Randolph Sentencing comments begin at 5:39:44 (YT court feed):
Court's back in session good afternoon your honor good afternoon please be
5:39:54
[Music]
5:39:59
seated court has heard the remarks of council
5:40:11
remarks from family
5:40:17
members the remarks from what the court would consider victims of the
5:40:26
[Music] crime almost always there is no
5:40:32
single appropriate sentence other wise the legislature
5:40:38
would have designated a single appropriate sentence for every
5:40:46
offense the charges here are conspiracy to commit murder which is a class B
5:40:53
felony the legislature has set the sentencing
5:40:59
range not less than one year nor more than 20 years
5:41:09
which means the legislature contemplated in some
5:41:14
instances sentences of no more than a year and in the same instance sentences
5:41:22
of 20 years the legislature has
5:41:27
given the Judiciary
5:41:34
arrange conspiracy to tamper with physical EV evidence is a Class D
5:41:39
Felony maximum 5
5:41:46
years tampering with physical evidence a Class D Felony maximum 5
5:41:53
years hindering prosecution is a class C felony not less than one year nor more
5:42:00
than 10 years
5:42:07
the court relies on what the law states and what the law allows to be
5:42:14
proper considerations setting a
5:42:21
sentence the court relies on the nature and circumstances of the
5:42:27
offense the history and background and character of the
5:42:35
offender after such consideration the court turns to what are called the
5:42:40
traditional purposes of sentencing specific
5:42:46
deterrence General deterrence punishment
5:42:54
incapacitation Rehabilitation vocational or educational
5:43:00
training and medical treatment those factors are not all
5:43:06
given equal wait depending on the nature and circumstances of the
5:43:11
offense and the history background and character of the
5:43:24
offender the court does not take
5:43:31
sides if the court knew possibly any one of you and had a bond with any one of you this court would not have tried that
5:43:43
case it's not the Court's role to side or favor one side or
5:43:55
another sentencing in many ways is a dispassionate
5:44:01
exercise the court has no bond with any individual who spoke to
5:44:10
or any other individual involved in the
5:44:16
case
the court cannot develop the passions that one side or the other
5:44:28
has in State versus UI that's 199 Connecticut 121 at 126 a 1986 case
5:44:37
the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the sentencing court may consider information that would be inadmissible
5:44:44
at trial for the purpose of
5:44:50
sancy that same Court held that evidence of crimes for which the defendant was
5:44:56
indicted but neither tried nor convicted may be considered
5:45:02
well the word indicted and the process of indictment
5:45:08
is not generally employed in Connecticut essentially that means where there has
5:45:13
been a finding of probable cause but there has been no trial or no
5:45:20
conviction additionally as a matter of due process the court may consider information that has a minimum indicia
5:45:27
of reliability now that minimum indic of reliability is not limited to
5:45:35
unfavorable information Court can consider favorable favorable information
5:45:40
that has a minimum indic of
5:45:46
reliability the court certainly considers the victim impact
5:45:55
statements every victim has the right to be heard before the court sentences a
5:46:00
defendant that's part of the Connecticut victims Bill of Rights
5:46:08
which is read every day in every Courthouse here in Connecticut
the court would
5:46:16
clarify what it perceives
5:46:22
as perhaps a misconception of what the Court's role
5:46:29
is the court does not deliberate with the jury
5:46:37
the court does not deliberate on the evidence at all the court hears the evidence as the
5:46:44
evidence comes into the to the
5:46:51
record so when you hear that the court has a view of the evidence the court has no view of
5:46:58
the evidence what the court has is a
5:47:04
verdict and what could would have been the reasonable and logical
5:47:10
inferences from the evidence that was adduced the court would not know what the jury discussed over those many
5:47:33
hours what the court can find is
5:47:42
this it was clear during the jury charge
5:47:47
jury instructions that the court instructed the jury that it may draw any reasonable and logical inferences from
5:47:55
the facts found to have been
5:48:00
proven based on the verdict the jury could have found the
5:48:07
following reasonable and logical inferences fotus doulos was not
5:48:15
home at Fort Jefferson Crossing the morning of May
5:48:21
24th when his wife was murdered but the defendant said he was
5:48:32
out when the defendant admitted that he was not home
5:48:38
the defendant who had been angry about
5:48:44
dulos's talking to other women did not even ask him where he had
5:48:57
been the defendant who was angry that he had visited his his wife did not ask him
5:49:05
if he had visited her in fact the defendant as the court
5:49:10
remembers the evidence didn't ask him
5:49:17
anything the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant knew where he was and knew
5:49:24
what he was
5:49:31
doing the defendant said she saw Kent mnny and fotus doulos together in the
5:49:37
office at Fort Jefferson Crossing on the morning of May
5:49:43
24th but the defendant did not see fotus doulos and K mnni in the office at Fort
5:49:50
Jefferson Crossing on the morning of May
5:49:57
24 there was a phone call made to dulos's phone which doulos left
5:50:04
intentionally at Fort Jefferson Crossing the defendant answered
5:50:10
it and the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference from all of the
5:50:15
evidence that the defendant answered the phone to make it appear that doulos took
5:50:21
the call himself on the morning of May 24th at
5:50:27
Fort Jefferson Crossing when he was really on his way to or in new
5:50:35
Canan when I a police officer came to Fort Jefferson Crossing soon after the
5:50:40
murder the defendant did not even go to the door even though her daughter who was
5:50:48
not home may have been the subject of that
5:50:55
conversation at the door now it has been clear that the defendant cares deeply for her daughter
5:51:03
the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant did not go to the
5:51:09
door because the defendant knew the reason the officer was there to find out more about The
5:51:15
Disappearance of Jennifer
5:51:22
du these are reasonable and logical inferences from the facts that were
5:51:28
induced of the case during the trial the defendant traveled through a
5:51:34
part of Harford with doulos as he dumps the bloody clothing of his
5:51:40
wife the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that on the same
5:51:48
day the defendant helped him pretend he was home in the morning but in the evening accompanied
5:51:56
him to get rid of the evidence the defendant's DNA profile was
5:52:02
found on one of the bags disposed of in Hartford the jury could draw a reasonable and
5:52:09
logical inference that the defendant helped dispose of the evidence
5:52:17
knowingly the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant helped fotus dulos's
5:52:23
cleanup traces of evidence at 80 Mountain Spring Road because the defendant and doulos
5:52:31
were there together cleaning on the same day that the coma
5:52:37
traveled to new
5:52:44
Canan this is a flurry of irregular activity all on the same
5:52:55
day the jury could draw a reasonable and logical
5:53:00
inference that the activities of that day were so irregular that the defendant
5:53:06
could not possibly forget them in the span of two
5:53:16
weeks even if the jurors individually had doubts about the defendant's
5:53:23
guilt each one of them ultimately concluded that their doubts were not
5:53:33
reasonable
this is not a view of the the Court's view of the
5:53:41
evidence these are logical and reasonable inferences that the jury could have
5:53:52
drawn
court is going to talk a little about the philosophy of
5:53:57
sentencing
5:54:09
sentencing is not the product of the Court's passions or
5:54:14
prejudices the court doesn't have a bond with anyone involved in the
5:54:20
case it's a dispassionate
5:54:29
exercise the court did not investigate the case the court did not talk to the
5:54:34
victims the court has no conversation with the defendant or the defendant's
5:54:44
family so there are some questions that are age-old does the court the senten in
5:54:52
court adopt the public appr probium the indignation of the
5:55:04
community when does retribution turn into
5:55:13
Revenge what's the role of
5:55:20
empathy should the court exercise sympathy for one side or
5:55:30
another these are age- old questions
5:55:38
the court relies on what the law
5:55:44
says the court can consider the nature and circumstances of the offense the
5:55:51
history background and character of the
5:55:58
offender every exercise is not an either or or exercise
5:56:08
often the good and the bad are
5:56:19
true what is the purpose of the Court taking into consideration the victim impact
5:56:28
statements is that only for the purpose of sympathy
5:56:36
the court uses the victim impact statements to assign in its view the
5:56:41
proper weight to any one of those traditional purposes of
5:56:51
sentencing sentencing is not arbitrary or capricious it's not a matter of how the judge feels that
5:57:03
day Court wants to also address what has become over the
5:57:09
course of perhaps
5:57:14
centuries perhaps not a cliche Michelle Trona says life is in
5:57:20
your hands Michelle tron's life is in her own
5:57:27
hands what Michelle tronis decides to do today tomorrow and the next day is up to
5:57:34
her from what the court has heard she has a
5:57:41
great deal to offer court has no control over what her
5:57:48
decisions will be her life is
5:57:57
hers the following sentences are going to run
5:58:04
concurrently on the count charge in conspiracy to commit murder 20 years execution suspended
5:58:11
after 14 A2 years to serve 5 years probation tampering with physical
5:58:18
evidence 5 years execution suspended after four years 5 years
5:58:24
probation conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence 5 years execution suspended after 4 years 5 years
5:58:34
probation the second count of tampering with physical evidence 5 years execution suspended after four years 5 years
5:58:43
probation hindering prosecution 5 years execution suspended after four years
5:58:48
probation after four years rather 5 years probation total effective sentence
5:58:54
20 years execution suspended after 14 and 1/2 years 5 years
5:59:03
probation you will have an opportunity to challenge every finding that the jury made and
5:59:10
every ruling that the court made Madam clerk you can give the defendant her notice of right to
5:59:20
appeal judge I'm going to um orally state that Mr kones does intend to appeal I'm going to ask the court to set
5:59:27
a reasonable appeal Bond I will state that
5:59:33
um this the uh the appeal bond that the court set was not something that Miss
5:59:39
tronus or her family were able to uh meet I'm asking for something more in
5:59:44
line with what she had been released on bond for for the last five years I would
5:59:49
note that after your honor went on vacation the state asked for additional conditions which included um making her
5:59:58
move to Connecticut and remain within the bounds of Connecticut my position
6:00:04
your honor is the court obviously took that into consideration when it set that
6:00:09
high bond that she was not a resident of Connecticut because that's what the state had then argued I'm asking that if
6:00:16
there if she's going to be released that the court said a $2 million Bond but with a condition that to reside in
6:00:23
Connecticut and not leave without permission and cour is going well Council
court is going to decline to set
6:00:29
a an appeal Bond it's not a constitutional right
6:00:36
has the defendant sign the notice of right to appeal stand to journ All
6:01:04
Rise
Court feed -- unedited transcript MT sentencing for Jennifer Dulos case
www.cbsnews.com
