Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #47

[CTGrammy]

Why would the driver of the Suburban, and presumably the same person who turned JFd cellphone off at 11:09 AM, leave the child's cellphone in the red case in the Suburban for LE to find the handset but not leave JFd's handset in the Suburban too? Possibly still trying to mimic JFd going for a jog? Would JFd's cellphone be immediately identifiable as hers and the child's cellphone, in a possibly blinged up red case, be obvi the child's? I know that @sleuth66 has a different question than mine but I thought the presence of a cellphone handset, never mind to whom it belongs, a little odd and deliberate. GPS tracking by...? MOO, LE already knows why the red case handset was left and has tracked it without disclosing it. Because it would jeopardize an aspect of the investigation. moo.

It is possible that the phone was not seen by Fd, especially if the child was sitting in the middle or 3rd row.

IMO.

 

[afitzy]

So, it is unlikely that the ponchos were worn to commit the murder, could have possibly been contaminated by other items in the bag(s) and may (or may not) have originated from Welles Lane?

Not sure its possible to make any such a sweeping generalisation about FD/MT 'murder gear' utilised in this horrific crime at all IMO. We simply don't have any information to support how/why the ponchos were used as many have conjectured they were used during the clean up process but we frankly just don't know at this point.

FD allegedly biked to Welles from Lapham and most likely only had a small backpack. A disposable poncho folds flat and is very compact and perhaps was used during the clean up phase at Welles? We don't know enough IMO at this point and arguments for any number of uses of the ponchos can be made at this point.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

Just

Just wondering why this is important in the whole scheme of things?
What does it have to do with Jennifer's disappearance?

IMO the OP was going down IMO was the SAME path we saw Fd and Atty BM take with LA when she was deposed in the Civil Case.

Fd was obsessed with figuring out how LA got the children into NY and badgered LA IMO endlessly and even though Atty Weinstein told her to not answer any questions it was clear that this path of questioning was being put in place to possibly blame LA or legally threaten her with not taking adequate care of the children and for her and JFd not complying with the rule that the Court had to approve any trips out of CT.

IMO it was a bullying tactic used to intimidate a witness (in this case LA) who did the best she could in very trying circumstances to get the children from A to B. LA did the best she could to follow the schedule in place for 5/24/19 given that the Suburban was NOT in the garage at the time she returned to 69/71 Welles.

We don't know for sure which vehicle LA used to transport the children. Its possible to assume a vehicle IMO given the limited options but its entirely possible she called car service too and they had a larger vehicle to take the 5 of them into the city. We don't know how all this transpired but it was raised by Fd and Atty BM to place doubt on the motives of LA and even her boyfriend and to take the eyeball of suspicion OFF of Fd/MT and KM and this is IMO what the OP was attempting to do and was doing it no differently than Atty BM and Fd did previously when they deposed LA in December, 2019 in the Civil Case.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

Ok, on NPATTIS blog dated Nov 18th, he describes coming up against Ms. HODGE. TITLED I like Fire an Brimstone.Worth a read. Sorry I wasn't able to cut and paste.

Here is the article and link:

I Like Fire and Brimstone

I Like Fire and Brimstone


News that the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a former client of mine was a delightful surprise. He was convicted of sexually abusing a young child. At trial, we won acquittals of the most serious charges, but the jury convicted on two counts, enough to yield a six-year sentence on judgment day.

At trial, I objected to everything save the sight of my own shadow. My adversary, Danbury’s sharmese Hodge, and I went toe-to-toe on the tender years exception to the hearsay rule, the scope of the constancy of accusation doctrine, the extent to which there is such a thing as expertise in incremental and delayed disclosure -- all familiar bugbears in cases of this sort. I was hoping that the Supreme Court would reverse on one of these grounds.

Instead, the Court reversed on an issue I never raised -- prosecutorial misconduct. Sharmese called me a liar during her rebuttal case. She claimed I favored child abuse. She accused me of using smoke and mirrors in my cross-examination of the child. I recall listening to her the day she huffed and puffed with thoughts of strangling her.

But I figured she was just doing her job. I mean, it’s closing argument, right? Isn’t that where we’re supposed to pin our ears back and let ‘er rip?

I gave a closing argument the other day in Middletown. My adversary was Pete McShane. When I accused him of using parlor tricks to prove his case, he looked as though I had kicked him in the groin, he seemed genuinely hurt. Sharmese wouldn’t have minded a verbal dust-up.

I didn’t take the appeal in the case Charmese and I tried together. Richard Emanuel did. Rich is one of my favorite people in the state. Having him read a trial transcript of mine is like a trip to a benevolent principal’s office. Indeed, I often call him in the midst of trial when I am trying to transform some ornery intuition into something resembling a legal principle.
It was Rich who spotted and framed the prosecutorial misconduct claim against Sharmese.

I’m always a little troubled when I see an appellate tribunal reverse a conviction on the grounds of rhetorical excess during closing argument. I worry that these rulings will chill good advocacy. I don’t want get geared up for the verbal combat that is trial with a judge’s bootblack on my lips. Prosecutorial misconduct rulings filter down to the trial court and encourage a broad use of discretion by judges when it comes to stifling defense counsel. Not long ago I had a New Haven trial judge sustain the state’s objection to my use of a common allegory to end an argument: I can understand a little stupidity and venality among the prosecutorial class; I expect better of judges.

I am delighted my client got a new trial, but I can’t help but feel bad for Sharmese. I’ve watched her emerge in the past few years to be a top-flight trial lawyer. She is tough, determined, quick on her feet, and relentless. Slapping her down just when she starts to take flight seems almost cruel.

I don’t know whether the state will try my client again. Neither do I know whether the client will return to me if the state brings on round two. But I’d like the chance to go toe-to-toe with Sharmese again in this case. I wouldn’t even complain if she called me a few names, and harrumphed her way around the courtroom like a mad-hatter in search of a hat rack. God knows, I’ll have a few choices words of my own for her.

I suspect the re-trial will be more tame, however. She’ll be looking over her shoulder, lest the Supremes take notice. That’s a shame really. Please, let’s not neuter trial lawyers, too. There’s got to me some place left for verbal gunslingers, the sort of people who object first, and ask questions later.



Related topics: Connecticut Law Tribune Columns

 

[afitzy]

Why would the driver of the Suburban, and presumably the same person who turned JFd cellphone off at 11:09 AM, leave the child's cellphone in the red case in the Suburban for LE to find the handset but not leave JFd's handset in the Suburban too? Possibly still trying to mimic JFd going for a jog? Would JFd's cellphone be immediately identifiable as hers and the child's cellphone, in a possibly blinged up red case, be obvi the child's? I know that @sleuth66 has a different question than mine but I thought the presence of a cellphone handset, never mind to whom it belongs, a little odd and deliberate. GPS tracking by...? MOO, LE already knows why the red case handset was left and has tracked it without disclosing it. Because it would jeopardize an aspect of the investigation. moo.

IDK, just tossing this out there as others previously had put forward the idea that the Suburban was left in a state to invite its being stolen from Lapham.

If the older iPhones were in plain view then perhaps they were left to draw a possible thief into the vehicle and then the thief might realise that the keys were still in the Suburban and take the Suburban for a joy ride or head to the nearest chop shop?

Stolen electronic items and smash and grab thefts (usually don't even have to smash as people leave their cars open with wallets and electronic gear in plain sight!) in NC are probably one of the top crimes. What better way to invite a car theft than to spread out a few phones as 'bait'!

Just a random thought as it would seem to make more sense to take all the phones and destroy them rather than leave them in plain sight.....


MOO

 

[acutename]

KM most likely was the 3rd party in communication between FD and MT...however, I wonder if it may have been MT mother or sister.

KM attorneys at least know what a Gag Order is....even if we want info from any comments defense makes, at least for now KM defense lawyers are following the courts rules. (Not like NP and all)

KM probably wrote a note....because he knows we love to read lips!

KM...his awkward facial expression I believe is a muscle or nerve issue, not because he is making faces or looking quizzical because he does not understand. The awkward look worse when he scrunches his face or smiles. This is just how his face is.


All above JMOO.

was not always that way, though his smile is a little "left-sided":

 

[MsJosie]

was not always that way, though his smile is a little "left-sided":
View attachment 233491

Thanks for the earlier picture of him....younger, maybe not as much hard parties or whatever compared to today.

My MIL had Bells Palsy and it changed one side of her face....imo something happened that changed his look, Bells Palsy, a mini stoke, another nerve issue...it could be anything. I just don’t feel like he is making the face on purpose...but I do believe he is guilty as sin.
Jmoo

 

[spaz1959]

Here is the article and link:

I Like Fire and Brimstone

I Like Fire and Brimstone


News that the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a former client of mine was a delightful surprise. He was convicted of sexually abusing a young child. At trial, we won acquittals of the most serious charges, but the jury convicted on two counts, enough to yield a six-year sentence on judgment day.

At trial, I objected to everything save the sight of my own shadow. My adversary, Danbury’s sharmese Hodge, and I went toe-to-toe on the tender years exception to the hearsay rule, the scope of the constancy of accusation doctrine, the extent to which there is such a thing as expertise in incremental and delayed disclosure -- all familiar bugbears in cases of this sort. I was hoping that the Supreme Court would reverse on one of these grounds.

Instead, the Court reversed on an issue I never raised -- prosecutorial misconduct. Sharmese called me a liar during her rebuttal case. She claimed I favored child abuse. She accused me of using smoke and mirrors in my cross-examination of the child. I recall listening to her the day she huffed and puffed with thoughts of strangling her.

But I figured she was just doing her job. I mean, it’s closing argument, right? Isn’t that where we’re supposed to pin our ears back and let ‘er rip?

I gave a closing argument the other day in Middletown. My adversary was Pete McShane. When I accused him of using parlor tricks to prove his case, he looked as though I had kicked him in the groin, he seemed genuinely hurt. Sharmese wouldn’t have minded a verbal dust-up.

I didn’t take the appeal in the case Charmese and I tried together. Richard Emanuel did. Rich is one of my favorite people in the state. Having him read a trial transcript of mine is like a trip to a benevolent principal’s office. Indeed, I often call him in the midst of trial when I am trying to transform some ornery intuition into something resembling a legal principle.
It was Rich who spotted and framed the prosecutorial misconduct claim against Sharmese.

I’m always a little troubled when I see an appellate tribunal reverse a conviction on the grounds of rhetorical excess during closing argument. I worry that these rulings will chill good advocacy. I don’t want get geared up for the verbal combat that is trial with a judge’s bootblack on my lips. Prosecutorial misconduct rulings filter down to the trial court and encourage a broad use of discretion by judges when it comes to stifling defense counsel. Not long ago I had a New Haven trial judge sustain the state’s objection to my use of a common allegory to end an argument: I can understand a little stupidity and venality among the prosecutorial class; I expect better of judges.

I am delighted my client got a new trial, but I can’t help but feel bad for Sharmese. I’ve watched her emerge in the past few years to be a top-flight trial lawyer. She is tough, determined, quick on her feet, and relentless. Slapping her down just when she starts to take flight seems almost cruel.

I don’t know whether the state will try my client again. Neither do I know whether the client will return to me if the state brings on round two. But I’d like the chance to go toe-to-toe with Sharmese again in this case. I wouldn’t even complain if she called me a few names, and harrumphed her way around the courtroom like a mad-hatter in search of a hat rack. God knows, I’ll have a few choices words of my own for her.

I suspect the re-trial will be more tame, however. She’ll be looking over her shoulder, lest the Supremes take notice. That’s a shame really. Please, let’s not neuter trial lawyers, too. There’s got to me some place left for verbal gunslingers, the sort of people who object first, and ask questions later.



Related topics: Connecticut Law Tribune Columns

IMO this was a very insightful look at the inner workings of NP and SH defence attorney.

 

[afitzy]

Here is the article and link:

I Like Fire and Brimstone

I Like Fire and Brimstone


News that the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a former client of mine was a delightful surprise. He was convicted of sexually abusing a young child. At trial, we won acquittals of the most serious charges, but the jury convicted on two counts, enough to yield a six-year sentence on judgment day.

At trial, I objected to everything save the sight of my own shadow. My adversary, Danbury’s sharmese Hodge, and I went toe-to-toe on the tender years exception to the hearsay rule, the scope of the constancy of accusation doctrine, the extent to which there is such a thing as expertise in incremental and delayed disclosure -- all familiar bugbears in cases of this sort. I was hoping that the Supreme Court would reverse on one of these grounds.

Instead, the Court reversed on an issue I never raised -- prosecutorial misconduct. Sharmese called me a liar during her rebuttal case. She claimed I favored child abuse. She accused me of using smoke and mirrors in my cross-examination of the child. I recall listening to her the day she huffed and puffed with thoughts of strangling her.

But I figured she was just doing her job. I mean, it’s closing argument, right? Isn’t that where we’re supposed to pin our ears back and let ‘er rip?

I gave a closing argument the other day in Middletown. My adversary was Pete McShane. When I accused him of using parlor tricks to prove his case, he looked as though I had kicked him in the groin, he seemed genuinely hurt. Sharmese wouldn’t have minded a verbal dust-up.

I didn’t take the appeal in the case Charmese and I tried together. Richard Emanuel did. Rich is one of my favorite people in the state. Having him read a trial transcript of mine is like a trip to a benevolent principal’s office. Indeed, I often call him in the midst of trial when I am trying to transform some ornery intuition into something resembling a legal principle.
It was Rich who spotted and framed the prosecutorial misconduct claim against Sharmese.

I’m always a little troubled when I see an appellate tribunal reverse a conviction on the grounds of rhetorical excess during closing argument. I worry that these rulings will chill good advocacy. I don’t want get geared up for the verbal combat that is trial with a judge’s bootblack on my lips. Prosecutorial misconduct rulings filter down to the trial court and encourage a broad use of discretion by judges when it comes to stifling defense counsel. Not long ago I had a New Haven trial judge sustain the state’s objection to my use of a common allegory to end an argument: I can understand a little stupidity and venality among the prosecutorial class; I expect better of judges.

I am delighted my client got a new trial, but I can’t help but feel bad for Sharmese. I’ve watched her emerge in the past few years to be a top-flight trial lawyer. She is tough, determined, quick on her feet, and relentless. Slapping her down just when she starts to take flight seems almost cruel.

I don’t know whether the state will try my client again. Neither do I know whether the client will return to me if the state brings on round two. But I’d like the chance to go toe-to-toe with Sharmese again in this case. I wouldn’t even complain if she called me a few names, and harrumphed her way around the courtroom like a mad-hatter in search of a hat rack. God knows, I’ll have a few choices words of my own for her.

I suspect the re-trial will be more tame, however. She’ll be looking over her shoulder, lest the Supremes take notice. That’s a shame really. Please, let’s not neuter trial lawyers, too. There’s got to me some place left for verbal gunslingers, the sort of people who object first, and ask questions later.



Related topics: Connecticut Law Tribune Columns

A bit more about her....and surprisingly enough Atty Riccio who handled Fd early AW1 bail if I recall and then promptly fled (or appeared to IMO)!

Youth v. Experience: A trial for the ages

 

[acutename]

IDK, just tossing this out there as others previously had put forward the idea that the Suburban was left in a state to invite its being stolen from Lapham.

If the older iPhones were in plain view then perhaps they were left to draw a possible thief into the vehicle and then the thief might realise that the keys were still in the Suburban and take the Suburban for a joy ride or head to the nearest chop shop?

Stolen electronic items and smash and grab thefts (usually don't even have to smash as people leave their cars open with wallets and electronic gear in plain sight!) in NC are probably one of the top crimes. What better way to invite a car theft than to spread out a few phones as 'bait'!

Just a random thought as it would seem to make more sense to take all the phones and destroy them rather than leave them in plain sight.....


MOO

am amazed this vehicle remained undisturbed for ...8 hrs? appears that the neighborhood is safer than the average bear

 

[Alathea]

IMO the OP was going down IMO was the SAME path we saw Fd and Atty BM take with LA when she was deposed in the Civil Case.

Fd was obsessed with figuring out how LA got the children into NY and badgered LA IMO endlessly and even though Atty Weinstein told her to not answer any questions it was clear that this path of questioning was being put in place to possibly blame LA or legally threaten her with not taking adequate care of the children and for her and JFd not complying with the rule that the Court had to approve any trips out of CT.

IMO it was a bullying tactic used to intimidate a witness (in this case LA) who did the best she could in very trying circumstances to get the children from A to B. LA did the best she could to follow the schedule in place for 5/24/19 given that the Suburban was NOT in the garage at the time she returned to 69/71 Welles.

We don't know for sure which vehicle LA used to transport the children. Its possible to assume a vehicle IMO given the limited options but its entirely possible she called car service too and they had a larger vehicle to take the 5 of them into the city. We don't know how all this transpired but it was raised by Fd and Atty BM to place doubt on the motives of LA and even her boyfriend and to take the eyeball of suspicion OFF of Fd/MT and KM and this is IMO what the OP was attempting to do and was doing it no differently than Atty BM and Fd did previously when they deposed LA in December, 2019 in the Civil Case.

MOO

BBM

Thank you! I wanted to say that, but did not.

It's interesting how a few here continue to focus on irrelevant details and not on the fact that the live cases - MT and KM - have so much evidence on them. Whom are they trying to protect?

 

[MollyDDD]

Not sure its possible to make any such a sweeping generalisation about FD/MT 'murder gear' utilised in this horrific crime at all IMO. We simply don't have any information to support how/why the ponchos were used as many have conjectured they were used during the clean up process but we frankly just don't know at this point.

FD allegedly biked to Welles from Lapham and most likely only had a small backpack. A disposable poncho folds flat and is very compact and perhaps was used during the clean up phase at Welles? We don't know enough IMO at this point and arguments for any number of uses of the ponchos can be made at this point.

MOO

Does anyone know what the weather was like the day JD was killed?

 

[BellaVita]

Sorry, I should have spelled it out.

JFd told the Nanny that JFd would drive the Land Rover to NYC for ease in parking. That left the Suburban for the Nanny who just had to drop off the children at the Orthodontist and Not park there since JFd planned to meet the children at that office.

However, We All Know that when the Nanny showed up to 69/71WL that Friday, the Suburban was Gone and later found at Waveny.

Obviously, the Nanny did NOT drive the Suburban that day, but it Was The PLAN that she was Supposed to drive the Suburban in to the city and JFd, the Land Rover.

My Original Post was in regards to the Red Cased Phone found in the Suburban, and that it was more than likely, a Child's phone and Not JFd's.

Some on this thread made note that the Red Cased Phone was probably JFd's Second phone or even her Only phone, and I do Not agree.

I believe that the Red Cased Phone found in the Suburban was a Child's phone, and That child May have left the phone in the Suburban to retrieve later, since the school has a No Phones policy.

There is NO WAY that the child would know, that they would Not have access to the Suburban, when school let out.

But, that does Not Negate the point at hand. Which Is?

The Red Cased Phone, found in the Suburban, was most likely a Child's phone and Not JFd's.

My theory on How the Child's phone was left in the Suburban is that One of the children was going home with a friend, straight from school, and IF That child wanted Their phone after school let out, then That child could retrieve Their cell phone from the Suburban, when the Nanny arrived in the Suburban at School Pickup for the Other 4 children. The One Child Assuming that the Nanny would be driving the Suburban As Planned.

The other 4 children were going home to 69/71WL for lunch Before going in to the city. Therefore, IF these 4 children wanted Their devices, They would be able to retrieve Their own phones from Their home, before heading in to the city.

That was Not the case for the One child going home with a friend.

Obviously, That child did not get Their phone, since the phone was in the Suburban at Waveny.

I bet that it was That Child's Plan, though.

IMO.

Responding to BBM: based on what is the phone with the red case a child's phone? Anything is possible, but what, in your words, makes it more than likely? I did read the SW again and saw that it requested records for both primary and all secondary accounts accounts associated with JD instead of separate warrants for all the phones. It's possible the phone was a child's phone, I'm just not seeing why it would be "more than likely".

 

[afitzy]

Does anyone know what the weather was like the day JD was killed?

It was a beautiful warm sunny day!

Here is the link @MollyDDD:
Weather in May 2019 in Town of New Canaan, Connecticut, USA

 

[afitzy]

am amazed this vehicle remained undisturbed for ...8 hrs? appears that the neighborhood is safer than the average bear

Yes and no as low level petty theft is ongoing issue if you look at the police log each week. It was a holiday weekend when JFd was murdered and the town was quiet.

Car break-ins are pretty common IMO in NC with phones and electronics at the top of the list in the Police Log each week. Irwin Park, the YMCA and Waveny Park all had break-in this week and the car in Irwin was smashed to enter. Most cars aren't hard to break into as they aren't locked unfortunately.

 

[BellaVita]

Even the unnatural, indirect language NP used in referring to “a lying lover” was deliberately ambiguous IMO, so that team Fd could claim it was a reference either to MT or to someone else. It was said in a context that could have related to the EE. I still believe Fd and MT may have discussed, either before or after they and KM murdered Jennifer, the possibility of claiming the EE had been having an affair with JFd, giving rise to motive. This would mean it was feasible to describe EE as a lying lover.
IMO MOO

RSBM:Respectfully disagree. EE and MT were referred to separately in NP comments, IMO.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/18/jennifer-dulos-husbands-lying-lover-to-be-arraigned-on-new-charges/
“The new warrant speaks of a lying lover and handyman with something to hide,” Fotis’ lawyer Norm Pattis previously said, the Connecticut Post reported. “When do we get the chance to question these folks?”

He referred to the "lying lover" and "handyman" as two separate people. There was not a hidden meaning there. Just typical NP hyperbole. MOO.

 

[afitzy]

Source: Daily Mail

 

[spaz1959]

A bit more about her....and surprisingly enough Atty Riccio who handled Fd early AW1 bail if I recall and then promptly fled (or appeared to IMO)!

Youth v. Experience: A trial for the ages

Very Interesting. High praise for SH from 2012. I would imagine she's only gotten better. This is the prosecution for KM ?

 

[acutename]

Thanks for the earlier picture of him....younger, maybe not as much hard parties or whatever compared to today.

My MIL had Bells Palsy and it changed one side of her face....imo something happened that changed his look, Bells Palsy, a mini stoke, another nerve issue...it could be anything. I just don’t feel like he is making the face on purpose...but I do believe he is guilty as sin.
Jmoo

feel that maybe he used to be a different person, IMO
sad IMO

 

[acutename]

Here is the article and link:

I Like Fire and Brimstone

I Like Fire and Brimstone


News that the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a former client of mine was a delightful surprise. He was convicted of sexually abusing a young child. At trial, we won acquittals of the most serious charges, but the jury convicted on two counts, enough to yield a six-year sentence on judgment day.

At trial, I objected to everything save the sight of my own shadow. My adversary, Danbury’s sharmese Hodge, and I went toe-to-toe on the tender years exception to the hearsay rule, the scope of the constancy of accusation doctrine, the extent to which there is such a thing as expertise in incremental and delayed disclosure -- all familiar bugbears in cases of this sort. I was hoping that the Supreme Court would reverse on one of these grounds.

Instead, the Court reversed on an issue I never raised -- prosecutorial misconduct. Sharmese called me a liar during her rebuttal case. She claimed I favored child abuse. She accused me of using smoke and mirrors in my cross-examination of the child. I recall listening to her the day she huffed and puffed with thoughts of strangling her.

But I figured she was just doing her job. I mean, it’s closing argument, right? Isn’t that where we’re supposed to pin our ears back and let ‘er rip?

I gave a closing argument the other day in Middletown. My adversary was Pete McShane. When I accused him of using parlor tricks to prove his case, he looked as though I had kicked him in the groin, he seemed genuinely hurt. Sharmese wouldn’t have minded a verbal dust-up.

I didn’t take the appeal in the case Charmese and I tried together. Richard Emanuel did. Rich is one of my favorite people in the state. Having him read a trial transcript of mine is like a trip to a benevolent principal’s office. Indeed, I often call him in the midst of trial when I am trying to transform some ornery intuition into something resembling a legal principle.
It was Rich who spotted and framed the prosecutorial misconduct claim against Sharmese.

I’m always a little troubled when I see an appellate tribunal reverse a conviction on the grounds of rhetorical excess during closing argument. I worry that these rulings will chill good advocacy. I don’t want get geared up for the verbal combat that is trial with a judge’s bootblack on my lips. Prosecutorial misconduct rulings filter down to the trial court and encourage a broad use of discretion by judges when it comes to stifling defense counsel. Not long ago I had a New Haven trial judge sustain the state’s objection to my use of a common allegory to end an argument: I can understand a little stupidity and venality among the prosecutorial class; I expect better of judges.

I am delighted my client got a new trial, but I can’t help but feel bad for Sharmese. I’ve watched her emerge in the past few years to be a top-flight trial lawyer. She is tough, determined, quick on her feet, and relentless. Slapping her down just when she starts to take flight seems almost cruel.

I don’t know whether the state will try my client again. Neither do I know whether the client will return to me if the state brings on round two. But I’d like the chance to go toe-to-toe with Sharmese again in this case. I wouldn’t even complain if she called me a few names, and harrumphed her way around the courtroom like a mad-hatter in search of a hat rack. God knows, I’ll have a few choices words of my own for her.

I suspect the re-trial will be more tame, however. She’ll be looking over her shoulder, lest the Supremes take notice. That’s a shame really. Please, let’s not neuter trial lawyers, too. There’s got to me some place left for verbal gunslingers, the sort of people who object first, and ask questions later.



Related topics: Connecticut Law Tribune Columns

"I remember listening to her as she huffed and puffed with thoughts of strangling her."

hmmm