GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #68

Status
Not open for further replies.
lol at "CT values its prison stays!"

I see why the tax payers resent housing Michelle, but the tax payers also paid to investigate and try her. She spent a poopie-ton of her relatives' money to avoid incarceration. She lost. She has to go to prison. And it's because the tax payers sent her there. They booked the trip. They have to pay.

What gets my goat is she will be able to make it much better a stay than others simply because of money. And she will be able to reintegrate after her sentence because someone in or near her family will hire her in some way.

I don't mind that for her. I think everyone should have the same experience.

As for child support, I'm 100% on board with (fair) prison earnings being garnished, perhaps at a higher rate than average since the prisoner has no housing costs. That could go a long way to keeping a community connection for the prisoner. It also might make the parents or surrogates (shout out to grandparents to babies with incarcerated parents!) have a much better financial experience- if nothing else making visits affordable.

It's not like the state loses anything by paying minimum wage for minimum wage work.

MOO
Bbm, hi Ruminations, I don't understand what you are attempting to say.
 
Doesn't the Court have special jurisdiction, special powers to seize anything in its courtroom? Isn't that a right you waive upon entering? I'm thinking of members of the public who might chance to take a photo in the courtroom. Marshals seize those without pleases. Then do they need a warrant? Or is the presiding judge's directive warrant enough?

Never thought I'd have to ask what happens to personal property of a defendant if she's caught disseminating effectively twice-sealed documents while court is in session...

Seems like you surrender certain rights if you abuse Court privilege...

JMO
 
I was just wondering, was it ever determined who turned off the security cameras at JFd's home in New Canaan?
No info on the Welles security cameras. So many folks in NC don't turn them on and NCPD are always sending out reminders to activate security systems. People have a false sense of security in town imo and its sad to see it continuing. Waveny Park though did get security cameras eventually even though they were never supported by the former Chief who is now gone and the former first selectman who is also now gone. It really changed my view of the Town after so many people came forward to ask for improved security in Waveny and Irwin but were dismissed by many on the Board of Selectman. Very disappointing imo to not see responsive government in New Canaan.
MOO
 
Schoenhorn indicates he is not sure who will be handling MT appeal. My best guess is that it will be a new player. Why that person was not on board and at the trial I guess shows the naïveté of the Troc family. Or they lack of economic resources. They may be all tapped out. Or their default will be Shoe. Judge Randolph ran a tight court so I m not seeing an appeal with any teeth.

“Schoenhorn said there are at least a dozen, if not 20, issues he can already identify as potential complaints he would file with the state Appellate Court, though, he added, "It’s not yet clear if I’m going to do the appeal."
"In my personal view, I believe that what the prosecution did was present a narrative based on inadmissible hearsay and speculation," Schoenhorn said after the verdicts. "And they basically created a scenario or a story in the absence of evidence, but it was enough to convince this jury."

Somehow I'm thinking it won't be JS. IMO, he's lucky to still be walking. Mama T. may feel he was ineffective and done let her beloved, innocent daughter down.If I were him I'd fade into the background, right quick.
 
I really don’t know the answer to this.

First of all - taking her computer without a warrant, (I have no idea if they got a warrant), is the same issue as her phone. It’s full of information protected by privacy rights. But it’s possible they could take the computer with a warrant. Whether anything on the computer unrelated to the Contempt charge could ever be used against her would be subject to the rules of evidence.

I don’t think she will testify. She’s in too much trouble.

A court could require “proof” that all copies were destroyed- but the court would have to rely on sworn affidavits that all holders of copies of the document (who aren’t allowed to have it) have destroyed electronic and paper copies.

If you lie in an affidavit you can be charged with perjury which is a another criminal offense with significant jail time and fines as consequences. So in MT’s case - it probably behooves her to consent to surrender of her laptop.

If others are required to submit affidavits, and those individual keep the document and/or distribute it - then those persons could be charged with perjury (for lying to the Court in the affidavit) and contempt of court for violating the protective order.

I think what is also likely is some kind of new order protecting the document with more specificity based on the present situation.
Thanks @lucegirl. Seems messy and tricky.

Will just follow up with Judge Heller office, Victims Advocate Stamford Courtroom and whoever is the top of the food chain on the State side as it seems like the senior attorney for Stamford/Norwalk hasn't done anything on the issue that we have any visibility on either regarding the reports (he iirc was present when Judge White released it to Jon Schoenhorn and imo did zero to insure the security standards of Family Court were maintained so won't bother with him), to see if perhaps any of them can do something and also rope the MT Trial attorney's into the loop of accountability as there are now multiple hard copies floating around outside of Family Court with no apparent security.

It surprised me to see no obvious coordination on the issue between Criminal Court and Family Court as I cannot imagine this is a new issue or unique to CT. But, probably par for the course in bureaucracies like the judiciary. I simply don't know but will follow up.

MOO
 
I think CL will probably give a victim impact statement at MT’s sentencing. She has probably already started working on it. Who else do you think may?

Do you think anyone on MT’s side will speak (if allowed)? Who would you guess?
How many statements are allowed? (If there's a limit?) How must the givers of the statements be related to the victim? (if there must be any relationship? Could I give one?)

Websleuths has taught me that this varies by state.

MOO
 
Somehow I'm thinking it won't be JS. IMO, he's lucky to still be walking. Mama T. may feel he was ineffective and done let her beloved, innocent daughter down.If I were him I'd fade into the background, right quick.
I'd track down Bowman and share a pitcher of margaritas with him. And a round or two of tequila shots.

And an Uber, of course.

MOO
 
I went back and listened to the exact words of JS after the prosecutor requested her bail be revoked.

He stated: "As far as I know, Connecticut does not have a no-bond rule until sentences and appeal so that would not even be within the purview of the court..."

I suppose the "as far as I know" was his attachment to the lie - that surely this seasoned judge would know without research.
^^BBM

JLS may as well have blurted out ...'money talks and our most fortunate defendants may use their money to extend their freedom post conviction-- if only for an additional 30-90 days!'

In other words, although they've recognized a defendant doesn't have a constitutional right to bail post conviction (or while awaiting an appeal), instead, CT seems to have long relied on the state's statute NOT PROHIBITING post conviction bail (i.e., applying 1899 common law authority).

And based on the comments/inquires, I think it's apparent this unique practice (of post conviction bail) is not followed in most other states.
____________________

A criminal defendant in Connecticut does not have a constitutional, statutory, or common law (judge-made) right to be released on bail while he appeals his conviction. But he does have a statutory right to appeal his conviction and courts have the common law authority to grant bail to defendants prior to the time their sentence begins while they are still under the courts jurisdiction.

Although CGS § 54-95 refers to bail, it does not give the court the authority to release convicted defendants on bail.

Rather this authority apparently is derived from the court's inherent common law power to grant a defendant bail after conviction but before the sentence has been executed (State v. Vaughn, 71 Conn. 457, (1899); Winnick v. Reilly, 100 Conn. 291 (1924); State v. Chisolm, 29 Conn. Supp. 339 (1971); Wayans v. Wolfe, 30 Conn. Supp. 60 (1972); Rose v. Nickerson 29 Conn. Supp. 81 (1970)).

Thus, the decision as to whether to grant a defendant bail is within the court's sound discretion.

But our Supreme Court has long cautioned that this authority should be exercised with great caution and rarely allowed when the crime is serious.

The power to admit to bail after conviction is not a statutory but a common-law power; the constitutional provision (concerning bail) does not apply; bail is then a matter of absolute discretion, to be exercised by the court, however, with great caution and rarely when the crime is serious (State v. Vaughn, 71 Conn.)).

We found no indication in Connecticut case law that the legislature may not, by statute, modify or eliminate this inherent authority although this precise question has apparently never been addressed by our courts.

But, our Supreme Court has made it clear that our courts have the inherent constitutional authority to release defendants on bail as part of their authority to remedy constitutional violations under the appropriate circumstances (Gaines v. Manson, 194 Conn. 510, 529 (1984)). The Gaines case involved unconstitutional delays in processing appeals.




ETA: I also believe the Court granting MT post conviction bail at $6M cash or surety (triple her pretrial bail) was the equivalent of "no bail."

I'm reminded of recent action last year by the Colorado State Supreme Court where the state Constitution confers absolute right to bail in all cases, except for capital offenses, where the proof is evident and the presumption is great that the accused committed the crime, until the higher court ruled that the terms capital murder or capital offenses implies death penalty, which is not allowed in Colorado.

As most here know, Colorado has no shortage of first-degree murderers and suddenly they cannot be denied bail?!!

In response, I've never seen so many Courts grant subject defendants bail at $10M cash or surety! Essentially, the equivalent of "no bail."

And good to see Colorado currently has two bills pending to make the November ballot. The goal here is to make sure (and/or restore) that murder suspects can’t be bailed out of jail.

 
No info on the Welles security cameras. So many folks in NC don't turn them on and NCPD are always sending out reminders to activate security systems. People have a false sense of security in town imo and its sad to see it continuing. Waveny Park though did get security cameras eventually even though they were never supported by the former Chief who is now gone and the former first selectman who is also now gone. It really changed my view of the Town after so many people came forward to ask for improved security in Waveny and Irwin but were dismissed by many on the Board of Selectman. Very disappointing imo to not see responsive government in New Canaan.
MOO
JF was renting that house … maybe JF didn’t really have a choice to install.
 
Did anyone hear why the contempt hearing was moved to later in the month? Assuming they manage to make bail, I wonder if any jail time she may be sentenced to for contempt would happen right away and then they would have paid the bond fee for just a few weeks of freedom.
 
Doesn't the Court have special jurisdiction, special powers to seize anything in its courtroom? Isn't that a right you waive upon entering? I'm thinking of members of the public who might chance to take a photo in the courtroom. Marshals seize those without pleases. Then do they need a warrant? Or is the presiding judge's directive warrant enough?

Never thought I'd have to ask what happens to personal property of a defendant if she's caught disseminating effectively twice-sealed documents while court is in session...

Seems like you surrender certain rights if you abuse Court privilege...

JMO
You are probably right about just the pure seizure and retention of it physically. And - if the Court wants to permanently dispossess her of the computer as the means to remedy the Contempt and to enforce the protective order, they can do that. I was surprised the Court did not snatch it right then and there.

I was speculating further that if the State wants to use the electronic data / contents of the computer, the admissibility of the data is still subject to the rules of evidence. We don’t know what evidence the State has in addition to her laptop - did the State need to get a computer expert to look for the sealed document and other metadata about when the document was open? Or - are the affidavits from the people in the gallery who saw the document displayed compelling enough on thier own (these were offered by the State to the Court the following day). We don’t know if there is any unseen camera footage where the screen is clearer. We don’t know if there is a witness who will confirm she had the document on her computer and shared it with random people while was ranting about how inconvenient Jennifer was to her.

That doesn’t mean the data on the computer can’t come in without a warrant (eg - MT consented, exigency) - but I wouldn’t put it past her crew based on thier litigation style to make hay out of the State having unfettered access to her entire computer, personal/protected/non-Contempt related data, while looking for the potentially relevant data in order to build the Contempt charge.
 
Oh my, looks like Jon Schoenhorn is going to place Atty Andrew Bowman back into the spotlight yet again....this is all quite above my pay grade but my recollection was that Horn tried to do this previously in pretrial with Judge R denying his motion regarding "ineffective assistance of counsel".

I don't know how the habeas petition might work or be different from what Horn has already tried? Perhaps @lucegirl knows as its above my pay grade.

Clip from above SA article:

"Prior to any appeal, Schoenhorn said he would first file a habeas petition, challenging Troconis' conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel"".

"Speaking to the media after the verdicts on Friday, Schoenhorn cited the hours of videos showing police interrogating Troconis that prosecutors played during the trial. During these interrogations, Troconis' account of the day Jennifer Dulos disappeared changed while her lawyer at the time, Andrew Bowman, sat by her side".

"Anything can be used against you, and that's what I feel was done here," Schoenhorn said, distinguishing Troconis from Pawel Gumienny, the former employee of Fotis Dulos who was one of the state's most significant witnesses during the trial after his lawyer obtained an immunity agreement from prosecutors".

"I have no insight as to why any lawyer without either an immunity agreement or a proffer agreement would walk their client into a police interrogation without knowing very much about the offense," Schoenhorn said, referencing, but not naming Bowman, who did not immediately return a message seeking comment".

MOO

Except JLS spent days fighting that fight (ineffective assistance of counsel) last Nov/Dec during the suppression of evidence hearings-- trying to keep the police interviews or portions out, and it failed.

During the hearing, similar to JLS, Bowman was recognized by the Court as a highly experienced lawyer in good standing with decades of experience.

Be reminded that Andrew Bowman was present with MT at all three police interviews. IMO, MT thinks she's the smartest person in the room, and spoke to police against Bowman's advice-- most likely after insisting she had nothing to hide. I think MT really just wanted to fish police to know what they had.

If speaking against his advice, I wouldn't be surprised if Bowman had similar conversations (as Urso) with the state's attorney (R. Colangelo).

MT hired JLS in Feb 2020 after she was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Troconis gets new lawyer.

We know that Pawel Gumienny also talked to police against the advice of his counsel. He started with a verbal agreement with the states attorney in 2019.


2/7/2024

Urso commented on how his client may have been "too cooperative" with police during their search efforts for Jennifer.

"Early on, he was talking to the police against my advice,” Urso said. "He went in there and talked to the police before he hired me, before we had the immunity agreement."

Concerning Gumienny's immunity deal, it started as a verbal agreement between Urso and the state's attorney in 2019 and was put in writing in December 2023. It promised that Gumienny would not be charged with hindering prosecution if he cooperated with investigators.

"The immunity deal was originally not an ironclad, it was just sort of a conversation between myself and the state’s attorney," Urso said.

ETA: Add link re. Bowman

 
Last edited:
Its worse imo as she KNEW there were no houses at FORE under construction. Sturbridge in NC was done and had a dumpster.

IMO it was a bad lie by MT and so to see the Troconis crew repeating it is simply nuts too. The bags on Albany imo also looked totally different from construction debris and MT would know this if she had done it before.

I also don't know why LE didn't question her more on the issue of no construction at FORE as she knew everything that was going on there too even through she distanced herself in the LE interviews about FORE most likely because of the financial issues present imo.

MOO

No joke, trash runs are a bi-weekly family activity…including your girlfriends elderly father.

Crazy!
 
No joke, trash runs are a bi-weekly family activity…including your girlfriends elderly father.

Crazy!
"Hey, Pops, after you are done with today's cardiac surgery, wanna drive around with me and do some trash dumping? Yeah, it's quite a family sport... and bring your cell phone!"
 
FYI for any interested, here is the Kent Mawhinney thread link here on WS. @Gardenista

If you see any articles or items of interest from the MT trial that relate to KM please place them in the following thread:


No trial date has been scheduled but there is alot of useful information from the MT Trial that will help fill in the gaps on the KM thread.

If people that watched MT Trial had ideas on KM related questions and could place them in the KM trial I think that could be very helpful as memories are fresh now and we have no idea when his trial might take place. We have seen Media culling their online archives too so to the extent that you have links then it might be helpful to copy them and place them in the KM thread as well.
I appreciate that. I searched WS recently for a thread on him and did not find it. Weird. I even used copy and paste to search. I must have copied an incorrect name!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
278
Guests online
3,942
Total visitors
4,220

Forum statistics

Threads
591,478
Messages
17,952,375
Members
228,505
Latest member
legomonster
Back
Top