Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Judge May Lean Towards Heavier Sentence in Skakel Trial

Aired August 28, 2002 - 11:14   ET

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

LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: In Connecticut, it is sentencing day for a Kennedy cousin. Michael Skakel could be facing life in prison for his murderous golf club rampage back in 1975. Skakel did not testify at his trial, but he may be heard from today.
CNN's Deborah Feyerick covered the trial up in Norwalk, Connecticut, and she is back with us today for the sentencing. Also with us this morning in Miami is Kendall Coffey. He is a former federal attorney and frequent CNN contributor. Good to see you again. Deb, let's start with you. As I understand, you were back in the courtroom within the last hour or so.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Leon, well, just to answer your first question also, is that it is very likely that Michael Skakel will make some sort of a statement. He has had a lot of his friends and relatives write to the judge asking the judge for leniency, but Michael Skakel was led into the courtroom, he was in hand-cuffs. He had changed out of his khaki uniform that he was wearing when he got here. Instead, he was wearing a navy or a black suit and a white dress shirt. His hair was much shorter and his skin paler than both had been at the trial.

What is going on now inside the courtroom is you have his defense lawyers arguing various motions. They are trying to convince the judge to toss out the guilty verdict and also to try to get the judge to order a new trial, listing a whole bunch of reasons as to why they feel this should happen, including charging prosecutors of not turning over a sketch which they feel could have possibly cleared their client.

HARRIS: Let's talk about that sketch, Kendall Coffey. Do you see this as a real -- as a tactic that may actually have a real payoff down the road for Skakel here, or is this just another one of these typical post-trial motions that we see so often?

KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it is not typical. Nothing about this trial is typical, especially because this is a case where you have 27-year-old memories and Kenneth Littleton was a suspect, or person of interest, today's terminology -- by the police themselves. We may even recall that at one point, the police went to the trouble of trying to get Littleton's then wife to set him up, to get some kind of admission that he had been involved in the killing. So, the defense theory that Littleton might have been the perpetrator is certainly something that they had a right to present, and in a case where you have old memories, virtually no forensic evidence, the defense can certainly argue that a sketch that might look like Littleton could have had some real jury impact. The problem? Very, very uphill. They have to show that this evidence was so compelling that it likely would have changed the outcome of the trial. That is a big mountain to climb.

HARRIS: Now, Deborah, you said that it is expected that Skakel is going to have something to say here. Have you been able to find out any more information about the tactics that either side is going to actually put into play today?

FEYERICK: Oh, well, basically the defense teams is throwing everything they have got. The reason that they are talking about this sketch right now is because the defense lawyers feel that the picture looks very much like the Skakel family tutor, Ken Littleton. However, I spoke to a source very close to the prosecution team, and that person tells me that in fact the sketch is not of Ken Littleton, it was of a man who lived on Martha Moxley's street. That man was questioned and then he was ruled out as a suspect very early on, so the prosecution team, sort of saying that that was the reason they didn't hand over this sketch, because it wasn't exculpatory, it would not have cleared Michael Skakel, and so they didn't need to turn it over.

The state's attorney is also sort of making the point that all of this material was in binders, and more than once, the state's attorneys wrote to the defense team saying we have got this material, it doesn't clear Michael Skakel, but you should come down look at it. And it doesn't appear that, in fact, the defense team took them up on that and came to look at it. So that is why it is going to be interesting to see what the judge has to say. It is certainly not black and white. There are a lot of issues that the judge ruled on at trial. The defense team saying, Judge, we respect your ruling, but we completely disagree, and that is why we think that this case should be appealed.

HARRIS: Ken -- put yourself -- instead of the attorneys, in the chair of the judge. Give us an idea of the kind of things you think the judge here would be considering, because it appears to me that the defense team is going to have a hard road ahead here to create an image of sympathy here, considering the way the man was found guilty, and the fact that he stayed away for so long to keep from having being brought to trial in the first place?

COFFEY: I think that is right. I think the judge is not going to look at Michael Skakel as a confused, troubled 15-year-old, although arguably he was at the time of this terrible murder.

He is going to look at him, perhaps, as someone in his early 40s who spent most of his life avoiding justice. That is the view of the Moxley family, and I think that what that means is that the judge is likely to sentence Skakel at the very, very high end of the permissible statutory range. However, we are in a legal time warp here, and in addition to the fact that the sentencing under the rules in the mid-70s allowed a lot greater judicial discretion, those kind of sentences, which will apply in this case, allow time off for good behavior, and what that means is that even if the judge sentences at the high end, which I think he is going to do, Skakel may serve basically 50 percent or so of the sentence. HARRIS: All right. Good. OK. Thanks for that insight.

Deb, I want to finish up with you on this one. I want to know what people there are saying, because you spent a lot of time there in Norwalk, Connecticut, and Skakel, with him being found guilty, it became quite apparent, at least in the comments of people that I have heard from up that way, it became apparent that some people there believe that other people in the family should be brought to justice as well because they actually contributed in a cover-up here. What are you hearing about that? Is there any talk about that up there at all?

FEYERICK: That is a very interesting point that you raise, Leon. And as a matter of fact, that was one of the things that the defense team was actually arguing in front of the judge.

They are saying that the prosecution not only put on trial Michael Skakel, but that they put on the entire family, that they personally attacked the sister, basically charging her as well as all of her brothers and the father with concocting some sort of an alibi, and the defense says that that was completely wrong, that they should not have done that, and so, yes, there is a sense, at least on the part of the defense, that they did put the whole family on trial.

The judge could sentence on the upper end if, in fact, he believes based on the evidence, that, you know, there was a cover-up, and that's one reason why he may go towards the upper end. Should they be brought to trial? You know, I think that is something for the state's attorney to decide.

HARRIS: That's interesting. It is going to be an interesting and long day there in Norwalk, Connecticut in that courtroom. Deborah, we'll let you get back to it. Kendall Coffey, thanks once again for the insight.

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