Opinion ID: 2273504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: the relationship of garr and levitt and garr's alleged bias

Text: In support of his petition for a new trial, the petitioner also claims that Frank Garr, the state's lead investigator, and Leonard Levitt, an author, joined in a secret pact to write a book about the case, a pact that was motivated by their desire to prove that they were correct in identifyingand, in Garr's case, pursuingthe petitioner as the person who killed the victim. The petitioner claims that this agreement resulted in the 2004 publication of a book, entitled Conviction: Solving the Moxley Murder, on which Levitt and Garr had collaborated, that reveals Garr's particularly unique bias against the petitioner and his family. The petitioner further claims that this bias so undermine[d] Garr's credibility in his selection, investigation and use of . . . witnesses and . . . dilute[d] the already tenuous probative value. . . of the circumstantial evidence on which the petitioner was convicted that a new trial is warranted. The trial court concluded that the evidence relating to the book deal between Levitt and Garr was not newly discovered and that, in any event, it would not have had a bearing on the outcome of the petitioner's criminal trial. I disagree with the trial court that the evidence was not newly discovered. As to whether that evidence would have affected the outcome of the petitioner's criminal trial, I need not resolve that issue in view of my determination that the petitioner is entitled to a new trial on the basis of the newly discovered Bryant evidence. At a minimum, however, the evidence of Garr's bias toward the petitioner and his family bolsters my conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to a new trial. As the majority has explained, in May, 2001, the petitioner filed a motion for discovery and inspection in his criminal case seeking, inter alia, disclosure of any evidence that any agent of the state had a pecuniary or other interest in the development and/or outcome of this case, including, but not limited to, any contract, agreement, or on-going negotiations, which relate to the preparation of any book. . . . The court, Kavanewsky, J., granted the request limited to witnesses called by the state. During the petitioner's criminal trial, defense counsel asked Garr on cross-examination whether he had a book deal. When the state objected on relevancy grounds, defense counsel did not pursue his inquiry concerning a book deal. Levitt and Garr both testified at the hearing on the petition for a new trial. Their testimony revealed that they had become friendly in 1995 after Levitt published an article in New York Newsday about the victim's murder. Following the petitioner's trial and conviction, Levitt published his book about the case. According to Garr, his own contribution to the book consisted of proofreading drafts to ensure accuracy. For Garr's assistance with the book, Levitt paid Garr 50 percent of the net revenues from the book. Focusing on the petitioner's claim concerning the existence of a book deal between Levitt and Garr, the trial court rejected the petitioner's claim that any such deal or arrangement was newly discovered. In essence, the trial court found that the petitioner had not pursued the issue with due diligence, and, in any event, the two men had no book deal prior to the petitioner's criminal trial, and Garr had no expectation of any financial interest in any book that Levitt may have planned to write about the case in the future. In my view, the trial court viewed the petitioner's claim too narrowly by limiting its consideration to the issue of the existence of a formal business relationship between Levitt and Garr. As the petitioner notes, the book itself refers to a pact that the men made to tell [their] story. L. Levitt, Conviction: Solving the Moxley Murder (ReganBooks 2004), p. x. As Levitt testified, he and Garr had entered into this pact shortly after the 1998 publication of a book about the victim's murder by Mark Fuhrmana point in time that Levitt candidly described as his and Garr's lowest ebbbecause Fuhrman was highly critical of the investigation of the murder by the Greenwich police department. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the petitioner could have learned of the pact between Levitt and Garr anytime prior to the publication of the book, which, so far as we know, contained the first public revelation of that agreement. Furthermore, there was no way for the petitioner to have known about Garr's animosity toward him and his family prior to the publication of the book, which contains comments, directly attributable to Garr, that reflect such feelings. The record clearly establishes, therefore, that the pact between Levitt and Garr to tell their story, and Garr's alleged bias toward the petitioner as reflected in the book that resulted from that agreement, constitutes newly discovered evidence. [117] The petitioner further contends that this evidence would place the state's case in a new and disturbing light, thereby warranting a new trial. In fact, the book contains potentially troubling revelations about the exceedingly close relationship between Levitt and Garra relationship that Levitt himself characterizes as unnatural [118] and about their passionate commitment to establishing that the petitioner was responsible for the victim's murder. For example, in the introduction to the book, Levitt writes: People say I'm like a dog with my teeth in someone's ankle when I'm on a story. But pursuing the [victim's] murder required more than tenacity or even courage. It required stealth, guile, and, most important[ly], patience. I did not solve [the victim's] murder. What I did was prevent the Skakel family from getting away with it. I was that unexpected force that created enough of a stir to keep the case alive until someone smarter than me appeared and put it all together. No, that person was not the notorious former Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman, whose claim of solving the murder was trumpeted by the national media. Nor was it the celebrity writer Dominick Dunne, whose claims the media also accepted. Rather, the person who solved the [victim's] murder was an unheralded local detective named Frank Garr, who pursued his investigation for eleven years and whose work and life became intertwined with mine. . . . Both of us found ourselves underdogs and outcasts and naturally formed a bond. We were an odd couple, a detective and a newspaper reporter. It was like the lion lying down not with a lamb but with a crocodile. Except that as we grew closer, I wasn't sure which of us was which. Id., p. xiv. The book also documents in considerable detail Garr's hostility toward the petitioner and his family. Levitt writes: [Garr] also knows the Skakel family. Despite the image of forthrightness and generosity they present to the world, [Garr] says they have no morals or conscience. He calls them habitual liars and says their loyalty is only to each other. [Garr] has no more regard for their friends, neighbors, and attorneyseven their family priest. Id., at p. 4. Levitt later quotes Garr as saying, `I never hid the fact that these people were despicable.' . . . `Liars. Liars and drunks. They refuse to take responsibility for anything they do. They actually see themselves as victims.' Id., at p. 163. The factual basis for Garr's belief that the petitioner's family members are all liars, however, is no more apparent in Levitt's book than it was in the evidence adduced by the state at the petitioner's criminal trial, during which the state argued that the Skakel family had engaged in a decades-long cover-up. [119] Furthermore, with respect to the petitioner's appeal from the judgment of conviction, which was pending in this court when Levitt's book was published, Levitt writes: The Skakels [will] . . . never let it die. They [are] like the forces of evil . . . [who] just kept coming. Id., at p. 285. Levitt concludes by quoting Garr as follows: For the Skakels, it is over. They just don't know it. And remember this. If I am wrong and their appeal is somehow granted, and even if [the petitioner] gets a new trial, you and I will still be there. We'll be there to stop them. Sometimes I think that's what we are meant to do in this world. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Apparently, Garr's motivation was fueled not only by a deep antipathy toward the petitioner and his family, but also by a desire for recognition that he had been right about the petitioner all along. Thus, Levitt writes that Garr was exceedingly upset by Fuhrman's book not simply because of its criticism of Garr's handling of the investigation, but also because Fuhrman claimed to be the first person to suspect that the petitioner had committed the crime. According to Levitt's book, which Garr proofread for accuracy: [Garr] was so upset [after reading Fuhrman's book] he called me. I drove over to his house. While I sat at his kitchen table, [Garr] paced the room. `[Fuhrman] is such a liar.' . . . With that he flicked on the television. There on . . . one of the network talk shows was Fuhrman. He was crowing over how he'd solved the [victim's] murder. [Garr] and I turned and looked at each other. I didn't know whether to laugh or scream. [Garr] opened his mouth but no words came. If ever I saw a man crushed, this was it. [Garr had] fought with his superiors for nearly a decade over [his suspicions about the petitioner]. He'd been ostracized by his colleagues and ridiculed by his bosses yet had virtually singled-handedly gotten a grand jury impaneled. And here was Fuhrman, with barely a connection to the case, taking the credit. . . . I wanted to reach over and hug him, or at least touch his arm in commiseration. I didn't, though. Instead, all I could think to say was . . . `I'm so very sorry.' But I made a promise to myself, and to him. When the case was over, I promised that no matter which way it went, no matter how the grand jury ruled, I would tell the story, his and mine. [Garr] shook his head. `I pray that you do,' he said. `And I'll try to help you. But you're only jerking yourself off. Nobody will listen. Nobody will believe you.' Id., at pp. 213-14. I agree with the petitioner that evidence contained in the book would be highly relevant to demonstrate Garr's strong feelings of antipathy toward the petitioner and his family. The petitioner maintains, and I agree, that [t]he state presented and relied heavily on a variety of questionable witnesses who offered circumstantial evidence of the petitioner's guilt, such as Coleman, the convicted felon and heroin addict. [120] At a minimum, the contents of Levitt's book would tend to undermine Garr's credibility and judgment in his selection, investigation and use of such witnesses. This is particularly so in light of Garr's testimony at the hearing on the petition for a new trial that, even though he spoke to Crawford Mills and Neal Walker several times about Bryant's allegations, he never once bothered to interview Hasbrouck despite the fact that Garr worked in the same city in which Hasbrouck resided. Finally, if a jury were to be presented with information that an investigator believed that he had been put on earth to thwart any effort on the part of a criminal defendant to demonstrate his innocence, it might well be inclined to view the evidence marshaled by that investigator with a heavy dose of skepticism. As I have indicated, however, in view of my conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to a new trial on the basis of the Bryant evidence alone, I need not determine the extent to which the revelations about Garr's involvement with Levitt and his intense negative feelings about the petitioner and the petitioner's family would have affected the jury's verdict. It suffices to say that, because that evidence raises questions about the objectivity of the state's investigation of the case, such evidence would make an acquittal at a new trial even more likely. VI