Day two of Michelle Troconis’s bid to land a new trial has wrapped up in superior court in Rockville.
She is serving 14 and a half years behind bars for her role in the death and disappearance of Jennifer Farber-Dulos.
The focus on Friday centered on potential deal-making, offering insight from both parties involved in this case including Michelle Troconis’s attorney back in 2019, Andrew Bowman, and then-State’s Attorney Richard Colangelo.
Troconis is petitioning the state, claiming her constitutional rights were violated in the early days of this investigation, on the grounds that she had ineffective counsel.
Attorney Andrew Bowman finished his testimony in a back-and-forth with attorneys for both the state and Michelle regarding his thought process leading up to multiple interviews.
His testimony also consisted of his perspective on the difficulty of striking a potential cooperation deal, the need for truthfulness, and maintaining a deal with the state’s attorneys.
“There is a carrot and a stick here, and the carrot is that we will go to bat for you. It could be the amelioration of the punishment, it could be dropping charges, it could be not bringing charges, explained Bowman. “But in return, you have to tell the truth.”
The end of his testimony was followed by Colangelo’s.
He offered his perspective on striking a deal, but said it was always his intention to use Troconis against the alleged killer, Fotis Dulos.
“It was always my idea, until the time that Mr Dulos died, I was trying to figure out how to use her as a witness against him,” said Colangelo.
The state kept cross examination brief, only hitting on the respect Bowman and Colangelo had for one another.
Expert witness for the defense, Attorney Michael Fitzpatrick, sat next. Fitzpatrick had experience with many Habeas cases and also served as an expert in the Michael Skakel case.
“Attorney Bowman’s recommendation to meet with police on June 2nd and subsequent dates was not within the standard of care,” Fitzpatrick said.
Fitzpatrick explained there were missing steps that Bowman should have taken, in his expert opinion, to meet what’s known in Connecticut as the “standard of care.” Those standards included taking more time with Troconis, explaining the situation she was in, the dangers of speaking with police, and what police might do before an interview.
He also testified that Bowman should have better communicated with Colangelo and been more upfront about working out a deal, shielding Troconis better from her words being used against her.
“Get on the phone or talk to prosecutors [and say] ‘Here is what my client knows and will tell you, and are you interested, if you’re not, that’s the end of it’,” Fitzpatrick said.
Lawyers for Troconis worked Fitzpatrick through the nuances of how a “reasonably competent attorney” should work with prosecution or police, in scenarios as we saw in this case in 2019.
The state will have the chance to question Fitzpatrick on Jan. 16 when Troconis is back in court.
