GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #69

[sassyblue]

Thanks. Thought it was tomorrow. Going through withdrawl. Info vacuum. MOO.

Me too! I hope we get to see the contempt hearing.

 

[afitzy]

So I haven’t responded to the question about Grievance No. 10 from Motion for New Trial - the Moody/presumptive testing for blood loop-de-loop
Moody is very fact specific - in which case the State would have had to addressed it in the response to D’s motion in limine. Anybody have a copy or link to that??

In Moody the appeals court found reversible error on the trial court for overruling a defense objection to admissibility of a “blood like” stain on a shoe that had been presumptively tested for possibility of blood. The sample was positive which only meant it could have been human blood but might have been animal blood. The sample was too small to do the conclusive test. The court allowed the State’s expert to testify about the blood like substance on the shoe, and the presumptive positive. This was found to be both irrelevant and prejudicial. Irrelevant because the presumptive positive is indicative of nothing without the definitive test. Prejudicial because the jury asked for a read back of that evidence which suggested the jury was confused about what a presumptive test shows, but more importantly what it doesn’t show.

Now - toothpicks were needed to stay awake during the blood evidence testimony. I recall numerous items that were tested for the presumptive that did not ultimately turn out to be blood. I think as long as you run both tests it doesn’t fall under Moody. In other words- you do the presumptive and it’s positive, then the conclusive test is negative for human blood. If the state was offering evidence that it ruled out as blood (to show thoroughness) that is one scenario. But to say it might have been blood leaves the evidence dangling in the air and could be confusing.

I really cant recall if the state entered evidence that tested presumptively positive for blood and was never conclusively determined either way. I believe that is the moody scenario.

D’s Motion is not well written or supported with any evidence - like a copy of the transcript where said Moody error occurred.

Also doesn’t help that the Horn Cross was so confusing, he could have embedded via circular or run on questioning a trap that confused the expert and she said something that supports a Moody situation that isn’t actually the case.

Anyway if anyone has the motion in limo or - send it on over!

I will send it when I get back next week as I don’t have it accessible via iPad.

Will rewatch the blood analysis presentation to see if I can follow the path more clearly with a rewatch vs the initial presentation. I do think the State could have benefitted from more visuals to make this presentation process clearer. I am watching DutyRon Forensic analysis video on YouTube as a foundation as I prefer his editorial summary as it gives me a foundation for then going back and looking at the testing path of some of the key evidence. The other thing that is clearer with a rewatch is that gloves, both kitchen and other kind, were used and this impacted the overall forensic picture as well.

I think where I am confused by Moody is when something tests positive presumptively and then is tested in the lab with inconclusive results. Wasn't this where we had the Atty McGuiness scenario of the "hamburger with the turnip" or something along those lines in the back of the JF Suburban?

I just didn’t understand what could have been done to the evidence to make the follow up testing results not as clear as I thought it should be. I know we have talked about bleach and other disrupting chemicals but this aspect of the evidence presentation by the state I found confusing and usually it’s not that difficult to understand. Not sure why it was so difficult to follow in this case? Idk why they didn’t send it to fbi if they didn’t have skills in Hartford to deal with it. We also see dna testing advances today that can solve cases from long ago so I don’t know why they didn’t do that here either.

Anyway will go back and see if there are any summary exhibits on the key pieces of evidence to test the moody theory.

The law library research person wasn’t convinced Horn understood Moody properly or was using it correctly in his motion.

Will work on this when I get back next week. Thanks for help setting up the issue. Much appreciated.

 

[Mysticeilis]

And thank God the jurors were intelligent enough to understand that.
They had me sooo worried when they came back wanting to hear Petu’s (sp?) testimony again. Ugh, thankfully they got it right.

Speaking of the Jurors: Thank you, thank you, thank you! IMO I am VERY impressed with their silence after the fact. They must have been SOO credible and sincere. I still remember how I felt when the judge dismissed the alternat(s?) - he said something to the effect that he hoped they could recover after this experience. Yes, I am VERY curious to hear their point of view - but not until winey face (probably spelled “winey” wrong because spell check corrected it to “windy” ) sit down, js!

 

[Megnut]

Speaking of the Jurors: Thank you, thank you, thank you! IMO I am VERY impressed with their silence after the fact. They must have been SOO credible and sincere. I still remember how I felt when the judge dismissed the alternat(s?) - he said something to the effect that he hoped they could recover after this experience. Yes, I am VERY curious to hear their point of view - but not until winey face (probably spelled “winey” wrong because spell check corrected it to “windy” ) sit down, js!

@lucegirl and @afitzy might rightfully be called winey and with honor and just cause for what they've sifted through. Lead defense counsel owns whiny.

Cheers to @lucegirl and @afitzy.

To the other guy:

Si' down, Counselor

 

[afitzy]

In looking at some of the Welles garage evidence I remain curious about the footprint in blood. CSP it appears didn't do much in terms of testing of the footprint and so we don't know the size or when it happened either unfortunately. The Welles walk through video taken by CSP or NCPD showed a Chuck taylor in one of the childrens cubbies in the mudroom. But to me the footprint looked larger than a childs shoe but its hard to say as it was a partial print. Could one of the children or LA even have tracked through the garage and created the print? Or, did JF wear Chuck Taylors? We know MT wore Chuck Taylor's (red ones in the 4jX video with images provided by DM and posted many times here on WS).

But, Duty Ron (Ed Wallace is the forensics person formerly of NYPD) did an experiment using blood and a Chuck Taylor sneaker that was interesting for those interested (starts at 30:09 in his video on YouTube).

The shoe probably isn't a major issue but I was curious about it from the standpoint of wondering if FD perhaps borrowed a pair of sneakers from MT? The images of FD on the bike in NC no matter how I blew them up didn't make the footwear clear either but they looked dark to me so perhaps a pair of black Chucks were on his feet?

Just a curiosity from the Welles garage that I wish had been explored further by CSP. MOO

 

[MissTilly]

Can I accuse a lead lawyer of contempt of court?

Oops. Looks like I already did. In the court of my mind.

It seems like there's a line of conduct. What's ethical, what's not ethical.

Rigorous defense vs. unhinged defense.

Over the double yellow line...

rbbm
heading for unhinged offence territory…
moo

 

[Seattle1]

@lucegirl, I’m almost afraid to ask but is this HORN SAlAD due to his pending motions or is it simply salad for the sake of salad? Sorry to ask but I was reading some of his pretrial motions today and am simply ODd on his language choices.

I did enjoy comparing the motion prepared by AG Tong to that of Horn for the Ct Supreme Court argument. Day and night imo. Give me crisp and clear language vs Greek salad any day!

Moo

IMO, same salad, different dressing!

 

[lucegirl]

Okay - here is the answer to the Moody issue where testing of potential blood stains (after a presumption positive) are inconclusive.

Other courts have distinguished Moody (which in legal terms means the case is inapplicable to a seemingly similar case when you parse out the facts and the logic of the precedent case doesn’t hold up the same way).

Here is a case citing to Moody, but the court finds Moody inapplicable after parsing the facts. This decision does a good job explaining this.

State v. Downing, 68 Conn. App. 388 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Downing, 68 Conn. App. 388, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

In Moody - the appeals court said the presumptive positive was irrelevant because it could have been, but might not have been human blood. And presumably - absent other factors consistent with human blood stains, the presumptive test by itself was not enough to be relevant as to whether the stain was human blood.

Moody goes through some important evidentiary concepts - in particular about how pieces of evidence in and of themselves might not be relevant, but in combination may be relevant.

In the Downing case, the Defense made a Moody challenge based on the admissibility of a presumptive positive that could not be validated at trial. The Downing court said that the case before it was different in that the presumptive positive was evaluated in combination with other evidence consistent with human blood. Those factors were the color of the stain, the pattern of the stain and it’s proximity to other stains that were validated as human blood. The trial court’s evidentiary ruling was upheld on appeal.

So the take away is - a presumptive positive that can’t be validated with a blood test can still be relevant evidence if it is accompanied with other factors that make the presumptive positive more probable evidence of human blood.

I’m pretty sure the State’s presentation of blood evidence, while tedious, was designed to get the corroborating factors on the record in order to withstand a Moody challenge .

 

[Niner]

Thursday, March 14th:
*Remote Hearing (@ 10:30am ET) – CT – Jennifer Rebecca Farber Dulos (50) (May 24, 2019, New Canaan; still missing) – *Michelle C. Troconis (44/now 49) (Dulos’ GF) arrested & charged (6/1/19) & arraigned (6/3/19) with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence & hindering prosecution. Plead not guilty. $500K bond. Posted bond (on 6/3/19). These charges were dismissed (8/28/20) & recharged below.
*Charged (9/5/19) & arraigned (10/4/19) with tampering with evidence involving the borrowed car from work colleague & conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence (for 5/29/19). Plead not guilty. $100K bond. Posted bond (on 9/5/19). Off GPS 4/6/23.
*Charged (1/7/20) with conspiracy to commit murder (for 5/24/19). Plead not guilty. $2M bond. Bond reduced (1/8/20) to $1.5M & bonded out (on 1/9/20). Off GPS 4/6/23.
*Charged (8/28/20) with 2nd degree hindering prosecution, tampering with physical evidence & conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence (for 5/24/19). Plead not guilty. $500K bond. Posted bond. Off GPS 4/6/23. Bond changed (3/1/24) to $6M Cash/Surety Bond; house arrest. GPS monitoring. Passports surrendered.
The declaration of death for Jennifer was3 officially issued by Judge William P. Osterndorf on October 24, 2023.
Jury Selection began on 10/4/23 & ended 10/26/23. Another jury selection after dismissed jurors on 1/10/24. Now 6 jurors & 2 alternates. (3 men & 3 women on jury/total: 4 women & 4 men). Jury started deliberations on 2/28/24. Day1-Time: ~5 hours. 2/29 (Day 2)- ~6 hours. 3/1/24 (Day 3): ~1 hour. Total deliberations: ~12 hours. Verdict: Guilty of all charges.
Remanded to jail with bond change. Inmate #433612
Trial began on 1/11/24. State rested their case on 2/21/24. Defense started their case on 2/21/24 & ended on 2/23/24. Closing arguments set for 2/27/24.
Superior Court Judge Kevin Randolph presiding for trial. Assistant State’s attorney Sean McGuinness & Supervisory assistant State’s attorney Michelle Manning & defense attorneys Jon Schoenhorn & Audrey Felson.
Bond info & Court info from 6/3/19 thru 12/6/23 & Jury Selection Day 1-11 (10/4-10/26/23), 2nd Jury Selection Day 1-2 (1/9 & 1/10/24) & Trial Day 1-32 (1/11-3/1/24) & Verdict Watch Day 1-3 (2/28 & 3/1/24) reference post #101 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...w-canaan-24-may-2019-arrests-68.705946/page-6
2/29/24 Update: Verdict: GUILTY of ALL charges: Sentencing hearing on 5/31/24.
A scheduled contempt hearing has been moved to 3/21/24 @ 10am; Troconis allegedly had sealed documents displayed on her laptop in an open court during the trial. Judge Alex V. Hernandez will preside over the hearing. Judge Randolph & Troconis' attorneys, Felsen & Schoenhorn, have recused themselves from the hearing. The attorneys said it would be “inappropriate” for them to represent Troconis, who has hired attorney Robert Frost for the proceeding. State statute indicates that if a judge finds her in contempt, she could be fined up to $100, face up to six months in custody or both. Troconis was arrested on 3/1/24 for contempt charges. Case Number S01SCR24***.
3/7/24 Update: Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Post-Verdict & Motion for New tTrial filed by Schoenhorn. See post #899 page 45, Thread #68 for more info. Also Schoenhorn said Wednesday that she would not be able to pay her $6 million bond & will be in custody until sentencing May 31. 3/7/24 Update: Troconis has a hearing on 3/18/24 for PSI to be done for the record. Troconis is not expected to be there.
3/13/24 Update: A remote hearing on 3/14/24 @ 10:30am.
*Charged & arrested (3/1/24) with criminal contempt of court (on 2/15/24).
3/6/24 Update: Contempt charge: Inspector Christopher Gioielli, who investigated the allegations, reviewed video footage of the trial confirmed Troconis had displayed portions of the sealed Dulos report on her computer screen. The partial sentences seen on Troconis' computer that were captured on a screenshot by prosecutors "mirrored the language on page 50 of the sealed custodial report," the warrant said. Troconis was present in the courtroom a few years ago when her attorney Schoenhorn was told that only her defense team could view the report & that its contents were otherwise sealed from public view, including herself, the warrant stated. The Stamford State’s Attorney’s Office, which charged Troconis with contempt, said in the warrant affidavit that Troconis was aware that the report was sealed & “knowingly violated” at least two judges’ orders by viewing it & displaying it. Contempt charge Arrest Warrant signed by Judge Gary J. White. For more info see post #874, page 44, Thread #68. Arraignment hearing on 3/21/24.

 

[Megnut]

Okay - here is the answer to the Moody issue where testing of potential blood stains (after a presumption positive) are inconclusive.

Other courts have distinguished Moody (which in legal terms means the case is inapplicable to a seemingly similar case when you parse out the facts and the logic of the precedent case doesn’t hold up the same way).

Here is a case citing to Moody, but the court finds Moody inapplicable after parsing the facts. This decision does a good job explaining this.

State v. Downing, 68 Conn. App. 388 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Downing, 68 Conn. App. 388, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

In Moody - the appeals court said the presumptive positive was irrelevant because it could have been, but might not have been human blood. And presumably - absent other factors consistent with human blood stains, the presumptive test by itself was not enough to be relevant as to whether the stain was human blood.

Moody goes through some important evidentiary concepts - in particular about how pieces of evidence in and of themselves might not be relevant, but in combination may be relevant.

In the Downing case, the Defense made a Moody challenge based on the admissibility of a presumptive positive that could not be validated at trial. The Downing court said that the case before it was different in that the presumptive positive was evaluated in combination with other evidence consistent with human blood. Those factors were the color of the stain, the pattern of the stain and it’s proximity to other stains that were validated as human blood. The trial court’s evidentiary ruling was upheld on appeal.

So the take away is - a presumptive positive that can’t be validated with a blood test can still be relevant evidence if it is accompanied with other factors that make the presumptive positive more probable evidence of human blood.

I’m pretty sure the State’s presentation of blood evidence, while tedious, was designed to get the corroborating factors on the record in order to withstand a Moody challenge .

Yes! And I recall Attorney McGuinness saying something generous about Schoenhorn "not understanding" Moody. Didn't matter though because the judge did.

Schoenhorn was trying to confuse everyone (without confusing himself) (of which he was not successful, spectacularly) by saying all the tested blood evidence should be thrown out because it might be not-blood and would confuse the easily confused jury.

Judge said, "not so fast, grasshopper". Law enforcement is investigating. They see a smear or stain or spatter. Experience tells them to investigate further. They test it. Doesn't light up? No need to test further. Schoenhorn says, "can't we all just agree not to talk about it?" No. Because, as the Judge highlighted, it goes to process. LE sees things, it directs their next steps. The results direct the next.

Especially relevant with the Tacoma, I think. Because the testing for blood at the time directed them to test further, and while much came back failing confirmatory testing, it was still significant when partnered with the discovery of car washing and detailing.

I was SHOCKED when, Schoenhorn asked during his closing salad, how much evidence was lost by washing the car! (Whose side was he on?!)

Anyway IMO the Judge overruled Schoenhorn's objections and denied his notions because first, just as Attorney McGuinness stated, Schoenhorn was applying/interpreting Moody wrongly and second, whether something was tested now and confirmed to be not-blood later isn't the ONLY finding with evidentiary value. There remains evidentiary value in the investigative process. Linkage. What LE believes AT THE THE TIME and why they did what they did next.

It's also possible I don't understand the challenge but I haven't had any wine... I hear wine helps.

JMO

 

[sds71]

Court officials said the hearing on Thursday would be centered on a motion from the state that would set conditions for her release if she posts that bond.

Woman convicted in missing mom case faces judge over release conditions

A woman convicted in connection with a missing mother’s murder faced a judge again on Thursday.

www.wfsb.com

 

[Megnut]

Court officials said the hearing on Thursday would be centered on a motion from the state that would set conditions for her release if she posts that bond.

Woman convicted in missing mom case faces judge over release conditions

A woman convicted in connection with a missing mother’s murder faced a judge again on Thursday.

www.wfsb.com

May I chime in on that? Respectfully?

Unless Judge Randolph wants to keep her under lock and key at his house, she needs to stay in the big house.

jmo

 

[afitzy]

IMO, same salad, different dressing!

@Seattle1, I dove into the Moody case black hole in the blood evidence this morning and I think your short phrase in OP kinda describes Horn perfectly from the beginning. Thanks for this also because I will now stop as per usual Horn didn’t do his homework and is simply throwing spaghetti and hoping something will stick. Total waste of time per usual with him imo. Thank you for reminding me!

He never seems to do the work to quantify his arguments but rather lobs these ominous sounding motions which seem to allege prosecutorial abuse or misconduct or lack of diligence or whatever. He does this on rinse and repeat and has been doing it for over 4 years. Thing is when you dive into the details there simply is “no there there”. His laziness imo is astounding. I honestly don’t know why a judge simply doesn’t put a red pen line through his motions with a note saying when you have evidence to support this please return. He has been a huge waste of time and of precious resources to a CT court system that is still way behind due to Covid delay!

So annoying to spend time watching the blood evidence testimony again to see if his argument about presumptive testing not being followed up by confirmatory testing on a consistent basis and per usual he isn’t imo correct. Idk what percentage of all evidence presented at trial has to have both presumptive and confirmatory testing but based on watching the testimony yet again this am it seems like it’s clearly more than 75% roughly. It’s not realistic to expect all evidence gathered to be lab tested. I just don’t know what the standard for what is presented at trial should be? On the surface you obviously shouldn’t have trial evidence based solely on presumptive testing but there has to be a balance I would think? I just don’t know the standard for a balance in terms of evidence testing type as I’m not an attorney.

But, horn alleged improper presentation and insufficient testing and seemed to leave it at that with zero data. He also didn’t know the difference between splatter and spatter so that should have been the tip off too to not waste time on his specious arguments. No wonder most of his motions pretrial were denied as they simply lacked substance and diligence imo. Total waste of time imo.

On you OP statement about same salad different dressing I’m reminded of having to listen to Horn Horning in pretrial about the incompetence of Det Kimball and CSP for the “many and extensive errors” in the AAs. This went on for years! The AA imo were things of beauty in terms of detail and images and precision and frankly I have never seen ones similar on another case!

Horn never said exactly what his issues were or what was done in error with the AAs. Just alleged that all kinds of errors existed and he sought to whip up a distrust the police narrative to piggy back off of the the police narrative that was popular at the time. The Petu coached testimony at trial reinforced this and imo was cynical ploy to hit one juror who might have an issue with law enforcement. Cynical ploy.

Flash forward to trial and turns out his supposed major error was the issue of the early reference to FD and MT making 30 stops and dropping 30 bags on Albany Avenue made in the first FD AA. Det kimball on the stand in MT trial explained that this was an honest error made during the early frenzied days of the investigation by an unknown person on the team who watched the first or early cut of video footage. I think any reasonable person could understand how such an error could be made in the early days of an investigation but Horn called Det kimball incompetent and a liar for over 4 years in the press and in his motions based on an honest error.

If Horn on behalf of his client wants to do the work of hiring an expert to question the blood and dna evidence and present these results to the court to support his claims then by all means he should do so.

Thing is though that he didn’t do this. No blood or dna expert at trial. He spent his money instead on Dr Loftus who couldn’t remember anything and the other expert who imo was virtually impossible to understand. I think these choices alone tell us that he wasn’t willing to go toe to toe with the State on blood and dna evidence!

Moo

 

[afitzy]

May I chime in on that? Respectfully?

Unless Judge Randolph wants to keep her under lock and key at his house, she needs to stay in the big house.

jmo

So agree. No ties to CT. Major flight risk.

In listening to FD sister talk about his suicide choice, she blamed prison conditions for his suicide. FD himself in his suicide note said he wouldn’t go back to prison.

FD spent only 2 days in prison iirc.

So, MT has been in prison now for what 10 days? My guess is that she and her family would do whatever it takes to escape having to return to prison for 30 years or so!

Moo

 

[sds71]

State to argue to modify conditions of Michelle Troconis’ release to include Intensive Pretrial Supervision, Surrender of passports and to not leave CT. This after the state learned she provided a Miami, FL address as her intended residence awaiting sentencing.

ETA:

Troconis’ attorney argues the motion is untimely, in improper form and a violation of her 8th and 14th amendment rights. Schoenhorn says Troconis has been unable to meet the financial conditions set by the court.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1768261119259414798

 

[afitzy]

State to argue to modify conditions of Michelle Troconis’ release to include Intensive Pretrial Supervision, Surrender of passports and to not leave CT. This after the state learned she provided a Miami, FL address as her intended residence awaiting sentencing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1768261119259414798

Why did Horn not return the Venezuelan passport to the Court? Is he simply just lazy or stupid? Wonder if he even had the passport locked up or is it perhaps lying on his desk next to the discredited Herman report? The ineptness and frank disregard for security from Horn is astounding!

At what point does his not doing what the Court ordered with the passports becomes active obstruction?

Honestly I think the court should seize the passports of all the Troconis Crew as MT could easily slip out of the country using her sisters passports imo or a false passport.

She has huge incentive to flee and always has had imo! But to see Horn yet again not following the Courts orders on the passport is terrible and idk why State didn’t demand immediate return to the court or send CSP to pick up the damn passport from Horn!

Insanity.
Moo

 

[Misy]

dbm

 

[Mimi in London]

Yes! And I recall Attorney McGuinness saying something generous about Schoenhorn "not understanding" Moody. Didn't matter though because the judge did.

Schoenhorn was trying to confuse everyone (without confusing himself) (of which he was not successful, spectacularly) by saying all the tested blood evidence should be thrown out because it might be not-blood and would confuse the easily confused jury.

Judge said, "not so fast, grasshopper". Law enforcement is investigating. They see a smear or stain or spatter. Experience tells them to investigate further. They test it. Doesn't light up? No need to test further. Schoenhorn says, "can't we all just agree not to talk about it?" No. Because, as the Judge highlighted, it goes to process. LE sees things, it directs their next steps. The results direct the next.

Especially relevant with the Tacoma, I think. Because the testing for blood at the time directed them to test further, and while much came back failing confirmatory testing, it was still significant when partnered with the discovery of car washing and detailing.

I was SHOCKED when, Schoenhorn asked during his closing salad, how much evidence was lost by washing the car! (Whose side was he on?!)

Anyway IMO the Judge overruled Schoenhorn's objections and denied his notions because first, just as Attorney McGuinness stated, Schoenhorn was applying/interpreting Moody wrongly and second, whether something was tested now and confirmed to be not-blood later isn't the ONLY finding with evidentiary value. There remains evidentiary value in the investigative process. Linkage. What LE believes AT THE THE TIME and why they did what they did next.

It's also possible I don't understand the challenge but I haven't had any wine... I hear wine helps.

JMO

The "Can't we all just agree not to talk about it?" defence model It will in the text books one day.

 

[Misy]

@lucegirl thanks for this. Is this the link you tried to get back into this thread? But don’t we have the additional issue of stepping over the “misstatement” issue into true “whopperdom”? Moo

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

Press catching up on the MT "Screengate" Contempt episode: https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-contempt-of-court-18707575.php Quotes from article: Interesting detail as this is first 'press' reference to role of Mama Troconis in the episode: "At the...

www.websleuths.com

What worked to do this was to highlight the post number, copy link and then paste into location where you want it linked. If I didn’t get the correct link then obviously disregard these instructions as they are rubbish.

Are we compiling a list of afitzy’s rediscovered words?

Marshal/marshalling
Candor
Rubbish (a gem!)

 

[afitzy]

Okay - here is the answer to the Moody issue where testing of potential blood stains (after a presumption positive) are inconclusive.

Other courts have distinguished Moody (which in legal terms means the case is inapplicable to a seemingly similar case when you parse out the facts and the logic of the precedent case doesn’t hold up the same way).

Here is a case citing to Moody, but the court finds Moody inapplicable after parsing the facts. This decision does a good job explaining this.

State v. Downing, 68 Conn. App. 388 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Downing, 68 Conn. App. 388, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

In Moody - the appeals court said the presumptive positive was irrelevant because it could have been, but might not have been human blood. And presumably - absent other factors consistent with human blood stains, the presumptive test by itself was not enough to be relevant as to whether the stain was human blood.

Moody goes through some important evidentiary concepts - in particular about how pieces of evidence in and of themselves might not be relevant, but in combination may be relevant.

In the Downing case, the Defense made a Moody challenge based on the admissibility of a presumptive positive that could not be validated at trial. The Downing court said that the case before it was different in that the presumptive positive was evaluated in combination with other evidence consistent with human blood. Those factors were the color of the stain, the pattern of the stain and it’s proximity to other stains that were validated as human blood. The trial court’s evidentiary ruling was upheld on appeal.

So the take away is - a presumptive positive that can’t be validated with a blood test can still be relevant evidence if it is accompanied with other factors that make the presumptive positive more probable evidence of human blood.

I’m pretty sure the State’s presentation of blood evidence, while tedious, was designed to get the corroborating factors on the record in order to withstand a Moody challenge .

Thank you for this! I watched the blood evidence presentation again and I think the State did precisely what you described to present in great detail all the investigatory work done on the evidence to reach their conclusion as to what happened in the Welles garage. Moo