Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld from Michelle Troconis' Jury.
Updated: Sep 15
Issue 01 | The Herman Report - Evidence the Jury Was Not Allowed to see.
This series explains Michelle's appeal in clear, plain language. The publicly filed appeal brief contains redactions. While respecting those redactions, we explain the major significance the report's exclusion had on Michelle's defense using the appeal and publicly available court records from the Dulos divorce and Michelle's criminal trial.
 | WHY IS THE HERMAN REPORT ESSENTIAL TO MICHELLE'S DEFENSE? |
We begin with Appeal Claim B. The Herman custody report concluded a year-long, court-ordered forensic psychological evaluation of both Dulos parents and their children. The appeal argues that the jury should have had the opportunity to hear the report's conclusions because they directly rebut the State's motive theory and are central to understanding Michelle's state of mind on and around May 24, 2019.
|
|
What the Jury Heard - and What It Did Not Hear
The appeal argues that the State was permitted to use the custody dispute as proof of motive while the defense was blocked from presenting the report and fuller custody context to rebut that theory.
How a Family-Court Evaluation Became Central to the Appeal The history matters because the report was created for the custody case. The appellate record shows that Fotis reviewed the report with his divorce attorney in late April 2019 and that a May 9 family-court order governed its dissemination. In the criminal case, defense counsel later received the complete report subject to substantial court-imposed restrictions. At trial, the defense was prevented from presenting Herman’s conclusions and from questioning witnesses about the report’s contents.
Why Keep the Jury in the Dark about the Report? At trial, the court severely limited the defense’s ability to discuss the report and details of the custody proceedings. The appeal argues that those limits deprived Michelle of evidence that supported her defense. The State, meanwhile, was permitted to present other custody evidence—including supervised visitation and reactions to the proceedings—to support its motive theory, while the defense could not present Herman’s conclusions and fuller custody context to rebut that theory. |
THE APPEAL STATES: |
Because of this sealing order, Judge Randolph prevented the defense from asking witnesses any questions about the report's contents or the nature of the proceedings and would not admit the last three pages containing Herman's conclusions. However, it permitted the state to question witnesses about Dulos' reactions to the May proceedings to support its alleged motive for Dulos killing Farber. This lopsided ruling permitted the state to mislead jurors about the central issue in the case—Michelle's intent and state of mind—and prevented her from establishing why she believed that the proceedings were going well and that Farber disappeared. |
Attorney Michael Meehan, the children’s guardian ad litem, testified on behalf of the State about the custody proceedings, including supervised visitation and Fotis’s reaction to the report. The State used that testimony to argue that nothing had changed after the May hearing. But the appellate record also shows that Fotis was encouraged after reviewing the report and that Michelle was told there was "light at the end of the tunnel." The May 17 hearing had adjourned during Dr. Herman’s cross-examination and had not concluded when Jennifer disappeared.
The timeline is consistent with the appeal’s position that the custody proceedings were unresolved and that Michelle had reason to believe the future outcome looked favorable. Meehan testified that the March 2019 ruling created a pathway for the parties to discuss reintroducing Michelle and her daughter to the children. Rose testified that Fotis was happy with the report and more optimistic, and that he told Michelle there was "light at the end of the tunnel."
TIMELINE: WHAT THE PUBLIC COURT RECORD SHOWS | ||
DATE | EVENT | WHY IT MATTERS |
DEC. 10, 2017 | Evaluation requested | Because custody was at issue, Jennifer Dulos requested that a licensed psychologist evaluate both parents and all five children. |
APR. 4, 2018 | Comprehensive evaluation ordered | Judge Donna Heller established a broad forensic study: relocation for both parents, risk assessment as to either parent—including flight—and possible consideration of third-party relationships as they might impact the children. After Dr. John Collins became unavailable, the parties agreed to Dr. Stephen Herman, whom the court found “eminently well-qualified.” |
MAR. 20, 2019 | Reintroduction on the horizon | Judge Heller expressly encouraged both parties to work with the guardian ad litem on a mutually agreeable process and timetable for reintroducing the children to Michelle Troconis and her daughter. |
APR. 24, 2019 | Report completed | The report was completed. Fotis reviewed it with his attorney and was described as happy and more optimistic. |
MAY 2, 2019 | Emergency custody application | After the report was completed, Fotis’s legal team filed an emergency ex parte application for custody of the children and a detailed memorandum in support. |
MAY 5, 2019 | Motion to seal | Fotis moved to seal the report from public view, citing privacy, and also sought to seal hearings on his custody motion. |
MAY 9, 2019 | Controlled access order | Judge Heller allowed Jennifer and Fotis to inspect the report with counsel present. Attorneys and staff could copy it for trial preparation, use it as an exhibit, and provide it to retained experts, subject to confidentiality. |
MAY 14 & 17, 2019 | Emergency custody hearing: Herman testifies | Dr. Herman testified. The hearing adjourned while he was still under cross-examination and never resumed after Jennifer disappeared. |
JUNE 24, 2019 | Motion to unseal | Fotis moved to unseal the report for use in his criminal defense, arguing that it bore directly on motive and could rebut claims that he was violent, controlling, or menacing. |
SEPT. 5, 2019 | Mistrial declared | Judge Heller declared a mistrial, struck the report and Herman’s partial testimony from the family-court record, and kept the report under seal—while expressly leaving the May 9 dissemination order in effect. |
2021-2024 | Criminal-case restrictions | The criminal court later disclosed the report to the parties but imposed restrictions on its dissemination and use. At trial, Judge Randolph prevented the defense from questioning witnesses about its contents and refused to admit the final three pages containing Dr. Herman’s conclusions. |
THE CONTRAST IS STRIKING The appellate record shows that the report was reviewed in the family case and that a May 9 dissemination order remained in effect. In the criminal case, defense counsel ultimately received the complete report, but its use remained restricted. At trial, the jury was not permitted to hear Herman’s conclusions when evaluating motive and state of mind. |
 WHAT THE STATE WAS ALLOWED TO ARGUE |  WHAT THE DEFENSE COULD NOT SHOW |
|
|
 |  |  |
| THE APPEAL'S BOTTOM LINE According to the appeal, once the State used the custody case to suggest motive, Michelle should have been allowed to present relevant evidence from that same custody context to defend herself. The appeal says the exclusion deprived the jury of evidence central to state of mind, motive, credibility, and a fair evaluation of the defense. |
We encourage you to review the court filing to gain a better understanding of the legal process from the official court document.
📄 Click below to download the Appeal Brief.
Please continue sharing Michelle’s story and helping us raise awareness about the miscarriage of justice in her case.
Stay connected and follow us for updates: @JusticeForMichelleTroconis
© 2026 Justice for Michelle Troconis • Standing together in the pursuit of truth, justice, and Michelle’s freedom.
Comments