Pattis: Jury selection process eliminates need for gag order

Attorney Norm Pattis is hoping Connecticut’s unique voir dire system — requiring lawyers to interview each potential juror individually for bias — will be heavily weighed as the state Supreme Court considers whether to strike down a gag order in the criminal case against Fotis

Dulos.

Pattis contended in his arguments before the state’s highest court last week that the gag order imposed by Stamford Superior Court Judge John Blawie has hampered his ability to defend Fotis Dulos against public and police speculation that his client killed his wife, Jennifer Dulos.

Fotis Dulos has been charged with tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution in the May 24 disappearance. But he has not been charged with murder — even though a second arrest warrant released in September includes that police “believed” he was “lying in wait” at her home and investigators “believe” he later drove off in her car, which was “carrying the body of Jennifer Dulos.”

His former girlfriend Michelle Troconis has also been charged, but her attorney is not challenging the gag order. Pattis claims the order is in conflict with state and federal law, which he contends bars judges from prohibiting speech prior to a trial.

Pattis believes the state’s voir dire process and proper jury instructions will ensure his client’s right to a fair trial. But equally as important, Pattis is determined to defend his client publicly without being fettered by watching every word he says.

“Why is the state permitted to engage in the process of what we call public relations indictment and we are barred from speaking about it?” Pattis said to Justice Andrew McDonald.

Prior to the explosion of social media, defense attorneys rarely spoke publicly about cases, defense attorney Matthew Maddox said.

“Twenty years ago, it was almost unheard of for a defense attorney to speak,” said

Maddox, who is not involved in the Dulos case. “The response used to be, ‘you’ll see what happens during the trial.’”

We live in a different time now, Maddox said.

“It’s not just social media,” he said. “We’re in the post O.J. Simpson era. The O.J. Simpson case broke open and created a completely different genre of interest in the law and criminal trials.”

The media is more likely to heavily cover trials and can tie them to advertising since the public is interested, Maddox said.

With that, however, comes

the risk of tainting the jury pool — but not always in the way most people would think, he said.

“It’s not essential that a defense attorney be heard or that any allegations that are reported in the media need to be addressed,” Maddox said.

It is a defense strategy to head allegations off before they become enmeshed in the public view of a defendant or an incident, Maddox said. But it can backfire, he said.

“You are potentially tainting the jury pool against you and your client,” Maddox said. “They could decide they don’t like you. It’s a doubleedged sword.”

But Maddox conceded that Pattis likely feels he is doing his due diligence and “zealous

advocacy requires him to speak up.”

Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Robert Scheinblum, representing the state in the gag order appeal, contends that it’s Blawie’s job to ensure a fair trial by removing any chance the jury pool could be tainted by the extensive publicity surrounding the case. The order bars attorneys, police, family members and potential witnesses from speaking publicly about evidence or making disparaging remarks about Jennifer Dulos.

But Pattis argued it’s his client’s right to a fair trial that the state is impeding by forcing the defense to remain quiet when faced with speculation and allegations that are being published worldwide.

Pattis believes the state’s voir dire system, the only of its kind in the United States, would weed out jurors who have been tainted by the publicity, eliminating the need for a gag order.

The state’s system requires that every potential juror is sequestered while attorneys on both sides ask questions to determine if the candidates have potential biases that would preclude them from fairly weighing the evidence and testimony presented.

Connecticut is the only state in the country, and perhaps the world, that is required by the state Constitution and state law, to conduct a jury voir dire in this manner, Pattis said Friday.