- Stocks gain as investors weigh economic news
- Doctors say ‘profound’ new HIV treatment may prove the cure
- Mexican truck with radioactive load stolen
- NYPD head Ray Kelly wins big retirement perk — a $1.5M tax-paid team of bodyguards
- #smh: Pentagon may forgive recruits’ vulgar, disrespectful social media posts
- Libraries to feds: Stop spying on us
- Britain eyes new powers to thwart Islamic extremists
- Angry NTSB ousts railroad union from N.Y. train crash site
- Sen. Bernie Sanders hints at White House run
- Westboro Baptists slam actor Paul Walker: He’s ‘in Hell’
Prosecutors seek dismissal of latest Skakel appeal
Question of the Day
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Prosecutors urged a judge on Thursday to dismiss Michael Skakel's latest challenge of his 2002 murder conviction, saying the Kennedy cousin's claim that his trial attorney did a poor job should have been raised in an earlier appeal and that many of the issues he cites were rejected previously.
A hearing was held Thursday in Rockville Superior Court. Skakel, the 52-year-old nephew of Robert F. Kennedy's widow, Ethel Kennedy, did not attend, and there was no immediate ruling.
Skakel is serving 20 years to life in prison for the fatal beating of Martha Moxley in wealthy Greenwich in 1975, when they were 15-year-old neighbors. He recently lost a bid for parole after a hearing in which he reiterated his innocence.
Attorneys for Skakel argue in the appeal filed in 2010 that his trial attorney, Michael Sherman, failed to challenge the state's star witness by finding witnesses who later rejected his claim that Skakel confessed to the crime. Skakel, who is seeking a new trial, says Mr. Sherman failed to obtain evidence from prosecutors and others pointing to other suspects and failed to object to improper closing arguments.
Sherman has said he did all he could to prevent Skakel's conviction.
Prosecutors say the claim against Sherman should have been raised in an earlier appeal, and they contend Skakel is in procedural default.
"He, in the state's view, waived it at that point," prosecutor Susann Gill said. "He waived his opportunity."
Ms. Gill also argues that 80 percent of the issues cited, such as the claim about the star witness and improper closing arguments, were denied in an earlier appeal and that Skakel should not be allowed to raise the same issues in an effort to get a different ruling from another judge.
Hubert Santos, Skakel's current attorney, said there was no obligation to file the claim earlier and to do so would have forced him to make inconsistent arguments. He says the defense wanted Mr. Sherman's cooperation in connection with an earlier appeal and was awaiting details to emerge of Mr. Sherman's tax troubles that would factor into the latest claim.
Mr. Sherman served about six months in prison for failing to pay more than $400,000 in income taxes. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay income taxes.
Skakel's claim argues that Mr. Sherman had significant financial problems and didn't devote enough money to retain investigators and expert consultants. Mr. Santos noted that his appeal related to Mr. Sherman's performance came after he was indicted.
"I don't think there is any procedural default whatsoever," Mr. Santos said.
Mr. Santos says the issues in the latest appeal are related to the earlier challenge but are not identical. He said some of the rulings denying the earlier appeals lend support to the claims against Mr. Sherman, citing a Supreme Court ruling that stated Mr. Sherman failed to object to the prosecutor's closing argument.
The victim's 80-year-old mother, Dorthy Moxley, said the appeals are stressful. She did not attend the hearing.
"It just amazes me they have all this energy to keep pushing for these things when they just hit a stone wall every time," she said Wednesday. "I just think it's a big waste of time and money for the state of Connecticut to have to put up with all these appeals. And it's a waste of time and effort and money on my part."
Skakel's attorneys say the state's interest in finality does not trump Skakel's interest in showing he was wrongfully convicted.
"Michael Skakel is an innocent man serving an unjust sentence for a crime he did not commit. Therefore, Mr. Skakel's exercise of his constitutional rights is not a waste of time or money," Mr. Santos said.
Skakel already has lost two appeals before the Connecticut Supreme Court.
If the latest appeal is not thrown out, a trial is scheduled to start in April.
By Tom Harris and Madhav Khandekar
Bad science puts rich nations on the hook for trillions in climate liabilities
- Hola: Boehner prepares to push amnesty bill through House
- Issa: FBI impeding inquiry into IRS targeting of conservative groups
- U.S. drops 2,000 mice on Guam by parachute to kill snakes
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- MILLER: Obamas EPA closing smelter will not affect ammunition supply
- Last call: State Dept. bought $180,000 in liquor before shutdown
- CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom
- Apple wins facial recognition patent for iPhone 6
- Harry Reid gives some staffers a pass on Obamacare
- Bill Clinton: Damage to Democrats over Obamacare rollout failure will be 'minimal'
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
This column will cover anything that has anything remotely to do with the game of baseball, from the game itself to mid-summer trades to offseason moves.
The cold hard truth about politics in America today and the state of this once great nation.
Never apologetic. Never afraid. Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West joins Communities to bring tales from the biggest Foxhole of them all, the one inside the Beltway.
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.