of you and had a bond with any one of you. This court would not have tried that case to side. Or favor one side or another. Sentencing in many ways is a dispassionate The court has no bond. With any individual who spoke today. Or any other individual involved in the The court cannot develop the passions. That one side or the other. since the first year only the one 99 Connecticut won 21 at one 26 1986 South. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the sentencing court may consider information for the purpose of September. That same court held that evidence of crime for which the defendant was indicted but neither try North convicted, maybe consider. The word and the process of indictment does not generally. Employed in Connecticut. Essentially that finding of probable cause, but there's been no trial, no conviction. Additionally, as a matter of due process. The court may consider information that has minimum and issue of liability. Now that minimum indicia of reliability is not limited to unfavorable information. Court can consider fable favorable information. It has a minimum and dish over liability. ♪ Certainly considers the victim impact. Statement. Every victim has the right to be heard before the court sentences, the defendant. That's part of the Connecticut victims Bill of Rights. Which is right up to every courthouse here in Connecticut the court would clarify. What it perceives ♪ Perhaps a misconception of what the court's role is. The court is not deliberate. With the jury. The court is not deliberate on the evidence at all. The court hears the evidence at the evidence. record. So You hear that the court has a view of the evidence. The court has no view of the evidence what the court as is. A verdict. And what could have been the reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence. That was a deuce. The court would not know what the jury discussed over those many hours. can. is this. It was clear during the jury charge jury instructions that the court instructed the jury that it may draw any reasonable and logical inferences from the proven. Based on verdict. The jury could have found the following reasonable and logical inferences. Fotis dulos was not home. At 4 Jefferson crossing the morning of May 24th. When his wife was murdered. defendant said he was out. ♪ When the defendant admitted that it was not home. The defendant. Had been angry about dulos is talking to other women. Did not even ask them where he had been. The defendant who was angry that he had visited his of his wife her. The defendant as the court remembers evidence didn't ask him anything. it. The jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference. that the defendant knew where he was and knew what he was doing. ♪ The defendants said she saw together in the office. At 4 Jefferson crossing on the morning of May 24th. What the defendant did not see. Fotis dulos and capital in the office at 4 Jefferson crossing on the morning of May. 24. ♪ There was a phone call made to do lost his phone, which. Last left intentionally at 4 Jefferson crossing. The defendant answered. It. And the jury could draw are reasonable and logical and friends from all of the evidence. That the defendant answered the phone to make it appear that dulos took the of May. 24 at 4 Jefferson crossing. When he was really on his way to or in new Kent. When a police officer came to 4 Jefferson crossing soon after the murder, the defendant did not even go to the door. Even though. Her daughter who was not home. may have been the subject of that conversation at the Now it has been clear that the defendant cares deeply for daughter. The and logical inference that the defendant did not go to the door. Because the defendant knew the reason the officer about the disappearance of Jennifer dulos. These are reasonable and logical inferences from the facts that were due the case. During the trial. defendant travel through a part of our effort with dulos as he dumps the bloodied clothing his wife. The jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that on the same day. The defendant help them pretend he was in the morning. him to get rid of the evidence. The defendant's DNA profile was found on one of the bag disposed in Hartford. Jerry good draw are. A reasonable and logical inference that the defendant helped dispose of the evidence knowingly. The jury could draw a reasonable and logical and friends that the defendant help fotis dulos cleanup, mountain. Spring road. Because the defendant and dulos were the same day that the coma travel to K. This is a flurry of irregular activity all on the same day. ♪ The jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference the activities of the defendant could not possibly forget them in the span of 2 weeks. Even if the jurors individually had doubts about the defendant's Each one of them ultimately concluded that their doubts were not reasonable. This is not View of the court's view of the evidence. There's a logical and reasonable inference is that the jury could have draw. Court is going to talk. A little about the philosophy of sentence. ♪ Sentencing is not a product of the court's passions of practices the court doesn't have a bond with anyone involved in it's a dispassionate. Exercise. The court did not investigate case. The court did not talk to the victim. Has no conversation with the defendant the defendant's family. So there are some questions that are age old. court, the sentencing court adopt the public opprobrium. Indignation of the community. When retribution turn into revenge. What's the role of empathy. Should the court exercise sympathy one side or another. ♪ These are old question. The core relies on what the law says. ♪ The court can consider. The nature and circumstances of the The history background and character of the offender. He Every exercise is not an either or exercising. ♪ Often the good and the bad. All true. What is the purpose of the court taking into consideration. The victim impact statements. Is that only for the purpose of sympathy. This year. The court uses the victim impact statements to assign. In its view. The proper weight to any one of those traditional purposes of sentencing. ♪ Sentencing is not arbitrary or capricious. It's not a matter of how the judge feels that day. Court wants to. Also address what has become over the course of Perhaps Perhaps not. A cliche. Michelle troconis. His life is in your hands. Michelle for Connor says life is in our own hands. What Michelle troconis decides to do today. Tomorrow and the next day is up to her. From what the court has she has a great deal to court has no control over what our decisions will be or life. Is hers. The following sense is going to one common currently On the couch art and conspiracy to commit murder. 20 years. I think Houston suspended up to 14 and a half years to 5 years probation. Tampering with physical evidence. 5 years that the commission suspended after 4 years. 5 years probation. Conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence. 5 years. I could use suspended after 4 years, 5 years probation. The second count of tampering with physical evidence. 5 years like the Cubans suspended after 4 years, 5 years prosecution 5 years execution suspended after 4 years probation. After 4 years total effective sentence. 20 years execution suspended after 14 one half years, 5
