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

[Seattle1]

“My guess is that Horn had the MT copy long before he got his 'official' copy from Judge Blawie.”

This. Right. Here!!!!! I have always believed this. He’d seen it, he had a copy of it, and he meant to use Judge Blawie’s permission for him to see it, as permission to use it. He just needed Judge Blawie’s permission, and he got it.

Except Judge Blawie's permission was conditional, and so restrictive that JLS went as far as to personally (as a resident) file an appeal seeking to obtain the Court transcript of the hearing when the Herman report was presented to the Court. Ultimately, the subject hearing was declared a mistrial, and the report sealed. And JLS received no transcript.

Judge releases Dulos family psychological report to defense — with restrictions

With jury trials still on hold until next month, a Stamford judge could not give...

www.stamfordadvocate.com

 

[BJarv]

2023 Connecticut General Statutes​

Title 52 - Civil Actions​

Chapter 915 - Habeas Corpus​

Section 52-466. - Application for writ of habeas corpus. Service. Return.​

Section 52-470. - Summary disposal of habeas corpus case. Determination of good cause for trial. Appeal by person convicted of crime.​

2023 Connecticut General Statutes :: Title 52 - Civil Actions :: Chapter 915 - Habeas Corpus :: Section 52-466. - Application for writ of habeas corpus. Service. Return.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-466. (2023) - Application for writ of habeas corpus. Service. Return. from 2023 General Statutes of Connecticut

law.justia.com

2023 Connecticut General Statutes :: Title 52 - Civil Actions :: Chapter 915 - Habeas Corpus :: Section 52-470. - Summary disposal of habeas corpus case. Determination of good cause for trial. Appeal by person convicted of crime.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-470. (2023) - Summary disposal of habeas corpus case. Determination of good cause for trial. Appeal by person convicted of crime. from 2023 General Statutes of Connecticut

law.justia.com

@Seattle1, thanks for this info, it was very helpful.

So, it seems this is a civil action by MT being filed to overturn her State Court conviction? The language used refers to the the habeas case being heard but does this mean that the entire civil case is handled directly by the Judge with no jury and that the Judge issues a decision which it seems can then be appealed up the judiciary food chain in CT which I guess would be Appellate and then Supreme Courts?

I found this flow chart that helped me understand this all a bit as I'm unclear still if its just a Judge that hears this case or whether a jury is involved at this initial filing stage which it seems is just Superior Court level which in the case of MT was same level as her trial conviction? Or, is this initial case filed at the Appellate level because that is the next highest Court from the trial court where MT was convicted?

The procedural details seem a bit murky to me still as I have not seen a case like this one before.

So, based on the flow chart MT has completed Step 1 (Trial) and filed notice of intent to make Direct Appeal (Step 2) and now is working on Step 3 and 4 for the State Habeas? Is this how you read where the MT case is?

MOO

Habeas Corpus — national habeas institute

habeasinstitute.org

MOO

 

[Megnut]

@Seattle1, thanks for this info, it was very helpful.

So, it seems this is a civil action by MT being filed to overturn her State Court conviction? The language used refers to the the habeas case being heard but does this mean that the entire civil case is handled directly by the Judge with no jury and that the Judge issues a decision which it seems can then be appealed up the judiciary food chain in CT which I guess would be Appellate and then Supreme Courts?

I found this flow chart that helped me understand this all a bit as I'm unclear still if its just a Judge that hears this case or whether a jury is involved at this initial filing stage which it seems is just Superior Court level which in the case of MT was same level as her trial conviction? Or, is this initial case filed at the Appellate level because that is the next highest Court from the trial court where MT was convicted?

The procedural details seem a bit murky to me still as I have not seen a case like this one before.

So, based on the flow chart MT has completed Step 1 (Trial) and filed notice of intent to make Direct Appeal (Step 2) and now is working on Step 3 and 4 for the State Habeas? Is this how you read where the MT case is?

MOO

View attachment 533026

Habeas Corpus — national habeas institute

habeasinstitute.org

MOO

You missed an arrow.

All the arrows.

They all point at Inmate# ANUMBERICANTBETROUBLEDTOREMEMBER.

It's sickening how willing they are to abuse the justice system. FD was the headliner but MT is no primo ballerina. Tacoma two-step notwithstanding.

JMO

 

[Jmoose]

Except Judge Blawie's permission was conditional, and so restrictive that JLS went as far as to personally (as a resident) file an appeal seeking to obtain the Court transcript of the hearing when the Herman report was presented to the Court. Ultimately, the subject hearing was declared a mistrial, and the report sealed. And JLS received no transcript.

Judge releases Dulos family psychological report to defense — with restrictions

With jury trials still on hold until next month, a Stamford judge could not give...

www.stamfordadvocate.com

Yes, all of this is true-but in spite of the restrictions, giving the report to Schoenhorn to read, emboldened him to try and use it. He cared little for the restrictions placed on it; giving it to him made Schoenhorn and Felson continue to try and step over the “double yellow line”.

 

[Seattle1]

Yes, all of this is true-but in spite of the restrictions, giving the report to Schoenhorn to read, emboldened him to try and use it. He cared little for the restrictions placed on it; giving it to him made Schoenhorn and Felson continue to try and step over the “double yellow line”.

IMO, it's all confirmation that JLS is a shameless, sleazy lawyer. But I don't blame Blawie here. He allowed JLS access to the Herman Report because CSP first obtained a copy under a search warrant. IMO, by putting restrictions on his ruling, Blawie saved the Prosecution from the defense receiving the report by CSP warrant in discovery -- sans restrictions!

Ultimately, the State worked daily to keep the restrictions on the Herman Report by at least two previous Courts in place, throughout the trial. IMO, that's what makes MT's contempt to display the Report so egregious.

 

[BJarv]

IMO, it's all confirmation that JLS is a shameless, sleazy lawyer. But I don't blame Blawie here. He allowed JLS access to the Herman Report because CSP first obtained a copy under a search warrant. IMO, by putting restrictions on his ruling, Blawie saved the Prosecution from the defense receiving the report by CSP warrant in discovery -- sans restrictions!

Ultimately, the State worked daily to keep the restrictions on the Herman Report by at least two previous Courts in place, throughout the trial. IMO, that's what makes MT's contempt to display the Report so egregious.

Yes, but I blame Blawie and Randolph as Judges for NOT making sure Schoenhorn and Felson followed the original instructions/limitations of Blawie. Schoenhorn spent years alluding to the report indirectly to the Press and directly in motions. IMO if the report was not to be admitted to evidence in the trial then it could not be discussed by any of the participants at trial. Judge Randloph didn't do this and created this almost 1/2 in and 1/2 out situation for a document that was legally sealed and thus inaccessible to the trial evidence and jurors.

I don't know why Judge Randolph didn't shut down the Horn speech on the report in a hearing on the issue as if this had been done more directly imo then the ongoing discussion of the report even at trial would never imo have happened. As it was, the jury heard endlessly about a report they could never view and I am angry that the Judge put them in this position. The report was allowed to exist but not be introduced into evidence which imo is ok but then if it cant be in evidence then it cant be discussed in front of the jury! Instead the jury had to listen to Felson Mini Horn grill two 'witnesses' in the form of the corrupt imo attorneys, GAL Meehan and Michael Rose dance around the issues of the report until Judge Randolph accused Mini Horn of 'crossing a double yellow line'. Frankly she was wrong but the Judge was in error to even give her the opportunity to do what she did with this entire line of testimony at trial. IMO it had to have been very confusing to the Jury and also might have created 1 or more juror holdouts which I also think is very misleading relative to the totality of the evidence. Judge Randolph imo was wrong on this and he had to have seen the error of his ways as the trial went on. I know the testimony from Meehan and Rose was discussed extensively amongst the parties in chambers but imo it was problematic on many levels and Judge Randolph had to have known that but he did what he did with the topic and trusted Felson/Mini Horn to follow the rules that he had established but she didn't. Why he didn't sanction her is another mystery for another lifetime!

MOO

 

[BJarv]

Yes, all of this is true-but in spite of the restrictions, giving the report to Schoenhorn to read, emboldened him to try and use it. He cared little for the restrictions placed on it; giving it to him made Schoenhorn and Felson continue to try and step over the “double yellow line”.

Schoenhorn and Felson did what they did because per usual No Judge in CT stands behind their orders imo. Judge Randolph and Blawie could have done something to Horn and Mini Horn to insure they complied with the order of Blawie but they chose not to. I blame the Judges on this one and the State for not standing up and objecting when they saw non compliance with the original Blawie Order on the Report. MOO

 

[Cloudydiamond]

Shall we all wish the inmate a happy 50th birthday today?

 

[pernickety]

Schoenhorn and Felson did what they did because per usual No Judge in CT stands behind their orders imo. Judge Randolph and Blawie could have done something to Horn and Mini Horn to insure they complied with the order of Blawie but they chose not to. I blame the Judges on this one and the State for not standing up and objecting when they saw non compliance with the original Blawie Order on the Report. MOO

I wonder if Judge Blawie read the report.

 

[Jmoose]

I wonder if Judge Blawie read the report.

I think he must have, don’t you think? It would surprise me if he handed it over to Schoenhorn without knowing what he was giving him.

 

[LosAngeles]

Shall we all wish the inmate a happy 50th birthday today?
View attachment 533612

WoW...she'll be 64 years old when she is released. And her daughter will be 32 years old. Was it worth it Michelle? BTW, where is Jennifer, birthday girl?

 

[pernickety]

I think he must have, don’t you think? It would surprise me if he handed it over to Schoenhorn without knowing what he was giving him.

I think, according to my reading of case law, summarized under statute, that even judges aren't free to look at a medical report without consent of the patient.

 

[Seattle1]

I think, according to my reading of case law, summarized under statute, that even judges aren't free to look at a medical report without consent of the patient.

IMO, Blawie ruled as a matter of law, not the content. Here, the defense was arguing that MT was mentioned in the Report, and JLS wanted to confirm whether or not there was anything of evidentiary value about his client in the Report.

Blawie reasoned that the CSP obtained the report from the residence by search warrant, and it followed that JLS should be able to view any reference to MT, already viewed by CSP. However, Blawie added restrictions in respect of another Courts ruling to seal the report after a Mistrial.

I first believed that JLS was only going to be given access to the report pages that referenced MT and was surprised to learn he received the full report. I think this may have been by consent of both parties or that there had been another argument over comprehension of reference to MT without the full report. MOO