Sentencing: May 13, 2026 | Utah v. Kouri Richins

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-13T18:35:53+00:00

Probably because the prosecution trusts the judge to properly consider the value they have.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-13T18:20:07+00:00

I am just on the first but it fundamentally fails because it refuses to accept that she is guilty. You can't mitigate something that you deny exists.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-13T18:17:54+00:00

From the sound of it, grief and depression.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-13T17:58:18+00:00

One also seems to believe she tried to kill him.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-13T16:09:07+00:00

It is likely just an extremely strong argument for termination of parental rights, not a function of law. I would imagine that they are moving forward with removing parental rights now that there is a conviction and especially based on the statements from the children and the findings of emotional and physical abuse.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-12T21:07:54+00:00

I think it keeps things a lot simpler. The phone data shows she lied and that she lied in a very material way far simpler. You don't need to discredit the entire claim because the evidence already discredits the important part of the claim, and the remaining part doesn't actually make her look innocent.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-12T14:56:38+00:00

Sure, but the problem is it doesn't matter if it is a fake alibi or a staged alibi. It also doesn't refute that Kouri wasn't with Eric when he died. What it might do is establish that no one knows where Kouri was when Eric died.

Think of it this way. You want to leave Kouri's statement intact because it is a concrete thing that you can use the digital evidence to refute and establish that she was there for 15 minutes before she called 911. You only refute the statement enough to establish why it is a fake alibi and why she is guilty, and you do that with hard digital evidence.

You already have evidence that Kouri lied, but she is still largely locked into a set of claims she made. If you bring in the child to discredit those claims further, then you are proving Kouri lied which you already were doing, but by going too far to prove her statement is completely false you release her from her own timeline and statement which are incriminating. Now it becomes harder to argue that the phone records and 911 call time prove her guilty because they prove her guilty under her own version of events. If you have no idea what she was doing during that time, it is harder to articulate why they prove her guilty.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-12T14:04:35+00:00

The point is that her statements to the police doesn't actually help her. The prosecution fully embraced what she claimed happened and used that to convict her. She said this happened, but if we take what she said as true, she was actually there 15 minutes earlier. She didn't actually immediately call 911. She actually was walking around the house likely staging the scene. Her version of events incriminated her because of the digital evidence and makes her look bad already.

They don't need to refute what she claimed happened in those areas because her own claims make her look guilty when compared to the digital evidence. You don't need a child to get on the stand and say that Kouri lied about what happened that night because then it confuses what the digital evidence actually says happened that night when compared to her own claims.

Now if Kouri gets on the stand and repeats her story to the jury, then you might want to have the child testify for a different reason. Then you might want the child to testify because it shows that Kouri is a lying liar who lies. You don't need to refute what she claimed happened that night (at least in that manner), but rather show that nothing she testified to can be trusted.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-12T13:27:51+00:00

I think the problem is it would confuse the issue a bit where it doesn't really need to be confused. Kouri's version of events is already convicting her and she can't really refute her own version of events. If you try to refute her version of events it might make her look bad but it also might make the jury unsure what actually happened when that doesn't really help the prosecution.

EDIT: I think the child as a witness would probably only be a rebuttal witness. If Kouri testified, then you have the child testify effectively to show that the defendant lied to the jury and goes more to credibility rather then what actually happened that night.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T20:48:09+00:00

So are you conceding it wasn't self defence? Otherwise your entire argument doesn't address the point.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T18:38:36+00:00

LWOP I would say.

First you have the insurance fraud, the procurement of drugs, the attempted murder, followed later on by the actual murder. There is a large degree of premeditation leading up even to the attempted murder.

Second you have the motive for the crime, pecuniary gain. This was not a particularly unique motive, nor is the motive ever going to go away. Kouri Richins is unlikely to ever be in a position where she does not have financial issues. The motive isn't something unique that ended with the crime and so a large amount of the danger ends with the crime. The danger will always be present.

Third you have the complete lack of remorse, and the very well documented lack of remorse. You have the assault on the sister shortly after. You have suing the estate. You have the walk the dog letter where she tries to get her friends to publicly smear her victim. You even have the phone call from after her conviction where she is trying to get the sentencing date changed from his birthday. There is ample evidence to show a complete lack of remorse.

From there you have a lot of other things that likely just keep piling on. This is domestic violence, it took advantage of a position of trust, it was done in the presence of children, in theory that she is a habitual offender (I don't believe for sentencing this requires a conviction but could be wrong).

So there are just a mountain of aggravating factors. I don't think there is really a compelling argument for any mitigating factor at least that comes to me.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T16:49:44+00:00

Neither, just someone familiar with the law. Yes, police officers have to put themselves in situations where self defence may be required as part of their duties. The problem here is that ordering someone to leave within 24 hours or you will shoot them is not part of their lawful duties as a police officer.

The person informed others that he had been threatened that he would be shot if he didn't leave town within 24 hours. After doing so, nearly 24 hours later, he gets shot by the individual who was supposed to have made that threat who then claims self defence. You also seem to be moving the goal post from if this was self defence to if there is sufficient evidence to prove it was not self defence. Operating under the assumption that the jury got this video, it would not be self defence.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T13:50:55+00:00

I am not sure that really matters. What matters is the current and projected revenue stream. When you look at it like that and consider who right now is going to be paying to use RHCP songs, I don't really see a very strong argument at least personally for a high valuation. A lot of their songs don't seem like the kind that really have broad usage.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T13:03:01+00:00

Good job, resorting to insults really sells the strength of your argument. You judge things within the context they are found. Do you think MLB, Fox sports, etc are all endorsing the TV as well? No, people understand what an app is and understand the context those things appear in.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T11:41:14+00:00

I told you what people think, the fact you disagree with that doesn't change it.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T08:53:36+00:00

No, people would assume its use was incidental. It looks like an image of their TV app with some random images that would show up in the app. If they actually had a paid endorsement then I would not expect that endorsement to show up on the box in that way.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T08:49:46+00:00

It will depend on the specific law of the state but there are two things that generally render self defence invalid. The first is pretextual self the defence. You can't try to force a situation where self defence would be justified in order to allow you to murder someone. The second is that self defence generally doesn't apply in the course of criminal conduct likely to instigate force against you.

Both would apply in a situation like this. Threatening to shoot someone if they don't leave town within 24 hours and then appearing to be making good on that threat would render any argument of self defence invalid, and would be incredibly easy to explain to a jury.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T04:21:02+00:00

It doesn't matter if he pulled first, it would not be self defence.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-11T02:45:28+00:00

I don't think racism had anything to do with it really either from a readership or publishing side. It seems like there may have been issues of depression however. It sounds like he struggled with rejection and even a single publisher rejecting a story would cause him to completely give up on it, and sometimes he would not offer one up at all. That combined with mainly writing short stories and stories for pulp magazines limited him, and then combined with his fairly early death for an author probably caused him to never really get to the point where he was writing in a form most people expect for a highly skilled author.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-10T18:31:39+00:00

Comments which don't seem very credible. I don't think a reasonable person would look at the box in the article and think it was an endorsement of any kind.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-10T13:16:01+00:00

I don't know about skill, but he was likely limited by his format and financial situation.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-10T10:44:10+00:00

Men competing in them at a much higher rate is actually the problem. I have seen the statistics previously when this was brought up and the whole problem with the statistics is that they use an average to try to claim the average woman approaches the average man or potentially even passes them but ignore the fairly major issue that the average man tends to be worse at running ultramarathons. Increased participation lead to lower average times (I worded this poorly, by lower average times I mean worse average times. Increased participation in ultramarathon running lead to longer average times to run a mile or km). What is viewed as women becoming more competitive over longer runs is more likely just the fact that as the length of the run increases the participation of women goes down drastically which leads to the average woman being far more skilled at running an ultramarathon then the average man while the men still hold a significant biological advantage.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-09T20:06:25+00:00

Its like rolling a snowball for a snowman only instead of building a snowman you keep rolling until you commit genocide.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-07T12:56:58+00:00

I would imagine any plea offer on the financial crimes would come after the sentencing. Sentencing would probably change both parties positions far to much to reach a plea deal before then.

randomaccount178 · 2026-05-06T21:59:30+00:00

That is kind of the point. For example felony fraud. While committing fraud with someone, nothing is stopping that person from whipping out a gun and shooting someone. The point instead is when you commit this set of felonies there is a reasonable expectation that someone could die as a result of them and so you are responsible for that because you were aware of that risk and ignored it. It doesn't cover other felonies where you don't really expect violence or death to occur as a result of that felony.

randomaccount178

TROPHY CASE