५ मे, २०१८

"If you spend $1 million on your defense lawyer, how can you credibly claim you didn't even get the constitutional minimum, effective assistance of counsel?"

"Cynics will say, the way to do that is: 1. Get convicted because a well-paid lawyer wasn't able to persuade a jury to see reasonable doubt, and 2. Pay more money for more lawyers and persuade a judge of what you need to overturn the conviction. And super-cynics will add: 3. Be a Kennedy."

That's what I wrote about Michael Skakel back in October 2013.

This morning I see — in the NYT — "Connecticut Court Reverses Murder Conviction of Michael Skakel."
[I]n a lacerating dissent, Justice Carmen E. Espinosa argued that more than anything else, Mr. Skakel had benefited from his wealth and prominent connections. She wrote that other convicted criminals “would undoubtedly be thrilled to receive such special treatment.”

“Unfortunately for them, the vast majority do not share the petitioner’s financial resources, social standing, ethnicity or connections to a political dynasty,” Justice Espinosa wrote. “Nor do their cases share the same ‘glam’ and celebrity factor as this cause célèbre.”

Mr. Skakel, who was 15 at the time of the killing, was not arrested until he was in his late 30s. He was sentenced to 20 years to life for the murder. Mr. Skakel was released in 2013, after spending more than a decade in prison. A judge had vacated the original sentence, finding that Mr. Skakel’s trial lawyer had not provided effective representation.

Then, in 2016, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, disagreeing with that judge’s finding. The high court, acting on a request from the defense, decided to review its own decision. In the interim, the makeup of the court changed with the retirement of the justice who wrote the majority opinion in the last ruling....
BUT: The majority opinion in the new case was written by Justice Richard N. Palmer. I've never thought about the relationship among the justices on the Connecticut Supreme Court before this morning, but I just ran into this passage, written by Palmer in 2015 (and quoted at Above the Law in "Judge Benchslaps Fellow Jurist In Awesomely Feisty Footnote/Whoa, these judges probably shouldn't sit next to each other on the bench at court"):
Rather than support her opinion with legal analysis and authority, however, [Justice Espinosa] chooses, for reasons we cannot fathom, to dress her argument in language so derisive that it is unbefitting an opinion of this state’s highest court. Perhaps worse, her interest lies only in launching groundless ad hominem attacks and claiming to be able to divine the (allegedly improper) personal motivations of the majority. We will not respond in kind to Justice Espinosa’s offensive accusations; we are content, instead, to rely on the merits of our analysis of the issues presented by this appeal. Unfortunately, in taking a different path, Justice Espinosa dishonors this court.

३७ टिप्पण्या:

Rob म्हणाले...

Doesn’t he realize she’s a wise Latina?

Birkel म्हणाले...

It might be better for the institution of the Court if the judges didn't think of themselves as the embodiment of law.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan म्हणाले...

The American legal system is rigged to favor the rich. News at eleven.

Humperdink म्हणाले...

"The American legal system is rigged to favor the rich. News at eleven."

Bill Cosby was unavailable for comment.

FleetUSA म्हणाले...

#4 be tried in Massachusetts.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

"Bill Cosby was unavailable for comment."

Bill Cosby's wife was available: "Since when are all accusers truthful? History disproves that...for example, Emmett Till’s accuser immediately comes to mind. In 1955, she testified before a jury of white men in a Mississippi courtroom that a 14-year-old African American boy had sexually assaulted her, only to later admit several decades later in 2008 that her testimony was false."

Humperdink म्हणाले...

ARM said: ""The American legal system is rigged to favor the rich. News at eleven."

Hump responded: "Bill Cosby was unavailable for comment."

AA further responded: "Bill Cosby's wife was available: 'Since when are all accusers truthful? History disproves that...for example, Emmett Till’s accuser immediately comes to mind. In 1955, she testified before a jury of white men in a Mississippi courtroom that a 14-year-old African American boy had sexually assaulted her, only to later admit several decades later in 2008 that her testimony was false.'"

The political dynamic would appear to Trump wealth .

अनामित म्हणाले...

Espinosa has much to say about the social standing of the defendant but nothing re
the merits of his case.

sean म्हणाले...

Wow, it's good to be a Kennedy.

Molly म्हणाले...

I would never indulge in ad hominem attacks. Only assholes like you do that.

Mike Sylwester म्हणाले...

The murder happened in 1975.

When a re-investigation happened in 1991, the forensic capabilities of analyzing DNA evidence had improved greatly.

When Skakel was re-questioned in 1991, he added a new element to the story he had told in 1975. Now in 1991, Skakel remembered that on the night when the murder had occurred, he had masturbated to orgasm near or over the place where the murder happened later that night.

[quote]

.... [in 1991 investigator] Krebs also interviewed Michael [Skakel]. .... Krebs warned Michael about the DNA testing ... Michael then admitted that ... he had lied to the police. In 1975, he had told the police that ... he had gone straight to bed. Now, he told Krebs a bizarre story —- that he had gone out again around midnight, climbed a pine tree outside Martha’s window and masturbated to orgasm. Returning home, he said ran through the very place Martha’s body had been found. ...

[Later in 1991 investigator] Garr also interviewed Michael’s boyhood friend Andy Pugh, who said that as teenagers he and Michael had played together very day after school, climbing trees. Their favorite was a pine at the edge of the Moxley property. Pugh said Michael had told him that by a strange coincidence the night of Martha’s murder, he had climbed a tree and masturbated in it. But the tree Michael described to Pugh was not outside Martha’s window. It was the tree under which Martha’s body had been discovered.

[end quote]

That was enough to convince me that Skakel was the murderer.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-skakel-was-convicted-of-murdering-martha-moxley-so-why-is-he-free

Amadeus 48 म्हणाले...

Wait a minute--so Judge Palmer and the majority kicked Skakal back into jail. Then Palmer retired, and a different lineup of Brennans and Cardozos decide to spring Skakal, and Justice Espinoza dissents--effectively supporting the decision of the now retired Palmer.

Was she in the majority before?

Mike Sylwester म्हणाले...

Rather than support her opinion with legal analysis and authority, however, [Justice Espinosa] chooses, for reasons we cannot fathom, to dress her argument in language so derisive that it is unbefitting an opinion of this state’s highest court. Perhaps worse, her interest lies only in launching groundless ad hominem attacks and claiming to be able to divine the (allegedly improper) personal motivations of the majority. .... Justice Espinosa dishonors this court.

This is the consequence of promoting a judge solely because she is a Hispanic woman.

n.n म्हणाले...

Espinosa focuses on diversity: skin color, social status, economic class. Language so derisive that it is mainstream.

mtrobertslaw म्हणाले...

Espinosa's progressive "reasoning" is exactly what to expect from a judge who has absolutely no use for traditional legal reasoning.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

"Wait a minute--so Judge Palmer and the majority kicked Skakal back into jail. Then Palmer retired, and a different lineup of Brennans and Cardozos decide to spring Skakal, and Justice Espinoza dissents--effectively supporting the decision of the now retired Palmer."

No. Palmer wrote the new opinion. Sorry if that's unclear in the post. Will add some text to prevent that reading.

Bay Area Guy म्हणाले...

Skakel was a rich, sleazeball misfit. He killed that girl (Martha Moxley) that evening. Mark Fuhrman wrote a good book about it.

Mark म्हणाले...

"If you spend $1 million on your defense lawyer, how can you credibly claim you didn't even get the constitutional minimum, effective assistance of counsel?"

Ask Michael Flynn.

Because a lot of lawyers -- a lot of high-priced lawyers -- are frauds and scam artists. Because a lot of Ivy-League fancy expensive lawyers are lousy shit-for-brain no-nothings. Many of them infest the most prestigious law firms. Worse, many of them are sitting on the bench, including that building across from the Capitol.

The thing that they are best at is charging $1000 or more per hour and padding their bills, wholly unconcerned that they are bankrupting their client whom they are supposed to care about and protect.

Mark म्हणाले...

Justice Carmen E. Espinosa argued that more than anything else, Mr. Skakel had benefited from his wealth and prominent connections

And then we have this too from the supposed elites -- class-based judicial decisionmaking.

Big Mike म्हणाले...

Between Michael Skakel and Ted Kennedy it is difficult to avoid the impression that a connection to the Kennedy clan is a license to kill.

Gahrie म्हणाले...

The American legal system is rigged to favor the rich. News at eleven.

Which makes it unique in the history of the world.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse म्हणाले...

"Pugh said Michael had told him that by a strange coincidence the night of Martha’s murder, he had climbed a tree and masturbated in it. But the tree Michael described to Pugh was not outside Martha’s window. It was the tree under which Martha’s body had been discovered."

Wow, it's like his cock had a premonition of the future or some shit. Like: Hey everyone! I have a psychic cock! Wherever I masturbate, people die! It's like, when I jerk off, I'm priming the Pump of Fate!

That would be some weird shit, if it was true.

Mark म्हणाले...

The American legal system is rigged to favor the rich. News at eleven.

And the richest ones of all? The federal and state governments and their lawyers.

A defendant spends a million on his defense? BFD. The prosecution can spend billions to get you.

Michelle Dulak Thomson म्हणाले...

OK, I'll bite. What is Skakel's "ethnicity"?

Michael K म्हणाले...

I'll look for that Fuhrman book. Right now, I'm reading he book on the Golden State Killer.

A lot of it seems to be reconstructed by others from her notes., Too bad she died of a drug overdose.

tim maguire म्हणाले...

I was thinking something along the lines of the closing quote while reading the opening quote. Lots of verbiage about how a poor person would not have won this case. She is undoubtedly correct, and that's a problem. But it says nothing about how this case should have been resolved.

Michael K म्हणाले...

"Lots of verbiage about how a poor person would not have won this case."

A poor person would have copped a plea, like 90% do rather than be bankrupted and overcharged.

Flynn's military pension didn't last long.

I sent $50 to Caputo's GoFundMe campaign. I hope when all this is over, Trump reimburses these guys who have been bankrupted by the left's war on Trump and anyone associated with his presidency.

Of course he can't do anything until after 2025.

rcocean म्हणाले...

Helping a Kennedy or a Kennedy relation escape Justice is a fine old New England tradition. Beneath all the moralistic Liberalism they're incredibly corrupt.

Bad Lieutenant म्हणाले...


I sent $50 to Caputo's GoFundMe campaign.


I was going to, until

1) I was confused by the bit about tipping

2) I realized that someone would use the records to identify and punish me.

If you like, since you are already on that radar by your fine action, you can kick in another Grant for me. I just gave at the office Friday for bone marrow.
Heard a girl talk about it in the break room, I popped in, she demurred, I was like Shut up and take my money! ;) But that was just whipping out some cash, no paperwork.

(I was processed by NMDP, was matched, and gave (bmsc not bone punches, whew), and they invited me to a lovely dinner in Washington in 2004. Only regret, other than that the fellow only got nine months out of it, is that they haven't matched me again.)

Zach म्हणाले...

This actually sounds like the rare case where

"language so derisive that it is unbefitting an opinion of this state’s highest court. Perhaps worse, her interest lies only in launching groundless ad hominem attacks and claiming to be able to divine the (allegedly improper) personal motivations of the majority."

would be justified.

Pugsley the Pug म्हणाले...

At least Skakel spent time at the Graybar Hotel. Teddy not only was not charged in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, but became the “Lion of the US Senate”, admired for being a “statesman” after a long career of living off the teat of the US taxpayers while at the same time sticking it to those same taxpayers with legislation that he helped passed. He should have been tossed into the “pen” for causing Mary Jo’s death.

TWW म्हणाले...

Don't you love a good cat fight played out in the opinions of the Supreme court. Oh the dignity.

Michael K म्हणाले...

He should have been tossed into the “pen” for causing Mary Jo’s death.

Apparently, all her parents got for their only child was $50,000.

Ken B म्हणाले...

“It isn’t over until we win” — R Feingold (D. Wisc.)

Ken B म्हणाले...

I wonder whether those here criticizing Espinosa actually read her dissent, or just the article with a few brief snippets. One commenter said she made no reference to the merits of the case. Well, the quotes from the NYT didn’t. Did the NYT quote her entire dissent? Of course not. So who here actually found it and read it before slamming her?

James K म्हणाले...

Seems like it could be a good last-ditch strategy to have your attorney deliberately botch your defense, and then a decade or so later, when it's hard to retry, get the case overturned. Better to spend one decade in prison than the rest of your life.

Bob Loblaw म्हणाले...

I don't know if it can be assumed you've had competent counsel just because you spent a lot of money.

Though of course it's difficult to imagine he would have been afforded this much courtesy from the legal system if he'd been Joe Blow at the used car lot.