Skakel blames lawyer in latest Conn. murder appeal

Print
Email
|

Associated Press

Posted on April 16, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Updated Tuesday, Apr 16 at 9:04 AM

VERNON, Conn. (AP) — Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel's former attorney has been called as the first witness in a new appeal trial challenging Skakel's 2002 murder conviction.

Lawyer Michael Sherman took the stand Tuesday in Rockville Superior Court. Skakel argues in the appeal that Sherman failed to competently defend him during his trial.

Skakel is the 52-year-old nephew of Robert F. Kennedy's widow, Ethel. He's serving 20 years to life in prison for the 1975 golf club bludgeoning of his Greenwich neighbor Martha Moxley when they were 15.

Skakel claims Sherman failed to challenge the state's star witness and obtain evidence pointing to other suspects, did a poor job with jury selection and closing arguments and didn't hire enough investigators and expert consultants.

Sherman says he did all he could to prevent Skakel's conviction.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel is trying to get his 2002 murder conviction overturned by arguing his trial attorney failed to competently defend him.

A trial starts Tuesday in Rockville Superior Court. Skakel, the 52-year-old nephew of Robert F. Kennedy's widow, Ethel, is serving 20 years to life in prison for the 1975 golf club bludgeoning of his Greenwich neighbor Martha Moxley when they were 15.

Skakel argues trial attorney Michael Sherman failed to challenge the state's star witness and obtain evidence pointing to other suspects, did a poor job with jury selection and closing arguments and didn't hire enough investigators and expert consultants.

Sherman, who is listed as a potential witness, has said he did all he could to prevent Skakel's conviction.

Prosecutors say many of the issues were rejected in earlier appeals.

Skakel, who lost a bid for parole last year, is hoping to get out of prison through a writ of habeas corpus arguing he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective legal representation when Sherman was his attorney.

Skakel's current attorney, Hubert Santos, argues that his client's conviction is based on two witnesses of dubious credibility who claimed Skakel confessed to the crime. He contends the verdict likely would have been different if Sherman had conducted an appropriate investigation, obtained evidence and challenged inappropriate state evidence.

Prosecutor Susann Gill counters that Skakel's conviction came after more than a dozen witnesses testified that he made incriminating statements, including three direct confessions.

Attorneys for Skakel argue that Sherman failed to challenge the state's star witness by finding witnesses who later rejected his claim that Skakel confessed to the crime.

Skakel has lost two appeals before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Print
Email
|