STAMFORD — The prosecution does not object to an appeal hearing before the state Supreme Court, but contends a judge’s gag order in the Fotis Dulos case should be upheld.

Robert Scheinblum, senior assistant state’s attorney, said the prosecution supports an appeal hearing for several reasons, and said it could even set a precedent for gag orders in Connecticut.

“Our appellate courts have yet to address the appropriate legal standard for imposing a gag order; accordingly, hearing this appeal would provide guidance to the trial bench on the law that applies,” Scheinblum wrote Monday in his response to the defense team’s request for the hearing.

Defense attorney Norm Pattis, representing Fotis Dulos on charges of tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution in his wife’s disappearance, filed a 12-page brief to the state’s highest court last week.

Pattis claimed his client's First Amendment rights to free speech are being impeded by the gag order, leaving him defenseless against police leaks and the intense media scrutiny surrounding the disappearance of Jennifer Dulos.

“Gag orders are controversial,” Pattis said Monday night. “Indeed, the state today alerted the Supreme Court that it agrees with Mr. Dulos that there should be an immediate appeal.”

On Sept. 12, Stamford Superior Court Judge John Blawie, who is overseeing the criminal proceedings, granted State’s Attorney Richard Colangelo’s request for a gag order in the case. Blawie wrote in his order that “pervasive information or misinformation in the social media age” could prevent a fair trial in this type of high-profile case.

Gag orders are rare and the Connecticut Constitution goes even farther to provide First Amendment free speech rights than the federal Constitution, said David Schulz, the director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School.

“There is very clear federal law and a lot of controlling precedent that Connecticut judges must go by,” Schulz said.

Normally, a gag order in a criminal case will apply only to the parties and their attorneys, Schulz said. The gag order issued by Blawie is overly broad and encompasses family members and potential witnesses, which has the effect of restricting the rights of news organizations to report on the case, Schulz said.

Gag orders to protect trial rights limit free speech and there are other tools a judge can use to ensure a fair trial, he said.

“There’s the voir dire of jurors and appropriate instructions to jurors that don’t require keeping the public in the dark,” he said.

Jurors are not required to have no previous knowledge of a particular case, Schulz said.

“What voir dire does is find jurors who will come in with an open mind,” he added. “They only need 12. This is a large area, there are certainly 12 people who will be able to do that.”

Scheinblum, who is assigned to the appellate bureau in the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney, said the Supreme Court should uphold Blawie’s order.

“First, based on the weight of federal authority, the trial court adopted the appropriate legal standard for issuing a gag order,” he wrote. “Second, the trial court properly applied that standard to the facts and circumstances of this case and reasonably concluded that a gag order was necessary to safeguard the state’s compelling interest in a fair trial untainted by the influence of an extreme amount of prejudicial publicity surrounding the case.”

Scheinblum said the state supports a Supreme Court hearing because the gag order is of “substantial public interest.” Delaying an appellate review could cause a “substantial injustice” if the criminal cases were to come to a quick resolution since there would be no opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule on the order, which would set a precedent for future Connecticut cases, Scheinblum said.

“The order would be unreviewable in the event of an acquittal of the pending charges, and the order likely would be unreviewable in the event of a conviction given the difficulty of establishing that the trial had been tainted by the defendant’s inability to make extrajudicial comments to the public,” Scheinblum wrote.

The gag order, however, did not stop Fotis Dulos from speaking to a Greek media outlet last week. In an interview with Proto Thema, a news weekly and website in Athens, where he was raised, Fotis Dulos discussed how his marriage fell apart and questioned his wife’s mental state.

“I'm sorry to say it, but Jennifer was suffering from serious psychological problems that I didn't immediately understand and didn't want to go into further,” Fotis Dulos told the publication. “I put it aside because I was in love with her and focused on other things that make our lives beautiful.”

Pattis said the interview did not violate the gag order, saying “it is not even a close call.”

“There is no order barring all speech,” Pattis said Monday night.

Pattis’ own questioning of Jennifer Dulos’ mental state was among the reasons Blawie said a gag order was necessary.

Pattis has floated theories that Jennifer Dulos could have faked her own disappearance, a la the novel “Gone Girl,” or might have perpetrated a “revenge suicide” plot. The theories have drawn sharp rebukes from Jennifer Dulos’ family and friends and “Gone Girl” author Gillian Flynn.

Jennifer Dulos, 51, was last seen on a neighbor’s security camera returning home around 8:05 a.m. May 24 after dropping off her five children at a nearby school.


Fotis Dulos, 52, and Michelle Troconis, 44, have each been charged with two counts of tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution.

Fotis Dulos is due back in court on Friday, while Troconis is scheduled to return on Oct. 10.