Você está na página 1de 5

DOCKET NO.

FST CR19-0148553-T : SUPERIOR COURT


DOCKET NO. FST CR19-0167364-T
DOCKET NO. FST CR20-0241178-T :

STATE OF CONNECTICUT : J.D. OF STAMFORD-NORWALK


VS. : AT STAMFORD
MICHELLE TROCONIS : JANUARY 19, 2021
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR THE STATE’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The defendant, Michelle Troconis, by and through her attorney, Jon L. Schoenhorn,
moves this court, pursuant to §§ 40- 3, 40-5 and 40-11(b) of the Connecticut Practice Book; the
fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution; Article I, § 8 of the
Connecticut Constitution; Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 54-86a, 54-86b and 54-86c; and the doctrines of
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); State v. Floyd, 253
Conn. 700 (2000) and Gaskin v. Commissioner, 183 Conn. App. 496 (2018), for an appropriate
order of sanctions, including preclusion of evidence and dismissal of charges, for the state’s
failure to comply with either defendant’s December 7, 2020 supplemental motion for exculpatory
information or its own continuing obligation to provide exculpatory and material impeachment
material on its own accord.
In further support hereof, the undersigned represents that he has reviewed the nearly three
hours of police interview conducted with cooperating co-defendant and jailhouse informant
Kent Mawhinney held at the Department of Public Safety’s polygraph unit in Meriden on August
31, 2020, and it is readily apparent that: (1) Mawhinney expected specific consideration from the
state in exchange for “cooperation,” verbally stating in response to a question that he was
motivated by his desire to be released from custody (“I want out!”), while continuing to deny any
involvement in a criminal conspiracy; (2) that subsequent thereto, the state – without objection
agreed to the change in conditions for release and then convinced the court, without hearing, to
reduce the bond to the amount proposed by Mawhinney’s attorneys; and (3) four law
enforcement officers participating in the session with Mawhinney (in addition to his lawyers)
took and shared contemporaneous notes during the questioning (see attached Exhibit A). There
is still no answer to defendant’s query why Mahinney’s interrogation occurred at the State Police
polygraph unit in Meriden, and what promises were made to him.
The defendant was also informed by the Office of the State’s Attorney for the Hartford
Judicial District that any production of documents pertaining to the ongoing criminal
prosecutions of Mawhinney for sexual assault and violation of a protective order in that court
must come from prosecutors for the Stamford-Norwalk Judicial District, as long as the case
remains there.
The state has a continuing and constitutional obligation to produce exculpatory material
even without an express request from defense counsel. Its refusal to provide the necessary
information in a timely manner, without cause, impedes the undersigned’s ability to provide a
defense, investigate the underlying allegations, and prepare for trial.
While court operations due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic have resulted in
unfortunate delays in pretrials and court proceedings, a prosecutor’s constitutional obligation to
provide the requested material and answers to questions surrounding those materials (whether in
a responsive pleading or confidential e-mail to the undersigned) is not restricted. At the last
court appearance, the court stated that it expected the parties to cooperate with outstanding
discovery matters. Alas, that has not occurred. The defendant and the undersigned should not be
forced to wait until the court has an opportunity to review and decide on each and every request
from the defense when it is readily apparent that the state has a constitutional duty to disclose this
information and is withholding it without any legal justification.
WHEREFORE, the defendant asks the court to impose orders compatible with the relief
authorized in Practice Book § 40-5, including dismissal of the foregoing charges.

2
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard by the Court, it is hereby ORDERED, this
______ day of _______________, 2021, that the motion for a hearing is GRANTED / DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________, J.
Superior Court Judge

___________________________
Clerk/ Assistant Clerk

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed and/or electronically transmitted
on the date of this pleading to the following counsel of record:

Office of the State s Attorney


Stamford Superior Court
123 Hoyt Street
Stamford, CT 06905

mx to compel Mawhinney Giglio material.wpd 3


EXHIBIT A