Nichole RIce

State prosecutors have filed their response in the ongoing back and forth over the potential dismissal of the case against the woman accused of killing Anita Knutson in 2007.

The State’s brief was authored by Ward County Deputy State’s Attorney Tiffany Sorgen, who noted that, “the Court did not set forth its basis for finding probable cause at the preliminary hearing.”

The attorneys for Nichole Erin Rice, 36, Minot, had previously filed their written arguments in support of dismissing the murder charge against their client, wherein they alleged former Minot Police Detective Mikali Talbott provided false testimony at the preliminary hearing in September 2022.

Though Sorgen conceded that the defense had established that Talbott had made an “incorrect statement” regarding the exclusion of Rice’s DNA on the murder weapon, she argued that neither expert who testified at the hearing showed that Talbott had provided the false information “in reckless disregard of the truth.”

Sorgen wrote that the proposed remedy from Rice’s attorneys calling for the dismissal of the murder charge was “far too severe.” Sorgen offered alternative remedies for the court including the exclusion of analysis of Rice’s DNA or a possible new preliminary hearing to establish a new determination of probable cause in the case.

The written arguments were requested by North Central District Court Judge Richard Hagar after a hearing in November where DNA experts for both parties provided testimony regarding the results of multiple DNA analysis reports set against the testimony provided by Talbott at the preliminary hearing. Talbott had testified that the reports available at the time indicated that Rice’s DNA profile was the only one that could not be excluded, a “term of art” within the scientific community that indicates an individual remains a likely suspect as a source of the sample.

Talbott, who resigned from the Minot Police Department on Nov. 17, 2022, after seven years with the department, was not interviewed by Rice’s DNA expert Monte Miller or by the State’s expert Amy Gebhardt from the North Dakota State Crime Lab. Gebhardt testified that she did not know how Talbott came to the conclusion she testified to, while Miller testified that Talbott’s testimony “was an unreasonable position to take” based on the reports available at the time.

Sorgen argued the brief filed by Rice’s attorney Philip Becher “was bereft” of statutory or judicial authority establishing the standard and appropriateness for the requested dismissal, saying that initial motion and reply were also “meager” in these areas.

Sorgen cited precedent which states that negligent or innocent mistakes are not enough to establish reckless or deliberate falsity, arguing that Becher had not established himself that Talbott had done so recklessly. Sorgen also balked at the request to dismiss on the grounds that Talbott was cross-examined by the defense for more than an hour at the preliminary hearing, noting the defense chose not to call any additional witnesses of their own that day.

Sorgen stated in her brief, that “if Defendant’s motion to dismiss is based upon incorrect testimony is so glaringly obvious as counsel would have the Court believe, counsel’s failure to challenge Det. Talbott’s testimony on the subject of Defendant’s DNA appears to have been a squandered opportunity and perhaps poor strategy. It is not, however, grounds for dismissal.”

Sorgen also rejected Becher’s assertion that “much” of the State’s remaining evidence is “nothing more than petty gossip and speculation,” citing inconsistent statements from Rice and numerous interviews conducted by law enforcement during the nearly 15 years of investigation in the case.

Talbott, who now lives out of state, is still listed as a potential witness in the case if it should go to trial in July. No ruling has been issued by Hagar as of yet, and no further hearings have been scheduled.