a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Judge Karazin today issued his Memorandum of Decision [pdf] denying Michael Skakel’s petition for new trial, holding that most of what Skakel based his claims on was not newly discovered evidence.

Skakel sought a new trial based on Gitano “Tony” Bryant’s claim that his two friends told him they got Moxley “caveman style.” Bryant and Skakel attended the same private school.

Karazin wrote in his ruling that Bryant’s statements were admissible, but not credible.

“The corroboration for Bryant’s claim is minimal,” he wrote. “No one has any recall of ever seeing Bryant and his companions in Belle Haven on the night of the murder.”

“The testimony of Bryant is absent any corroboration,” Karazin wrote. “It lacks credibility, and therefore would not produce a different result in a new trial.”

He also claimed that there were three newly discovered witnesses that undermined and directly contradicted the testimony of the state’s “star” witness: Gregory Coleman. Coleman had testified that Skakel confessed to him when they were in private school together. These three witnesses would have testified that Skakel did not confess.

Judge Karazin ruled, however, that these three witnesses could have been discovered prior to trial with due diligence. There’s more:

Karazin said [trial attorney Michael "Mickey"] Sherman did not ask for a ruling during the trial about [state inspector] Garr’s book deal, calling the move “either a lack of due diligence or a strategic decision.”

Skakel’s attorneys also said the state failed to hand over reports on other suspects and a sketch that they said resembled an early suspect.

But Karazin noted that the state Supreme Court found that Skakel’s defense was aware of the reports and the sketch during the trial, but failed to make a timely request for them.

So this brings me to my second thought. Judge Karazin’s description of several of the claims raised by Skakel made some habeas petitions I’ve seen seem meritorious.  An appeal, probably forthcoming, seems unlikely to result in a reversal of Judge Karazin’s ruling.

On the other hand, there seems to be plenty of evidence that Mickey Sherman was pretty ineffective in representing Skakel. So why not go straight to the habeas corpus court one might wonder.

I think it might have something to do with getting yet another court to document the shortcomings of Mickey Sherman’s representation of Skakel. Clearly, it is a topic of discussion in news reports.

This strategy (if indeed it is a strategy) carries some pitfalls, though. Like yesterday’s opinion from the Appellate Court and a few lines from Judge Karazin’s decision, there is always the (great) likelihood that such a court would include throwaway statements that effectively preclude habeas relief. The appellate courts are only too happy to do that: “Cumulative”; “wouldn’t have made a difference”; “evidence was extremely strong”; “harmless error” are some examples.

Judge Karazin uses a few: “admissible but not credible”and “lack of due diligence or tactical decision”.

All in all, I think Skakel might have been better served by filing a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus instead of the petition for new trial, but I’m just me and that’s why they pay Santos & Seeley the big bucks.