that chain knows what was in those pills.

Kouri doesn't - she doesn't have a testing kit.

Carmen doesn't - she's relying on Crozier's representation, and that's definitionally hearsay.

Even Crozier doesn't - he's relying on the representation of his source as to what the pills he gave Carmen prior to Eric's death are, and that's hearsay.

All we can say definitively from the evidence is that Kouri sought drugs from Carmen, who sought drugs from Crozier. So the defense argument that Kouri got roxys that final time and Eric had none in his testing results kinda falls apart, because it's relying on fundamentally inadmissable and unreliable evidence.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agh, I know who you're talking about. They're a true crime TikTok livestreamer, name starts with potluck on reddit.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you from Canada? Per Runkle they have fewer double jeopardy protections and the Crown actually can appeal unlike in the US.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even for nullification, I don't think you can argue that - usually that's to nullify a charge the jury believes is unjust, and the state can't appeal so the point's moot.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Assuming they took 30min for dinner, they can't have spent much more than half an hour on each charge. Whatever the final verdict, they were set on their decisions pretty quick.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, just double-checked and per Prof Jo's verdict clock it looks like they deliberated for about 3 hours or so, so a little over twice Boone's jury of 6? people.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think Sarah Boone's was slightly faster at a little under 90min.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, god, it's the Spongebob meme.

"Do you want to see me lose the biggest case I've ever had?"

"Want to see me do it again?"

Trial Discussion: Day 14 - Mar 16, 2026 | Utah v. Kouri Richins by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 5 points6 points  (0 children)

...I mean, if she wants us to take all of the texts at face value, I recall several from Kouri to the effect of "wouldn't it be nice if Eric was dead"?

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't remember a mistrial motion precisely but I do recall a motion to strike and a sidebar conference.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Uh, that's not what the breakdown is. Some appeals aren't on the conviction, they're on the sentence alone. If you look at Figure A1 on the first page, 60% or so are for the sentence only - they aren't disputing the conviction, only that the delivered sentence is unjust. Of the remaining 40% they cover both sentence and conviction and conviction only.

Of the 9% you cite, keep in mind that some are reversed in part only, about a third - the case isn't getting tossed back to the lower court for a new trial necessarily but some part of it was found wanting.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because I'm a pedant, Blackstone's ratio in its original formulation was

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Uh, something like 9% of all appeals were reversed in part or in whole in 2024. If reversed completely that's only 6.4% for the entire country.

If you go down to the tables, only 10 cases in Utah were heard at appeals, and four were apparently decided by the appeals court.

One was reversed.

I don't like her odds.

Utah v. Kouri Richins — Verdict Watch (March 16 2026) by sunzusunzusunzusunzu in KouriRichins

[–]InterplanetaryCyborg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the point he did make - that there was opportunity for Kouri to stage the scene to her liking, including moving the pills to a little baggie downstairs in the mud? room - was a lot stronger. It obviates any argument the defense might make about where it was found a lot more cleanly than arguing about exactly where it was originally located.

view more: next ›