June 8, 2002
Today Show, NBC
Skakel Attorney Mickey Sherman On the Trial and Verdict:
DAVID BLOOM,
co-host:
Mickey Sherman
is Michael Skakel's
attorney.
Mr. Sherman,
good morning.
Mr. MICKEY SHERMAN
(Michael Skakel's
defense attorney): Good morning.
BLOOM:
I understand that Michael Skakel
has been talking with family members since the verdict. What's been his
reaction? Mr. SHERMAN:
He's obviously shocked. But by the same token, he knew what the possibilities
were, so he is--he's doing fine.
BLOOM:
Mr. Sherman,
did you ever ask Mr. Skakel
directly, 'Did you do it?' And if so, what was his reaction?
Mr. SHERMAN:
Many times. Many times. Contrary to what people think of criminal lawyers that
we don't want to know, I've got to tell you, I do want to know, David, and I
always ask. And he always told me he never committed this crime. He didn't know
who did, either.
BLOOM:
A lot of observers were stunned by this verdict. No physical evidence. No
eyewitnesses. You clearly thought this case was winnable. What went wrong?
Mr. SHERMAN:
I clearly thought this case was won. And I didn't--I shared that opinion with
many people who watched the trial. And not having anything to do with my
abilities or--or skills in the courtroom. The evidence simply wasn't there.
There was no forensic evidence, there was no physical evidence, and the
circumstantial evidence was so sketchy. The confessions were nonexistence as far
as I'm concerned. I think we just couldn't get past the--the shock value of a
very lovely young woman being murdered in the prime of her life.
BLOOM:
You're saying that a jury of 12 people in Connecticut convicted your client
solely on the basis of the shock value, not the basis that he made contradictory
and incriminatory statements?
Mr. SHERMAN:
No. No, not solely. I don't think the statements were incriminatory. Were they
contradictory, yes? But by the same token, to build a bridge, to make that leap,
from contradictory statements to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a murder,
where there was no physical evidence, no one ever showed how could pos--how
Michael Skakel
could possibly have cleaned up this murder, where was the blood? There were so
many questions that were unanswered. More answers, more questions than there
surely were answers.
BLOOM:
You touched upon something that I want to ask you about there. You mentioned
cleaning up the murder. The prosecutor...
Mr. SHERMAN:
Right.
BLOOM:
...in his news conference after the verdict seemed to suggest that others,
perhaps Skakel
family members or friends, helped to cover up the crime scene after the murder.
What do you make of that insinuation?
Mr. SHERMAN:
Well, you know, it's more than an insinuation. That was the problem. It was the
theory. It was a story. And it was also a story that was repeated and put forth
in books and a movie, and many articles, a hundred different programs. And that
was the problem we had, is it made a good story. But there was no, zip, zilch,
evidence to support that. And unfortunately the jury bought the story when they
should have been buying the evidence.
BLOOM:
Mr. Sherman,
you said on Friday, 'As long as there's a breath in my body, this case is not
over.' I presume that means you'll appeal. On what grounds?
Mr. SHERMAN:
We'll appeal on every possible grounds. First of all, we have the initial issues
back then. This case should never have been transferred from the juvenile court.
Michael Skakel
was 15 years of age when this crime was committed. There is no compelling reason
whatsoever to treat him like an adult some 26 years later. Further, there are
some issues during the trial which we'll deal with. I'm not going to start
listing them now. But I think anyone who watched the trial saw that there may be
some very fine appellate issues.
BLOOM:
When...
Mr. SHERMAN:
We'll take every step necessary.
BLOOM:
...when he's sentenced next month, Michael Skakel
faces a minimum of 10 years, a maximum of life in prison. Presumably, you'll
recommend the lighter sentence. Will you argue that if, indeed, he did commit
this murder, he was only 15 at the time?
Mr. SHERMAN:
Well, I'm not--I'll tell you, I'm not going to do a turnaround now. I'm not
going to start saying, you know, 'He did it but let's be nice to him.' He didn't
commit the crime. But certainly one has to make the argument that, 'Your Honor,
if you believe as the jury apparently did believe that the jury committed his
crime, look at his behavior since then. How many people have the opportunity to
prove that they have rehabilitated themselves if indeed you believe he committed
the crime?'
BLOOM:
Mickey Sherman,
thank you so much.
Copyright © 2002 LEXIS-NEXIS Group. All Rights Reserved; Copyright 2002 Fox News Network.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
