Just heard that the Grrenwich CT grand jury is finally about to announce an indictment in the 25-year old Martha Moxley murder case. Chief suspect is the neighbor’s kid 9Skakel). Is this going to be another OJ Simpson case? With high priced lawyers getting a guilty party off?
The Skakel kids are nephews of Ethel Kennedy. Their dad, Rushton Skakel, is Ethel’s brother.
This is a bizarre case. The murder was committed in 1975, and the victim was then 15 years old. Some believe that the polict deliberately bothced the investigation because of the fame and power of the would-be suspects (can you say, “Jon-Benet?”) The murder weapon was a golf club, belonging to a set owned by the Skakels. There were two brothers, then 15 and 17. All have steadfastly refused to talk to the police.
On the other hand, the dad was sopmething of a nuit case, having been previously known for mumbling to himself and stealing food from other people’s dishes in restaurants.
The grand jury that is presumably getting ready to issue the indictments is unusual, too: it’s one man. Superior Court Judge George Thim was appointed last year as a one-man grand jury, according to CNN. I have never heard of such a manuever, and it would be illegal in Virginia. Apparently, Connecticut law it is permissible.
In short - who knows? I don’t know that we’re in OJ territory yet… but I think the Ramsey analogy is on point.
- Rick
It’s my keyboard. I swear.
Those Kennedys. They’re either notable or notorious (or both).
Judges 14:9 - So [Samson] scraped the honey into his hands and went on, eating as he went. When he came to his father and mother, he gave some to them and they ate it; but he did not tell them that he had scraped the honey out of the body of the lion.
The Kennedy’s give new meaning to the term lady killer.
The most awful thing is that he will be tried AS A MINOR. Meaning that some sort of juvenile hall is an option for sentencing. Ughhhh
This when we try 11 year old black retarded kids shooting 22’s at trees as ADULTS for murder. yeeesh
We need to decide if the “juvenile” staus is about how old you are when you commit a murder OR NOT. Which is it?
The comparison to OJ is apt, and Von Bulow. It’s not about race, OJ never was. It’s about the money…
I haven’t heard the news today, so I’m just asking for clarification. Have they determined that Michael Skakel will be tried as a juvenile already? It was my understanding that he first has to appear before a juvenile court judge, but that was only to determine if he will be tried as an adult or not, not to actually try him for the murder. It could still be determined that he should be tried as an adult, as so many other teenagers have been recently.
Of course I haven’t heard all of the facts, and we know how one-sided (and often wrong) the media can be, but here are some interesting things I’ve learned about this case so far…
[ul]
[li]The 2 Skakel brothers were admittedly with the young Moxley girl (I’m sorry, I cannot remember her first name) committing some pre-Halloween pranks in the neighborhood, up until 30 minutes prior to the time that the coroner placed her death.[/li][li]The murder weapon was determined to be a golf club belonging to Mr. Skakel, the boys’ father.[/li][li]Though the crime went unsloved for years, determined to prove his sons were innocent, the Sr. Skakel hired a private investigator to work on the case.[/li][li]The older Skakel boy admitted to the detective that he had gone back outside after the pranking was done, and met with the Moxley girl at the very spot where she was found murdered. They participated in “mutual masturbation to the point of climax.”[/li][li]Michael Skakel (the younger brother) told the detective that he had gone out as well, and had gone to the Moxley girl’s house. He climbed a tree and threw rocks at her window to try to get her attention. When she didn’t respond, he masturbated to climax in the tree.[/li][li]He told the detective that when he came down from the tree, he heard noises from the area near the tree where she was later found, approached the area, but retreated before getting all the way there.[/li][li]Michael Skakel is purported to have “confessed” to having committed the murder to at least 3 individuals at a rehab center he attended several years ago.[/li][li]A counselor at that rehab center catagorically denies any such confessions were ever made.[/ul][/li]
It is, from what I understand, based solely on the new testimony from the private detective who’d been hired by the Skakels, that they now feel they have enough evidence for a conviction against Michael. It’s entirely circumstantial, but certainly appears as though they can make a pretty good case out of it.
However, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to hear that the “evidence” was considered hearsay, and therefore not admissible. And if they don’t admit the statements to the detective as evidence, the prosecution may not have any other evidence linking him directly to the crime and it might just get thrown out. Any lawyers out there want to comment on the hearsay rules, and under what circumstances comments made to 3rd parties are allowed or not?
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
Sheesh, I guess I could have just hit the back button and re-read the OP to find out the girl’s name. Martha. Sorry about that.
RobRoy:
I take it you’re referring to the recent Michigan case in which an 11-year-old boy shot and killed an 18-year-old. Interesting that, while the kid was tried as an adult, the judge in the case sentenced him as a juvenile. Rehabilitated or not, this kid will be back on the streets in seven years, when he turns 21.
While the press was relentless in concentrating on the boy’s age, a couple other facts – largely ignored by reporters – contributed to the decision to try him as an adult. First, the dead man was standing under a streetlight at night when he was shot; he was a perfect target. Second, the boy had bragged to his “girlfriend” earlier that he was going to kill someone with the .22-caliber rifle he had apparently found in an alley. Third, the kid had been in trouble with the law on TWENTY-TWO previous occasions, a good number of which involved weapons of some sort.
As for the Skakel/Kennedy thing, I dunno. Depending on state law, he may be tried (if it ever gets that far) as a juvenile, in which case sentencing might be a bit tricky, even if he’s found guilty. (Skakel’s what – 40 now?) I wonder too if the Kennedy connection (nephew by marriage to Bobby) will make a difference.
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
T
The hearsay rule has many exceptions. One is where the out of court statement is an admission, or against the speaker’s interest.
A statement by the defendant that he committed the murder would not be barred by the hearsay rule.
“RobRoy:
I take it you’re referring to the recent Michigan case in which an 11-year-old boy shot and killed an 18-year-old. Interesting that, while the kid was tried as an adult, the judge in the case sentenced him as a juvenile.
Rehabilitated or not, this kid will be back on the streets in seven years, when he turns 21.”
He’s mildly retarded, it should have been no more than involuntary manslsughter - I mean people get that rap, even when there is knowledge of the victim and passion involved. This kid was shootin’ at trees. The prosecutor admitted he was a little gung-ho.
The parents (or who ever gave him the gun) should be charged with reckless endangerment, and accessory to manslaughter.
I just saw a blurb in the Connecticut Law Reporter about Skakel and whether any purported confessions to his rehab counselor are privileged. The judge (not the one sitting as the grand jury), determined that communications to his rehab counselor (a psychiatrist) or persons under the counselor’s supervision are protected by the psychiatrist/patient privilege. Statements made to other patients at the facility, however, are not privileged. I’m not sure of the date of this decision but I believe it came down a few months ago when the attorneys involved were wrangling over what statements, if any, had to be disclosed about Skakel’s alleged confessions.
RobRoy, how’s about I start another thread so’s we can argue about Nathaniel’s guilt/innocence there, and not mess with this perfectly good thread?
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
T
Shayna asked about hearsay:
As another posted said, the rule prohibiting hearsay has many exceptions.
It might be useful to define exactly what hearsay evidence is. It is evidence about an out-of-court statement, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
It’s kind of a tricky concept. For example, if Helen says to me, “There’s a red car parked outside,” then I can’t go into court and testify that she said there was a red car outside – if the purpose of the testimony is to prove there was a red car outside.
Hearsay is not normally admissible because the finder of fact (the judge or jury) has no opportunity to judge the speaker’s credibility. Maybe Helen was lying about the red car being outside. They can’t judge her truthfulness if I relate what she said.
There are myraid exceptions to the rule. One of them is a statement against interest, which was mentioned above. The rationale here is that in general, if someone makes a statement that’s so far against his own interest that it would lead to penal consequences (“I killed her!”) then it’s probably true.
In the descriptions above, though, the hearsay sounds like it might include statements made to the private investigator that are NOT admissions against interest. Those would be inadmissible as hearsay unless covered under another exception, or they might not be hearsay if they aren’t offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
For example, let us say the private detective was called upon to explain why he removed bark from the tree for testing. For foundational purposes, he might wish to say that the boy told him about masturbating in the tree. That’s not hearsay - it’s not offered for the truth (that the boy did it) but rather to explain his actions. If such evidence is admitted, the jury is usually given a cautionary instruction that they should hear the evidence only for the limited purpose explained.
Off the top of my head, here are other exceptions to the hearsay rule that apply whether or not the declarant is available to testify:
[ul][li]Excited utterance – when a person makes a statement about a stressful or exciting event while he is still under the stress or excitement of the event. Rationale: the declarant is too excited to be able to plan a fabricated statement.[/li][li]Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment – any statement describing medical history or symptoms for the purpose of getting treatment. Rationale: to lie under such circumstances would create a risk to the declarant.[/ul][/li]Hearsay exceptions that apply only if the declarant is unavailable to testify:
[ul][li]Previous testimony – statements made under oath if they were tested by cross-examination.[/li][li]Dying declaration – if the speaker believes he’s about to die, any statements he makes about how he came to be dying.[/li][li]Statements about personal family history.[/ul][/li]
In moot court I once flustered my opponent beyond belief by objecting to his asking a witness, “What is your name?” I said it was calling for hearsay, which, in an incredibly strained sense, it is… you are told your name by your parents, and that’s how you “know” it… so from a torturous reading of the rule, your own name is hearsay. But of course, there is a clear exception as regards family history… which my opponent did not recall under the stress of the moment. Cruddy little trick, but all’s fair in moot court if the judge lets you do it.
All right – there you go. More than you ever wanted to know about hearsay.
- Rick
One little addendum: during trial, hearsay is inadmissible. But there are other stages of the proceeding (a suppression hearing, for example) in which hearsay is admissible.
OK, two addenda, the second being: I neglected to mention the “if-they-wantcha-they-gotcha” hearsay exception, more commonly known as the garbage or catch-all exception. If a statement, not falling into one of the recognized hearsay exceptions, still has “sufficient indicia of trustworthiness” the judge may choose to admit it anyway.
- Rick
Thank you, Rick. You came through for me again. You da man! 
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank