Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Jurors Deliberate Skakel Case

Aired June 04, 2002 - 08:22   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This morning, jurors will start deliberating the fate of Michael Skakel, accused of murdering Martha Moxley back in October of 1975. During closing arguments yesterday, prosecutors used Skakel's own words in trying to convince the jury that he is guilty. The defense says there is no physical evidence or clear motive linking Skakel to the crime.

Let's talk about it more with our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, live back here in New York.

Welcome back from Norwalk.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN ANALYST: Hi.

HEMMER: You said yesterday after the closing arguments from Jonathan Benedict, the prosecutor, you say his closing arguments were stunning.

TOOBIN: Sensational.

HEMMER: Why?

TOOBIN: Well, you know, all through this trial we've been talking about it, and I've been saying oh, the prosecutors had a bad day, tough case. Well, yesterday the courtroom was transfixed. Jonathan Benedict gave one of the best summations I've ever heard, because he did what lawyers are supposed to do in summation. He took different parts of the evidence, brought it all together and made you see it in a new way.

Let me give you an example. At the end of his summation, he used the audiotape that Michael Skakel had done with a freelance writer; it was supposedly going to be a book. He was going to write a book about his experiences as a Kennedy relative. And he described the night in question for the -- the night of the murder -- for the ghostwriter.

And what Jonathan Benedict did was he went through it bit by bit and he showed how Skakel had lied to the ghostwriter. It had been proved through other witnesses that his account was not true.

And so what you had in the courtroom was Skakel's words echoing through the courtroom, his -- the transcript up on a screen and then photographs of Martha Moxley lying dead on the ground for the jury to consider all at once. And courtrooms are quiet, usually, but there was no one breathing as Benedict was doing that.

HEMMER: I can hear it in your voice. You were surprised about how effective that was, weren't you?

TOOBIN: I was very surprised. I mean, you know, it is true, as we've discussed: There is no forensic evidence -- DNA, fingerprints, hair and fiber. There is no real physical evidence, except for the murder weapon that came out of the Skakel home. The motive evidence is unclear.

But there is, you know -- somebody murdered Martha Moxley.

HEMMER: Right.

TOOBIN: And if you look at the universe of suspects, what Benedict did yesterday is he said the only one it could have been was Michael Skakel.

HEMMER: Now, listen, throughout this entire thing, you have said, and you said it again today, that you did not think -- and still to this day I don't believe you think -- the prosecution can get a conviction -- correct?

TOOBIN: I don't -- that's an overstatement. I think it's going to be tough, yes.

HEMMER: All right, the benefit of the doubt, then, for the sake of our argument right now.

TOOBIN: Sure.

HEMMER: Is there a piece of evidence or testimony in this case that you think the jurors can hang on Michael Skakel?

TOOBIN: Well, I think what was so effective yesterday was that you heard Michael Skakel's own words in a new way. And I think if they believe that he lied about his own activities that night, if he lied about what he did, and his own sister contradicted him about where he was at the time of the murder, that, I think, would be the most crucial piece of evidence, I think, in many respects more significant than the so-called confessions to his classmates at the high-priced reform school of Elan, because those were shrouded in so much evidence of coercion and unpleasantness that I think Skakel's own words on tape will be the most important thing.

HEMMER: Quickly, only 30 seconds left: You've been around a lot of big-time trials. I'm curious to know what you think right now engaging how jurors will deliberate this case in terms of length, given celebrity trials in the past. And also, did you pick up on any buzz in that courthouse?

TOOBIN: You know, you couldn't -- not buzz in terms of the jury. You really just didn't know what they were thinking. But one thing I do believe is that the legacy of the O.J. criminal jury is strong. They deliberated only an hour, and they were terribly harshly criticized for it. Jurors in high-profile cases are going to take their time now. They don't want to be criticized for rushing. So no verdict today, I don't think.

HEMMER: What time will they start?

TOOBIN: Ten o'clock this morning Eastern.

HEMMER: Ten o'clock.

Thank you, Jeffrey. We'll talk again.

TOOBIN: OK.

HEMMER: All right, Jeffrey Toobin.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com