Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live At Daybreak

Kennedy Cousin to be Sentenced Today

Aired August 28, 2002 - 06:02   ET

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

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Four hours from now, a sentencing hearing gets under way in Connecticut for Michael Skakel. The Kennedy cousin was convicted three months ago in the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley.
In arguing for a lenient sentence, defense attorneys say Skakel was abused by his father. Skakel has maintained his innocence in the killing. Defense attorneys are working on an appeal of his conviction.

And the sentencing guidelines are a little unusual in the Skakel case.

Here now to navigate us through those legal waters is attorney Kendall Coffey. He joins us live on the phone from Miami.

Good morning -- Kendall.

KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, good morning, Carol.

COSTELLO: You know they have asked for a new trial, kind of an 11th-hour move. Any chance of that happening?

COFFEY: Probably not, but I think the prosecution may have some explaining to do this morning when they're back in court, if what the defense lawyers say. They are saying that there was a police sketch of someone who was seen at or near the scene of the crime back in 1975, and the person in that sketch resembles Skakel tutor, Kenneth Littleton, who the defense tried to say was a suspect in the case.

If so, then arguably, the prosecutor should have turned that over, so it could have been seen by the jury. But the problem is once a jury has spoken, the standard is very, very high to try to get the verdict set aside. They would basically have to show that there is a reasonable probability that if the jury had had access to this sketch, that there would have been a different outcome. That is a tough standard.

COSTELLO: Oh, interesting. Interesting!

Let's say, though, that the trial stands as is, how many years in prison do you think that Skakel will spend behind bars?

COFFEY: Well, because of the interesting -- I mean, real unique features of this case, we go back through a legal time mor (ph) to the sentencing laws as they existed back in 1975, and that means a couple of things. First of all, it means you don't really have the sentencing guidelines the way you do today, which typically limit a judge's discretion. Back in the good old days or bad old days, however you look at it, judges had plenty of discretion. So for example, the circumstances that Skakel's mother had died of cancer a few years earlier, that there may have been alcoholism, obviously his very young age -- those are the kind of things that could be considered and bring a judge toward the low end of the range.

Nowadays, of course, judge's hands are, to some extent, tied. So the sentence range could be anywhere from 10 years to life up to 25 years to life. Because of the brutality of the crime, my sense is the judge is going to sentence at the high end of the range.

But remember, back in those old days, you used to get time off for good behavior, even if you were a violent criminal.

COSTELLO: Oh, so he could spend as little as -- what -- 10 years in prison?

COFFEY: He could spend 10 years, or he could spend less. Nowadays, we have what's called "truth in sentencing," which means that people will serve in a great majority of states in this country, as well as in the federal system, 85 percent of their sentences. But even if Skakel got a 25-year prison sentence, because it's the old system that applies, he could be serving half of that time, which means he could get a sentence at the high end, and still be released from prison in the year 2015.

COSTELLO: OK, I'm confused by something. Remember when they were trying to decide whether to try Skakel in juvenile court, because at the time of the crime, he was 15 years old, but they decided to try him in an adult court. So with the sentencing guidelines, you know, taking place under 1975 rules, isn't that sort of conflicting?

COFFEY: Well, it's a key point that you're raising. He's being sentenced as an adult under the sentencing rules for adults in 1975, which means you get this -- quote -- "time off for good behavior," which means 25 years could turn into 13 years.

But meanwhile, there's going to be a key issue on the appeal, because they say that he should have been prosecuted not as an adult, but as a juvenile. And if he had been prosecuted as a juvenile, then he might be looking at, in effect, four years.

So that's a key issue for the appeal, but for now, he's being sentenced as an adult, but under the old laws, the old rules.

COSTELLO: Oh, man, very complicated.

Thank you, Kendall Coffey. We appreciate you joining us live by phone this morning.

Of course, CNN will be covering the sentencing hearing for Skakel later on this afternoon.

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