Utah Supreme Court hears challenge to presiding judge’s ban on in‑person jury selection in State v. Richens

At oral argument in State v. Richens, attorneys for defendant Corey Richens and the state of Utah asked the Utah Supreme Court to reverse two lower‑court rulings: a presiding judge’s order prohibiting in‑person voir dire and jury selection under the Third Judicial District’s standing order, and an assigned trial judge’s later reconsideration to expand the venire to include Salt Lake County.

The question presented to the court centered on who decides — the assigned trial judge or the district’s presiding judge — whether “extraordinary circumstances” permit an exception to the district’s default practice of virtual jury selection. Appellant counsel Brea Johnson argued that “the standing order does not give that responsibility to the presiding judge,” and that the Code of Judicial Administration and court rules reserve case‑specific determinations to the assigned trial judge.

The state, represented by Mary Ann Decker, joined the defense in asking the court to reverse the presiding judge’s order. Decker told the justices the parties had stipulated that the media attention surrounding the aggravated‑murder prosecution constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that the parties had…