Defendant Michael Skakel
was indicted for the murder of Martha Moxley in Connecticut in 1975.
Twenty-seven years (2002) later Mr. Skakel was convicted of the crime
and has been incarcerated ever since. In
spite of legal fees and costs paid to his defense attorney Michael Sherman in
the amount of approximately, $1,200,000.00 (one-million two-hundred thousand
dollars).
On October
23, 2013 the Honorable JTR
Bishop ruled that Attorney Sherman’s representation was deficient and
ineffective and thus, Mr. Skakel was entitled to a new trial.
The opinion of Judge
Bishop is very informative and educational not only for the experienced criminal defense attorney, but also for individuals charged with crimes because it is a text book example of a “high
profile” or “marquee defense attorney”, who simply didn’t know the law, did not
adequately prepare for trial, and simply didn’t do his homework, as stated by
Judge Bishop.
Judge Bishop made a number
of finding of facts and conclusion of law which demonstrated that Attorney
Sherman’s representation was substandard and therefore denied Mr. Skakel his
Sixth Amendment to effective legal representation and a fair trial.
Although the court held
that Attorney Sherman had made many trial errors, the court focused on the
following five major errors.
First, there was
overwhelming evidence that was in possession and knowledge of Attorney Sherman
regarding the third-party culpability of Mr. Skakel’s older brother, T. Skakel. However, instead of arguing to the jury that
there was evidence that T. Skakel committed the murder and not his client,
Attorney Sherman decided to argue and present evidence that someone else
probability committed the murder, notwithstanding, that there was no credible
evidence that this person was involved.
The court held that if the jury had heard this evidence at the trial (culpability of T. Skakel)
that there was a likelihood that the jury would have harbored reasonable doubt
as to the defendant's guilty, and the resulting verdict would have been different.
Second, that Attorney
Sherman failure to locate and present the testimony of an alibi witness for the
defense was likewise ineffective. This
witness was a powerful witness and Attorney Sherman should have known the
existence of this witness because his identity was testified to by another
witness in the grand jury proceedings. Again, if the jury had heard this testimony the resulting verdict would have been different.
Third, that Attorney
Sherman knew or should have known with reasonable diligence of two witnesses
whom would have refuted the alleged confession that Mr. Skakel had allegedly
made to a key state witness Gregory Coleman.
The court held that Attorney Sherman’s “failure of judgment borne of an
undeserved confidence in the impact of his cross-examination of Coleman ...
This failure of judgment prejudiced the petitioner.” Therefore, the court held that because these
witnesses did not testify there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of
the trial would have been different.
Fourth, Attorney Sherman’s
failure to provide expert testimony that any alleged admissions made by Mr.
Skakel while a patient in the intensive inpatient drug rehabilitation facility
(Elan Facility), should not be used for the truth.
Fifth, Attorney Sherman’s
failure to attempt to rebut the prosecution’s allegation that Mr. Skakel
engaged in recent fabrication of his story by asserting that he had masturbated
on the victim prior to her murder because he was afraid that the recent
discovery of DNA would have linked him to the crime and
murder. However, the truth was that Mr.
Skakel had stated to state investigators in 1987 that he had masturbated on Ms.
Moxley, four to five years before any law enforcement agency knew how to apply DNA testing to a crime scene investigation.
In summary this is a text
book case of a high priced attorney who dropped the ball. If you are faced with a serious crime you
should consult a New Jersey
Criminal Defense Attorney who will fight for your defense.
