News
The Pitched Battles for Partisan Control in State Legislatures
In Minnesota, Democratic legislators are threatening to stay away from the state capitol this week to prevent Republicans from trying to claim control of the House of Representatives.
In Michigan, Republican senators, who are just one seat behind the Democrats, want a special election as soon as possible to fill a seat they believe can be flipped.
And in Virginia, Democratic candidates in three special elections last week were pushing hard to retain their majorities in both legislative chambers, as Democrats try to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution.
As state legislatures convene around the country this month, several knife-edge fights for partisan control have magnified the degree to which political polarization has become ingrained, not just in Congress, but in statehouses across the country.
The battle to gain the upper hand puts pressure in particular on Democratic lawmakers, who, unlike the past four years, face even higher stakes. They are already are playing defense as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to take office again, bolstered by the Republican takeover of Congress.
“With Trump and his MAGA allies in the states returning to office, building and defending Democratic power in the states is essential,” said Heather Williams, the president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.
Republicans now control a majority of statehouses. But Democrats captured four state legislatures in 2022, and they parlayed that power into progressive laws related to abortion, voting rights and more.
In 2024, though, Republicans, arguing that Democrats had gone too far, regained the majority in the Michigan House, tied in the Minnesota House and made strong inroads in Vermont.
Since Election Day, the most dramatic battle has been unfolding in Minnesota. State Senator Kari Dziedzic, a Democrat from Minneapolis, died of cancer, leaving the chamber deadlocked at 33-33.
“There’s nothing that can be done until a special election happens,” Representative Lisa Demuth, the House Republican leader and speaker-designate, said in an interview. “The problem with saying, ‘Well, it’ll be in a couple of weeks, we should just act like we’re at 67 anyway’ — that’s not how math works.”
She has also suggested that a Republican majority would refuse to seat Representative Brad Tabke, a Democrat who won re-election by 14 votes after 20 absentee ballots were lost. Six of those 20 voters later testified that they had voted for Mr. Tabke, giving him an insurmountable margin. A judge is expected to rule at any moment, but Ms. Demuth said there should be a special election, regardless of what the judge decided.
In response, Democrats have floated the possibility of boycotting the session, with the aim of denying the Republicans the necessary quorum — a majority of total members must be present — to kick it off.
Recent walkouts elsewhere have underscored the partisan divide. In Texas, House Democrats fled the state for Washington in 2021 to temporarily deny Republicans the two-thirds quorum needed to pass a restrictive voting measure.
In Oregon — which also has a two-thirds quorum requirement — Republican Senators intent on stalling bills on climate policy, taxes and abortion walked out so frequently that voters altered the state constitution to ban such absenteeism. Most Republican Senators were also barred from seeking re-election.
But a walkout of the kind being discussed in Minnesota would be without precedent, said Bill Kramer, the vice president and counsel of MultiState, a state and local government relations firm.
“I can’t remember any time where it’s been like this at the very start of session,” he said. “You put the rules in place, you elect a speaker, you elect committee chairs — all of those types of things which put in place the agenda procedurally for the next two years.”
In Virginia, two of the contests last week were for the Senate, and one for the House; before these special elections, Democrats were clinging to single-vote majorities in both chambers, which they claimed when they won the House in 2023. At stake, to some degree, was the agenda of outgoing Republican governor Glenn Youngkin, who is prevented by the state constitution from running for a second term.
Turnout was light for the election in Loudoun County, where one House race and one Senate race were on the ballot. Harish Sundaraman, 24, said he was voting for both Democrats, even though he did not fully subscribe to the party’s policies. He would have liked to have known a little more about the candidates, he said. But he was motivated by his views on abortion rights, which Democrats hope to advance in the coming legislative session.
“I thought if I vote Democrat in this local election, it might be helpful,” said Mr. Sundaraman, who works in information technology in Washington, D.C.
Ultimately, two Democrats and a Republican prevailed, leaving the balance of power unchanged.
Overall, Republicans now control the legislature in 28 states, and Democrats 18. (The other states are split, unresolved or led by a bipartisan coalition.)
A single vote can be momentous, even in states where one party dominates. In North Carolina, a legislator who unexpectedly switched her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican enabled Republican leaders to enact a 12-week limit on most abortions in 2023, overriding Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat.
Few sitting state legislators have had more experience with the whiplash of paper-thin margins than the members of the Pennsylvania House. After 2022, Pennsylvania was one of only two states where different parties held control of the legislature’s two chambers. Though Republicans held a comfortable majority in the Senate, the Democrats’ hold on the House was nerve-wrackingly precarious, at times vanishing altogether.
In 2024, despite losses by Democrats in the presidential race, a U.S. Senate seat and several Congressional seats, not a single seat in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives flipped. The Democrats thus maintained the same one-seat majority they had two years earlier.
Then, in December, a Democratic member had a medical emergency, and he has been in the hospital ever since. As it had multiple times in the previous two years, the House returned to a functional tie.
But when House members gathered on Tuesday, the first day of the new session, the election of a speaker went forward smoothly and relatively quickly, without the backroom deals and prolonged drama that had surrounded the vote two years ago. Partly as a result of compromises with Republicans over House procedural rules, the legislature promptly re-elected the previous Democratic speaker in a voice vote.
“I think everybody has learned their lesson,” said Representative Michael Schlossberg, a Democrat, describing himself as the “majority whip with no room for error.” The last two years have had their challenges, he said, but a narrow partisan margin does have its advantages, forcing compromise and discipline.
As for lessons for his counterparts in other states, he offered this: “Do not confuse short-term advantage with long-term advantage.”
And, mentioning various maneuvers for partisan gain that had ultimately backfired, he added: “Don’t get too cute.”
Courtney Mabeus-Brown contributed reporting from Loudoun County, Va.
Vice President JD Vance made an unannounced visit to the Supreme Court last week to attend a private dinner in a wood-paneled conference room with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and dozens of the chief justice’s former law clerks.
Accompanying his wife Usha, who clerked for the chief justice nearly a decade ago, Mr. Vance’s visit was a social call, people familiar with the dinner said. But Mr. Vance’s friendly pop-by illustrated the awkward dance that has been underway between the Trump administration and the nation’s highest court, as the administration has at times appeared to woo the justices even as President Trump has repeatedly bullied and insulted them.
With the court preparing to issue major rulings in the coming weeks that will determine the fate of key aspects of the president’s agenda, Mr. Trump has vacillated between combative and conciliatory in his treatment of the justices.
He has seemed ever aware and at times resentful of the critical role the justices play in determining the lawfulness of his policies, with the court representing perhaps the one force in American government truly able to thwart his agenda. At the heart of the tension: a president who appears to believe that justices, especially those he appointed, should be loyalists rather than independent actors in a separate, equal branch of government.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that the American people have “always valued President Trump’s ability to freely speak his mind and share his thoughts directly with them” — including about the court.
The chief justice did not respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Vance declined to comment.
Mr. Trump was furious with the court after it invalidated his sweeping tariffs in February. He called a news conference to vent, criticizing individual justices as “fools and lap dogs” and saying his two nominees who voted against him were “an embarrassment to their families.”
While past presidents have voiced disagreement and frustration with Supreme Court rulings, that kind of language and personal animosity has been unheard-of from a president.
Standing silently by his side was the solicitor general, D. John Sauer. Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer represents the administration at the Supreme Court in a role that has traditionally been so trusted by the court that it is nicknamed the “10th justice.”
Despite Mr. Trump’s anger, the administration has abided by the court’s ruling in the tariffs decision. The U.S. government this month started to refund some of the roughly $160 billion collected from those tariffs, plus interest.
Days after the news conference, Mr. Trump toned things down at his State of the Union address, when he could have blasted the chief justice and other members of the court to their faces as they sat in their robes in the front of the House chamber. Instead, in his remarks, Mr. Trump merely declared the ruling to be “very disappointing.” Otherwise, he was cordial to the four justices who attended, shaking their hands and exchanging pleasantries as he made his way to the rostrum.
But in recent weeks, the president has returned to hammering the court, including in repeated social media posts, as he has been appearing to brace for another major loss when the court rules on his effort to end the guarantee of birthright citizenship. The decision is expected by late June or early July.
“It would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen,” Mr. Trump said during an event in the Oval Office on Thursday. “It’s all up to a couple of people, and I hope they do what’s right.”
Mr. Trump turned up the pressure in early April when he became the first sitting president to attend an oral argument at the court for the birthright citizenship case. He spent about an hour listening to the arguments before abruptly getting up and walking out while the session was still underway. Critics said it was a show of power designed to intimidate the justices.
The president subsequently complained in a social media post that the Supreme Court had “not even recognized or acknowledged” his presence.
At the same time, the president hosted all six of the justices nominated by Republican presidents to the White House last month for a state dinner honoring King Charles III of Britain and Queen Camilla. The dinner was held the night before the court heard a case about Mr. Trump’s immigration policies.
None of the three liberal justices attended, and neither the White House nor the court have said whether they were invited.
On Friday, two justices who the president has praised were in the East Room of the White House. Justice Clarence Thomas swore in Kevin Warsh as the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh also attended.
Three of the justices who took part in the state dinner — Neil M. Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh — were picked by Mr. Trump during his first term, drawing them Mr. Trump’s particular attention and, at times, his ire. In a recent post, as he criticized Justices Gorsuch and Barrett for voting against his tariffs, he insisted they should have been “loyal to the person that appointed them.”
The justices seem to have struggled with whether or how forcefully to respond. They have not specifically addressed Mr. Trump’s personal insults and have not responded to requests for comment about his statements when asked. But they have at times politely pushed back in public appearances.
In recent interviews to promote his new children’s book, Justice Gorsuch has rejected assertions that the justices should be loyal to the president.
“My loyalty is to the Constitution, the laws of the United States,” he said in an interview with CBS News. “That’s the oath I took. It’s really just that simple.”
The chief justice too has gently denounced the personal attacks — but indirectly. During an appearance at Rice University in March, he said harsh rhetoric aimed at justices is “dangerous.”
“It’s got to stop,” he added, without specifying whose rhetoric he was describing or naming Mr. Trump.
In an interview with a federal judge last year, the chief justice defended the independence of the judiciary, saying its role is “to obviously decide cases but in the course of that to check the excesses of Congress or the executive.”
Colleen Sinzdak, a former law clerk to Chief Justice Roberts who argues frequently in front the court, said the justices seem to be trying to stay above the political fray. By ignoring some of the attacks, the justices send the message that they see themselves as part of an institution rather than political actors scrumming with elected officials.
“It’s not supposed to be about you personally,” she said. “They are trying to embody that in how they are going about their business, and to the extent possible to do the things they would normally do — like going to state dinners.”
Likewise, Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard who has written frequently about the court, said the justices appeared to be trying to treat Mr. Trump like any other party in a case when they seated him in the public gallery for the arguments in the birthright citizenship case, rather than in a special seat reserved for presidents that is used for courtroom ceremonies.
Still, he said the president’s personal attacks on individual justices were “out of bounds,” representing a unique assault that went beyond the traditional push and pull between the branches of government.
“It does damage to the court as an institution,” he said, and it “generates threats to the individual justices and their families when the president attacks them in this way.”
Professor Lazarus said he believed the justices should have declined to attend Mr. Trump’s state dinner last month, given that it appears only those nominated by Republican presidents had been invited.
“It’s wrong, irresponsible and undermines the integrity of the court, which all the justices tell us they believe in,” he said.
Ms. Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said the president understands the dangers of political violence after three assassination attempts in less than two years.
“Any implication that sharing these opinions is akin to making threats is deeply unserious and should be dismissed by anyone with half a brain,” she said in a statement, adding that the administration “cares deeply for the safety of all members of the Judicial Branch.”
For his part, Mr. Vance, a graduate of Yale Law School, has not been shy about expressing his frustration with the courts and his wife’s former boss. In an interview with New York Times opinion columnist Ross Douthat last year, Mr. Vance said the chief justice was “profoundly wrong” to suggest that one of the roles for the court is to check the excesses of the executive branch. Courts, he said, should be “extremely deferential” to the president’s political judgments.
At the court last Saturday night, around 100 guests gathered for the reunion of law clerks, starting with cocktails in a courtyard, followed by dinner in one of the formal conference rooms on the same floor as the courtroom.
Mr. Vance and his wife were not given special seating at the chief justice’s table, said people familiar with the event who were granted anonymity to talk about the private dinner. And when Chief Justice Roberts gave brief remarks to welcome guests, he did not offer any special greeting to Mr. Vance.
For the night, the vice president was just a plus one.
Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Tyler Pager contributed reporting to this story.
It has become much harder to forget since the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Hundreds rather than the usual thousands of vessels have passed through the strait since March 5.
“This really feels like a global crisis, a little similar to what happened with Covid-19,” says Rystad’s Abramov. Gasoline and diesel prices have surged, and jet fuel and fertiliser are already in short supply; food prices are expected to rise, while the next phase of the crisis is likely to lead to fuel rationing and industrial shutdowns, experts have said.
Policymakers are debating when recession may set in. “The word on everyone’s lips is stagflation,” a senior European industrialist says. “The longer this goes on, the more I worry about it.”
As the disruption has stretched on for months, companies have been forced to find radical workarounds. Some are trying to transport goods via land — either through existing oil pipelines or using trucks.
Danish logistics group DSV, market leader in the Middle East, is moving cargo through Saudi Arabia and Turkey. “When everything is flowing, you don’t consider your job vital. But if you can’t get cargo in, the people there can’t eat,” says Jens Lund, the company’s head.
Lorries, however, can replace only a small share of the capacity provided by large container and cargo ships, while border crossings and challenging terrain can further slow their transit.
Battle for control
Western countries have traditionally worried about routes in the Middle East, fearing that any regional conflict could limit access to the Red Sea, Suez or the Bosphorus.
But Trump has placed the Panama Canal at the heart of his vision of hemispheric defence – accusing China of trying to control the waterway, and threatening to take control of it himself. A Hong Kong-based conglomerate previously ran two ports on the canal, until Panama annulled its contracts earlier this year. China has called the US president’s claims groundless and said it wants to keep the canal neutral.
Nonetheless Trump’s moves may encourage Beijing to “rekindle building a Nicaragua Canal”, says Jensen, referring to a concession granted to a Chinese businessman in 2013 to develop a new rival waterway – though little came of it.
Following Trump’s threats and the cancellation of the port contracts, China has increased inspections of Panamanian-flagged vessels, leading to reports of ships reflagging, he adds. China’s foreign ministry said in March that its inspections were in accordance with laws and regulations.
A Chinese academic in Beijing, who asked not to be identified, says Panama’s move on the ports “would not be forgotten in Beijing, which would improve its projection of hard power to ensure that this did not happen again in other important strategic chokepoints”.
“Right now, the cost is very limited [for countries like Panama], but I think in the future, this is not going to be tolerated,” he says.
In February 2026 , in a packed courtroom in Summit County, Utah, chief prosecutor Brad Bloodworth laid out the state’s case against Kouri Richins, for the murder of Eric Richins, her husband and father of their three sons.
The case against Kouri Richins
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): The evidence will prove that Kouri Richins murdered Eric for his money and to get a fresh start at life.
It had been nearly four years since Eric died on March 4, 2022, of a lethal dose of fentanyl — served to him by Kouri in a cocktail, say prosecutors. She had spent almost three years in jail awaiting trial.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): More than anything, she wanted his money to perpetuate her facade of privilege, affluence and success.
Eric Richins owned a lucrative contracting business, and Kouri Richins worked as a real estate agent, buying and flipping houses. She was facing not just murder charges, but also insurance fraud and forgery counts.
Greg Hall: She was absolutely convinced … that she would be found not guilty.
Greg Hall is a friend and former colleague of Kouri’s.
Natalie Morales: What made her so convinced of that … outcome?
Greg Hall: ‘Cause she knows that she didn’t do it.
Initially, authorities thought Eric may have died from an accidental drug overdose. But as investigators dug deeper, they concluded that Kouri poisoned Eric for financial gain.
Greg Skordas: “Watch out for Kouri, watch out if something happens to me.”
According to Greg Skordas, a spokesperson for Eric Richins’ family, Eric had raised concerns about Kouri to his family.
Natalie Morales: The night Eric died … were they immediately suspecting that Kouri took part in his death?
Greg Skordas: They suspected Kouri would take part in his death before it happened. And so when it did happen, it was everyone’s worst, you know, nightmare come true.
KOURI RICHINS TO 911 (crying): My husband is not breathing. He’s cold.
As the state built its case against Kouri Richins, her 911 call — saying she found Eric Richins unresponsive in bed — was an integral piece of evidence.
911 OPERATOR: If you need you to put me on speaker, put me on speaker – I’m going to guide you through CPR, OK?
The prosecution used the recording throughout the trial to call into question whether Kouri was even trying to resuscitate Eric.
911 OPERATOR: Start counting out loud so I can count with you, OK?
The operator repeatedly asks the phone to be put on speaker, so Kouri can listen while performing CPR.
911 OPERATOR: One, two, three, four — am I on speaker?
KOURI RICHINS: Yes.
But a prosecution digital forensic analyst testified that phone receiver sensor activity showed Kouri was actually holding the phone to her ear during the call.
CHRIS KOTRODIMOS (in court): There is a proximity sensor inside the device that activates the receiver.
Laura | Juror: The digital download expert … could actually see that Kouri did not put the phone on speaker phone … she was still holding it up to her ear. That means she wasn’t doing compressions or if she was, she was doing it with one hand.
The 911 call was impactful for jurors Laura and Eric, who requested we not use their last names.
Eric | Juror: Listening to the call, it didn’t seem like there was much effort in the compressions themselves.
The impression these jurors had of her resuscitation attempts didn’t match Kouri Richins’ description of events, which she texted to her friend, Chelsea Barney. Prosecutor Bloodworth read the messages to the jury.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): “His lifeless body on my bedroom floor. … I pumped so damn hard, so hard screaming at him to come back to life that I needed him.”
Eric | Juror: Some of her text messages to a friend, she said she was screaming and beating on his chest. And the evidence did not show that.
Some of Kouri’s other actions the day Eric died puzzled the jurors we interviewed, like her behavior on a deputy’s bodycam footage, shown in court.
Laura | Juror: It was strange right after Eric died. Kouri was holding … her face with her hands …
Eric | Juror: It certainly looks like she was trying to hide her face, and her emotions.
DEPUTY (bodycam): — where are your children now?
KOURI RICHINS: One’s asleep in that room. Two are awake with their ear to the door.
And when the jurors compared Kouri’s behavior in the footage to Eric’s sister’s, they found the contrast startling.
Eric | Juror: Eric’s sister Katie Richins came in. She was hysterical … near — hyperventilating. And her first thought is: Where are the kids? Are the kids OK? And through that whole video, Kouri said, my kids are in that room. And one of ’em’s listening. But never did she move to go comfort those kids.
Eric’s sister, Katie, testified about arriving at the house.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): On the morning that Eric died, did Kouri Richins say anything about the house that they were living in?
KATIE RICHINS BENSON: Yes. … she told me she was going to sell it.
According to Katie, just hours after Eric’s death, Kouri was talking real estate: how she planned to sell their home, and how she needed to close on a house she had just purchased, known as the “Midway Mansion.”
KATIE RICHINS BENSON (in court): I had just lost one of the most important people in my whole entire life and she was planning on selling the house that he had just been wheeled out of, closing on a multimillion-dollar mansion. I could not wrap my head around it.
Prosecutors also presented evidence of something accessed on Kouri’s cellphone that morning — GIFs, seemingly celebrating coming into money.
Eric | Juror: I thought the GIFs were really odd. If she was the one that pulled them up, which it certainly seems like that is the case, that’s — just more evidence of her — state of mind at the time.
It was not clear to the jurors whether the GIFs were celebrating Eric’s death or celebrating the Midway mansion purchase. Either way, they found the timing curious.
Laura | Juror: It’s still inappropriate the day after her husband passed away that she’s accessing these. … So, it was strange.
Strange behavior aside, the state’s case hinged on proving Kouri intentionally poisoned Eric; that he did not die of an accidental overdose. The prosecution contends it was Kouri who administered the fentanyl — either in a cocktail, called a Moscow mule, or in a lemon drop shot, that she prepared for Eric.
Investigators found a note in a kitchen cabinet, which the prosecution says chronicles how Kouri killed Eric.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): Notice that here she writes “drink in bed.”
And the prosecutor told the jury about something else authorities found unusual. In the incident report, describing what happened that night, Kouri immediately writes about having a drink around 9:15 p.m. to celebrate work.
Laura: Her story that night that she wrote started with Eric drinking a drink that she made. … why would her story start then? … Why wouldn’t it start when she walked in the door and found that he wasn’t moving? That was just one of these really subtle things that I thought was really important.
Also important for jurors was knowing how Kouri obtained the fentanyl. For that, prosecutors turned to a witness who became a controversial figure in the case: Kouri’s housekeeper.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): Did you ask Kouri Richins about Eric’s death?
CARMEN LAUBER: Yes, I did.
BRAD BLOODWORTH: What did you ask her?
CARMEN LAUBER: I said, please tell me these pills were not for him.
Jurors find housekeeper’s testimony credible
Carmen Lauber was Kouri and Eric’s housekeeper and she cleaned homes for Kouri’s real estate flipping business. Prosecutors say Carmen also did something else — she supplied Kouri with the drugs used to kill Eric.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): Did Kouri Richins ever ask you to purchase for her illicit drugs?
CARMEN LAUBER: Yes.
BRAD BLOODWORTH: How many times?
CARMEN LAUBER: Four.
Skye Lazaro: In a lot of ways … she is the key witness.
Skye Lazaro had been Kouri Richins attorney, before resigning from the case due to a conflict of interest.
Skye Lazaro: Carmen really was the only person who could tie Kouri to obtaining fentanyl.
Carmen testified that in the months preceding Eric’s death, Kouri asked her to get pain medication for a client, which Carmen did. Then, about two weeks before Eric died, Kouri made another request, for something stronger. Carmen says she reached out to a drug dealer friend and told Kouri she could get her fentanyl.
CARMEN LAUBER (in court): I had texted Kouri back and told her that I had a — a friend that could get them, but they were fentanyl pills.
BRAD BLOODWORTH: How did Kouri Richins respond?
CARMEN LAUBER: She said, OK, go ahead and get ’em.
The state contends Kouri mixed that fentanyl into the Moscow mule or lemon drop shot she served Eric. Carmen, though, has an arrest record from drug charges, and is not an ideal witness.
Greg Skordas: She had a history of drug abuse, and although I think she’s overcome that … Those are who you deal with in criminal cases … They’re not always the shiniest people in the world.
The jurors we spoke with were able to look past Carmen’s history and found her credible.
Eric | Juror: I put a lotta weight on Carmen Lauber’s testimony. I found it — very impactful — very important to the prosecution’s case. And her testimony was corroborated with the digital evidence.
The state’s digital forensic expert testified about hundreds of texts messages between Kouri and Carmen, that matched Carmen’s timeline of when Kouri contacted her for drugs. Because the messages were deleted, investigators could only retrieve the dates and times, but not the messages’ content.
CHRIS KOTRODIMOS (in court): Between the two of them, about 800 text messages.
The prosecution argued, throughout the trial, that this was not the first time Kouri used drugs to try to kill Eric. Investigators learned that two weeks before his death, on Valentine’s Day, Eric became ill after Kouri served him what they say was a drug-laced breakfast sandwich.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): On Valentine’s Day, it was a sandwich. When she murdered him, it was a drink.
As for a motive, prosecutors say Kouri needed money. A forensic accountant testified about her money problems.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): What was the amount of Kouri Richins’ liabilities?
BROOKE KARRINGTON: Right about $8 million.
She said Kouri was in debt for nearly $8 million from her house flipping business, some of it from the recent purchase of that Midway mansion. And Eric, between his contracting business, property, and life insurance, was worth a lot.
BRAD BLOODWORTH: On the day that Eric died, his estate was worth over $4 million.
There was also evidence that Kouri took out an additional $100,000 life insurance policy on Eric, about a month before he died—and that Eric’s signature was forged — a forgery, prosecutors say, committed by Kouri.
Juror Eric | Juror: She used her business address for this policy and made herself the beneficiary. … And frankly, even as a lay person, looking at the signatures, Eric did not sign that document.
And there may have been another motive for murder. According to the state, Kouri wanted a new life with Josh Grossman, a handyman she met through her house flipping business. They had an affair for about two years.
Greg Skordas: I don’t know how much the family knew about the fact that she had a — a paramour. I don’t even know how much Eric knew about it. … that turned out to be a helpful piece of evidence that was discovered during the investigation.
Josh Grossman testified that after he heard Kouri had been arrested for Eric’s murder, by which time they had broken up, he reached out to Eric’s family.
JOSH GROSSMAN (in court) I was overwhelmed with guilt, sorrow, over my wrongdoings, you know, infidelity and uh …
Juror Laura: With respect to Josh Grossman, he seemed like a believable witness. I think we all felt really sorry for him at times that he was crying.
Josh told investigators about a conversation he had with Kouri, that now, under the lens of murder, took on new meaning. Josh, who had served with the Army in Iraq, was asked about that conversation.
JOSH GROSSMAN (in court): She asked if — if I had ever killed anybody.
BRAD BLOODWORTH: Did she ask a follow up question?
JOSH GROSSMAN: Yes. … She asked me how it made me feel or something along those lines.
The jury was also shown text messages between Kouri and Josh.
Natalie Morales (to Skye): I mean, you see those text messages back and forth, very lovey, “Life is going to be different, I promise.” “If I was divorced right now and asked you to marry me, you would?” “I just want to lay on the couch and cuddle you, watch a murder documentary, and snuggle.” … I mean, you know, I don’t know that that gets any closer to the reality of what actually happened in this case.
Skye Lazaro: Yeah, in hindsight, I don’t think those, uh, probably well thought out. … these coming in the way they did and the timing of ’em — I think certainly did not help Kouri.
Something else that did not help Kouri was the reservation she booked for a romantic getaway with Josh.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): Did you know about a trip planned to the Secrets St. Martin’s Resort?
JOSH GROSSMAN: Yes.
Kouri sent Josh the reservation she made before Eric died, with the trip planned for April — a month after Eric’s death.
Laura | Juror: The reservation for the trip was damaging to Kouri. … To me that made it look like she had been planning something for a while. And at some point soon, Eric would be out of the picture.
As the investigation proceeded, Kouri said the prosecution was worried about being caught. It showed web searches Kouri made after Eric’s death, including: “luxury prisons for the rich in america,” “how long does life insrance companies takento.pay,” “if someone is poisned what does it go down on the death certificate as.”
Eric | Juror: Kouri’s internet searches … the questions that were being searched led me to believe she had a guilty mind.
Skye Lazaro: These searches … were done after she was handed a search warrant when they searched the home … it kinda takes the sting out of them. I think it’s somewhat understandable.
Natalie Morales: So this is after the fact.
Skye Lazaro: This is after, and well after, in fact.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): She was looking for information based on what she found out after Eric died.
It was one of the points that Kouri’s own defense team made, as it tried to poke holes in the entire prosecution’s case.
KATHRYN NESTER (in court) You know what you’re never going to hear, is how that fentanyl got inside of him. Because there is zero evidence of that.
Kouri Richins’ defense takes aim at prosecution’s witnesses, claims
Just outside of Salt Lake City, home to famed ski resorts including park City, is the nearly 10-acre estate that Kouri Richins was planning on flipping.
Natalie Morales: … that looks ginormous.
Skye Lazaro: It’s massive.
Skye Lazaro told us Kouri hoped to walk away with nearly $10 million in profit.
Skye Lazaro: I think this … was kind of her dream when she got into this idea of flipping houses was to be able to do properties like this.
And it was that estate, said Kouri Richins’ defense attorney Kathryn Nester in her opening statement, the couple were toasting the night Eric died.
KATHRYN NESTER (in court): Eric and Kouri Richins … were celebrating.
KATHRYN NESTER: … They were celebrating because Kouri was about to close on the biggest real estate deal that her company had ever done.
KATHRYN NESTER: They had a lot to celebrate. They also had a wonderful family.
Nester showed jurors a family photo of Eric and Kouri with their three sons — seemingly happy — and spoke about the love they shared for their boys.
KATHRYN NESTER: … And what’s more important is that the boys adored their father. … And Kouri knew that about her sons and about her family.
Nester asked jurors to consider why Kouri would poison Eric, knowing the impact it would have on their three sons.
KATHRYN NESTER: Now after you’ve listened to all the evidence in this case …You’re gonna have to decide if Kouri Richins intentionally and knowingly poisoned … the father of her kids, knowing that she was gonna cause those little boys to feel pain every day for the rest of their life for the loss of their father.
Kouri’s friend Greg Hall says Kouri would never do that.
Greg Hall: She was loving. She was kind. She was giving. … A wonderful mother.
KATHRYN NESTER (in court): Eric suffered from pain, a lot.
Nester told jurors Eric Richins lived with chronic pain —
KATHRYN NESTER (in court): … he suffered from knee and back pain related to his work. … He did hard work.
— and used drugs recreationally often taking marijuana gummies.
KATHRYN NESTER (in court): … these are all gummies that the police found in Eric’s things.
Nester said Eric also used pain medication.
KATHRYN NESTER (in court): You’re also going to hear … that there was an empty pill bottle right next to him.
The label on that pill bottle was for the painkiller hydrocodone and it had expired in 2020. Nester suggested it was Eric who may have come into contact with fentanyl.
KATHRYN NESTER (in court): …You’re gonna hear that just a few weeks before Eric died, guess where he was, Mexico. Guess where the fentanyl comes into this country from, Mexico.
One by one, the defense challenged the state’s witnesses, beginning with Eric’s sister Katie Richins Benson, and her account of Kouri’s behavior the night Eric died.
KATHRYN NESTER (in court): And you also said that … she just stood there and did not comfort you in any way?
KATIE RICHINS-BENSON: Not that I recall.
KATHRYN NESTER: OK.
KATHRYN NESTER: … Your Honor, we’d like to play a clip. This is State’s Exhibit 1-4.
KATHRYN NESTER : OK, so that’s Kouri. Freeze it right there.
KATHRYN NESTER: … And that’s her squatting down to comfort you while you’re on the ground and that’s, y’all hugging, right
KATIE RICHINS BENSON: Correct.
KATHRYN NESTER: So your memory about that was clearly wrong.
KATIE RICHINS BENSON: To be fair, it was four years ago.
KATHRYN NESTER: OK.
When it came to state’s key witness Carmen Lauber, the defense pointed out that she made a deal with police in order to stay out of prison. Defense attorney Wendy Lewis played a portion of one of Carmen’s interviews with investigators.
INVESTIGATOR #1: They’re looking to pull your drug court deal and ask for seven years on your two firsts …
INVESTIGATOR #1: … The only exception to that and the only thing that they’re willing to kind of help you out with is if you can help us out with this.
INVESTIGATOR #2: And by — so he means like give us the details that will ensure Kouri gets convicted of murder.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): So that’s what they said to you.
CARMEN LAUBER: Yes.
WENDY LEWIS: … you may be getting seven years in prison on your state case.
CARMEN LAUBER: Correct.
WENDY LEWIS: But if you help them out, that’s not gonna happen.
CARMEN LAUBER: Correct.
Skye Lazaro: … the investigators keep pushin’ on her. “… We need more. That’s not enough.” … And finally in the last interview, they basically just spell it out.
CARMEN LAUBER: I love Eric. … If it was done, intentionally, he did not deserve it.
INVESTIGATOR: … we believe you and that’s why we are here working on what your get out of jail free card looks like …
Skye Lazaro: You know, it’s, “this is your one get out of jail free card. You have to basically say it’s fentanyl.”
WENDY LEWIS (in court): And you are willing to do whatever it takes to save yourself from drug — getting kicked outta drug court and going to prison, correct?
CARMEN LAUBER: I’m going to go forward with the truth. Yes.
Laura | Juror: … I think the defense was really hammering her. … And I don’t think it went over that well.
CARMEN LAUBER (in court): She said, “OK, go ahead and get the fentanyl.”
WENDY LEWIS: That’s your testimony today?
CARMEN LAUBER: When I told her what I had that’s what she said, yes.
Even if Carmen bought fentanyl for Kouri, the defense said there was no proof that Kouri used the drug to poison her husband. Kathryn Nester told the jury the cups Kouri served the drinks in were never tested that night.
KATHRYN NESTER : … The nanny ended up putting them in the dishwasher the next morning.
Eric | Juror: I think the most powerful point … the defense made is that we don’t know exactly how the fentanyl got into Eric Richins’ stomach.
Skye Lazaro: … when you have to prove murder — uh, you have to prove … that she’s the one that administered — the fentanyl to him.
The defense pushed back on the state’s claim that Kouri had tried to poison Eric weeks earlier with that Valentine’s Day sandwich. Kouri’s friend Aly Staking said the couple downplayed that episode as Eric having an allergic reaction.
ALEMITU STAKING (in court): He took a bite of the sandwich and got an allergic reaction and had to shoot himself with an EpiPen.
WENDY LEWIS: Was everyone laughing?
ALEMITU STAKING: Yes, we were all laughing and we jokingly said, don’t eat what Kouri feeds you.
WENDY LEWIS: OK. And did Eric appear upset about what had happened prior with the sandwich?
ALEMITU STAKING: No.
And as for the financial motive that Kouri was broke? Skye Lazaro says Kouri Richins’ multimillion-dollar debt was typical in the house flipping business.
Skye Lazaro: That’s what they do for a living, is they invest in homes to flip.
Natalie Morales: So you’re saying it’s part of the business?
Skye Lazaro: Right.
Natalie Morales: That you’d get in — in debt, and then you flip the house, you sell it, and then you make your money back.
Skye Lazaro: Absolutely.
And that $100,000 life insurance policy the state claimed wasn’t signed by Eric? Nester said there is an innocent explanation.
KATHRYN NESTER: I’m telling you right now, wives everywhere sign their husband’s names on a lot of things. You’ve gotta find that she did it without his knowledge. And I don’t know how they’re gonna prove that.
The defense also downplayed Kouri’s affair with Josh Grossman, who testified they never went on that romantic getaway Kouri had booked for them.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): … then Kouri ended the relationship, correct?
JOSH GROSSMAN: Right.
Eric |Juror: It was a little bit difficult to understand what the situation was … with Josh Grossman, because she did seem to drop him pretty quickly …
Natalie Morales: … do you think that Josh Grossman’s relationship with Kouri had anything to do with Eric’s death —
Greg Hall: No, no.
Greg Hall: … if that were the case, after Eric passed away, that relationship would have continued, not been tapered off. It doesn’t make any logical sense. …
On March 12, 2026, after three weeks and 40 witnesses from the state, the prosecution rested its case.
The jurors say they were expecting to see defense evidence and hear from their witnesses.
Laura | Juror: I’m like, “OK. Now, we can hear the rest of the story.”
But what happened next caught everyone off guard.
“Now we’ve seen just about everything in this trial,” says surprised juror
Laura | Juror: … my mouth just dropped open. … I was just like, “What?” I was so shocked and I was actually really disappointed.
Thirteen days into the trial, Judge Richard Mrazik asked Kouri Richins’ defense team about their first witness.
Eric | Juror: … I was totally prepared for however many days or weeks of vigorous defense.
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK (in court): … Who is, uh, defense counsel’s first witness?
WENDY LEWIS: Um… can we have just a minute? We have — we have a couple of options …
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK: Understood.
But the option defense attorneys Wendy Lewis and Kathryn Nester chose was one these jurors were not expecting.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): Your Honor, actually at this time the defense intends to rest.
Eric | Juror: … I was like, “Seriously?” …Now we’ve seen just about everything in this trial.
Laura | Juror: I was disappointed … because I’m like, you know, I felt like there was more to the story. And they denied us access to that.
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK (in court): I just want to make sure you’ve consulted with your client about this.
WENDY LEWIS: Absolutely.
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK: Ms. Richins, may I ask you two direct questions?
KOURI RICHINS: Yes.
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK: Do you understand that you have the right to testify at trial?
KOURI RICHINS: Yes. I do.
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK: … are you following your attorney’s advice in waiving your right to testify at trial?
KOURI RICHINS: Yes, I am.
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK: I accept your waiver, I find it is knowing and voluntary.
Laura says she at least expected the defense to present testimony about Eric’s alleged drug use and what role, if any, it played in his death.
Laura | Juror: … they were just hinting, ever so slightly, at these things, without backing it up. So I was really hoping for some testimony, if that’s really true or you just trying to confuse, everything.
Greg Skordas, who happens to be an attorney himself, says perhaps the defense saw no need to call witnesses because it felt there was enough reasonable doubt.
Greg Skordas: … if you think you’re winning after the prosecution puts on its case, then there’s no reason to put on a case, because you could only hurt yourself. … And so why—why even risk putting on a witness that could hurt you.
Laura says throughout the trial she would sometimes look over at the defense table.
Laura | Juror: … there was really no vibe coming from her. Like, I couldn’t sense whether she was upset, or angry, or sad. She had a very flat affect.
Natalie Morales: Was that part of it, the likability of Kouri Richins at that point? Do you think they saw a woman who was having an affair, who was in debt.
Skye Lazaro: I think that’s how it certainly could be taken. … There never was a real opportunity … to humanize her, to make her likable, to make her seem like a person who wouldn’t do that.
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK (in court): Mr. Bloodworth, would you like to proceed?
In its closing, the prosecution portrayed Kouri Richins as a ruthless social climber, chasing a life beyond what she had, at her family’s expense.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): … Behind the facade however, Kouri Richins was incompetent. … Her business was imploding. … All the while, Kouri Richins was more interested in spending time with Josh Grossman than Eric. … but she did not have the money to leave Eric or the money to salvage her business.
BRAD BLOODWORTH (in court): She is a risk taker. There was a way forward. Eric had to die.
The defense used its closing argument to lay out its entire case —
WENDY LEWIS (in court): They want you to look at a woman in the worst moment of her life.
–citing several reasons why there was reasonable doubt.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): The investigation in this matter was nothing but sloppy. It was driven by bias.
Wendy Lewis told jurors the investigators developed tunnel vision early on, driven by Eric’s family’s belief that Kouri was guilty.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): Everything about this investigation was led by the Richins family.
Laura | Juror: … it did give me pause whether there was this bias in the entire investigation that started with the Richins family.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): What else do we find on that first day that Eric died?
Lewis pointed to that trip Eric took to Mexico shortly before his death, and that empty pill bottle on his nightstand.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): … The hydrocodone bottle. … What was kept in that bottle? … What might be the best way to bring illegal pills back from Mexico? Put them in a prescription bottle?
WENDY LEWIS (in court): So what’s another explanation? What could have happened? … Maybe he thought it was something else, and he accidentally got fent — fentanyl. Maybe had they tested that bottle, we would know, but they didn’t.
She urged the jurors to stand with Kouri Richins.
WENDY LEWIS (in court): Kouri Richins did not kill Eric Richins. The state did not prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, and you have the courage. Have the courage to tell them this and find Kouri Richins not guilty.
Natalie Morales: … how was Kouri feeling … did she ever feel like this may not go her way?
Greg Hall: No. Absolutely not, honestly. Not at all. She was upbeat, hopeful, enthused … She was absolutely convinced … that she would be found not guilty.
The Richins children speak out
After sitting through the three-week trial, jurors Eric and Laura had no way of knowing what other jurors were thinking — nor how long reaching a verdict could take.
Laura | Juror: I was thinking this is gonna be a very long week.
But in the end, deliberations would only last about three hours. Laura, one of the two women on the eight-person jury, was selected as foreperson.
Laura | Juror: When we got back there, I think everyone was bursting. I felt like I was bursting at the seams.
For the jurors, Kouri’s money trouble proved to be a motive for Eric’s murder.
Eric | Juror: She was in such a position that she had to take drastic action to dig out of the financial hole that she was in.
Eric | Juror: I shared that I thought the evidence was devastating against Kouri and that she was guilty. … I think that … opened the door, to other people to share exactly where they stood.
And when the decision was made to vote, the rest of the jury agreed—not just that Kouri murdered Eric — but that she previously attempted to kill him with that poison laced Valentine’s Day sandwich, and, that she committed two counts of insurance fraud, and forgery.
On March 16, 2026, Judge Richard Mrazik read the verdict:
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK (in court): “Count one aggravated murder, we the jury unanimously find that the defendant Kouri Richins is guilty of aggravated murder.”
Kouri Richins was stunned as she learned she was found guilty of all five counts related to Eric’s death, says her friend Greg Hall.
Greg Hall: Totally unexpected. She was absolutely crushed and heartbroken.
Kouri Richins declined our request for an interview.
Two months later, on what would have been Eric Richins’ 44th birthday, Kouri Richins – now wearing a prison uniform – was back in court to receive her sentence.
Eric’s family gave heartfelt statements. His sister Amy emphasized the impact his loss has had on his three sons.
AMY RICHINS (in court): This crime didn’t just happen once. It happens every single morning when those boys wake up and realize their father’s still gone.
The boys were 5, 7 and 9 when their world was shattered. Today they are 9, 11 and 13, and through written statements read by each of their counselors, for the first time, the world got to hear from them.
The first statement read aloud was written by the youngest, Weston.
WESTON’S STATEMENT | Read by counselor #1: “When someone talks about Kouri, it makes me feel hateful and ashamed. She took away my dad. It’s made me have a hard time trusting people.”
The middle child, Ashton, called Kouri greedy and said she did not properly care for him and his brothers.
ASHTON’S STATEMENT | Read by counselor #2: ” … when we got hurt, you didn’t even care.”
He accused her of harming the family pets.
ASHTON’S STATEMENT | Read by counselor #2: You wouldn’t let me put my kitten in the garage for safety at night. And we found it eaten by raccoons the next day. You wouldn’t let us turn on and use the heater lamp for the chickens and bunnies, and they froze to death.
Carter, the oldest, said Kouri was often drunk and would lock him in his room.
CARTER’S STATEMENT | Read by counselor #3: “This happened pretty much daily. I feel angry that she locked me in my room. … I miss my dad, but I do not miss how my life used to be. I don’t miss Kouri. I will tell you that.”
All three boys asked the judge to give their mother, whom they only referred to as Kouri, the harshest possible sentence.
CARTER’S STATEMENT | Read by counselor #3 “… what she did is very sick …”
When it was their turn, Kouri’s friends and family pleaded for leniency. Her brother Ronnie.
RONNIE DARDEN (in court): … the injustice that’s occurred here in this courtroom, it’ll be righted in time. … And until then, little sister, just know … that I’m right by your side and I’ll always be right here for you. I love you.
Then Kouri Richins was allowed to speak. She did not testify at trial but now she approached the podium and used her time to address her kids.
KOURI RICHINS (in court): I will use any opportunity I can to get a message to you.
She says she has been cut off from them for the past two years.
KOURI RICHINS (in court): As much as you’ve been influenced into thinking that dad was murdered, that I took your dad from you, that is completely wrong and an absolute lie. … And just because someone may not be perfect, that’s a far reach for them to be capable of murder
Judge Mrazik had two options when considering Kouri Richins’ sentence — either 25 year-to-life with the possibility of parole or life in prison without parole — and he made it known he carefully considered each.
JUDGE RICHARD MRAZIK (in court): The Court’s duty is to make a decision, a weighty, long-lasting decision based on the best information available today. … Accordingly, Miss Richins … the Court hereby sentences you to life without parole.
For Eric’s family it was the end to a yearslong nightmare. Greg Skordas, the family spokesperson, says the true heartbreak is for the kids, who are now living with Eric’s sister Katie.
Greg Skordas: I can’t think of anything worse as a child to lose your father, except to know that it was because of your mother. I mean, think about that.
Produced by Ruth Chenetz, Asena Basak and Betsy Shuller. Elena DiFiore and Ryan Smith are the development producers. Emma Steele is the field producer. Alicia Tejada is the coordinating producer. Megan Kelly Brown is the associate producer. Michael Vele, Richard Barber, Marcus Balsam, Marlon Disla and Greg Kaplan are the editors. Anthony Batson is the senior producer. Nancy Kramer is the executive story editor. Judy Tygard is the executive producer.
-
New York21 minutes agoAs Easy as Riding a Bike? Adult Learners Give It a Try.
-
Los Angeles, Ca27 minutes agoA strong El Niño is coming to California. You may notice something different at the beach
-
Detroit, MI51 minutes agoDetroit teen charged, will be tried as adult in downtown shooting
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoPeople We Meet: For Arieann Harrison, eco-activism is in her DNA
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoKeeping up with the Thakkars, the embattled Dallas developer family
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoOvernight car burglary, chase under investigation in Pinecrest, police say
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoMedford couple celebrating 70th anniversary
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoWarm temperatures, spotty showers expected through Monday
