Richins case hit by sheriffs’ grand-jury indictments

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes · Last updated: 11 October 2026

As first reported by KSL, a grand jury has indicted two Utah sheriffs in a development that adds new legal questions to the Richins case. Wasatch County Sheriff Jared Rigby and former Summit County Sheriff Dave Edmunds were handed obstruction of justice charges, and Rigby also faces a charge of making a false written statement. Kouri Richins was convicted of poisoning her husband, Eric Richins, and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Richins' defense lawyers have asked the court to pause a decision on their motion for a new trial while they investigate whether the sheriffs' alleged actions affected the earlier prosecution.

In most cases, when the government decides to file criminal charges against someone, they do it through filing what's called an information.

Steve Burton, Utah criminal defense attorney

What the grand-jury charges name and what remains sealed

The grand jury returned indictments that name Jared Rigby and Dave Edmunds and charge them with obstructing justice; Rigby is additionally accused of making a false written statement. Prosecutors have not publicly explained how the grand-jury evidence links to the Richins investigation, and grand-jury proceedings themselves are secret, so filings available to the public are limited. The use of a grand jury in this instance contrasts with the more typical method prosecutors use in many criminal cases, where an information and a probable cause statement are filed and made public.

Defense counsel and outside commentators have pointed to the secrecy as the reason the public and the defence team do not yet know the full factual basis for the indictments. Because the indictments exist, the sheriffs have pleaded not guilty and now face ordinary criminal-process options: pretrial motions, potential plea offers, or a trial on the charges the grand jury returned.

Why the indictments intersect with the Richins trial

Court papers identify an anonymous letter sent to the Summit County Attorney's Office that raised concerns about a trial witness. The letter alleged past misconduct involving Summit County sheriff's detective Eric Mainord from his time with the Heber City Police Department. Richins' lawyers say Mainord was “pivotal in the investigation” and contend they did not have full information about his background before trial, which, if true, could bear on witness credibility.

Although Mainord was removed from the state's witness list, jurors saw a video of an interview with him as part of testimony from key witness Carmen Lauber. One practical question now is whether any previously undisclosed misconduct related to Mainord would have been material to the defence at trial. The prosecutors who returned the indictments are the same individuals who handled the Richins prosecution, and court filings note that retired Judge Richard McKelvie was sworn in as a special prosecutor to assist in the investigation.

How lawyers are responding and what legal manoeuvres are likely

Richins' lawyers have asked the court to delay deciding their motion for a new trial so they can learn more about the sheriffs' indictments and any evidence prosecutors presented to the grand jury. That request is a defensive tactic aimed at preserving potential grounds to challenge the conviction if the new information demonstrates trial-impacting misconduct.

Outside counsel and commentators have noted that defendants in the sheriffs' cases could pursue plea agreements or litigation that uncovers evidence; Rigby and Edmunds have pleaded not guilty. The participation of a special prosecutor, retired Judge Richard McKelvie, is cited in court filings, which suggests prosecutors anticipated sensitivity around the investigation and sought added procedural distance in prosecuting law-enforcement figures.

What the indictments could change about outcomes and timing

At minimum, the indictments introduce additional litigation that can slow finality in the Richins case. If defence counsel uncovers evidence that a key witness's credibility was improperly shielded or altered, that could form the basis for a new-trial motion or appeal briefing. Prosecutors have so far declined to describe publicly how the sheriffs' charges relate to the earlier murder prosecution.

Conversely, the indictments do not automatically overturn a conviction: the sheriffs still must be tried or resolve their cases, and any effect on Richins' verdict would depend on the content and materiality of the evidence revealed. For now, courts will consider procedural requests from Richins' counsel while the sheriffs' criminal cases proceed through pretrial steps.

How this could play out

The bottom line

The grand-jury indictments of Jared Rigby and Dave Edmunds insert a new, legally significant thread into an already contested criminal matter. The sealed nature of the grand-jury process means defence teams and the public currently lack detail about the evidence that produced the charges. Richins' lawyers are pressing for time to investigate whether any alleged misconduct affected trial fairness; prosecutors have so far declined to tie the indictments publicly to specific trial evidence. How courts handle discovery, any unsealing of materials, and subsequent litigation will determine whether the indictments remain a separate criminal matter or become a route to revisit the Richins conviction.

What to watch

• Watch for a ruling on Richins' motion for a new trial; no date has been set.
• Watch for any unsealing of charging documents or grand-jury materials in the sheriffs' cases; no date has been set.
• Watch for a plea entry or setting of trial dates in the cases against Jared Rigby and Dave Edmunds; no date has been set.