Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview of Mickey Sherman, Michael Skakel's Defense Attorney
Aired November 20, 2001 - 09:12 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: On to another story that's been getting a lot of attention here on the east coast. He is accused of committing a brutal murder in Greenwich, Connecticut back in 1975 when he was just 15 years old. But Michael Skakel, a Kennedy cousin, will stand trial as an adult. He is accused of the murder of his teen-aged neighbor Martha Moxley. He lost an appeal in the Connecticut Supreme Court yesterday to be tried in juvenile court. Mickey Sherman, Skakel's attorney, joins me now from Stamford, Connecticut. Good to see you, Mickey.
MICKEY SHERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL SKAKEL: Good morning, Paula. How are you doing?
ZAHN: Good. So, what kind of an impact does the judge's ruling have on your case?
SHERMAN: Well, we're going to go forward. We always thought we would go forward, and, you know, when we filed the appeal to the Supreme Court, we did it specifically telling the court, in the trial court, that we do not want any delay. We are not asking that the proceedings be stayed. So we haven't delayed this case, or this trial, like one day. Which sometimes is the mantra of the defense attorney.
And, just to correct you a bit, we didn't lose it, basically, we just didn't get up to bat. The Supreme Court said there's been no final judgment which could be appealed at this time, so come back to us if and when there is. So, it's not that they threw the case out or threw our appeal out, or dismissed it on the merits, they basically said it's not right to be heard right now.
ZAHN: All right. So, does that mean, then, he ends up being tried as an adult?
SHERMAN: Absolutely.
ZAHN: That's the end result?
SHERMAN: No question.
ZAHN: Now, that is something that you fought from the very beginning.
SHERMAN: Not hard. ZAHN: You -- you're saying no?
SHERMAN: No --
ZAHN: I mean -- there is -- there seems to be an awful lot of confusion about what your team communicated in the beginning. Why don't you set the record straight this morning. Is this a good thing for your client?
SHERMAN: I have very mixed emotions about it. I mean, certainly the negative part about being tried in the adult court is the fact that the stakes are a heck of a lot higher. If he's found guilty, you're talking 10-65 years in prison. If he was found guilty in the juvenile court, you're talking about a maximum of four years. And the reason we appealed is because we had to. The fact is, he was 15 years of age when this crime was committed, and, you know, the law is the law. It shouldn't be bent because, you know, he's 41 now. Wasn't his fault that the case took 25 years to be prosecuted.
But by the same -- by the same token, I'm not at all unhappy that we're going to be tried in an adult court. In the adult court, we get a jury trial. Twelve people, twelve peers from this area, or frankly, any area, and when they measure the evidence against common sense, their collective human experience, and the evidence that they see, and they feel, and they hear, I think we'll do pretty well.
ZAHN: So, basically, you're telling me this morning, you don't think you're going to have any problem getting an impartial jury in this case?
SHERMAN: No, it's going to be a problem, but it's not going to be an insurmountable problem. I think it's going to take us a while. Everyone has heard about the case. The state -- oddly enough, asked for a change of venue. We fought that, and we won that. But, I think a jury down here or, really, anywhere is going to be able to -- to separate out the disinformation and the evidence as they hear it. Again, it'll take us a while, because some people -- many people have some strong preconceived notions about this thing. But I -- I have a very high faith in the jury system and that people will take their job seriously.
ZAHN: Well, that's a pretty gentle way of putting it. The people have preconceived notions. You and I have been talking about this trial for many, many years now, and the fact remains that, you know, polling has -- has suggested that most people think Michael Skakel murdered Martha Moxley. -- how -- what -- how do you create a strategy that combats that kind of public opinion.
SHERMAN: Very simple. By picking until 12 intelligent jurors, I don't care if they're doctors, lawyers, or plumbers, or cabbies, as long as I have people who can say, "you know something, this is what I heard and this is what I thought, but I'll keep open mind." We'll find people who can do that. Again, it's not indigenous to the Greenwich area, it can be done anywhere. But eventually we will find those people. People take their jobs as jurors extraordinarily seriously. And they are able to separate out. Look what just happened in Florida. O.J. Simpson, who the world believes is a murderer, 12 jurors, I think 9 of which were white jurors, found him not guilty in an instant. People can listen to the evidence. They confine their judgment to only what they hear in court.
ZAHN: Michael Skakel's reaction to the news of yesterday by the supreme court?
SHERMAN: Feels the same as I do. He's anxious to get this show on the road. He's anxious for a jury to hear his story. And, he's confident he will be exonerated.
ZAHN: Well, he better feel the same way you are feeling. You represent him, after all, Mickey.
SHERMAN: No, let me tell you, very often your clients don't agree with you, but Michael Skakel and I are always on the same page.
ZAHN: Mickey Sherman, thank you, very much, for updating us on this case this morning. Appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
