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

[Megnut]

Michelle Troconis' contempt hearing continued until July

Michelle Troconis’ hearing for a contempt of court charge has been continued until July. She is accused of having a sealed custody report in court during her trial on charges connected to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Farber Dulos, a mother of five from New Canaan who has been...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

 

[Niner]

Michelle Troconis' contempt hearing continued until July

Michelle Troconis’ hearing for a contempt of court charge has been continued until July. She is accused of having a sealed custody report in court during her trial on charges connected to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Farber Dulos, a mother of five from New Canaan who has been...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

Thanks for the update!

Anyone know what time the sentencing hearing is? 9am or 10am? TIA!

 

[Jmoose]

Michelle Troconis' contempt hearing continued until July

Michelle Troconis’ hearing for a contempt of court charge has been continued until July. She is accused of having a sealed custody report in court during her trial on charges connected to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Farber Dulos, a mother of five from New Canaan who has been...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

Why do you suppose they continued it?

 

[Megnut]

Why do you suppose they continued it?

Scheduling issue. Counsel, court.

I was hoping she'd be found in contempt prior to her sentencing on the big charges.

Of course there's also the bigger matter about one of her charges. I don't like it. I'm okay if it's doubling up or streamlining but if it's just plain dismissing, whu huh? She was already found guilty by the trial of her peers so I want for her to have the whole Greek salad of consequences.

Different judge, different counsel so it won't effect a delay in sentencing, I should think.

It's unfortunate. Time for her to own the fallout of her choices.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Why do you suppose they continued it?

I think it is because it is a misdemeanor and they want to wait until AFTER her sentencing for the multiple felonies.

JMO

 

[citygirl]

Michelle Troconis' contempt hearing continued until July

Michelle Troconis’ hearing for a contempt of court charge has been continued until July. She is accused of having a sealed custody report in court during her trial on charges connected to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Farber Dulos, a mother of five from New Canaan who has been...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

Oh brother.

 

[nodamselindistress]

My love for the CT court system grows with each delay

 

[waldojabba]

My love for the CT court system grows with each delay

Lol.
On the other hand, every state where I follow and have followed cases, seem to have their own particular unique “imperfections”.
CT’s number one issue appears to be delay after delay with this case. The judge for the case I thought was great, the P team very effective and the jury got the verdict right. The guilty party is in jail and not going anywhere - so imo - what’s not to like ?
Imo

 

[LosAngeles]

Information is accurate as of May 08, 2024 05:14 AM

Defendant Information Last, First: TROCONIS MICHELLE Represented By: 433115 FROST BUSSERT LLC Birth Year: 1974 Times on the Docket: 2

Docket Information Docket No: FST -CR24-0253792-T Arresting Agency: STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAMFORD Companion: Program: Arrest Date: 3/1/2024 Court: Stamford JD Bond Amount: $100 (This case only) Bond Type: Set Miscellaneous: (Not Released From Custody)

Activity: Awaiting Plea Next Court Date: 7/10/2024 9:00 AM​

Current Charges Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding 51-33a CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT B​ Misdemeanor​ 1​ 2/15/2024

 

[Tink56]

Lol.
On the other hand, every state where I follow and have followed cases, seem to have their own particular unique “imperfections”.
CT’s number one issue appears to be delay after delay with this case. The judge for the case I thought was great, the P team very effective and the jury got the verdict right. The guilty party is in jail and not going anywhere - so imo - what’s not to like ?
Imo

I'm wondering how this delay in the Contempt hearing might impact the sentencing for the other charges. Here's a quote from the Stamford Advocate related to "time served" and the contempt charge.

"During Troconis' brief appearance Thursday, the judge noted that if Troconis were convicted of contempt, she no longer would get credit toward her eventual sentence for the charges she was convicted of at trial."

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-contempt-of-court-19316687.php

 

[waldojabba]

I'm wondering how this delay in the Contempt hearing might impact the sentencing for the other charges. Here's a quote from the Stamford Advocate related to "time served" and the contempt charge.

"During Troconis' brief appearance Thursday, the judge noted that if Troconis were convicted of contempt, she no longer would get credit toward her eventual sentence for the charges she was convicted of at trial."

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-contempt-of-court-19316687.php

That aspect does interst me and we will have to see what unfolds.
I will say that I think what MT did to get that contempt charge is about as low as you can go and should be treated like the big deal it was. I also think both of her lawyers have some explaining to do. I was not sensing from the court that it was being taken seriopusly enough. But I guess time will tell. JMO

 

[LosAngeles]

I completely agree. Her attorneys should be held accountable. I hope! It boggles my mind how the “adults” involved in her life are enablers of reckless & irresponsible behavior. Not sure why.

 

[Seattle1]

Thought some of you just might be interested in this.

CT suspects/criminals cutting off ankle bracelets, I-Team looks at how often it happens

In Connecticut, courts often order both violent and non-violent offenders to wear ankle monitors while out on bond, or on probation.

www.wfsb.com

I agree with Lawlor about changing the CT Constitution!

From the quoted link:

“It’s almost impossible to come up with a system where you cannot cut it off,” says Mike Lawlor, former lawmaker and current criminal justice professor at the University of New Haven. “It’s a great technological thing but it doesn’t guarantee the protection of anybody.”

Lawlor says because of that, the legislature and voters should look into another option. ”I wish CT prosecutors have the option that most states allow which is to hold people pre trial in custody with no possibility of posting bail because there’s evidence they really pose a danger,” says Lawlor.

It’s called pre-trial detention. In New Jersey several years ago, voters amended their constitution to allow it.

“Now they can hold someone pre trial if they can present the evidence that someone is really a serious danger or a flight risk. We can’t do that in CT. And I think we should give our prosecutors the authority to do that,” says Lawlor. Lawlor says Connecticut should consider it.

 

[Seattle1]

That aspect does interst me and we will have to see what unfolds.
I will say that I think what MT did to get that contempt charge is about as low as you can go and should be treated like the big deal it was. I also think both of her lawyers have some explaining to do. I was not sensing from the court that it was being taken seriopusly enough. But I guess time will tell. JMO

I agree @waldojabba.

The only good news I see here is that JLS won't be making excuses for his entitled client at sentencing. MT's being represented by a different firm for this charge.

 

[Seattle1]

What do you all think is currently happening with Kent? It’s been 4 years, time to schedule the trial.

KM is waiting for MT to be sentenced. Once the writing is on the wall, in ink, I expect KM will finalize his plea agreement. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

I'm wondering how this delay in the Contempt hearing might impact the sentencing for the other charges. Here's a quote from the Stamford Advocate related to "time served" and the contempt charge.

"During Troconis' brief appearance Thursday, the judge noted that if Troconis were convicted of contempt, she no longer would get credit toward her eventual sentence for the charges she was convicted of at trial."

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-contempt-of-court-19316687.php

My understanding is she's currently accruing credit for time served which at sentencing on May 31 will amount to about 90 days. If MT's convicted of the Feb 15, contempt offense, she forfeits those credited days of time served.

It's similar to being out on bond. A condition of bail is you can't re-offend or your bond will be revoked and you go straight to jail.

In other words, no significant impact unless the court is lenient at sentencing, where MT being held over those additional 90 days before being released, causes MT to miss the annual beige sale. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Attorney Profiles

Free Consultation - Call (203) 495-9790 - Frost | Bussert LLC aggressively represents the accused against charges in Federal Crime and Criminal cases. Attorney Profiles - Connecticut Federal Crime Lawyers

www.frostbussert.com

Interesting -- I wonder if we've seen the last of JLS and MT might use this firm to file her appeal after she's sentenced.

 

[MollyDDD]

Attorney Profiles

Free Consultation - Call (203) 495-9790 - Frost | Bussert LLC aggressively represents the accused against charges in Federal Crime and Criminal cases. Attorney Profiles - Connecticut Federal Crime Lawyers

www.frostbussert.com

Interesting -- I wonder if we've seen the last of JLS and MT might use this firm to file her appeal after she's sentenced.

Omg.

 

[MollyDDD]

I completely agree. Her attorneys should be held accountable. I hope! It boggles my mind how the “adults” involved in her life are enablers of reckless & irresponsible behavior. Not sure why.

I think some people just think they are better than everyone else (untouchable) and just take their chances.

 

[Seattle1]

It’s called pre-trial detention. In New Jersey several years ago, voters amended their constitution to allow it.

^^rsbm

In the West, where the State Constitutions of many of the States mirrored the U.S. Constitution on the subject of bail, it's rare to see a defendant charged with an offense as serious as first degree murder (i.e., capital offense), even eligible for pretrial bail release-- at any $$$ bail bond amount!

“All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident, or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted.” Art. II, 32 Journals of the Continental Congress 334 (1787), reprinted in 1 Stat.

Pursuant to the State Constitutions here, the only exception for a defendant charged with murder-1 to be eligible for pretrial bail release would be if the prosecution failed to show both probable cause AND PEPG, or proof is evident or the presumption great-- loosely translated by me as the evidence shows the offense was likely committed by the defendant, and the defendant will more likely than not be convicted at trial.

Should CT ever decide to pursue an amendment to it's Constitution restricting pretrial bail, I'd caution them to be careful with the language proposed for the amendment.

For example, in the State of Colorado where their Constitution mirrored the U.S. Constitution on the subject of bail-- and even though the State had long provided for punishment other than death as a penalty for murder, prior to abolishing the death penalty, the state's Supreme Court ruled last year that it's no bail for murder-1 was in violation of the State's Constitution because the term "capital offense" implied punishable by death -- which the State had abolished!

In November, Colorado residents will now vote on whether to restore the 'no bail for murder' rule after the unintended consequence of the bill abolishing capital punishment.

Coloradans will vote in November on whether people accused of first-degree murder should be eligible for bond

Last year, the state Supreme Court ruled people accused of the crime must be eligible for bond because Colorado abolished the death penalty.

www.9news.com

U.S. Constitution - Excessive Bail