Here is document for those that are brave enough to dive in, feel free:
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=lqAhny/4Z2wbayRpdbojjg==
Originally my plan to was read the above document and ask questions. I have any number of questions about the document but really my basic question is why do we see Atty. P. yet again (yawn) beating the drum about the 1st Amendment and the right to free speech in a motion to appeal a gag order imposed by Judge Blawie when I believe the real and fundamental issue at hand is the seeming inability or unwillingness of Atty. P. to comply with Rules 3.6(a) and 3.6(b) of Professional Conduct and the inability or unwillingness of the State to 'call out' such non compliance except in a response to the Atty. P. motion to dismiss the 'gag order'?
We also have the issue in 3.6(b) where the behaviour standard refers to a 'reasonable attorney' and it does seem like perhaps a clarification of this standard for Atty. P. might just be necessary and I do wonder if this might have been done earlier in Chambers outside of the Press view and warnings given that non compliance won't be tolerated? Perhaps this was done and Atty. P. simply didn't listen to the warnings of Judge Blawie. Sadly we don't know. But the case ended up with a 'gag order' IMO as the result of insufficient policing of basic standards for whatever reason.
I do think we all know that the 'gag order' was imposed for a reason. But I do wonder if Atty. P. had been following the rules whether it could have been avoided in its entirety? IDK. I support the 'gag order' as drafted as it seems to be the only way given the players involved with the case to make sure a jury can be found and a fair trial delivered IMO. Its sad that Court can't or won't impose discipline on attorneys that don't follow rules and it took the 'gag order' discussion/debate to see the State call out Atty. P. for his non compliance with basic Court procedures.
Its all a bit convoluted but I believe the 1st Amendment issues, the FD right to speak and Atty. P. right to defend his client are simply 'smokescreen' issues to hide behind and deflect (yet again) responsibility for following the rules of the court and to go back to a toddler reference to make this point clear, "colouring inside the lines". I think the bottom line was that Atty. P. wants to say whatever he wants to say at any time and to anyone with no questioning from anyone and then IMO conveniently hides behind the existence of 3.6(a) and 3.6(b) when convenient to do so. Why did neither Judge Blawie or State Atty Colangelo call BS on this when the first "Gone Girl" and "Revenge Suicide" statements started? I would love to see 20 atty's shown the facts of the case relating to statements made by Atty. P. and see how many would agree with the statement that he was in compliance with Professional Guidelines based on the 'reasonable attorney' standard? My guess is that any CT atty following this case will now simply thumb their nose at 3.6(a) and (b) because they have seen it totally mocked in the Dulos case!
The Judge Blawie 'gag order' was necessitated almost completely IMO by the inability of Atty. P. to follow along with the Professional Rules of Conduct. Sure there were LE leaks along the way too and these leaks no doubt wound up Atty. P. into a frenzy but for each leak and comment Atty. P. had the choice of whether to behave in a manner that was consistent with the rules of the court. State Atty Colangelo doesn't talk about the Atty. P. leaking of the draft psych report in Family Court but in that case we saw a confidential document leaked to the press with no consequences for Atty. P either from the Court or the State Bar other than him being 'excused' from being the court via what we guess to be a behind closed door meeting with Judge Heller. Good to see how State of CT Judges are protecting confidential information of participants in litigation as that was one of the worst violations of sensitive information I've seen in a long time with zero consequences.
But I do wonder why we didn't see either Judge Blawie or Atty Colangelo calling out the violations to the Professional Rules of Conduct in advance of calling for a 'gag order' in Criminal Court? I don't think that its any mystery or 'secret' that Atty. P. has issues being told what he can and cannot do. Atty. P. IMO just keep pushing the boundaries further and further until the public saw what was happening and was appalled at what was being allowed to be said about someone not here to defend herself.
So, when the statement was made about the MT polygraph test which was known to be false according to State Atty Colangelo why not simply call out the falsehood? This same question exists for the many horrible statements made by Atty. P. about the missing victim JF which so far as I can tell when unchallenged by the State and were never questioned by Judge Blawie until the light bulb went off that things had been going on for months and there was a major issue with the potential jury pool and possible fair trial for FD and MT. Why did it take so long for something to be done? Presumably the Judge and States atty are keeping up with the external news on the case and so to see the victim being labeled as a heroin addict and girlfriend to a drug dealer and having staged her own disappearance simply to spite her husband, perhaps it was a clear signal that things had simply gone off the rails? I don't get the ongoing pussyfooting around the rules? But we see it time and time again both in Civil Court, Family Court and now sadly Criminal Court. What is the purpose of the rules unless the people charged with maintaining them actually do something to make sure they are followed?
Atty Colangelo says (about Atty. P.), "Some of his statements do not run afoul of Rule 3.6(a), but many of them plain do". GREAT, but why not do something about it? Atty Colangelo goes on and on talking about the issues of Atty. P. many statements prior to the 'gag order' and then finishes on Page A121 by saying, "The Court should not let them go unadmonished". Atty Colangelo on Page A122 goes on to say that "Rule 3.6(B) is not a license to say anything counsel thinks will help his client in response to potentially negative publicity. Rather, statements just be "required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of the recent publicity."
REALLY. GOOD TO KNOW. BUT WHY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
So, we seem to have a difference of opinion as to Professional Standards between the parties and the Judge that rather than dealing with the issues directly IMO skirts the discussion by imposing a 'gag order' perhaps to avoid later appeal IDK? But, the net effect IMO of not addressing the conduct issues is that Atty. P. gets to wave the 1st Amendment flag and talk word salad and simply IMO waste time on issues that 'at best' are peripheral to the case of the State against FD and uses the State Supreme Court as a launching pad for future Atty. P. appeals.
So, my big question was why did Judge Blawie and State Atty Colangelo let the situation of Atty. P. statements to the Press escalate into a place where the court finds itself today and now we have State Supreme Court Justices spending their time on 1st Amendment issues not really directly tied to the original issues at hand IMO? IMO it would have been more productive for Atty. P. to have been sanctioned at the lower court level for non compliance with 3.6(a) and/or (b) and let him take the sanctions up on appeal to the State Supreme Court and not have the State Supreme Court engaged in a review of Atty. P. 1st Amendment Word Salad that has little to do with the real issues at hand.
The other question I have is also directed to Judge Blawie and States Atty Colangelo and it relates to what are the rights of a missing victim who is not here to defend herself against the horrific comments directed in her direction by Atty. P. The State of CT doesn't have a missing persons advocate process that I'm aware of but it seems that on some basic level that the comments of Atty. P. and his team of PR people should have been stopped based simply on imposing compliance with the rules of Professional Conduct many many months ago. Why was nobody in the judiciary looking at this issue or caring that the reputation and character of a person not present was being for lack of a better word, "SLAMMED" in the press by supposed Officers of the Court? Why was this allowed to happen? The damage to JD has been done and no gag order is going to fix that damage IMO. Does the Court simply not care about the damage inflicted to date by Atty. P. statements?
Many things about this case have been disappointing from the State Police who don't believe they have an obligation to update the public on their case in a professional manner as is seen in similar cases every day across the county (even if just to say we continue to work hard!) and instead choose to selectively leak information to the press which served to inflame a situation where defense counsel felt compelled to respond by victim shaming and blaming. But the most disappointing thing IMO has been the State not protecting JD as a missing person as it almost seemed that JD didn't matter as a human being to the State at all and so her being thrashed in the Press via daily ongoing comments from the defense weren't important.
IMO JD as a human being and mother of 5 small children, who at some point in the future will read about this case and their mother someday, is important and IMO she and her reputation should be closely guarded by the State and I feel like the State let JD down in a very big way in not protecting her through this process. Not sure what her 5 children will think reading back on what was allowed to be said about their mother many years from now and where nobody did anything in the early months of the case to protect their mother from false statements being made about her.
MOO
