home

Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 02:48:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Connecticut Supreme Court has denied Michael Skakel's petition to rehear its January decision affirming his conviction. His lawyer says she will take the case to the Supreme Court. Skakel, the nephew of Ethel Kennedy, was 15 years old in 1975 when Martha Moxley was murdered. The crime went unsolved for more than 20 years and suspicion had always focused on his brother Tommy. After Dominick Dunne and Mark Fuhrman re-ignited interest in the case through their books, suspicion shifted to Skakel and in 2000, he was charged with murder. He was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years to life.

At the time of the crime, there was a five year statute of limitation on murder, which had expired by the time Michael was charged. In upholding the conviction, the Court overrruled its own 1983 precedent.

Also, since Skakel was 15 at the time Martha Moxley was murdered, had he been charged in 1975 when the murder occurred, he would have been tried in juvenile court and if convicted, received a sentence of no more than two years. That's how juveniles were treated back then in Connecticut.

Skakel should never have been tried in adult court --the law in effect in 1975 precluded it--and his trial and conviction were contrary to the five year statute of limitations in effect at that time. More on that here. The 89 page opinion in January that the Court refused to rehear today is here. (pdf)

I have followed the case since the beginning since my pal Mickey Sherman defended Skakel. I was able to attend a day of the trial. Here's my take on the case and my view of what went wrong at trial.

Despite the paltry lack of credible evidence and the lack of any physical, forensic or DNA evidence linking Michael to the murder, the jury convicted. I have always thought the jury did not decide the case based on the evidence presented and refuted, but on their sympathy for Dorothy Moxley and their dislike for the well-known Skakel/Kennedy families.

[My chronology of news articles on the case from 2002 is here; 2001 is here. TalkLeft coverage is here.]

< Progress in Iraq? | Lafave Charges Dismissed >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:01:14 PM EST
    This case is a good example of the problem with the current habeas corpus regime. The strongest argument Skakel has at this point is probably the statute of limitations argument. The state supreme court has considered a great many of the issues that could be raised in this case, has been asked to reconsider its lengthy decision (almost always a hopeless move), and this decision will bind a trial court considering a habeas corpus petition. In contrast, a U.S. District Court will have the right to consider whether a constitutional right was violated with the statute of limitations issue, not bound by the state supreme court's assessment of the matter. Yet, if the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to review the matter on a writ of certirorari (either because it has been framed as a state law issue, or because it knows it will have two more bites at the apple before the decision is irrevocable), Skakle must exhaust his state law remedies, subject to elaborate procedural limitations (which one imagines that he will be well represented in overcoming), with a state level habeas corpus proceedings, which less compelling arguments will be more prominent. Realistically, this means that even if the state supreme court violated a clearly established constitutional right in its statute of limitations decision, that it will be five years from conviction or so, before any remedy is possible.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:32:23 PM EST
    The federal argument, by the way, would basically be that the ruling on statute of limitations was a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 2446. This case held that a law enacted after the expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the ex post facto clause of the constitution when it is applied to revive previously time barred prosecutions. The text of that case stated that it was not a "new rule" and instead had a long lineage going back to the civil war, at least. The hard issue would be whether a state supreme court overturning what was a binding precedent at the time the prosecution was commenced may do, by overruling its prior interpretation of the statute, what a legislature could not do, and even if it may not, whether this nuance is a new rule of law which is procedural in nature that may not be relied upon in a collateral attack. He would have to show that the state supreme court's reversal of its 1983 decision was not a mere error of state law, but amounted to the failure of the state, and its courts, to abide by its own statutory commands.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 06:29:29 AM EST
    While I have much sympathy for the victim and her family I have always privately felt that while he may have done it the state missed their chance to get a conviction and by getting one so late greatly increased the chances that it was an improper convition. That being said we have no problem convicting ex Klan men for their actions I will admit that there is usually great amounts of evidence proving their guilt. Since I haven't actually followed this trial how much hard or real evidence is there against Mr. Skakel? Should he have been convicted?

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#4)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 05:52:43 PM EST
    deleted, this comment was posted on another Skakel thread. Please don't double post comments --it was also a screed not a comment. Please have some respect for bandwidth.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#5)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:31:19 PM EST
    Please don't double post comments? What are you talking about? The above post you deleted was NEVER posted on this board or any other board. By "screed" are you referring to it's length? My post contained less words than Labyrinth13's post that has been sucking up bandwidth since January 13, 2006. I had a feeling you would look for a reason to delete it, so I ran them both through a word count before posting it here. You stated: QUOTE: __________________________________ I have always thought the jury did not decide the case based on the evidence presented and refuted, but on their sympathy for Dorothy Moxley and their dislike for the well-known Skakel/Kennedy families. __________________________________ I posted several quotes from the Skakel jurors claiming they carefully went over all of the evidence and were not swayed my sympathy for the Moxleys or dislike of the Kennedy/Skakel families. What's the big deal? I will post it at campy skakel where we welcome opinions other than own own.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    IMHO--you posted the same incredibly long comment here where I had to shorten it. Thanks for pointing out Labrynyth's, I'm going to shorten that one as well. Feel free to add a comment here linking to your post on the Skakel board, just remember to put the url in html format --instructions are in the comment box. TalkLeft does allow both sides to be presented, but we have specific commenting rules which are available here.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#7)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 10:23:27 PM EST
    No, you are mistaken. If you had read it before you deleted it, you would have known that it was not a reposting of the comment linked to in your above post. I wrote it this morning and had NEVER posted it here or anywhere else. The comments are not even on the same subject. The post you deleted from this thread pertained to your opinion that the Skakel jurors based their decision on their sympathy for Dorothy Moxley and their dislike for the Skakel/Kennedy families and not on the evidence presented and refuted at trial. The comment you linked to was posted by me and written by Tiger. It pertained to Skakel's transfer to Adult Court, his failed alibi and other witness testimony. Respect for bandwidth? How about showing respect for others' comments? You labeled my comment a "screed" and deleted it without reading it.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:04:04 PM EST
    Well can you shorten it and repost it? It looked the same to me, a very long list of names followed by a description of their testimony without links to sources. If you didn't keep copies I can send them back to you if you e-mail me your e-mail address.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#9)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 01:01:36 AM EST
    QUOTE: ____________________ It looked the same to me, a very long list of names followed by a description of their testimony without links to sources. ___________________ You mean it looked like Tiger's screed? I removed the source links after I ran it through the word count. I would rather cut the source links than cut more of the jurors' quotes. I realize you don't have time to read all posted comments, but shouldn't the comments that "look" like they do not comply with your comment policy be read before they are deleted? QUOTE ____________________ If you didn't keep copies I can send them back to you if you e-mail me your e-mail address. ___________________ Do you keep copies of all double posts? QUOTE: ________________________ Well can you shorten it and repost it? ________________________ Uh, no thanks. It can be read in its entirety at campy skakel in our thread entitled: Talk Left: What Went Wrong click on my name for the link to campy skakel

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 07:04:27 AM EST
    At the time that trial was going on I found Dominic Dunne's mouthbreathing all over the TV to be really really tiresome. Actually, he has not improved with time. I have rarely seen a case where the notion of reasonable doubt was ignored to this extent. It is the yin to the OJ Simpson yang.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#11)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 08:12:24 AM EST
    QUOTE: _______________________________ I have rarely seen a case where the notion of reasonable doubt was ignored to this extent. ______________________________ If my post on this topic had not been deleted you would have been able to read what the Skakel jurors had to say about their deliberations.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 08:25:10 AM EST
    IMHO - Are you promoting your blog or attempting to engage in civil discourse? Seems to me that you are more interested in getting traction or attention to your blog than you are in discussing the jurors side of the story. I am certain that the jurors in the 195 cases overturned by DNA evidence were very certain about their convictions as well. Have you chased them down to determine how they could have gotten it so wrong?

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#13)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 09:57:51 AM EST
    I did not post here to promote another message board. If you scroll up you will see that I was attempting to discuss "the jurors side of the story" right here. It was Talk Left who deleted my post and suggested I post a link to campy skakel (where my comments on this topic had not been posted). I declined. My deleted post containing quotes from the Skakel jurors was not about the certainty of their convictions. It was about how their description of their deliberations were in conflict with Talk Left's opinion that "the jury did not decide the case based on the evidence presented and refuted, but on their sympathy for Dorothy Moxley and their dislike for the well-known Skakel/Kennedy families." Yes, I am attempting to engage in civil discourse. Talk Left labeled my comments "screed," suggested I was wasting bandwidth, and deleted my post without actually reading it, because it "looked like" an altogether different post, in a different thread, on a different topic. Not exactly a model for civil discourse.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    IMHO, blogs are not message boards. On a blog, links to sources for arguments are the norm. They are not a place to showcase your own work with long quotes, screeds, theories and analysis. If you have that much to say, start your own blog or keep it to message boards. If you have a comment on Skakel, like you disagree that the jurors decided the case on sympathy, say so and post your link so we can read their comments for ourselves. Comments as long as yours kill the thread for others because very few are going to take the time to scroll past it or read it and they use up too much bandwidth. Please lets end this discussion. This thread is about Skakel, not you.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#15)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 11:30:26 AM EST
    My post contained no long quotes, screeds, theories or analysis. It was merely a compilation of juror quotes taken from several newspaper articles. I thought their descriptions of the deliberation process were relevant to the discussion. I felt listing their quotes would be more conducive to further discussion than only listing the links to the articles from which they were culled. If I wasn't trying to limit my post to the same length as previously accepted posts, I would have included both the quotes and the links. I was trying to be thorough and include all of the jurors quotes, not just the quotes that countered your opinion on the basis for the jury's decision. My experience is with message boards where the emphasis is on being thorough in supporting one's opinion with properly sourced documentation. Bandwidth usage be darned! I will adjust my posting style to conform with the protocol of blogs. It's all about me? Where have I tried to make this thread about me, by answering Jlvngstn's questions and accusations concerning my motives for posting here? In the future I shall leave off topic questions and accusations, such as his, unanswered. It is Jlvngstn who should be chastised and reminded that the topic is Skakel, not inmyhumbleopinion.

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 07:17:40 PM EST
    The notion that any of the jurors disliked the Skakels or Kennedys is a new one to me. Is there anything other than the fact that they convicted Michael that would give one that impression?

    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#17)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 07:30:11 PM EST
    If true, I wouldn't expect the Skakel jurors to outright admit that they based their guilty verdict on a dislike of the Kennedy/Skakel families, but I haven't been able to find any quotes from them that even hint that their decision was influenced by sympathy for the Moxleys or scorn for Michael Skakel. newyorktimes.com article If the above link doesn't work for you (you must log in to NYT) try this one
    Mr. Smith, 39, a corporate lawyer, said: "It sort of felt like a math or a logic problem. It could have been Smith and Jones rather than Skakel and Moxley. We were just looking at facts and making decisions."
    Court TV article
    The jury foreman [Kevin Cambra] added at another point, "When we were going through deliberations, we were so focused on the evidence, the exhibits and the testimony. It had nothing to do with the fact that he was a Kennedy. It had nothing to do with the fact this story is 27 years old."
    wtnh.com article
    Skakel's family thinks the jury bowed to public opinion. "You may want closure to this tragedy and our family wants the same, but truth is more important than closure," David Skakel, Michael Skakel's brother, said. But the truth is jurors like alternate Gary Shannon did have some sympathy for Skakel. "I just feel sorry for him," Shannon said. "Whatever life he has left is absolutely ruined and I think it was before this point as well. I don't know what I'd say to him if I was standing next to him right now. I think I'd just shake my head."
    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#18)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 09:23:02 PM EST
    Ba'al posted:
    I have rarely seen a case where the notion of reasonable doubt was ignored to this extent. It is the yin to the OJ Simpson yang.
    Are you saying O.J.'s celebrity outweighed the abundance of evidence against him, while Skakel's notoriety outweighed the lack of evidence against him? The jurors claim to have carefully gone over all of the "evidence, the exhibits and the testimony" looking for a way to acquit Skakel. It doesn't sound like they were out for the blood of a "Kennedy cousin." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
    The Kennedy connection, and the suspicion of wealthy influence that has clouded this case since the beginning, did not affect deliberations, said the juror.
    "No one was intimidated by it, and no one was fascinated by it," she [Christia Valentino] said. Another juror said the panel tried to Milwaukee Journal Sentinelgive Skakel the benefit of the doubt.
    "We worked very, very hard to find something that would acquit Michael Skakel," juror Cathy Lazansky of Greenwich said. "We just couldn't."


    Re: Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 25, 2006 at 05:24:16 AM EST
    You wrote: Skakel should never have been tried in adult court --the law in effect in 1975 precluded it. But General Statute (Rev. to 1975) § 17- 60a. says: "The juvenile court shall have the authority to transfer to the jurisdiction of the superior court any child referred to it for the commission of a murder, provided any such murder was committed after such child attained the age of fourteen years." It's important not to cavalierly spread false information.

    Michael Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court | 19 comments (19 topical)