Opinion ID: 6354474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Petitioner's Defense

Text: The petitioner retained Attorney Michael Sherman to represent him in his criminal proceedings. At the time of the trial, Sherman had practiced in the area of criminal law for more than thirty years, both as a defense attorney and as a prosecutor. To prepare his defense, Sherman enlisted the help of at least three associate attorneys and received advice from other experienced criminal defense attorneys. 6 He also retained three private investigation firms and consulted with expert witnesses to assist in gathering evidence in support of the petitioner's defense. Sherman's strategy for defending the petitioner at trial was threefold: (1) establish an alibi for the time when the murder most likely occurred; (2) discredit witnesses claiming that the petitioner had made statements implicating himself in the murder; and (3) present evidence showing that another person, the live-in tutor, Littleton, might have committed the murder. See id., at 652-53, 888 A.2d 985 . With respect to the alibi defense, Sherman presented evidence to show that the murder most likely occurred at about 10 p.m. on October 30, 1975, when, the petitioner  claims, he was at the Terrien house watching a television show. As we explained in our decision on the petitioner's direct appeal, there was evidence presented that residents in the neighborhood heard [dogs barking and voices] between 9:30 and 10 p.m. on October 30, 1975, near the Moxley property. [The victim's mother] testified that, around that time, she heard a commotion coming from the general direction of the area where the victim's body subsequently was discovered. She recalled hearing dogs barking and what sounded like excited young voices. [A neighbor] testified that her dog began to bark incessantly shortly after 9:30 p.m. [One of the petitioner's brothers] also recalled hearing dogs barking at approximately 10 p.m. that night. Id., at 643 n.7, 888 A.2d 985 . In addition, Sherman adduced testimony from ... a forensic pathologist ... who concluded that the time of the victim's death most likely was around 10 p.m. on October 30, 1975. [His] testimony was bolstered by the testimony of several people ... [who stated] that they had heard dogs barking in the vicinity of the crime scene at approximately that time. Id., at 652 n.14, 888 A.2d 985 . To establish the petitioner's whereabouts from approximately 9:30 to 10 p.m. on October 30, 1975, Sherman called a number of witnesses who testified that, during that time frame, the petitioner was with them at the Terrien home, which was nearly a twenty minute drive from the  victim's home. See id., at 652 and n.14, 888 A.2d 985 . These witnesses included the petitioner's cousin, Terrien, and one of the petitioner's older brothers, Rushton Skakel, Jr., who had gone to the Terrien home. They testified at the criminal trial that the petitioner had left the Skakel home with them at about 9:30 p.m. on October 30, and had ridden with them in a vehicle to the Terrien home where they watched a television show. They further testified that the petitioner and others  did not return to the Skakel home until approximately 11 p.m. that night. 7 Sherman also sought to discredit the testimony from Elan residents who claimed that they had heard the petitioner incriminate himself. Sherman cross-examined the state's witnesses to impeach their credibility and cast doubt on their testimony, and also presented testimony from several other Elan residents who knew the petitioner while he was an Elan resident. These other residents testified to the brutal and abusive treatment of residents, including the petitioner. The witnesses explained that school staff frequently accused the petitioner of the murder and urged him to admit his involvement. When he refused to take responsibility, he was paddled, assaulted in a boxing ring, and forced to wear a sign that had written on it something to the effect of please confront me on the murder of my friend, Martha Moxley .... These witnesses also stated that the petitioner denied involvement in the victim's murder, and, when the abuse continued, he parried their accusations by stating that he either did not know or could not recall what happened; they never heard the petitioner confess to the crime. Finally, Sherman sought to bolster the petitioner's defense by implicating another person in the crime. Sherman explained at the habeas trial that he did not want to use a buffet table of alleged suspects, so he chose to focus on one person, Littleton. As we explained in our decision in the petitioner's direct appeal, Littleton ... had been hired as a part-time tutor by the  Skakel family, had taken up residence at the Skakel home on October 30, 1975, the day that the victim was last seen alive, and had slept there with the Skakel children that night. Littleton testified [at the petitioner's criminal trial] that, after returning home from dinner at 9 p.m., he remained at the house all night, stepping outside briefly at approximately 9:30 p.m. only to investigate a disturbance. In addition, testimony adduced by [Sherman] revealed that Littleton, who began to manifest serious psychiatric and behavioral problems in the years following the murder, may have made a statement, several years after the killing, in which he implicated himself in the crime. Littleton emphatically denied that he had anything to do with the victim's death, however. (Footnote omitted.) State v. Skakel , supra, 276 Conn. at 652-53 , 888 A.2d 985 . At the conclusion of the petitioner's criminal trial, the jury found the petitioner guilty of murder. Id., at 653, 888 A.2d 985 . The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict and sentenced the petitioner to a period of incarceration of twenty years to life. Id. The petitioner appealed from the judgment of conviction to this court, raising six separate  grounds for reversing his conviction; id., at 639-40, 888 A.2d 985 ; and this court affirmed the judgment. Id., at 770, 888 A.2d 985 . The petitioner later filed a petition for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence and other claims, but the trial court denied the petition, and this court upheld the trial court's denial of the new trial petition. See Skakel v. State , 295 Conn. 447 , 452, 991 A.2d 414 (2010).