This week marked the opening of the highly anticipated trial of Nichole Rice, the former roommate of Anita Knutson, whose 2007 murder left the Minot community searching for answers. After nearly two decades, the courtroom is now the center of attention as witnesses take the stand and long-buried questions resurface.
At the forefront of the trial was a recently concluded internal investigation involving former Lieutenant Matthew McLeod, who passed away in January. The defense immediately moved to have the charges against Rice dismissed, citing findings from that investigation, including McLeod allegedly instructing his subordinate, Sergeant Carmen Asham, to destroy files from an internal report which had no apparent bearing on the case against Rice.
The investigation also outlined other inappropriate conduct between McLeod and Asham, details of which were included in documents obtained by The Dakotan on Friday, March 14.
Sergeant Asham, a central figure in the Nichole Rice Trial, played a significant role in the investigation into Rice and is expected to testify in the trial this coming Monday.
Judge Richard Hagar determined that this would not be cause to throw out the case and it proceeded into opening statements.
Opening Statements
Opening statements began with prosecutor Tiffany Sorgen, who emphasized that “crime loves silence,” referencing the 15 years it took for the Minot Police Department to charge Nichole Rice. Sorgen told the jury that the delay was not due to lack of effort, but a commitment to ensuring they had the right person.
The charges against Rice came after national television program Cold Justice assisted the Minot Police Department with a renewed investigation. The defense highlighted this collaboration in their opening, questioning what had truly changed since 2007—the year of Anita Knutson’s murder—and the present day.
“It was pressure from a TV show,” said Rick Sand, Defense Attorney with Sand Law. “A nationally syndicated program that came in, worked with the Minot Police Department, didn’t dig up anything of substance, but put an incredible amount of pressure on the State’s Attorney’s Office and police department to bring charges in this case.”
Key Testimonies
So far, only the prosecution has called witnesses—a process that will continue into next week. Prosecutor Tiffany Sorgen indicated they plan to rest their case after presenting five additional witnesses on Monday.
The first witnesses called to the stand were the adoptive parents of Anita Knutson, Sharon and Gordon Knutson. The testimony was pretty simple, focusing on who Anita was and describing the testy relationship that seemed to have developed between Anita Knutson and Rice.
A significant development was when Sorgen was able to confirm with Sharon Knutson that Anita had asked her father, Gordon, to place a lock on her door in the apartment that Anita shared with Rice. It was referenced that Anita did not feel safe there and she thought this might help.
Day 2 of testimony began with the resident property manager at the time, Laura Knapp. Laura Knapp was in a relationship with the maintenance man at the facility, Marty, a person of interest in the case. The prosecution focused on the fact that only two keys had been made for the apartment. Because the door was locked after the murder, this implied that the murderer either had a key to the door or had exited out of the open window.
The defense focused on her relationship with Marty, his tendencies to drink, and his accessibility to the apartment.
The prosecution then shifted its focus to establishing a timeline of events surrounding Anita Knutson’s murder, calling multiple members of the Minot Police Department to the stand.
They began with Captain Dale Plessas, one of the initial officers to respond to the scene in June 2007. Following him were officers Dan Strandberg and David Goodman, both of whom were involved in the early stages of the investigation.
Day 3 continued with testimony from additional Minot Police officers, including Jordon Thompson and Robert Barnard. The prosecution also called Agent Dale Maixner of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI), who provided insight into the broader investigative efforts.
The focus then turned to expert testimony. Dr. Mary Ann Sens, a forensic pathologist, testified to her findings from the autopsy, helping establish the timeline and nature of Anita’s death. Amy Gebhardt, a forensic scientist, followed with testimony on evidence analysis, including DNA findings—or the lack thereof.
The prosecution then brought former Minot PD Master Officer Mikali Talbott to the stand before transitioning to testimony from individuals who worked with Rice. These included Matthew Hanson and Donna Bjelland, both former coworkers who offered insight into Rice’s behavior and demeanor during the time of the murder.
Day 4 centered on witnesses from Nichole Rice’s personal life—individuals who had close ties to both her and Anita Knutson.
The day began with testimony from April Alyea, a mutual friend of both Rice and Knutson, followed by Michelle Moore, another high school friend.
Next on the stand was William May, a former boyfriend of Rice. May testified that during a night when Rice was under the influence of alcohol, she told him she had killed Knutson. He claimed he reported this conversation to the Minot Police Department at the time, though he acknowledged that no official record of that report could be found.
The final witness of the day was Kristina Holler, a former friend of Rice. Holler testified that Rice also confessed to her. According to Holler, around the anniversary of Knutson’s death, Rice became increasingly paranoid, feeling as though people were beginning to suspect her. It was during that time, Holler said, that Rice admitted to the killing, describing Knutson as wearing a white robe when it happened. Holler also stated that she reported this to the Minot Police Department but confessed that she was aware that they had no record of her reporting this.
Things to Pay Attention to
The White Robe
This detail may become a central pillar of the prosecution’s case. Earlier testimony from police officers confirmed that Anita Knutson’s body was removed from the apartment in a standard-issue black body bag, opaque and non-transparent. If, as Kristina Holler testified, Nichole Rice described Anita as wearing a white robe at the time of the murder, the prosecution could argue that such a detail could only have been known by someone who was at the crime scene.
The Confessions
The alleged confessions to both William May and Kristina Holler are critical to the prosecution’s narrative. However, the strength of this testimony was tested during cross-examination. William May claimed he reported Rice’s confession to authorities at the time, but no record of that report exists. Without documentation to support the claim, the defense is likely to argue that the statements lack the corroboration needed to be fully credible in the eyes of the jury.
Rice’s Attitude
Several witnesses described Rice’s demeanor following Anita’s murder as emotionally detached. One notable observation was her preoccupation with her iPod Nano, which stood out to friends and classmates during a time of shock and mourning. Others testified that Rice was often argumentative and could be difficult to get along with, traits that sometimes pushed friends away. While personality alone doesn’t imply guilt, the prosecution may use these descriptions to suggest a pattern of behavior inconsistent with grief.
The Murder Weapon
The murder weapon, a distinctive knife, is expected to be a pivotal piece of evidence as the trial progresses. During opening statements, defense attorney Rick Sand revealed that witness Devin Hall will testify the knife belonged to him, not to Nichole Rice. The weapon is notable for its unique design, featuring an Indian head emblem on the handle. Originally, it had matching emblems on both sides, though one has reportedly fallen off over time.
Hall’s testimony could introduce reasonable doubt, particularly if the jury concludes there is no definitive link between the knife and Rice. That doubt may be further supported by forensic testimony. Amy Gebhardt, a forensic scientist, testified that more than three distinct DNA profiles were found on the knife, including one belonging to a male. The presence of multiple DNA contributors complicates the prosecution’s ability to prove who actually wielded the weapon.
What happens next
Monday is shaping up to be a pivotal day in the trial as the prosecution prepares to call its final five witnesses, including Sergeant Carmen Asham, a key figure in both the original investigation and a recently concluded internal inquiry. Once these testimonies are complete, the prosecution is expected to formally rest its case.
Judge Richard Hagar has instructed the defense to be prepared with at least one or two witnesses ready to testify Monday afternoon, signaling a swift transition into the next phase of the trial.
Court watchers can expect Monday’s proceedings to be particularly compelling, as the prosecution works to tie up several loose threads in its case. Meanwhile, the defense is anticipated to challenge Sergeant Asham’s credibility, especially in light of allegations that she was instructed to destroy unrelated files, a focal point in their argument for dismissal earlier in the trial.
Coverage of the Nichole Rice trial will continue daily, with The Dakotan reporting key developments through the trial’s expected conclusion in early April.
