A family murder plot, a digital trail, and the last defendant standing
April 2026 | Justice Is A Process
On the evening of July 12, 2024, Matthew Restelli drove more than 600 miles from his home in Temecula, California, to American Fork, Utah. He believed he was picking up his wife, Kathryn, and their young children, who had been staying at her mother's house for the past three weeks. Kathryn told him the door was unlocked. Come right in.
He parked carefully in the driveway, leaving his hazard lights on. Kathryn had put cardboard down so his truck wouldn't drip oil on the pavement near her mother's home. He walked to the front door, took off his sandals, and stepped inside.
Within sixty seconds, Matthew Restelli was shot seven times. Three of the bullets hit him in the back. He fell face down on the floor, roughly ten to fifteen feet from where he'd left his shoes.
It took eight minutes before anyone in that house called 911. The neighbor across the duplex wall called first, one minute after the shots, after texting Tracey Grist to ask if everything was okay. When police arrived, Kevin Ellis, Kathryn's brother, was the first to speak. His words: "That guy had a knife."
But the knife was in Matthew's right hand. Matthew was left-handed. He had a bullet wound in that same right wrist. And the knife itself was a unique brand that investigators could not find in any local store. They would later trace it to a company that had been contacted by Tracey Grist.
What started as a reported self-defense shooting inside a family home unraveled into something far darker. Investigators found text messages, internet search histories, AirTag tracking data, and recorded phone calls that painted a picture of a family that didn't just react to a tragedy. According to prosecutors, they planned it.
Three people were charged. Kathryn Restelli, Matthew's wife and the mother of his children, pleaded guilty to murder and conspiracy. She was sentenced to one to fifteen years in prison. The judge ordered her to have no contact with her own children. Kevin Ellis, Kathryn's brother and the man who pulled the trigger, was convicted of murder at trial in January 2026. A jury found he was not acting in self-defense when he shot Matthew seven times. He was sentenced to at least twenty years in prison.
That leaves the woman prosecutors say orchestrated all of it.
Tracey Grist, 60 years old, is the mother of both Kathryn Restelli and Kevin Ellis. The state alleges she was the ringleader of the conspiracy to murder her son-in-law. She is charged with murder, criminal conspiracy to commit murder, obstruction of justice, and domestic violence in the presence of a child. She has pleaded not guilty.
Her trial begins this week in Provo, Utah. Court TV is calling it "The Family Trap Murder Trial."
We are not here to convict Tracey Grist. We are not here to acquit her. We are here to watch whether the State of Utah can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this woman was the architect of her son-in-law's murder. The same system that already convicted the shooter will now try to prove that the person who never touched a gun was the one who made it all happen.
That is the question twelve jurors will answer. And we will be watching every moment of it.
This is Justice Is A Process. Let's begin.
Matthew and Kathryn Restelli lived in Aguanga, California, a small rural community in Riverside County, about 80 miles northeast of San Diego. They had been married for about seven and a half years and had young children together. Matthew worked as a handyman. His mother, Diane Restelli, had been deeply involved in supporting the family, purchasing a seven-acre desert wilderness property and then a manufactured home so they would have stability. That is the kind of family Matthew came from. When people needed help, the Restellis showed up.
By 2024, the marriage was struggling. Diane would later describe the relationship as "a little rocky," tracing some of the difficulty back to 2020 when handyman work dried up. She described Kathryn as having "a very hot and cold type of temperament" with "some episodes of being angry." Diane said she tried to be loving and careful in how she communicated with her daughter-in-law, but something had shifted. Usually, Diane took the whole family on an annual trip to Las Vegas. In 2024, she told them she wouldn't be doing that because of Kathryn's behavior. She said something was "not right." Kathryn stopped speaking to her.
Kathryn, for her part, would later tell investigators she was experiencing verbal abuse, though she acknowledged Matthew had never physically harmed her or the children. She claimed financial struggles and various forms of abuse drove her to leave, though the specifics of those claims remain contested. What is not contested is that by the spring of 2024, Kathryn was actively confiding in her mother and sisters about wanting out of the marriage. The question is what "out" meant.
What is clear from the record is that Kathryn was confiding in her mother, Tracey Grist, and her sisters, Teralyn Fischer and Rachel Jorgensen, about her problems with Matthew. The family's text messages about Matthew became increasingly hostile. They referred to him by the code name "Olaf" so the children wouldn't know who they were discussing.
In one text message to Rachel Jorgensen, Grist wrote: "Matt made it so I want to kill him. When Katy asked about whatever I had said about her being in the camper too much, which I never said anything, he straight up lied. I'm gonna kill him." In another exchange, when Kathryn asked her mother to stop calling Matthew because it was making things worse, Grist responded: "I won't call him, I'll just drive nine hours and strangle him."
The defense will likely argue these were figures of speech. Frustrated language from a mother watching her daughter struggle. The prosecution says they were the early rumblings of a plan that turned real.
On June 20, 2024, Kathryn Restelli rented a Ford Expedition and drove from Temecula to her mother's home in American Fork, Utah, taking the children with her. She left without telling Matthew. The family's truck was left miles from their property, forcing Matthew to bike to it in the dark.
Kathryn told Matthew she needed a "breather." She told others she wanted a divorce. As far as Matthew and his family understood, this was a temporary separation. Kathryn would come back. Things would work out.
She never intended to return.
According to testimony Kathryn later gave at her brother's trial, the initial plan was divorce. But a phone call with a California divorce attorney on July 11, 2024, the day before Matthew's death, changed everything. The attorney told Kathryn that under California law, Matthew could potentially file paperwork to force the children back to the state since she had not established Utah residency. That recording was found on Grist's phone. Kathryn shared it with her mother.
Prosecutors allege that conversation was the turning point. The plan that didn't involve California courts, custody sharing, or loose ends took shape. According to the state's theory, the family found a solution that was permanent.
Matthew deposited money so Kathryn could rent a car and drive back to California. Instead, prosecutors say Grist suggested Kathryn fake an injury. Via text, Grist allegedly recommended Kathryn claim she had sprained her ankle and couldn't make the trip. Kathryn went to an Enterprise rental location in American Fork, knowing she would be turned away because she had only an out-of-state license and a debit card.
When the rental fell through, there was only one option left: Matthew would have to drive to Utah himself to pick up his family.
The family tracked his journey. An AirTag had been placed in Matthew's truck. Kathryn shared the tracking data with her mother, her sister Teralyn Fischer, and her brother Kevin Ellis. Text messages showed family members commenting on Matthew's movements as he made his way across the desert toward Utah. One text from Teralyn to Kathryn read: "I'll be watching the AirTag and let you know as soon as it updates."
Meanwhile, Kathryn's phone revealed she had been searching for information about spousal homicide cases and "what attracts mountain lions to humans." Grist's devices showed searches for Utah gun laws, recent shootings in Utah, and divorce laws.
And then there were the Donna Adelson searches.
Donna Adelson is a Florida woman convicted in the murder-for-hire of her former son-in-law, Florida State University law professor Dan Markel. That case is one of the most high-profile mother-in-law murder plots in American criminal history. Markel was shot in his garage in 2014 after his divorce from Wendi Adelson. It took years for the investigation to work its way up the chain, but ultimately five people were convicted, including Donna Adelson, who prosecutors said was the driving force behind the plot. She was convicted in 2024, the same year Matthew Restelli was killed.
The parallels are hard to miss. In both cases, the state alleges a mother-in-law orchestrated the killing of a son-in-law during or after a contentious family dispute over children and custody. In both cases, the actual shooter was someone else. In both cases, the mother-in-law is accused of being the architect, not the executioner.
Prosecutors allege Grist's internet search history included queries for "Katherine Magbanua," a key player in the Markel murder, as well as "Where was Donna Adelson arrested?" and a Dateline episode focusing on the Adelson family. Grist also allegedly searched "how to get my U.S. passport fast" and the phrase "its happening meme."
The passport search is particularly notable. If Grist was simply curious about a true crime case, that's one thing. But searching for how to get a passport fast alongside searches about a woman who orchestrated her son-in-law's murder suggests planning and awareness that what was about to happen carried consequences she might need to flee from. At least, that is how the prosecution will frame it.
This is the kind of digital evidence that does not require expert interpretation. The prosecution's argument writes itself: a mother-in-law accused of orchestrating her son-in-law's murder was researching a famous case involving a mother-in-law who orchestrated her son-in-law's murder. Whether the defense can explain it away is one of the central questions of this trial.
The knife found in Matthew Restelli's hand after the shooting is one of the most critical pieces of physical evidence in this case. It was a folding pocket knife with a window-breaker and seatbelt cutter, a specific and unusual brand. Detective Nordin testified that he could not locate that brand at any local stores. The investigation eventually traced the knife to a company that had been in contact with Tracey Grist. According to court documents, Grist had sent an email to the company, ostensibly about canceling a service for a friend's late husband, but the connection placed her in direct communication with the seller of the weapon that would later be planted on the victim.
Kathryn testified that three to four days before the killing, Grist showed her the knife wrapped in a glove, stored in a laundry room basket. The plan, Kathryn said, was to place it in Matthew's hand after the shooting to support the self-defense story.
When officers found the knife, it was in Matthew's right hand, despite him being left-handed. His right wrist had a bullet wound, making it physically unlikely he was gripping a knife in that hand during the shooting. The blade was facing the wrong direction, and only half the handle was in his grip. Detective Nordin described the positioning as looking like it had been deliberately placed. The officers noted it before anyone told them Matthew was left-handed.
If the prosecution can prove Grist purchased that knife and planned its use before the shooting, it becomes one of the strongest pieces of premeditation evidence in the case. It goes beyond texts and searches. It is a physical object, purchased in advance, used exactly as Kathryn says it was planned to be used.
According to Kathryn's testimony at her brother's trial, preparations were made at the Grist home in the hours before Matthew's arrival. Toys were removed. Inexpensive blankets were placed on the couch. The magnetic screen door was taken off to make entry easier.
Kathryn testified that she understood her husband was going to be shot, and that either her mother or Kevin would do it. She said that three to four days before the killing, Grist showed her a knife wrapped in a glove, kept in a laundry room basket. The plan, according to Kathryn, was to place the knife in Matthew's hand after the shooting to make it look like self-defense.
That afternoon, Grist and Kevin Ellis left together for sushi around 2 p.m. and returned around 3 p.m. Prosecutors say this was when the final details were discussed. Grist's younger daughter, Rory, was told not to be at the house because Grist did not want her around Matthew. Another child, Jacob, happened to be out skateboarding with friends.
Around 9:30 p.m., Kathryn gave her children melatonin and put them to bed upstairs. She went upstairs and waited.
Matthew arrived around 10 p.m. He parked on the cardboard. He took off his sandals. He stepped inside.
Kathryn testified that she heard his diesel truck, heard the doorbell ring, heard the door open, and then heard gunshots. She heard Matthew say "ow, ow." Then she heard her mother and Kevin talking about placing the knife in his hand. Kevin reportedly said to be careful because Matthew might still be kicking.
Kathryn shouted downstairs to call 911. Grist came upstairs and told her Matthew was dead. Eight minutes passed before Grist finally dialed.
When officers arrived, the lights in the house were off. Matthew was face down on the floor with a knife in his right hand, blade facing the wrong direction, with only half the handle in his grip. He was left-handed. He had a bullet wound in that wrist.
Kevin Ellis's first words to police: "That guy had a knife."
In the hours and days after the shooting, Grist gave two recorded interviews to police. She told officers they had been expecting Matthew but maintained she was startled to find him inside the home. She described him as "acting different" and "agitated," but said he had said hello to her before going to speak with Kathryn. Then she heard gunshots.
She told Matthew's mother, Diane Restelli, the news the next day with two words: "Matt is dead." When Diane assumed he had died in a car accident, Grist did not correct her.
Diane Restelli recorded a phone call with Grist in the days after the killing. In that call, Grist repeatedly claimed she was in shock and did not want to talk about it. She said she had attempted lifesaving treatment on Matthew after he was shot. Diane pushed back, questioning why Kevin had access to a gun.
Diane said what anyone listening to this case would say: "This whole thing feels like a setup." Grist's response: "We would never ever plan to hurt someone."
The morning after the killing, Grist texted Kathryn and told her not to tell Diane "about anything that happened" because it could be used against Kevin.
Matthew Restelli was 42 years old. He was a father. He worked as a handyman. He lived on a rural property in Aguanga, California, on land his mother had purchased for his family. By all accounts from his side of the family, he was a man trying to keep his marriage together and bring his children home.
His mother, Diane, has described him as someone she spoke with daily, someone whose advice she valued, someone who was doing his best for his kids. His younger brother, Jonathan, addressed Kevin Ellis at sentencing with words that carried the weight of what was taken: "You stole a lifetime of memories from them," referring to Matthew's children. Jonathan told the court that the children found out about their uncle's involvement from other kids at school. "They came home confused, trying to make sense of it," he said. "Saying things no child should ever have to hear about their father."
At Kevin Ellis's sentencing, Diane addressed the defendant directly: "Your common sense should have kicked in. Your family gave you bad advice and direction. Instead of thinking for yourself and recognizing the evil family traits, you did the unthinkable: shooting my son, Matt, multiple times as he was running for his life."
Running for his life. Three of the seven bullets hit him in the back.
Matthew drove more than 600 miles because he believed his wife wanted him there. He put cardboard down so his truck wouldn't drip oil. He took off his shoes at the door. He was an expected guest. The state says he walked into an ambush. He deserves to be remembered as more than a case number.
Tracey Marie Grist is 60 years old. She lived in American Fork, Utah, in a duplex. She is the mother of at least five children: Kathryn Restelli, Kevin Ellis, Rachel Jorgensen, Teralyn Fischer, and at least two younger children, Rory and Jacob.
Prosecutors describe her as the matriarch who pulled the strings. At Kevin Ellis's sentencing, the state called her the "ringleader." They pointed to her search history, the knife purchase, the text messages, and the 911 delay as evidence that she planned, directed, and covered up her son-in-law's murder.
Grist has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Her defense strategy has not been publicly detailed, but her son's defense attorney, during Kevin Ellis's trial, repeatedly pointed at Grist as the mastermind, arguing Ellis was "duped" by his mother. Whether Grist's own defense team accepts, rejects, or reframes that characterization will be one of the most important dynamics of this trial.
Tracey Grist is presumed innocent. She is entitled to a vigorous defense, a fair trial, and a jury that follows the evidence wherever it leads. That's what we're here to watch.
Kathryn Restelli, 37, is Grist's daughter and Matthew's wife. She pleaded guilty to murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and felony discharge of a firearm. She was sentenced in September 2025 to one to fifteen years in prison for the second-degree felony counts and five years to life for the first-degree felony. Judge Roger Griffin ordered her to have no contact with her children. She testified at Kevin Ellis's trial that the family conspired together and that she lured her husband to the home knowing he would be killed. She is expected to testify again at her mother's trial.
Kevin Ellis, 35, is Grist's son and the man who fired the shots that killed Matthew Restelli. He claimed self-defense at trial. The jury did not believe him. He was convicted of murder, obstruction of justice, domestic violence in the presence of children, possession of a firearm as a restricted person, and possession of a controlled substance on January 29, 2026. He was acquitted of criminal conspiracy. On March 31, 2026, he was sentenced to fifteen years to life for murder, consecutive to additional terms for the other charges, totaling at least twenty years before he is eligible for parole consideration.
Judge Roger W. Griffin presides in 4th District Court in Provo. He has handled all three cases in this matter, including the severing of Grist's case from Ellis's.
Deputy Utah County Attorney Adam Pomeroy is prosecuting. He laid out the state's four-phase theory at Ellis's trial: get Matthew to Utah, get him inside the house, surprise and shoot him, cover it up.
Diane Restelli, Matthew's mother, has been one of the most powerful voices in these proceedings. She recorded the phone call with Grist, testified at the preliminary hearing, and delivered victim impact statements at both Kathryn's sentencing and Kevin's sentencing.
Rachel Jorgensen, another of Grist's daughters, has testified about her mother's involvement in the plot. She is the recipient of the "I'm gonna kill him" text message.
Detective Joseph Nordin of the American Fork Police Department is the lead investigator. He is part of the Utah County Major Crimes Task Force and has testified at both the preliminary hearing and Ellis's trial about the crime scene irregularities, digital evidence, and the knife.
Tracey Grist faces five felony charges. Each one requires the State of Utah to prove its elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is entirely on the prosecution. Grist does not have to prove anything.
What it means: Under Utah law, a person can be guilty of murder not only as the person who pulled the trigger, but as someone who solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided another person to commit the killing. The State must prove Grist intentionally participated in causing Matthew Restelli's death.
What the State must prove: That Matthew Restelli is dead; that his death was caused intentionally or knowingly; and that Tracey Grist either committed the act herself or intentionally aided, solicited, or encouraged another person to commit the act.
Potential sentence: Five years to life in prison, or fifteen years to life if the court determines aggravating factors exist.
What it means: The State alleges Grist entered into an agreement with Kathryn Restelli and Kevin Ellis to commit murder, and that at least one of them took a substantial step toward carrying out the plan.
What the State must prove: That Grist agreed with one or more persons to commit murder; that she intended for murder to be committed; and that she or one of the co-conspirators performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Potential sentence: One to fifteen years in prison.
Key note: A jury acquitted Kevin Ellis of this same conspiracy charge at his trial in January 2026, while convicting him of the murder itself. That acquittal does not bind this jury, but the defense will almost certainly raise it.
What it means: The State alleges Grist took actions after the shooting to interfere with the investigation, including the delayed 911 call, the planted knife, and misleading statements to police.
What the State must prove: That Grist, with the intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation or prosecution of the offense, engaged in conduct that obstructed or impeded a criminal investigation or proceeding.
Potential sentence: One to fifteen years in prison.
What it means: Matthew and Kathryn's children were in the home when their father was killed. Under Utah law, committing an act of domestic violence in the presence of a child is a separate offense. Two counts indicate two children were present.
What the State must prove: That Grist committed or was a party to an act of domestic violence; that a child was present in the home at the time; and that Grist knew or should have known a child was present.
Potential sentence: Zero to five years in prison per count.
If convicted on all counts and sentenced consecutively, Grist faces the possibility of spending the rest of her life in prison. The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole would ultimately determine her release eligibility.
There are children at the center of this case who did not ask for any of it. Matthew and Kathryn's kids were in the home when their father was killed. They were upstairs, reportedly given melatonin to help them sleep. They lost their father to gunshots in their grandmother's house. Their mother is in prison and has been ordered to have no contact with them. Their uncle is serving at least twenty years. Their grandmother is on trial.
At Kevin Ellis's sentencing, Matthew's brother Jonathan told the court that the children learned about their uncle's involvement from kids at school. They came home confused. The judge at Kathryn's sentencing told her directly: "Your children are victims of your actions. They'll be lifetime victims of your actions."
The two domestic violence counts in this case exist because of those children. Whatever the jury decides about Grist's role in the conspiracy, the fact that this alleged murder was carried out with children sleeping upstairs adds a layer that transcends legal arguments. These are real kids whose entire family structure was destroyed in a single night. They are being raised by Matthew's family now. Diane Restelli told the court her family is committed to making sure the children are in loving hands.
When we talk about the system and whether it works, these children are the reason it has to. Not as abstraction. Not as legal theory. As real people who need the truth to come out, whatever that truth is, so they can eventually understand what happened to their father and why.
Here's the thing about this case. The state says Tracey Grist was the architect of a family murder plot. Her own son's defense said the same thing at his trial. Now she stands alone as the last defendant, and the digital trail she left behind has to answer whether she was the ringleader or just a mother caught in something her children set in motion.
Both of Grist's co-defendants have already faced consequences. Kathryn pleaded guilty and is serving time. Kevin was convicted and sentenced to at least twenty years. Grist is the final piece. Prosecutors have called her the ringleader. But calling someone a ringleader and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt are two very different things.
The most fascinating wrinkle in this case happened at Kevin Ellis's trial in January 2026. The jury convicted him of murder. They found he was not acting in self-defense. They found he was not even acting under imperfect self-defense, meaning he did not genuinely believe he was justified. But that same jury acquitted him of criminal conspiracy.
Think about that for a moment. Twelve people decided Kevin Ellis murdered Matthew Restelli, but they were not convinced the state proved he was part of a conspiracy to do it. His defense argued he was "duped" by Kathryn and their mother into being a "champion without knowing." The jury apparently found enough uncertainty in that argument to acquit on conspiracy while still convicting on murder.
That acquittal does not legally bind the jury in Grist's case. Different defendant, different evidence, different trial. But the defense will absolutely use it. If the man who pulled the trigger was acquitted of conspiracy, how does the state prove the woman who never touched a gun was the one who planned everything?
Prosecutors will build around the digital evidence. The text messages expressing a desire to kill Matthew. The internet searches for Donna Adelson. The purchase of the knife that was planted. The AirTag tracking. The staged crime scene. The eight-minute delay in calling 911. The recorded phone calls in which Grist misled Matthew's mother. The instruction to Kathryn not to tell Diane anything.
Deputy County Attorney Adam Pomeroy laid out a four-phase theory at Ellis's trial that applies even more directly to Grist: get Matthew to Utah, get him inside the house, surprise and shoot him, cover it all up. The state's theory is that Grist was involved in every phase.
They will also have testimony from Kathryn Restelli, who is expected to take the stand again. Kathryn testified at Ellis's trial that the conspiracy involved all three of them, that her mother showed her the knife days before the killing, that her mother came upstairs to tell her Matthew was dead, and that her mother instructed her on what to say afterward.
Rachel Jorgensen, another of Grist's daughters, has also testified about her mother's involvement. She is expected to appear again.
Grist's defense strategy has not been publicly detailed. But we can anticipate the terrain based on what has already been argued and what the evidence allows.
At Ellis's trial, his defense attorney Scott Williams told the jury that Grist was "a mastermind" who "took advantage of Kevin and his mental health issues." Williams said Grist and Kathryn "convinced Ellis to be their champion without him knowing." That argument was made by Ellis's defense, not Grist's. Whether Grist's defense team accepts that characterization, rejects it, or constructs an entirely different narrative is the central unknown heading into this trial.
The defense could argue Grist is a mother who said reckless things out of frustration but never intended for anyone to die. The "I'm gonna kill him" texts could be framed as the kind of hyperbolic venting that millions of people engage in without ever meaning it literally. The Donna Adelson searches could be characterized as morbid curiosity about a case in the news, not a blueprint. The knife purchase could be contested or contextualized.
The biggest challenge for the defense is the totality. Any one piece of evidence might be explainable on its own. The texts were venting. The searches were curiosity. The knife was for something else. The 911 delay was shock. But when all of it stacks together, in sequence, leading to a man being shot in the back inside this woman's home, explaining away each individual piece becomes much harder.
The biggest asset for the defense is the Ellis conspiracy acquittal. If the state's own conspiracy case couldn't survive the Ellis trial, Grist's team will argue the same weakness exists here.
Every case that comes through this channel gets the same treatment. We watch the system. We ask whether it's working the way it's supposed to. Whether the burden of proof is being respected. Whether the defendant's rights are being protected. Whether the process is fair, regardless of how we feel about the allegations.
My father, Steven M. Askin, spent his career making sure the system operated fairly. He believed due process was not just for sympathetic defendants. It was for everyone. Especially the people who make it hard to remember that.
Tracey Grist is accused of helping to plan the murder of a young father. The evidence against her is alarming on its face. None of that changes her constitutional rights. None of that lowers the standard of proof. The state has to prove its case, and we are here to make sure they do it right.
This trial will put conspiracy law under a microscope. Conspiracy charges require proof of an agreement. Not just knowledge that something might happen. Not just proximity to bad actors. Not just after-the-fact behavior that looks suspicious. The state must prove Grist entered into an agreement to commit murder and intended for that murder to happen.
The challenge with conspiracy cases is they often rely on circumstantial evidence. People do not usually put murder agreements in writing. The state will argue that the totality of Grist's conduct, the texts, the searches, the knife, the tracking, the staging, the delay, the instructions to keep quiet, constitutes the evidence of that agreement. The defense will argue each piece has an innocent explanation.
We will be watching whether the jury instructions clearly define what constitutes an "agreement" under Utah conspiracy law and whether the prosecution's evidence actually meets that standard or simply paints a picture of a dysfunctional family that looks guilty after the fact.
Kathryn Restelli is expected to be the prosecution's star witness. She is a convicted felon. She pleaded guilty to the same murder she is testifying about. She has a sentencing incentive: her plea deal and her testimony could influence her future parole hearings. Prosecutors stated at Ellis's trial that Kathryn's plea agreement did not require her to testify. But she chose to, and the state will argue she did so because the truth needs to come out.
None of this means she is lying. People who participate in crimes are often the best witnesses to those crimes. But the system recognizes the risk. Utah law requires juries to view accomplice testimony with caution. The defense will hammer Kathryn's credibility, her motivations, and every inconsistency between her statements to police, her plea allocution, and her trial testimony.
At Ellis's trial, Kathryn admitted she was not honest when she and her mother were originally arrested. She told the jury she was coming forward because "the truth needs to come out." She also acknowledged she believed cooperating and testifying would help her case at parole. The jury convicted Ellis of murder based in part on her testimony but acquitted him of conspiracy. That means they believed some of what she said and not all of it. Grist's jury will have to make the same assessment.
The critical question for this trial is whether Kathryn's testimony about her mother specifically holds up. At Ellis's trial, Kathryn described conversations between herself and Grist. She described Grist showing her the knife. She described Grist coming upstairs after the shooting. She described Grist's instructions about what to say. If the jury believes Kathryn on these points, the conspiracy charge becomes much stronger. If they have doubts, the state falls back on the digital evidence, which is substantial but requires the jury to draw inferences about Grist's intent.
After his conviction, Kevin Ellis spoke about the case in a jailhouse phone call with one of his sisters. That call was played at his sentencing. In it, Ellis said: "I should have said no." The prosecution used it to demonstrate that Ellis knew what he was doing and chose to participate. But "I should have said no" also implies someone asked. The prosecution will argue that someone was his mother.
Whether that jail call comes into evidence at Grist's trial remains to be seen. If it does, it becomes another arrow pointing at Grist as the person directing the plot. If it doesn't, the defense avoids having the jury hear her own convicted son suggesting he was following someone else's lead.
There is something structurally unfair about being the last person tried in a multi-defendant case, and the system should acknowledge it. By the time Grist's trial begins, the public narrative is already set. Her daughter pleaded guilty. Her son was convicted. The details have been reported, analyzed, and discussed for months. Finding twelve jurors who have genuinely not formed an opinion will be challenging.
Grist also faces the accumulated weight of two prior proceedings worth of evidence, testimony, and convictions. The prosecution has essentially had two practice runs. They know which witnesses are effective, which evidence resonates, and which arguments land. The defense is seeing this courtroom for the first time.
None of this is illegal. Cases are severed and tried separately all the time. But it means we should watch the voir dire process carefully, pay attention to how the judge manages juror exposure to prior proceedings, and note whether the defense is given adequate space to present Grist's case independently of what has already been decided about her co-defendants.
The presumption of innocence is not just a legal formality. It is the whole game. If the system cannot maintain it for the last defendant standing, it cannot maintain it for anyone.
This trial will likely feature many of the same witnesses who appeared at Kevin Ellis's trial, but now testifying specifically about Grist's conduct. Detective Nordin will walk through the crime scene, the digital evidence, and the knife trail. Diane Restelli will likely testify about the phone calls with Grist and the morning she learned her son was dead. Kathryn Restelli is expected to take the stand again, this time focused on her mother's specific statements, actions, and instructions before and after the shooting. Rachel Jorgensen, who received the "I'm gonna kill him" text, has already provided testimony about her mother's involvement and is expected to appear again.
The digital evidence will be central. Text messages, search histories, the AirTag tracking data, phone records, and the email connecting Grist to the knife's seller will all be presented to the jury. The prosecution will try to build a timeline that shows Grist's involvement at every stage: the escalating hostility, the planning, the day of the killing, and the cover-up.
For the defense, cross-examination of Kathryn Restelli will be the most critical moment of the trial. If they can undermine Kathryn's credibility, particularly regarding what Grist specifically knew and when, the conspiracy charge weakens significantly. The defense will likely argue that Kathryn has every reason to shift blame to her mother, that her plea deal incentivizes cooperation, and that her admitted dishonesty during the initial investigation makes her testimony unreliable.
The jury will have to decide whether the state has proven that Grist was a knowing, intentional participant in a murder plot, or whether the evidence, no matter how disturbing, falls short of that standard. That is the question we will be watching them answer.
Starting today, we are in that courtroom. Every day of this trial.
You will get live broadcasts as testimony happens. No Breaks Editions for uninterrupted viewing within 24 hours. Trial Analysis Podcast episodes breaking down every day. Key Moments and testimony clips so you can hear every word that matters.
This is not speculation. This is not commentary over freeze frames. We let the testimony speak. We tell the story of why it matters. We watch the system work and we make sure it works the way it's supposed to.
Tracey Grist is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not a formality. That is the foundation of everything we do here.
The state says she planned all of it. Her co-defendants' own lawyers said the same thing. Now a jury decides.
Let's watch together.
Subscribe to Justice Is A Process on YouTube for live trial coverage, No Breaks editions, and breaking news as it happens.
🔴 Subscribe on YouTube90,000+ subscribers watching the system with us
Discussion