Opinion: Should Michelle Troconis Have Been Convicted?

The following opinion essay was written by former prosecutor Douglas Langholz, now a partner in the law firm Barker Patterson Nichols:

I am an attorney, and former prosecutor in two states (not Connecticut). I have also defended, at
various times, individuals accused of crimes, though I have not done so in some time. My current
practice is unrelated to criminal law, though it still involves trials and litigation.

I was able to view all of the evidence adduced through the trial of Michelle Troconis. I did develop an interest in the case as the disappearance of Ms. Dulos was unfolding and watched with interest as the Connecticut authorities did a fine job of investigating. Nevertheless, I came into the trial with an open mind. I was intrigued by Fotis Dulos’ suicide note wherein he proclaimed his innocence and promised clarification on this issue posthumously from his then attorney.

That attorney, Norm Pattis, also promised revelation of the true perpetrator of the crime. He was
subsequently silenced, likely for his lifetime, by an agreement/court order arising out of the suit seeking repayment of attorney fees paid to him by Mr. Dulos.

I was intrigued by the fact that a careful review of the evidence almost mandated that Mr. Dulos, if he killed his wife, required a party not currently named as a criminal defendant to dispose of the body:

1. The red Tacoma took roughly 1-hour to go from New Canaan to his property at 80
Mountainside Drive, Farmington. This is the amount of time it would take without stops. Thus,
there would have been no time for Mr. Dulos, if he was driving the Tacoma, to dispose of the
body.

2. The rest of the afternoon of the date of the murder, video places Mr. Dulos back and forth
between his home in Farmington and the Mountainside property.

There had to be another player in this crime. Someone had to be involved and it seems like a loose
thread in the investigation. While the State did a fine job of collecting evidence against Mr. Dulos, that focus did not seem to expand outward.

Ms. Troconis received advice/representation from her first attorney that would almost border on
criminally bad. The attorney allowed his client to give three extensive interviews by the police. Those interviews, the inconsistencies that were exposed therein, as well as the information imparted by Ms. Troconis during those interviews were a significant proximate cause of her conviction. No competent criminal attorney would have allowed such interviews without immunity or a deal in place for his client.

The most serious of the crimes with which Ms. Troconis was charged was conspiracy to commit murder. Per Connecticut statute, in order to convict, there must be evidence that she planned the murder with Mr. Dulos. Per my viewing of the entirety of the trial, the only evidence that she knew about his plan in advance, was the fact that she answered Fotis Dulos’ phone at 8:30 am, when a call that was shown to be pre-arranged by Mr. Dulos, from a friend in Greece.

Other than her own admission during the interrogation, there was no evidence that it was she who
answered the phone.

The remainder of the acts attributed to Ms. Troconis occurred after the crime purportedly committed upon Ms. Dulos at roughly 8-10:30 am on May 24, 2019. The “alibi scripts” were drafted after, the trip to Albany Avenue occurred after, the back-and-forths to 80 Mountainside occurred after, and the trip to the car wash occurred after.

Supposing Mr. Dulos came home from committing the crime and then told his live-in girlfriend Ms. Troconis for the first time what he had done. All of the acts committed by Ms. Troconis thereafter cannot be attributed to her planning the crime and she could not have been convicted of the murder conspiracy. Those acts would all go toward the tampering charges.

By admitting that she answered the phone, she gave the prosecution the only evidence that could
possible show she knew of the intended murder before it occurred. The interrogation that would never be permitted by a competent attorney, convicted her of murder.

Mr. Schoenhorn did not have the gravitas to defend this case. As he sat there delivering his closing
argument, he looked defeated, overwhelmed and underprepared. Anyone who has ever watched the best perform can immediately spot the difference between a high-end attorney and the “others.” Closing arguments delivered with controlled passion and charisma do not include reading from a script or a notebook or standing stiffly at a lectern.

The defense missed what should have been the main thrust of the case. As set forth above, there was little to no evidence that Ms. Troconis knew of the act about to be committed before it occurred. This would have been necessary to plan the act with Mr. Dulos, as required by the Conspiracy to Commit Murder charge. Her subsequent acts cannot retroactively create knowledge. Picking up a cell phone, in and of itself, while constituting some damaging evidence, should not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given the charged environment of this case(it seemed everyone wanted “justice for Jennifer”) there was almost no way she was going to get acquitted on the tampering charge related to Albany Avenue. It was incumbent on her two sets of attorneys to figure out a way to cut or deal or formulate a defense knowing the absolute weakness of the State’s conspiracy murder charge and almost certain conviction on the tampering charge.

Ms. Troconis and her family, to an extent, have a right to be dismayed by her convictions and the fact that she will likely spend most of the rest of her life in prison. The narrow focus of the investigation, combined with the absolute abomination of a defense directly led to that result.