Fotis Dulos' Attorney Files CT Supreme Court Appeal On Gag Order

NEW CANAAN, CT — Norm Pattis, the hard-charging attorney representing Fotis Dulos, will go before the state Supreme Court to request that the gag order in the case be lifted, according to a motion recently received by the high court.

In the appeal, Pattis argues essentially that his client is being accused in the press of a crime for which he has not been charged, namely the murder of his estranged wife, Jennifer Farber Dulos.

The New Canaan mother-of-five went missing on May 24, and Fotis Dulos and his ex-girlfriend, Michelle Troconis, have been charged with evidence tampering and hindering a prosecution in connection with the disappearance.

"All this while prosecutors engage in a piecemeal prosecution of the man for tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution, publicizing via inflammatory arrest warrants speculative
conclusions about his guilt of the crime of murder to a media ready, willing and able to print police belief and suspicion as fact worldwide, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence," Pattis writes in the filing. "Fotis Dulos asks this Court for immediate review of this unusual order. Simply put, there is no cause for the issuance of a prior restraint in this, or any, case where the presumption of innocence must do near-daily battle with the unfounded assertions of guilt."

Superior Court Judge John Blawie issued the gag order in September, in part because stories and theories about the case - and speculation surrounding those stories and theories - have grown since the disappearance.

"The level of press coverage it has engendered in today's new social media environment has also seen the publication of many different opinions, theories masquerading as facts, and stories based upon unauthorized leaks of partial information, some apparently from law enforcement sources," Blawie wrote. "The extent and the nature of the coverage is not merely a result of the public record of the case, but rather, it reflects the tendency of some to fan the flames of publicity by providing the media with salacious, inadmissible, and often prejudicial details."

For example, in the weeks since the disappearance, Pattis has floated theories about the case, such as his "Gone Girl" speculation. And separately, law enforcement sources have leaked certain details about the case, such as the discovery a bloody Vineyard Vines t-shirt that Jennifer Dulos may have been wearing when she disappeared.

In requesting the gag order, State's Attorney Richard Colangelo argued, in part, that the case "runs a high risk of being prejudiced by pretrial publicity," because "media coverage has been extensive and pervasive."

Colangelo says that coverage has been aided in no small part by Pattis' own comments to the press.

"Some of counsel's remarks have been innocuous, but others undoubtedly cross the line," Colangelo wrote. "They range from utter speculation about the cause of Jennifer's disappearance, to flagrant misrepresentations about the facts in the case. At this point, it is plain that an order restricting public comment by counsel for both parties is essential if the Court is going to prevent the matter from turning into a media sideshow."

The Jennifer Dulos case has sparked international interest in the media, much of which paints a negative portrait of Fotis Dulos, according to Pattis. He argues that he and his client should be able to confront the accusations when they arise.

"The presumption of innocence cannot survive the toxic swirl of innuendo and speculation unless it can address those toxins head on. Mr. Dulos didn't pick this fight; the State did. Mr. Dulos intends to win it and to fight for his good name and reputation," Pattis writes. "He and his counsel seek immediate relief from this unprecedented prior restraint. A defendant must be free to criticize his accusers once those accusations have been made public, especially in a case where the State levels damning accusations in public documents, but is too pusillanimous to follow through with formal charges, where the defendant can, in fact, defend himself in the court of law and in the court of public opinion."

When the state Supreme Court will take up the motion is not known. Pattis has until Oct. 28 to file his formal argument, and Robert Scheinblum representing the State of Connecticut will have until Nov. 22 to file a reply.