The full text of the judge's decision ordering new trial of Michael Skakel.
This is the case of the son of Ethel Kennedy, who was convicted of murder 20 years ago, and who has recently received an order for a new trial.
One of the key issues is that there was an alibi witness who the defense attorney had notice of, but failed to interview. Michael Skakel's alibi is that he was in the next town at the time of the murder, along with several other relatives (one of whom took a lie detector test and passed). Another relative gave grand jury testimony in which she stated that her "beau" was in house with her at the time. NO ONE FOLLOWED UP ON HER TESTIMONY -- not the police, the prosecution, or the defense.
It turns out that the "beau" was a well-respected psychologist who was ready and willing to testify that he had seen Michael in the house that night -- but no one asked him. Instead, the defense just had the Kennedy relatives testify -- and the judge instructed the jury that they could take into account the fact that these people were relatives.
The judge in the appeals trial that just concluded listed the failure to follow-up on this alibi witness as one of the main ways that the defense attorney had failed to provide an adequate defense.
In the document below, some of this is covered in pages 52 and 53.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/24/nyregion/24skakel-document.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
