When Kouri Richins was convicted in March of murdering her husband, thousands of people watched online streams of the proceedings.

But they weren’t only watching for the verdict.

Many viewers became captivated by District Judge Richard Mrazik, with one Reddit user calling him “the boss of the courtroom,” and others adding that he took no nonsense during the trial.

Now, nearly two months after Mrazik sentenced Richins to life in prison for Eric Richins’ 2022 poisoning, the Summit County mother’s defense attorneys have cited the judge’s actions in the courtroom in their motion for a new trial.

The motion, filed Tuesday, asserted that Richins’ convictions should be vacated and a new trial date should be set because of the court’s “clear demonstration of bias in favor of the state.”

Richins’ legal team — Kathy Nester, Wendy Lewis and Alex Ramos — also said that prosecutors’ repeated reliance on other crimes violated Utah’s rules of evidence, resulting in “substantial, undue prejudice” that denied Richins a fair trial. In addition to murder, Richins was convicted of fraud and forgery. She faces 26 other charges related to financial crimes in a separate case.

Essentially, the defense argues that prosecutors went too far in discussing alleged financial misdeeds, tainting the jury’s perception of Richins and preventing her from getting fair treatment on the murder charge.

In nine pages of the 14-page document, Richins’ defense attorneys reference dozens of incidents during the proceedings where they alleged Mrazik created an “appearance of bias” against Richins in favor of the prosecution.

“Throughout trial, the court repeatedly interrupted defense counsel, corrected counsel in ways that suggested to the jury that counsel was mishandling witnesses, assisted the prosecution with its objections, and curtailed the defense’s objections,” the motion says. “On at least one occasion, the court did so in a manner that made clear to the jury that it was offended by defense counsel.”

Richins’ defense attorneys said Mrazik also interrupted them far more than he did when state prosecutors spoke at trial, and his interruptions of the defense were “curt, cutting off statements and arguments,” while interruptions of the prosecution were often to help with logistical issues and were “followed by apologies.”

Beyond Mrazik’s conduct, Richins’ defense attorneys alleged that state prosecutors went beyond pre-trial guidelines that had limited what evidence of Richins’ financial crimes could be brought up at trial.

These guidelines were set up by Mrazik in a hearing with defense attorneys and state prosecutors, court documents show.

Defense attorneys specifically mentioned one point during the trial where a witness “spent an entire day” testifying about Richins’ repeated financial wrongdoings, while all of the defense’s objections to the information were overruled by Mrazik.

The filing also referred to the state of South Carolina v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh ruling in May, where the South Carolina Supreme Court decided it was “overly prejudicial” to allow state prosecutors to introduce “vast amounts of evidence” of financial misdeeds before the main crime at issue, Richins’ defense attorneys wrote.

The defendant in that case, Alex Murdaugh, had previously been convicted of murder before the South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial.

Richins’ defense attorneys requested that Mrazik be recused from consideration of the motion. They added in the filing that an evidentiary hearing should be scheduled before a new judge to present evidence and arguments in support of the motion for a new trial.