GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #71

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Niner said:
I could not access the link that was provided... so I have nothing of it.
Click to expand...
Thanks. The CT Court site only provides the 3 pg Notice linked above and this 8/5/24 introduction letter:

August 5, 2024

Dear Counsel of Record:

The appeal filed August 5, 2024, has been assigned docket number AC 47877, State of Connecticut v. Michelle Troconis.

The clerk assigned to this appeal is Attorney Sarah Howard, who may be reached at (860) 757-2144. Please note that clerks are not permitted to give legal advice.

Substantial amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure took effect on January 1, 2024, including changes to motion and petition formatting, electronic briefing requirements, and the ordering and filing of transcripts.

Please consult the Connecticut Practice Book, Adopted Practice Book Revisions, and the How to Create Electronic Briefs Guide for additional information.

The Appellate Clerk’s Office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, with the exception of legal holidays and closures due to inclement weather or exigent circumstances. The window at the Appellate Clerk’s Office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Please see Practice Book § 63-2 and the Judicial Branch website for more information. On the website you will also find self-help publications and samples and forms related to the appellate process.

Official notices in Supreme and Appellate Court matters are delivered electronically to the E-Services Inbox of attorneys, law firms, and self-represented parties who have an appearance in the file and have filed an appellate electronic access form (JD-AC-015) when required by Practice Book § 60-7 (c). Paper notices via U.S. Mail are issued only for attorneys and self-represented parties who are excluded or exempt from the requirements of e-filing.

Thank you.

 
In the meantime, having read it, I can tell y'all one good thing, at least I didn't have to watch him deliver it. No pelvic thrusts with the written word.

However, my memory can't quite shake it.

JMO
 
Last edited:
Megnut said:
It's 9am. I might need a cocktail.

Please, someone, make sense of that filing.

He isn't asking so much for it to be unsealed, but arguing that the sealing was in error, they were denied the full transcript he feels he was due... and next, I expect he wants the whole Troconic trial/verdict vacated.

Tell me I'm reading it wrong.

Please.

JMO
Click to expand...
I know I shouldn't laugh, but I just cannot help myself.
MOO
 
Megnut said:
So JS is the plaintiff in the above matter, as "a citizen". What? Why? How? Huh?

He seems to think it was wrongly sealed due to reasons. Transparency. And that IIUC the clerk was error somehow. He seems to think he is entitled to a full transcript, including the portion (4 pages?) that are missing (where the report was discussed, then sealed). But JS went to trial knowing it was off-limits.

Does he think he can get it unsealed?

Or is he going to try to claim that an improper sealing prevented MT from accessing exculpatory evidence as basis for appeal? Then will he turn around and claim double jeopardy.

Whatever he's up to, it stinks.

JMO
Click to expand...

The courts need to intervene and shut down this JS and MT farce of appeals, motions, and so-called lawyering.

Praying for a judge with some backbone and teeth.
 
I dunno what happened with the CT Appellate Court Site between June 10 and today.

On June 10 when JLS filed his appellate brief seeking to appeal the Court's decision to deny MT bond pending appeal of her murder conviction, the 200+ page brief was published for viewing and/or download, and is still accessible today. The link was graciously provided by @Tink56 in the prior thread.

Granted, the file will be HUGE if considering just the Trial Transcript alone but the 'Case Activity' for each petition is itemized and files broken down to convenient size for access.

GUILTY - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #70
 
Megnut said:
I am officially schoenfused.

The filing we've been talking about -- is a year old?

Schoenhorn v. Moss, 347 Conn. 501 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Schoenhorn v. Moss, 347 Conn. 501, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

8-08-2023

JMO
Click to expand...
Ha! Or did JS perhaps misdate it? Inadvertently? On purpose? Both? For those that watched much of the Jennifer Dulos murder / conspiracy trial we have seen the defense counsel in court. So there might be more than one answer to the odd date?

IANAL. But is an option for the state to wait the corresponding time by which they have to respond to it, and simply reject it outright due to an inaccurate and false or misleading date? MOO
 
Megnut said:
I am officially schoenfused.

The filing we've been talking about -- is a year old?

Schoenhorn v. Moss, 347 Conn. 501 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Schoenhorn v. Moss, 347 Conn. 501, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

8-08-2023

JMO
Click to expand...
Not me. I've been referring to the Appeal linked yesterday and quoted below which is clearly MT's 5/31/24 conviction. Is this not the "Appeal brief" OP viewed and posted about before it disappeared from the CT Appellate Court site?

Cloudydiamond said:
Appeal Filed
Click to expand...
 
Seattle1 said:
Not me. I've been referring to the Appeal linked yesterday and quoted below which is clearly MT's 5/31/24 conviction. Is this not the "Appeal brief" OP viewed and posted about before it disappeared from the CT Appellate Court site?
Click to expand...
Yesterday's link was a compendium on filings going back years. Schoenhorn vs. The clerk. As well as pages and pages of all the motions filed during the contested divorce.

It's an historical array IMO of JS's attempts to get the transcript/report.

JMO
 
Megnut said:
I am officially schoenfused.

The filing we've been talking about -- is a year old?

Schoenhorn v. Moss, 347 Conn. 501 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Schoenhorn v. Moss, 347 Conn. 501, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

8-08-2023

JMO
Click to expand...

In the quoted case, JLS filed an appeal on 2/4/22 with the CT Appellate Court, and pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1, the Appellate transferred the petition to the CT Supreme Court that issued an Opinion on 8/8/23.

We know that since her conviction, MT has cited she was illegally barred from "the Report" (Herman) during her trial. IMO, I believe JLS also means to incorporate the transcript of the closed family hearing where Dr. Herman, author of "the report," abruptly left the witness stand before his testimony completed and/or being dismissed by the Court -- causing the Court to declare a mistrial of the hearing. The Court further sealed the Report and the transcript of the mistrial proceedings.

That said, the most important fact to take from the Supreme Court's Decision is MT was not illegally denied anything from the family court mistrial hearing that neither JLS nor MT were a party to, and have no right to attack another court's sealing order! MOO

From the quoted Supreme Court Decision: 8/8/23:

I agree with the majority that, regardless of whether the defect in the plaintiff's action for a writ of mandamus is denominated jurisdictional, justiciable, or something else, the bottom line is that the plaintiff is precluded from collaterally attacking another court's sealing order in the present action. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.
 
Last edited:
Megnut said:
Yesterday's link was a compendium on filings going back years. Schoenhorn vs. The clerk. As well as pages and pages of all the motions filed during the contested divorce.

It's an historical array IMO of JS's attempts to get the transcript/report.

JMO
Click to expand...
In other words, it sounds to me like this compilation was supposed to be an Exhibit to MT's Appeal of her conviction, if they are in-fact alleging the defendant was illegally barred from using the "Herman report" during the trial, as a basis to appeal the conviction.

ETA: Is this the compilation OP saw?


Case View:

 
Last edited:
Seattle1 said:
In other words, it sounds to me like this compilation was supposed to be an Exhibit to MT's Appeal of her conviction, if they are in-fact alleging the defendant was illegally barred from using the "Herman report" during the trial, as a basis to appeal the conviction.

ETA: Is this the compilation OP saw?


Case View:

Click to expand...
Yes. 67 pages, multiple documents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 3,238 (members: 141, guests: 3,097)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
3,097
Total visitors
3,238
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,298
Messages
18,170,382
Members
232,313
Latest member
Sunchase3400
Back
Top