Another Kennedy Skates a Murder
Writing for Friday’s majority, Justice Richard N. Palmer concluded that the defense of Skakel mounted by Greenwich celebrity attorney Michael Sherman - he represented Skakel through investigation, trial and conviction in 2002 - was so far beneath the accepted standard of professional competence that the jury’s guilty verdict cannot be relied upon. The majority affirmed a a lower court decision in a habeas corpus action five years ago.
“The sole issue now before us in this appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, is whether the habeas court properly concluded that the petitioner, Michael Skakel, is entitled to a new trial because counsel in his murder case, Michael Sherman, rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain certain readily available evidence that Sherman should have known was potentially critical to the petitioner’s alibi defense, that is, the testimony of a disinterested alibi witness whom the habeas court found to be highly credible,” the majority wrote. “Because we agree with the habeas court both that Sherman’s failure to secure that evidence was constitutionally inexcusable and that that deficiency undermines confidence in the reliability of the petitioner’s conviction — a conviction founded on a case, aptly characterized by the habeas court as far from overwhelming, that was devoid of any forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony linking the petitioner to the crime — we affirm the judgment of the habeas court ordering a new trial.”
Writing for Friday’s majority, Justice Richard N. Palmer concluded that the defense of Skakel mounted by Greenwich celebrity attorney Michael Sherman - he represented Skakel through investigation, trial and conviction in 2002 - was so far beneath the accepted standard of professional competence that the jury’s guilty verdict cannot be relied upon. The majority affirmed a a lower court decision in a habeas corpus action five years ago.
“The sole issue now before us in this appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, is whether the habeas court properly concluded that the petitioner, Michael Skakel, is entitled to a new trial because counsel in his murder case, Michael Sherman, rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain certain readily available evidence that Sherman should have known was potentially critical to the petitioner’s alibi defense, that is, the testimony of a disinterested alibi witness whom the habeas court found to be highly credible,” the majority wrote. “Because we agree with the habeas court both that Sherman’s failure to secure that evidence was constitutionally inexcusable and that that deficiency undermines confidence in the reliability of the petitioner’s conviction — a conviction founded on a case, aptly characterized by the habeas court as far from overwhelming, that was devoid of any forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony linking the petitioner to the crime — we affirm the judgment of the habeas court ordering a new trial.”
