Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Day Two of Deliberations in Trial of Kennedy Cousin Michael Skakel

Aired June 05, 2002 - 11:18   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.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We move on to Connecticut now. It is day two of deliberations in the trial of Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel. Jurors met yesterday for about six hours without reaching a verdict.

For more now on the case, let's go to our Deborah Feyerick, who is in Norwalk, Connecticut.

Deb, good morning.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Daryn.

Well a slow day yesterday, but a pretty big day today. Michael Skakel's brother Tommy was in court for the very first time. He was long considered a suspect because he was the last person to see Martha alive. At one point, there was the feeling that both sides might call him to the stand as a witness to testify. But both sides ended up passing.

His lawyer, who I spoke to, said he felt that it was important both emotionally and physically for Tommy Skakel to be here surrounded by his family. Manny Margolis, the lawyer, said an albatross has been taken off Tommy's neck, but it's been replaced by a zone of anxiety by his brother's fate. Even though they're not close, this weight is agonizing.

Now the jury right now getting a read back of what is -- what you can call "alibi testimony." They want to hear testimony from Michael's sister, Julie Skakel, as well as from her friend Andrea Shakespeare. Both of those women seemed to make statements that places Michael at home after his brothers and cousin went away. And that's very important because they are the two people who don't support his alibi that he definitely went away to the cousin's house, as he has maintained all along.

The third person who they want to hear, from, again it goes to the alibi testimony. They want to hear testimony from a woman by the name of Helen Iks (ph). That was a friend of Martha Moxley. She said that she left Tommy and Martha playing around, fooling around in the driveway. They were flirting with each other.

Helen said she got uncomfortable so she left. She said that when she got out of the car so that the brothers could get in to take the cousin home, she could not remember whether Michael was there or not. And the prosecutor had said, "Well, when that car rounded the corner, did you see anybody get out of the car?" And she said, "No."

So again, right now it appears the jury is wrestling with the issue of the alibi. Did Michael Skakel go to the cousin's house, was he miles away when the murder took place, or was he in fact in the neighborhood, in the vicinity when Moxley was killed?

Now I spoke briefly to Michael, and, you know, there's a lot of tension in the courtroom because of this wait. His sense of humor seems to be OK. He said it really feels a little like "Pulp Fiction" in there with all the journalists, all the media, his family and everybody just waiting and waiting.

Prosecutors feel that the longer the jury deliberates, the better off they will be.

JONATHAN BENEDICT, PROSECUTOR: I didn't expect a quick verdict. If I had been thinking in terms of quick verdict, I would be really worried right now. I think it will take a few days anyway for them to come out. And I think also the longer they stay out the more they think on the case, the better off we are.

FEYERICK: The jury going to be listening to that testimony. And, Daryn, it could take several hours for them to get that read back. We don't know how close they are to reaching any sort of a verdict. But they are being very deliberate going through everything step-by-step. It would seem they have even isolated a pile of evidence that they wanted to review early this morning.

So now prosecutors are saying, boy, maybe this could go until Monday. We don't know, they don't know -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Well one thing I do know, having followed this case all the way through, when it does happen, Deb, you will be there. That is a verdict that you would not miss. Deborah Feyerick, in Norwalk, Connecticut, thank you.

FEYERICK: I'm not leaving.

KAGAN: No. You are planted right there.

Well, let's get some more insight on the trial right now. We're joined by our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, joining us from New York.

Jeff, good morning.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, Daryn.

KAGAN: Did you have a chance to hear Deborah Feyerick's report about what the jury is interested in?

TOOBIN: I sure did.

KAGAN: And what does that indicate to you? TOOBIN: Well this is some of the best prosecution evidence in the case. It really is evidence that suggests that Michael Skakel lied about having left the area of the murder scene during the time of the crime. He claimed that he was at his cousin's house across town in Greenwich. And these are witnesses that certainly suggest that he actually remained near his house, which is, of course, right next to the murder scene all along.

Also, an interesting point is that Jonathan Benedict, the prosecutor, placed a great deal of emphasis on Andrea Shakespeare Renna's (ph) story in his summation on Monday. And in the very dramatic conclusion of his summation he suggested that when Michael Skakel was being interviewed by a ghostwriter for a book he wound up not writing he lied to the ghostwriter about whether he knew whether Andrea Renna was at the crime scene.

Evidence that really suggested Michael was lying. If the jury is focusing on Andrea Renna, that could be good for the prosecution.

KAGAN: It could be. But I guess the one thing we don't know, because we can't be the fly on the wall inside the jury room, and isn't that a shame? But the one thing we can't know is when they asked to look at this stuff, is it because they really are interested in focusing on it, or because they even have doubts about the credibility of that testimony?

TOOBIN: You know, it is so hard to interpret jury notes. You also have the situation of you don't know how many jurors really want to hear this particular evidence. It could be that 10 jurors are ready to decide one way and one or two just say, "Well, I need to hear this evidence again."

That's why it's really hard to interpret what this means. Other than when you get a note that says, "Eleven of us agree and one doesn't." That's pretty clear. But asking for specific pieces of testimony, it's really rough to interpret whether that's a good sign for the prosecution or the defense.

KAGAN: Well, and finally, what do you think about the prosecutor's theory that the longer the jury is in there, the better it is for them?

TOOBIN: Well I was practicing law, and since I've been covering cases, you hear every theory that long deliberations are good for prosecution. Sometimes you hear they're good for the defense. I think certainly a quick verdict would have been a likely acquittal, because there's just so many (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with the length of time -- of passage. But I think a quick verdict would certainly have meant an acquittal.

However, you know, a long verdict, I don't necessarily think that means anything one way or another. A long deliberation -- and we are not yet in the realm of long deliberation. This is only the second day, this is a complicated trial. It lasted more than a month. I think Jonathan Benedict was right in the sense that a quick verdict would have been bad. But I don't think we are in a realm where we can tell what the deliberations mean.

KAGAN: All right. Well I guess we'll only know when the verdict comes back. That's when we'll be able to tell...

TOOBIN: That's for sure.

KAGAN: ... which favor it was in.

Jeffrey Toobin, in New York, thank you so much.

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