Do you know who Mickey Sherman is? He was the lawyer for Michael Skakel in his murder trial ten years ago. At the time, he was the best known criminal defense attorney in Connecticut. He was at the head of his profession. Someone charged with a crime could do no better than to get Sherman as his lawyer. Sherman is also the lawyer who, a Connecticut judge ruled this week, failed to provide adequate representation to Skakel during his murder trial. As a result, the judge order that Skakel get a new trial.
If you do not know the name, let me tell you who Michael Skakel is. He is the nephew of Robert F. Kennedy. He was convicted of murdering Martha Moxley, his neighbor, when he and she were teens. There was a lengthy jury trial, and the jury found Skakel guilty. He served many years in prison, and now, without any new evidence, he sought a new trial because his lawyer was inadequate.
Skakel's claim was laughable. Indeed, if Skakel's family did not include folks with the name Kennedy, it probably would have been summarily denied. The judge, however, heard the motion and then ordered a hearing. While I have not read the transcript, I did follow the news accounts. Skakel was able to produce evidence of things that Mickey Sherman did (or did not do) with which another lawyer could disagree. There was no evidence put forward, however, of actual failures by Sherman. In other words, folks could disagree with choices made by Sherman, but that is not enough to say that the representation was inadequate. For example, Sherman did not have Skakel testify. That is a common choice at many trials. It is not grounds to overturn the result. It certainly is not an indication of inadequate representation.
Let's hope that on appeal this decision is reversed.
If you do not know the name, let me tell you who Michael Skakel is. He is the nephew of Robert F. Kennedy. He was convicted of murdering Martha Moxley, his neighbor, when he and she were teens. There was a lengthy jury trial, and the jury found Skakel guilty. He served many years in prison, and now, without any new evidence, he sought a new trial because his lawyer was inadequate.
Skakel's claim was laughable. Indeed, if Skakel's family did not include folks with the name Kennedy, it probably would have been summarily denied. The judge, however, heard the motion and then ordered a hearing. While I have not read the transcript, I did follow the news accounts. Skakel was able to produce evidence of things that Mickey Sherman did (or did not do) with which another lawyer could disagree. There was no evidence put forward, however, of actual failures by Sherman. In other words, folks could disagree with choices made by Sherman, but that is not enough to say that the representation was inadequate. For example, Sherman did not have Skakel testify. That is a common choice at many trials. It is not grounds to overturn the result. It certainly is not an indication of inadequate representation.
Let's hope that on appeal this decision is reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment