GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #69

[lucegirl]

Misstatements can be accidental and even negligent - but I would call those mistakes, for which a sincere and profuse apology to the Court may get you out of something more serious.
Calling something a misstatement versus a mistake is IMO a polite way of signaling you suspect lying, but aren’t sure the nature of the misstatement.

Misstatements can be reckless and/or intentional leading to contempt and debarment. I would call these false statements and/misrepresentations. Judges would most likely use these words rather than standing up and yelling “YOU are lying!”

Word salad!

 

[afitzy]

Yes that worked! I believe @Megnut also linked it and I assumed she had special powers

Yes, @Megnut is indeed blessed by amazing superpowers that us mere mortals can only dream of! Glad it worked! That post is a keeper and wish we could keep those posts as sticky items for reference.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/

Start with this - all states adopt this rule in some shape or form. I think it is pretty clear that you can’t knowingly misstate the law.

Read it. So, do I task my snarky law librarian new friend with locating the CT Practice relevant sections as I believe that it might be correct to say, “Hartford we have a problem”?

I can’t honestly say I can recall ever watching a trial with so many issues relating to “candor”. Kudos to the ABA for picking such a wonderful word even though I am partial to using the word, “whopper”! But instead I will now simply instead question someone’s “candor”! Will be adding this wonderful word to the arsenal along with marshaling which has opened up new avenues of improved productivity from colleagues that I never expected. Very powerful word!

Would this “candor” guideline/rule possibly apply also to the issue of the Moody cite or could Horn simply not understand Moody? The response from Atty McGuiness left me thinking it could be both as my snarky law librarian friend believes the Horb cite to be a “nope”……

 

[afitzy]

Yes that worked! I believe @Megnut also linked it and I assumed she had special powers

There is a bookmark feature that allows us to save your reference posts. Still trying to figure out how to get to the bookmarks but I was able to save your prior guidance type posts for reference.

 

[lucegirl]

The Connecticut State Bar website will have the rules (as well as how to report alleged attorney conduct).

 

[Megnut]

You can’t lie in Court. Contempt of Court is always on the table for anyone.

Additionally:
If you lie as a witness, you can be impeached on cross. This will draw a jury instruction that the witnesses’ testimony may be disregarded.
A lying attorney could be sanctioned or disbarred.
The Judge can take his or her opinion that a defendant is lying on the stand into account at sentencing.
The Judge can also instruct the jury at anytime that they can make a negative inference from anyone lying under oath.

Oh, Michi, Michi, Michi.

The Judge boiled the entire trial down to the then-defendant's (now convicted felon's) credibility. We all watched her lie her way through three separate interviews.

Lie. Why?

To conceal the truth.

On the afternoon of 5/24, didn't she make five separate trips between 4 JC and 80 MS? Zero on her timeline. Didn't serve the alibi.... but she did make those trips and she made them consecutively....

Which is a perfect, fitting way to sentence her.

 

[lucegirl]

Misconduct I meant

 

[Megnut]

The Connecticut State Bar website will have the rules (as well as how to report alleged attorney conduct).

I think @afitzy has a bat line.

 

[afitzy]

The Connecticut State Bar website will have the rules (as well as how to report alleged attorney conduct).

Sadly this place always seems to have the “gone fishin” sign up and does nothing that I have seen to impose law and order amongst the brethren. Even the gutsy Judge that reported Norm Pattis in iirc the Alex Jones debacle didn’t seem to get much assistance from the CT Bar…. Judge Heller had attorney assistance in filing false financial statements for FD on the record twice and didn’t bother with a referral. It’s a shocking situation imo. Even a person like KM I believe is presently only suspended and not in loss of his license. Moo

 

[Deleted member 229974]

Misstatements can be accidental and even negligent - but I would call those mistakes, for which a sincere and profuse apology to the Court may get you out of something more serious.
Calling something a misstatement versus a mistake is IMO a polite way of signaling you suspect lying, but aren’t sure the nature of the misstatement.

Misstatements can be reckless and/or intentional leading to contempt and debarment. I would call these false statements and/misrepresentations. Judges would most likely use these words rather than standing up and yelling “YOU are lying!”

Word salad!

And you know they wish they could! But they have to sit there with a poker face and hold back. But I just lovvved when the judge blurted out no house arrest and jacked up her bail to $6 million dollars. I mean Horn was mid sentence and still in his way back into his chair when he quite spritely said that. Loved it!

 

[Deleted member 229974]

Oh, Michi, Michi, Michi.

The Judge boiled the entire trial down to the then-defendant's (now convicted felon's) credibility. We all watched her lie her way through three separate interviews.

Lie. Why?

To conceal the truth.

On the afternoon of 5/24, didn't she make five separate trips between 4 JC and 80 MS? Zero on her timeline. Didn't serve the alibi.... but she did make those trips and she made them consecutively....

Which is a perfect, fitting way to sentence her.

And thank God the jurors were intelligent enough to understand that.
They had me sooo worried when they came back wanting to hear Petu’s (sp?) testimony again. Ugh, thankfully they got it right.

 

[Eli9]

There is a bookmark feature that allows us to save your reference posts. Still trying to figure out how to get to the bookmarks but I was able to save your prior guidance type posts for reference.

Click on your name in the right hand upper corner of your screen. You will have two tabs 'your account' and 'bookmarks'. Hope that helps.

 

[afitzy]

Click on your name in the right hand upper corner of your screen. You will have two tabs 'your account' and 'bookmarks'. Hope that helps.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

 

[afitzy]

And thank God the jurors were intelligent enough to understand that.
They had me sooo worried when they came back wanting to hear Petu’s (sp?) testimony again. Ugh, thankfully they got it right.

I think they were thinking about creditability perhaps? We won’t until we see an interview. But the Petu request was a head scratcher I agree!

 

[SkylarSid]

There is a bookmark feature that allows us to save your reference posts. Still trying to figure out how to get to the bookmarks but I was able to save your prior guidance type posts for reference.

Look for the left pointing arrow that has a circle at each point. It is on top right near the post number. You bookmark it to your browser.

 

[afitzy]

I think @afitzy has a bat line.

Nope, not worth the time. Corrupticut seems to have zero interest in maintaining integrity amongst the Bar so far as I can see. Just look at the "Rat Pack" of Attorneys that surrounded FD and all of their infractions and they are all still licensed and practicing away!

Best thing to do is vote with your feet, pack up the bat mobile and simply exit the State as its been the way it is for so long.

I had hope that televising trials might have an impact but instead we just see folks like Horn Horning away with no consequences but streamed to the world. Just think about the fact that 3 Judges (White, Blawie and Randolph) have collectively watched the "Horn Show" for over 4 years and no contempt, no admonishments on the record, no sanctions and no referral to CT Bar. Horn with the assistance of Attorney Michael Rose leaked confidential from Family Court to the Stamford Advocate, JF with her attorney put the initial leak on the record in Family Court and Judge Heller did zero. No consequences either for Attorney Michael Rose submitting FD false financials on the record other than being excused behind closed doors by Judge Heller with NO referral for this imo unethical behaviour.

Could go on and on but its hopeless. If the Judges don't report the behaviour (which they don't) then nothing will ever change.

Its not called Corrupticut for no reason imo.

MOO

 

[lucegirl]

So I haven’t responded to the question about Grievance No. 10 from Motion for New Trial - the Moody/presumptive testing for blood loop-de-loop
Moody is very fact specific - in which case the State would have had to addressed it in the response to D’s motion in limine. Anybody have a copy or link to that??

In Moody the appeals court found reversible error on the trial court for overruling a defense objection to admissibility of a “blood like” stain on a shoe that had been presumptively tested for possibility of blood. The sample was positive which only meant it could have been human blood but might have been animal blood. The sample was too small to do the conclusive test. The court allowed the State’s expert to testify about the blood like substance on the shoe, and the presumptive positive. This was found to be both irrelevant and prejudicial. Irrelevant because the presumptive positive is indicative of nothing without the definitive test. Prejudicial because the jury asked for a read back of that evidence which suggested the jury was confused about what a presumptive test shows, but more importantly what it doesn’t show.

Now - toothpicks were needed to stay awake during the blood evidence testimony. I recall numerous items that were tested for the presumptive that did not ultimately turn out to be blood. I think as long as you run both tests it doesn’t fall under Moody. In other words- you do the presumptive and it’s positive, then the conclusive test is negative for human blood. If the state was offering evidence that it ruled out as blood (to show thoroughness) that is one scenario. But to say it might have been blood leaves the evidence dangling in the air and could be confusing.

I really cant recall if the state entered evidence that tested presumptively positive for blood and was never conclusively determined either way. I believe that is the moody scenario.

D’s Motion is not well written or supported with any evidence - like a copy of the transcript where said Moody error occurred.

Also doesn’t help that the Horn Cross was so confusing, he could have embedded via circular or run on questioning a trap that confused the expert and she said something that supports a Moody situation that isn’t actually the case.

Anyway if anyone has the motion in limo or - send it on over!

 

[citygirl]

I've been looking for Niners post about some hearing tomorrow?
She won't be there. Will it be live streamed?

 

[Megnut]

I've been looking for Niners post about some hearing tomorrow?
She won't be there. Will it be live streamed?

I think the next event is a disposition hearing on the 18th.

 

[citygirl]

I think the next event is a disposition hearing on the 18th.

Thanks. Thought it was tomorrow. Going through withdrawl. Info vacuum. MOO.

 

[MG55]

I think the next event is a disposition hearing on the 18th.

Hearing changed to remote hearing tomorrow.

REMOTE HEARING ON 03/14/2024

TROCONIS MICHELLE

1974​

Stamford JD

Awaiting Disposition

03/14/2024 10:30 AM

REMOTE HEARING

FST -CR20-0241178-T

Pending Criminal/Motor Vehicle - Search By Defendant Name

www.jud2.ct.gov