The attorney for Michelle Troconis asked the judge Thursday to drop some of the charges against her in the Jennifer Dulos case.

Troconis and her then boyfriend, Fotis Dulos, were first charged in 2019 in connection to his estranged wife's disappearance and presumed death.

On Thursday, her attorney questioned whether the state had probable cause to arrest her for evidence tampering and conspiracy to commit evidence tampering.

Attorney Jon Schoenhorn took aim at state police in a new motion, claiming the warrant "contained false statements, recklessly disregarded the truth, and omitted material facts."

The motion doesn't address the conspiracy to commit murder charge or the hindering charge that Troconis also faces.

One motion focuses on surveillance video from a neighborhood in Hartford on May 24, 2019 – the day Jennifer Dulos was last seen. Police say cameras captured Fotis Dulos and Troconis disposing of trash that later tested positive for Jennifer Dulos' blood.

Schoenhorn pointed out that "the [Ford] Raptor's female passenger (believed by the affiant to be the defendant) never exited the vehicle and did not assist the driver in the disposal of any garbage bags" – something he believes was purposely omitted. 

A second motion calls out the prosecution and asks for sanctions, alleging that relevant information and materials have not been turned over to the defense as required.

It specifically references a nearly three-hour interview state police did with co-defendant Kent Mawhinney in which he implicated Fotis Dulos and Michelle Troconis in Jennifer Dulos' murder but denied he was involved in the conspiracy.

Schoenhorn included a picture, writing he still has not received answers from the state about why the interview occurred at the State Police Polygraph Unit in Meridan and what promises were made to Mawhinney in exchange for his cooperation.

A third motion filed asked again to remove Troconis' GPS ankle monitor.

The state's attorney office will not comment on the case.

Troconis has her next hearing Feb. 2. It's not known if the judge will address these motions then.

Motion 1:

Motion 2:

Motion 3: