Transcription
I was not concerned that M richens was a Flight Risk because of her connections to the community through her business and her family and because her kids were here. Her relationship with her kids has been negatively impacted to say the least. Yeah, in the intervening time, structurally, she just doesn't have the same connections to the community that she had then. Well, I will tell you, your honor, as a mother, um, that there is no way Corey richens is leaving her children. No matter what they're being told, no matter what their their situation is, she will never leave her children's side under any circumstances, even to her own personal grave detriment. She has still extended family in this community. Um, she doesn't have the wherewithal to resettle somewhere else. Um, everything she's lost, everything. Um, and you know, her, she's, she literally has no, uh, resources to leave the country to resettle in another place. She would have no, um, ability to even support herself. The, the release plan that we presented to the court involves her living with family who would have to provide her with a home and food and, and I mean, she, of course, wants to get a job immediately and work. Um, but I will tell you, you, that, um, as far as her connections to the community, the most important connection is the one with her sons, and she will never, ever, ever abandon her sons, even if it means she spends the rest of her life in prison. She's not going to do that. Um, so I do think that, um, as far as, I wouldn't, I wouldn't think that the Court's previous finding, uh, that she's a Flight Risk should change. I, that she wasn't a Flight Risk, I'm sorry. Um, I don't believe there's anything that's happened that should change that. Um, I do think there are significant developments in terms of danger, um, that the court can consider, which is the absence of the death penalty, the dropping of some of the drug charges, um, the fact that, you know, um, there is, there, she has been in there a lot longer, I think, than anybody thought back in June of 2023 that she would be there. Um, her, the withdrawal of her Council, which is through no fault of hers, which is required under the statute, did cause significant delay, um, to allow new Council time to.
How much of a delay? How much was that actual delay? Um, well, I mean, when we got in the case, the, there was no prelim. There wasn't even a prelim set because they, there was a false start. Right. Right. So, uh, we had to immediately set a prelim. I think we tried to set one as fast as we humanly could. I think we, we did a good job doing that. Um, so we set the quickest prelim we could, and then the hardest part, as your honor will remember, was trying to find a date where the court, all the parties, everyone could be available. Again, none of that's through any fault to the defendant or the, or the state, frankly. Um, but it's just because of the nature of the beast. Um, she's been in jail now, presumed innocent, for over 17 months. She's looking at an additional, um, what is it, six months to trial. Um, and, you know, obviously, if there's a second trial, that would be, you know, another six months. If there's an appeal, that would be longer. Um, obviously, that would be a different circumstance. But, um, all of that is not, you know, through any fault of the defendant. It's just the nature of everybody doing the best they can. But that's just the reality that we have a woman, presumed innocent, being held in jail for an extended period of time. Um, we also, um, we also have had the benefit of a preliminary hearing, and the court is aware, this is a circumstantial evidence case. Um, and the facts of this case were, um, came much more into focus at the prelim. Um, and there is, you know, one of the things the court can consider when deciding bail is the, the weight of the evidence. Not, uh, you, you of course presume the defendant to be innocent, but you can look at weight. And we have new evidence now, um, as to what weight will be. Um, and then finally, your honor, I would like to take a moment to address, um, what I found to be extremely disturbing, which is we submitted to the court, um, some certificates, letters from people in the jail of the positive programming that Miss richens has been involved in. And when I read what the state said, that presenting those was beneath this proceeding, I would like to address that. I, I don't think you need to go too deep into it. I commend Miss richens for using her time in conduct in custody as productively as possible. I find it very disturbing that an officer whose job it is to put people in jail has such a lack of concept about what it means to sit in a jail cell in a cement box, isolated from everyone and everything you love for 17 months, being presumed innocent, and trying to do better, trying to engage with the, the jail community.
New Nester, with respect, I don't feel like you're talking to me so much right now as you're talking to the public and to The Summit County Attorney's Office. I am, and I think it needs to be heard, and I think, you know, I could not be prouder of Corey richens for the way she's conducted herself under the most horrifying circumstances imaginable. Uh, and I, you know, I honor the, the volunteers that come and do those programs and that spend their time and their energy, and they do it. I don't even think a lot of them get paid. I think they do it because they're good people and they care about people sitting in the jail, not losing their minds. Um, and, and so when they filed that answer, I wasn't going to file all the certificates she did, but when I saw their answer, I supplemented and filed them all because I think each and every hour she spent engaging with her community, trying to focus on positivity, to learn, to better herself, is something this court can and should consider. And not only is it not beneath these proceedings, it is what our proceedings should be about. I understand. Um, and so based on all of those reasons, I will say, you know, we have a situation where I believe the amount of discovery we have in this case is now up over, Alex, what, two, more than two terabytes easily, easily over two terabytes of discovery. We have, um, hundreds, hundreds of interviews, thousands, hundreds of thousands of documents. When, when M richens is detained, the ability to review and go over that material with her to help her prepare for trial is almost near impossible for us as a defense team. She is a critical part of her defense. She is a very bright, engaged, curious woman who has wants to know everything that's going on with her case, as she has a right to. Um, we have to, when we, the jail is so accommodating to us, and they make this room available, but it is a room with glass between us. There is no way for us to share documents, to review, to look at videos. Um, it's, it's, it's, and point of personal privilege, there's a little metal stool that I have to sit on for hours and hours and hours to try to go over thousands of documents with my client, and it definitely puts us at a horrible disadvantage. Um, there are conditions that this court could impose on Miss richens, including ankle monitor, GPS, house arrest, where she does not leave the home, period, for any reason, um, where I could go to a place and share with her documents in at a kitchen table, and we could actually prepare for this trial and have a fair shot. Um, there are, um, conditions you could put on terms of social media, there are limits you could put on, um, you could put a gag order on her, you could prohibit her from contacting any, um, any witnesses, period, at all, full stop. Um, you could, um, require her to check in with probation, do constant drug testing, do not, that that's an issue in this case, but whatever the court felt the court needed to do, um, to allow her a situation where she can prepare for trial, um, and not be a danger. The, the release plan that we have provided to this court would provide for her residing in Salt Lake County. So the, the chance encounter of witnesses would go down significantly. Um, there are very few witnesses in Salt Lake County in this case, almost all are in Summit County. Um, she would have, um, the opportunity to, um, have supervised visitation with her sons, which we discussed earlier. I'm not going to get into that. Um, but in terms of, she would be able to work, she would be able to, um, uh, we could make certain that she's brought to and from court. We could, um, any conditions the courts want. I think the, the, the behavior that she has displayed throughout the time, um, that she's been incarcerated shows that she's always complied with, um, the orders of this court, um, and would continue to do so. And we are asking that the court take this very, very seriously. Um, it's just, can't be overstated the disadvantage we are at when we cannot, um, review the case materials with our client in a functional way. Um, and we would ask that the court take that into consideration. Um, furthermore, um, you know, I read the state's response to our motion for bail, and it was almost, I believe they referred to her motive and to her, her character, and that's not, that's not before this court. The court's got to presume that she's innocent of this crime, and, you know, that, and I know that, and they know that. And why they did a brief that referred to her as someone being parasitic, which, by the way, I don't know if that just means because she's a, a woman and she's parasitic to her husband, I don't know why that phrase was used. Um, but it's improper and it's inappropriate, and it has nothing to do with the bail determination. Um, and so we are asking that this court consider, um, taking the step to allow her under the strictest conditions that make you as comfortable as possible, um, so that we can work with our client and get ready for trial. And we do think clearly we've met a material change in circumstances sufficient to reconsider. Um, and as we stated in our brief, the fact that she no longer is facing a potential death penalty means she has a constitutional right to bail. I know, you know that. Um, but of course, before too, you, you actually ruled that way before, which was, um, honorable, not so much that she had the right, but she had the option to request, and I had the authority to consider it. And the, the case that came down, um, after the detention hearing, the, um, oh my gosh, I just, thank you, the Barnett case, um, also makes clear that even if you find that there's substantial evidence, and even if you find there's a risk of danger to the community, you still have the discretion to make the determination. And I believe you, you opined that you thought that, um, before the Barnett case came down, and you were absolutely right. And the Barnett case, um, reassured that that is, in fact, the state of the law, that you have ultimate discretion. And we are asking for the Court's mercy and for the Court's ability to work with our client. Thank you, your honor. Thank you. Mr. Bloodworth, I read the state's brief. I think I understand your position clearly. Anything to add? No, sir. Thank you. All right.
Under code 77-220, subsection one, an individual charged with a criminal offense shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, except if the individual charged with a felony when there is substantial evidence to support the charge and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that one, the individual would constitute a substantial danger to any other individual or to the community after considering available conditions of release that the court may impose if the individual is released on bail, or two, the individual is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court if the individual is released on bail. These provisions mirror Article 1, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution, which provides that all persons charged with a crime shall be bailable, except persons charged with any other crime designated by statute as one for which bail may be denied if there is substantial evidence to support the charge and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person would constitute a substantial danger to any other person or the community, or is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court if released on bail. Court made that determination in June 2023 and found by one, that the aggravated murder charge was supported by substantial evidence, and two, that although the court was not concerned that M richens would flee the jurisdiction, given her structural ties to the community and to her children, which were in the community, uh, that the court was nonetheless persuaded by clear and convincing evidence, uh, that she would constitute a substantial danger to herself and to the community if released on bail, and that that danger could not be mitigated, uh, by reasonably available conditions of release. Which brings us to today, pursuant to her motion to reconsider bail and conditions of release. Miss richens argues that in the intervening time, there has been a material change in circumstances, that is, the state's decision to decline seeking the death penalty. I agree that that is a material change in circumstances that allows the court under 77-20-207, subsection 1, to revisit the issue of bail and pretrial release. Defendant does not challenge the Court's determination that the aggravated murder charge is supported by substantial evidence. Rather, defendant asserts that upon reflection of the status quo and the intervening events, that M richens, uh, is not likely to flee the jurisdiction if she's released on bail, and no longer constitutes a substantial danger to the community, given available conditions of release. Ultimately, the court is not persuaded. While defendant no longer faces the risk of the death penalty, she now faces two first-degree felonies, each with a minimum sentence of 25 years to life, in which may be run consecutively, one after the other. As before, the severity of these sanctions, put plainly, of potentially dying in prison, creates a powerful incentive for defendant to harm herself or witnesses in this case, and to flee the jurisdiction of the court. And as before, substantial evidence supports the charge that defendant secured Fentanyl and deployed it to kill another person, which is inherently dangerous conduct. Moreover, defendant's relationship to her children and her ongoing real estate businesses were in June 2023 substantial connections to the local community that mitigated the risk that she would flee. But now, in November of 2024, those anchors have been weakened substantially. The juvenile court has granted guardianship of M richens' children to members of Eric richens' family, and through that guardianship, they are limiting, uh, M richens' contact with her children. And that circumstance is likely to persist in some form, even if Miss richens is released on bail. And there is a reasonable inference based on the evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing that defendant's real estate business is now defunct, and that she would not be able to restart it at any time in the near future, given the cloud, uh, constituted by this case. So, as compared to June 2023, the current circumstances support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that defendant poses a substantial danger to the community, and the defendant is likely to flee the jurisdiction if released on bail. Moreover, the court is not persuaded that there are reasonably available conditions of relief, release to mitigate those two risks. True, GPS enabled ankle monitoring is available, but any report from those monitors comes days after the fact. We have, have with some regularity, seen defendants just cut them off and flee, and we don't know about it until days later. They are not as protective as we would like. Living with family in Salt Lake offers Miss richens a place to go, and without imputing her family at all, they are not law enforcement officers, they are not probation officers. It's not reasonable to expect or require them to supervise her 24 hours a day. Given the extreme consequences that this case poses, and the severe negative impacts this case has had upon M richens' business and her relationship to her children, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that there simply are not reasonably available means of mitigating her risk to the community and to herself, or the strong incentive for her to flee the jurisdiction of the court. Defendant's motion to reconsider bail and conditions of release, docket 653, is respectfully denied. Miss Nester, anything further? No, your honor. Mr. Blood? No, sir. Okay. That brings us to the end of motions for today. I don't think we have another motions hearing on the calendar, but do we want to put one on? Yes, sir. I know as trial approaches, there's likely to be any number of motions in limine, but we're going to have to make some decisions well in advance of the last week of April about how we're going to conduct jury selection, what the jury questionnaire is going to look like. When do you want to start talking about those things? Even just a pre-trial conference to start sounding them out seems to be a good idea. A good question. Shortly after the holidays, probably. Which holidays? Guess Thanksgiving or Christmas. After, shortly after Christmas, I imagine. We all have plenty to do between now and then, but I, I, if you need, I, I'll make room. Miss richens, I, I recognize you're in custody. I'll push stuff off my calendar if you need a hearing before then. Your honor, maybe could we communicate with Summit County and our team and, um, maybe communicate via email with the court, yeah, on a good, um, date that we might, or range of dates, um, I do think getting a new, we are going to have motions that relate to admissibility and right suppression and that good stuff. That's the next round. So, um, that's fine. It doesn't have to be the next round, right? Um, so I just feel like getting a, a hearing set in January is probably a good idea. Okay. Your honor, as the state has done throughout, we will accommodate whatever scheduling the defense wants. Our preference, however, is to schedule it today. We, we found that, you know, if we, if we leave your courtroom and and promise to come back with dates, that lingers. Um, so we would like to schedule, um, at least the next round of motion practice. Defense has referenced some very specific motions in limine. I think we can at least set those, and we're just not ready to do it yet. We're gonna have to get back to you on some dates. Your honor, I, I mean, but we've got a, we have both Miss Lewis and I have trial matters pending. May I offer a different suggestion? Yeah. Can we schedule a brief pre-trial conference, say, in about four weeks, to then come up with a schedule for figuring out how to get from here to trial? Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir. So that's December. Would you please look at the week of December 9th? Could I persuade you to have a hearing on the morning of December 12th?