Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Stanley Twardy

Aired August 28, 2002 - 09:10   ET

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

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Meanwhile in the Northeast, there is a new twist in the Michael Skakel murder case today. In less than an hour, the Kennedy cousin is expected to walk into a Norwalk, Connecticut courtroom for the beginning of his sentencing phase for killing Martha Moxley back in 1975. However, Skakel's lawyers will instead argue that the judge should throw out the verdict. They say -- the defense -- defense says prosecutors failed to turn over, rather, an important piece of evidence during the trial, one they claim now could have led to a different verdict. What are the chances now that indeed this takes place? Skakel walks out of the courtroom, possibly today, on a retrial? Let's talk about it.
In Connecticut this morning, Stan Twardy, former U.S. attorney for the state of Connecticut is our guest now -- good to see you, good morning to you.

STANLEY TWARDY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Good morning, Bill. How are you today?

HEMMER: I am doing just fine, thank you. I have heard you make some comments that you think this is just typical post-trial motion. You don't lend much merit to it. Why?

TWARDY: No, these post-trial motions generally don't succeed. There are typically -- after trial, you have these so-called "Brady" motions, and that is under the supreme court case U.S. v. Brady, the prosecution is required to turn over any potentially exculpatory evidence. At the end of a trial, after a verdict has been returned -- guilty verdict has been returned, defense counsel typically will comb through everything they can to find a piece of evidence that they think has not been turned over. Here you have an interesting situation where the state is going to contend, and will state that defense counsel, Skakel's counsel, had access to -- effective access to this sketch because it was referenced in numerous police reports, that the defense team had a chance to see.

So, at the end of the day, I think there will be a great deal of discussion, there will be a lot of back and forth on this, but I think it is unlikely that Mr. Skakel will get a new trial, or have his conviction overturned.

HEMMER: So you think, as of today, then, this case continues in the sentencing phase, and nothing throws that off the track, right?

TWARDY: I believe that is correct, that this case will go to the sentences phase. Whether or not they get to it today or it goes over to tomorrow will depend on how lengthy the debate is, the dialog is on these motions, these post-trial motions.

HEMMER: Got it. Got it. Got it. OK. Tell me this, then, Stanley, if you could. You are representing Michael Skakel, right? You have got a guy who could face a lot of years behind bars, the maximum could be life behind prison. If that is the case, what is your strategy to show that over the past, say 27 years, Michael Skakel has not been this kid, convicted murderer of Martha Moxley, and indeed he has lived an exemplary life. How do you do it?

TWARDY: Well, his lawyers, effectively, have done that in their motion, or their memorandum in connection with the sentencing. They have argued that for the last 25 years, 20 years in essence, that Skakel has led an exemplary life, that he has shown as an adult that he does not need the retribution, the incarceration that a lifetime imprisonment would send. They have argued that he has overcome childhood problems, a dysfunctional family. He has overcome alcohol. He now has a young child, that he is not the type of person who poses a threat to society, and the court should be lenient in sentencing him. However, obviously, the boundaries are the court has to sentence him to at least ten years. The question here is whether or not the upside of it will be life, or whether or not, as the defense argues, that they can impose a shorter upside -- the defense arguing should only get 10 to 15 years, which would effectively make it a six year to seven and a half or eight year sentence.

HEMMER: In five seconds, Stanley, what do you think? The question of the day, does Michael Skakel testify in his own behalf today, which could be the highlight if it does take place?

TWARDY: I think there is a strong chance that he will get up and read a prepared statement, and will not respond to any questions by the court.

HEMMER: Interesting. Thanks for your time. Former U.S. attorney Stanley Twardy up there in Norwalk, Connecticut. Thank you, sir.

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