It is with this question in mind that I will now examine the issue of the Dulos custody report because it tells you a lot about how the legal system works, or doesn't work, depending upon your viewpoint. Here it is important to note that there are two forms of evidence that Michelle Troconis and her attorney were attempting to access. First, there was the custody report itself. Second, there was the transcript of the hearings where Dr. Stephen Herman provided testimony in regard to his custody report. The custody report doesn't in itself provide complete information. It is only when it is combined with the Court testimony of its author that legal professionals can fully understand the implications of the report and how it will impact future custody decisions. When the author of the report is on the stand, attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant have the opportunity to challenge the content and hold it up for scrutiny.
When we hear of the legal controversy over this issue related to Michelle's criminal trial, it is important to note that Michelle and her legal team obtained the custody report quite promptly. Attorney Jon Schoenhorn requested a copy of the custody report in March 2021 and received a copy of it a month later in April 2021. Where the controversy arose was in his attempt to obtain copies of the transcript of the hearing on the report which took place on March 14-15, 2019. This is where Attorney Jon Schoenhorn faced one obstruction after the other, some of them, interestingly enough, of his own making. Why? Was he doing that deliberately?
The sequence of events is as follows. In March 2021, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn asked the court clerk for a copy of the transcript of the hearings in regard to the custody report. In response, the clerk said no because it was sealed from the public. To verify that point, Attorney Schoenhorn went through the case file and was unable to find the Judge's sealing order. He pointed that out and again asked for a copy of the transcript. This is when the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut decided to intervene. This is quite puzzling. Why would such a high ranking official immediately become involved in a matter like this? In my case, I had ten legal documents disappear, not just one, and that situation was simply handled by one of the judges in my case. The fact that William Tong immediately jumped to attention and investigated the missing sealing order right away is quite striking. It tells you how much attention Michelle's conspiracy trial was accorded all the way through the judicial system right to the top.
I also want to take some time out to make a point that has been on my mind for a long time related to Attorney General William Tong. Beginning in 2013, dozens of family court litigants made their way to the judiciary committee of the CT State Legislature and presented testimony regarding the corruption, exploitation, and dysfunction they experienced in the CT Family Court system. In response, they were mocked, disrespected, and generally disbelieved and treated as though they were crazy.
In 2018, during William Tong's tenure as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, he presided over hearings where he was particularly rude, disrespectful and uncaring of the family court victims who came to provide testimony of the tragic and horrific experiences they'd had in family court. In particular, Tong demanded that people who gave testimony remove T-shirts they were wearing which expressed their views, a demand for which he had absolutely no legal basis. In fact, it violated their first amendment rights to freedom of speech. I can't help thinking that if the Judiciary Committee had exercised a modicum of wisdom in respecting the effort it took for these advocates to come to the State Capital and speak up about the legal abuses of family court, if they had only taken that testimony seriously and passed essential reforms at that time, Jennifer Dulos might still be alive today. Instead, ironically, we have the infamous William Tong, who I believe gained his current position as Attorney General by frustrating the hopes of family court reform advocates, intervening in the details of the prosecution of Michelle Troconis. It is interesting how everything intersects.
Anyway, getting back to the main point, Attorney General William Tong investigated the missing sealing order. He found that there was a public sealing order, but due to clerical error it wasn't properly posted in the case file. He also stated that due to clerical error, the entire transcript of the hearing that day was sealed including the discussion about closing the courtroom and sealing Dr. Herman's testimony. In fact, the only part of the transcript that should have been sealed was Dr. Herman's testimony, not the hearing on the motion to seal Dr. Herman's testimony. That's quite a bit of clerical error. Just like the ten documents which disappeared from my file was the result of clerical error. What the clerical error in the Dulos case was hiding is that the courtroom was closed illegally during Dr. Herman's testimony and the transcript of the hearing was also sealed illegally. What a convenient clerical error. In this case, and in my own case of the missing ten documents, like Michelle, you start to think maybe there is some skullduggery involved here.
So how was the court closed and the transcript sealed illegally. Apparently, if you wish to close the courtroom and seal a transcript, you are required to provide a 14 day public notice in advance and provide a record of a compelling reason to override the public interest in judicial transparency. This was not done. Presiding Judge Donna Nelson-Heller simply ignored the legal requirements and did what she wanted to do because she had the power and she could. Now, I will acknowledge that it is standard to seal custody reports and the court transcripts of testimony by the authors of those reports. In fact, the custody report in my case was sealed and I was glad that it was. Who wants all that private information, much of it detailed mental health evaluations, not only of the parents but also the children, available to the public. Of course, no one wants that.
On the other hand, the law is the law, and it is intended to be obeyed. There are proper steps that are supposed to be taken according to state statute if you intend to seal information from the public. They were crafted as a consequence of lengthy negotiations with the media and private citizens after considerable abuses related to the issue. Yet this cavalier disregard for legal requirements is typical of family court judges. They simply do whatever they want to do regardless of the law, regardless of case law, and regardless of the CT Practice Book which is supposed to guide their actions and their decisions. The failure of judges to obey the law is what has undermined the public trust in the legal system and led to the family court reform protests of 2013-2018.
In an attempt to access these court transcripts, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn submitted motions to two other Superior Court judges asking them to overturn Judge Nelson-Heller's sealing order. But again, why? Of what possible value could the transcripts be when it came to Michelle's defense? Help me here, because I seriously have no idea. Both of these Superior Court Judges denied Attorney Schoenhorn's motions based upon Valvo v. Freedom of Information Commission which declared it illegal for one Superior Court judge to overturn another Superior Court judge's decisions. I have to say even I knew that. How is it that Attorney Schoenhorn didn't know? Can he honestly say he was ignorant of this fundamental legal insight? I find that hard to believe. What was he doing? Putting on a big act for Michelle instead of just telling her this transcript won't help you in the least?
Next, Attorney Schoenhorn took his request to the Supreme Court and again asked for access to the transcripts. In response, the Supreme Court asked why Attorney Schoenhorn didn't simply go to criminal court with his request. Exactly! Why didn't he? The end result is Michelle Troconis wasted her time during her criminal trial looking at a custody report, and putting herself at risk of a contempt, for a document that really didn't have much of an impact when it came to convincing the jury of her innocence. Then to top it off, Attorney Schoenhorn made a song and dance about the transcripts regarding the custody report, pretending he was making serious efforts to obtain copies when he was really making deliberate and obvious legal mistakes and, wasting everyone's time, and doing it in such a way that everyone knew it, even non-attorneys like me.
Again, as Michelle's attorney, Jon Schoenhorn stated, 90% of the case against Michelle came from the interviews.
