Anita Knutson

GRAND FORKS — Eighteen years after the murder of Anita Knutson in a Minot apartment in 2007, a Grand Forks jury heard closing arguments in the trial of Nichole Rice.

Deputy Ward County State’s Attorney Tiffany Sorgen delivered the state’s closing argument, which was framed around a powerpoint presentation detailing the testimony and voluminous information presented during the seven days of the trial.

“There’s a lot of information in the case. As you heard from the witnesses, thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of hours of audio and video, photographs too numerous to count,” Sorgen said. “You were told an investigation is like a puzzle. You heard that from a couple different people. It’s not solved by one person alone. Everyone’s got a little piece. Every witness we presented to you this past week had a little piece. Some pieces are bigger than others, but all the pieces are important though.”

Sorgen reviewed the testimony of Knutson’s parents Sharon and Gordon Knutson. Sharon Knutson testified that she fell out of contact with her daughter after Friday, June 1, 2007, and eventually grew so concerned that she asked her husband to drive to Minot to check on her. Gordon Knutson testified that he arrived at her apartment to find the door locked, and eventually observed Anita Knutson deceased on her bed through her bedroom window.

“You also heard Sharon tell you of the devastating effect Anita’s death had on this family, including the suicide of her brother Daniel a few years later,” Sorgen said. “Gordon told you he found Anita dead, cold to the touch in her bedroom.”

Sorgen noted the testimony of apartment manager Laura Knapp, who testified that the locks used at the apartment complex were specialty locks from a Minot locksmith. Knapp testified the only people who had keys to the apartment were herself, Rice, Anita Knutson and maintenance man Marty Annell, who she was in a relationship with. Annell committed suicide on New Year’s Day 2009, and was considered as a possible person of interest in the case even after his death.

Sorgen spoke about the testimony of Interim Minot Police Chief Capt. Dale Plessas, who was a part of the decision to allow the team from the true crime documentary series “Cold Justice” to assist the investigation.

“This is an important distinction here. ‘Cold Justice’ provided resources and time that Minot PD could not allot to this cold case. After 15 years, you heard detective after detective and the captain himself tell you how busy the Minot PD caseload was, and that people could not catch a break to take time to set aside to go through this case,” Sorgen said. “This was a valuable resource that was available to carve out that amount of time.”

Sorgen reviewed testimony from retired Detective Dan Strandberg, who took photographs of the crime scene, Knutson’s body and the cut window screen. Sorgen also discussed testimony by retired Detective David Goodman, who noted there was no sign of a struggle or burglary. Goodman said Knutson’s purse with visible cash inside was undisturbed, and testified that access to the scene was tightly controlled.

Sorgen highlighted Goodman’s testimony about Rice’s behavior when she was brought to the apartment after the scene was cleared where she seemed more concerned about a missing iPod. Sorgen reminded the jury about text messages exchanged between the roommates, where Rice was upset about an alarm clock, and another where Rice told Knutson, “what goes around comes around.” Sorgen also pointed out Goodman’s testimony about an interview he conducted with Rice where he caught her in a lie about her whereabouts.

Sorgen stressed to the jury that the murder weapon recovered from the scene was determined not to be the same knife that alternative suspect Devin Hall thought he had.

Sorgen told the jury Goodman was able to determine that Hall did not arrive in Minot until the evening of June 3, 2007, long after Knutson is believed to have been murdered.

Sorgen spent time explaining why each other person of interest in the case was ruled out either through alibis or a lack of motive, means and opportunity to commit the murder.

Sorgen argued that Rice was the lone person who had the means, motive and opportunity, due to having a key to the apartment, the extremely toxic living arrangement, and the large gap of time she was unaccounted for at the time of Knutson’s murder.

“Even the defense’s own expert acknowledges that she can’t be accounted for between 11:30 and 8:30 and that this murder occurred at 5 a.m., right smack in the middle of that window. And that it is only a 40-minute drive from that apartment back to the farm,” Sorgen said. “She could not be ruled out.”

Sorgen laid out the final pieces of the puzzle she said confirmed Rice’s guilt, noting Rice’s rendition of her activities changed multiple times during interviews. Sorgen drove her point home by reminding the jury about the witnesses who testified Rice confessed to the murder while drunk at parties in 2008, where she mentioned information withheld from the public by law enforcement.

“Ladies and gentleman, taking the totality of this information, eliminating the other persons of interest through investigation, there’s only one conclusion to be drawn. Most importantly from the defendant’s knowledge and admissions – admissions to friends, and to her aunt Brenda, whose heart was breaking about this,” Sorgen said. “In the early morning hours of June 3, 2007, Nichole Rice took this knife and plunged it into the chest of this girl and killed her.”

Defense’s closing argument

Rice’s attorney Richard Sand delivered the defense’s closing argument, and told the jury the state’s case needed all of its disparate elements to be correct for its conclusion to be true.

Sand argued that the investigation didn’t succeed in ruling out the other possible persons of interest, and faulted the principal case agent Sgt. Carmen Asham for not reading the whole file.

“That’s not bad police work. That’s insane to bring charges when you haven’t reviewed the file. They are trying to say, ‘it’s a puzzle with many pieces.’ No, it’s a murder case, and everybody in here needs justice, Anita and Nichole, and this isn’t how you get it,” Sand said. “I’m blown away by what I’m seeing here. I’ve been practicing law for quite a while and I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Sand argued the case against Rice was based on nasty text messages between two girls over an alarm clock, and that the only DNA presented by the state belonged to a male.

“They’re trying to use conjecture and hearsay to convince you guys that Nichole got out of bed in the middle of the night, drove to Minot, killed her roommate, and scrubbed the scene of DNA,” Sand said. “She’s this mastermind mob hit killer. Goes back home, and has the intestinal fortitude to just go on with life like it never happened. We’re talking about a daughter, a sister, a wife and a mother. This is a load of crap.”

Sand argued that “Cold Justice” came into the investigation with an agenda with the goal of accusing Rice. Sand described the media frenzy around the case as a circus, and said all involved including the prosecution should be “ashamed.”

“These cameras are in here, because we can have a nice North Dakota mom sitting there because that sells. That’s disgusting. That’s greed, and that’s putting pressure on these people,” Sand said.

Sand argued that the investigation and the testimony related to it was riddled with inconsistencies. Sand further cast doubt on the testimony from witnesses who stated they heard Rice confess to the murder, saying they likely only came forward because they saw the “Cold Justice” episode.

“Nichole didn’t do this. The killer is out there, and it needs to be solved, but it won’t be solved here because the work wasn’t done,” Sand said. “They just went through all these slides, hundreds of elements that have to work perfectly for them for this case to work for them. One of those elements falls out of place, this case doesn’t work.”

Sorgen took the opportunity to deliver a rebuttal statement, and took issue with Sand’s claim that Asham didn’t review the file, arguing that Asham had testified she hadn’t reviewed the entire file as she shared the work with Talbott.

Sorgen also defended the involvement of “Cold Justice,” and disputed the notion put forward by Sand that there was financial motivation on the part of Minot Police and the Ward County State’s Attorney’s office to charge Rice. Sorgen said Rice’s inconsistencies could not be overlooked, especially since she knew she was a suspect in a murder.

Hagar then provided the jury instructions to the jury, and they were released to begin deliberations shortly after 3 p.m. If found guilty, Rice faces up to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the charge of Class AA felony murder.