PETITION for NEW TRIAL the Petitioner, Michael C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 MICHAEL C. SKAKEL : SUPERIOR COURT V. : J. D. OF STAMFORD STATE OF CONNECTICUT : AUGUST 25, 2005 PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL The Petitioner, Michael C. Skakel, by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully petitions this Honorable Court for a New Trial in the above-referenced matter in the interests of justice and under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Connecticut Constitution, Section 52-270 of the Connecticut General Statutes and Section 42-55 of the Connecticut Practice Book. FIRST COUNT 1. The Petitioner, Michael C. Skakel, was arrested and charged on January 19, 2000 for the October 30, 1975 murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Connecticut. 2. Mr. Skakel, who was 39 years old on the date of his arrest, initially was presented in juvenile court because he was 15 years old at the time of the homicide. 3. The juvenile court granted the State’s motion to transfer the matter to the regular criminal docket because of Mr. Skakel’s age. 4. The caption of the case after transfer to the regular adult criminal docket was State v. Michael Skakel, Docket No., FST CR00-135-792-T, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford. 5. Following a month-long jury trial, Mr. Skakel was convicted of murder on June 7, 2002. 6. On August 29, 2002, Mr. Skakel was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 20 years to life in accordance with the 1975 adult sentencing laws. 7. On September 17, 2002, Mr. Skakel filed an appeal which was argued before the Connecticut Supreme Court on January 14, 2005. 8. On October 30, 1975, Michael Skakel was 20 minutes away from Greenwich’s Belle Haven community at the time his fifteen-year old neighbor and friend, Martha Moxley, was killed around 10:00 p.m. 9. At trial, two of the Petitioner’s older brothers (Rushton, Jr. and John), his two cousins (James and Georgeann Dowdle) and a neighbor (Helen Ix) confirmed that Mr. Skakel had left Belle Haven around 9:30 p.m. and did not return until after the murder. -2- 10. The victim’s body was found under a large pine tree on the Moxley property around 11:30 a.m. on October 31, 1975. 11. The victim suffered multiple and severe injuries to her head and stab wounds to her neck that were consistent with being caused by a piece of golf club shaft. 12. Three pieces of a golf club were found near the victim’s body. 13. The golf club pieces came from a Tony Penna golf club. 14. The same brand of golf club was found at the Skakel residence. 15. It was common for golf clubs to be left about the Skakel property. 16. The investigation revealed that the victim had been assaulted near her driveway and then dragged to the pine tree. 17. According to Dr. Henry Lee’s trial testimony, the State had no forensic or physical evidence linking Michael Skakel to this murder. 18. After Mr. Skakel was convicted and sentenced, a new witness was located who indicated that he was present in Belle-Haven on the night that Martha Moxley was murdered. -3- 19. This witness, Mr. Gitano Bryant, is a reluctant witness who does not want to be involved, but who, based upon the information he has, believes that Michael Skakel was wrongly convicted. 20. Mr. Bryant has indicated that he was present with two friends, A. and B. in Belle Haven on the night Martha Moxley was murdered. 21. Mr. Bryant, A. and B. lived in New York, were close friends and were together on an almost daily basis during that time period. 22. Mr. Bryant attended a private high school in Connecticut in 1975. 23. A., who was around 15 years old in 1975, “was big and he was explosive”, very strong, about 6’2” tall and weighed about 200 pounds. 24. Mr. Bryant has stated that his friend, A., “had met Martha [Moxley] previously and he had a thing for her. He really liked her” and “he loved her beautiful blond hair.” 25. Mr. Bryant said that A. had met Martha Moxley in September of 1975 and that they [Mr. Bryant, A. and B.] had been to Greenwich four to five times between September and the murder. -4- 26. He stated that A. “wanted to go caveman on her”, meaning to “grab her and have her the way he wanted her” ; getting her from behind and dragging her by her hair. 27. Mr. Bryant indicated that A. was obsessed with Martha Moxley and that “he said he was going to have her.” 28. Mr. Bryant said he and B. would kid A. about it and tell him that he needed to think about someone else “who is more attainable, because it’s not going to happen. She’s not even interested in you [A.]”. 29. On the night that Martha Moxley died, Mr. Bryant said he, A. and B. took a train to Greenwich in order to go to Belle Haven. 30. During the train ride, A. and B. stated they they were “not going out of here unsatisfied” and that they had been talking “about the caveman.” 31. Mr. Bryant recalled that on prior occasions at Belle Haven, they used to hit golf balls behind the Skakel home with the Skakel golf clubs which would be just laying around. 32. On the night that Martha Moxley was murdered, Mr. Bryant recalled that all of them picked up a golf club that night. -5- 33. He said that A. and B. were using the clubs “as sort of like walking sticks” and they said “I got my caveman club.” 34. Mr. Bryant indicated that at that point, he left A. and B. and took the train back to New York. 35. Mr. Bryant indicated that A. and B. had been drinking during the evening. 36. Mr. Bryant saw A. and B. the Monday following the murder and A. said “I got mine” and B. said “we did what we had to do”; they said “we achieved the caveman” and were bragging that “we got her caveman style.” 37. Even though A. and B. never mentioned Martha Moxley’s name, he knew they were referring to her. 38. That night, Mr. Bryant said A. and B. stayed at the house of Geoffrey Byrne. 39. Geoffrey Byrne later told Mr. Bryant to stay clear of A. and B., that they were bad guys. 40. After this, Mr. Bryant tried to create distance between himself and A. and B. -6- 41. Mr. Bryant’s information constitutes newly discoverable evidence that was not available to the Petitioner or his counsel at the time of his trial, nor could it have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence; it would be material on a new trial and is not merely cumulative, and is likely to produce a different result in a new trial. 42. The jury verdict resulted in Mr. Skakel suffering an injustice. 43. Therefore, since the verdict and judgment against Mr. Skakel are unjust and his imprisonment is illegal, reasonable cause exists for a new trial. SECOND COUNT 1.-17. Paragraphs 1-17 of the First Count are hereby realleged as paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Second Count. 18. From 1978 to 1980, Mr. Skakel was physically and emotionally brutalized at Elan, a residential “treatment” facility for adolescents and young adults located in Poland Springs, Maine. 19. For two years, Mr. Skakel was held captive in this secluded environment where the residents regularly were beaten unmercifully and emotionally tortured. -7- 20. In its closing argument at trial, even the State admitted that a “concentration camp type atmosphere” existed at Elan. 21. The centerpiece of the State’s case against Mr. Skakel was several statements he allegedly made to residents and a staff person during his tormented time at Elan. 22. The Elan Program touted a controversial behavioral modification program that relied upon peer and staff confrontation predicated on intimidation, humiliation, physical beatings and emotional poundings. 23. Elan even had its own cult-like lingo to describe positions and events, i.e. night owls, expeditors, haircuts, being shot down and general meetings. 24. A “night owl” was a resident assigned to guard the entrances so that people would not run away; An “expeditor” was a resident assigned to Elan’s police force who was required to take head counts every 15-20 minutes; a “haircut” was a verbal reprimand for minor infractions; “Being shot down” meant if a resident were disobedient, their position was taken away and they were required to wear shorts, go barefoot and made to scrub floors all day. -8- 25. The most glaring example of Elan’s technique of persecution was the “general meeting;” the typical general meeting was attended by over 100 people present and stated with a staff person stirring up the crowd– almost like a pep rally -- against the person for whom the general meeting was called. 26. The “victim” of the general meeting was hidden in a back room and only displayed before the crowd once the assembly had become sufficiently frenzied. 27. A staff member always asked whether anyone had any feelings towards the target, inevitably resulting in a barrage of 20-30 out-of-control people rushing and screaming at the person. 28. The target inevitably received some type of punishment at the general meeting. 29. If the owner of Elan, Joseph Ricci, did not like how the target of the general meeting answered a question, he would “continue to confront them and pelt them emotionally, have them spanked or placed in the boxing ring.” 30.