Connecticut v. Skakel
Client:
State's Attorney Jonathan Benedict
Assistant State's Attorney Susann Gill
Fairfield County State's Attorney's Office
Bridgeport, CT
Assistant Chief State's Attorney, Christopher Morano
Chief State's Attorney's Office
Rocky Hill, CT
Case Summary:
In October of 1975, Martha Moxley, a fifteen year-old girl from Belle Haven (a gated-community in Greenwich, Connecticut) was bludgeoned to death with a golf club. After 27 years of investigation, in May of 2002, Michael Skakel, a neighbor of Ms. Moxley's (and also a cousin of the Kennedys) was tried for her murder. While the news media and the public expected the prosecution to fail because of the reported lack of forensic evidence and eyewitinesses, on June 7, 2002, Michael Skakel was convicted of the murder of Martha Moxley.
The Challenge:
The main challenge of the case was the fact that it was a 27 year old cold case and the evidence against Skakel was circumstantial. There were no eyewitnesses and no forensic evidence linking Michael Skakel to the murder. The area of the crime scene had significantly changed since 1975 and so the prosecutors were stuck with the documentation of the crime scene as it had been photographed and documented back then. Also, Michael Skakel had been recorded (on cassettes tapes by a ghost writer) discussing the crime scene. Another challenge was that a key witness who had overheard Michael Skakel make incriminating statements had died before trial. Finally, the Norwalk courtroom where the trial was to take place was not outfitted for technology.
The WIN Solution:
- Geography and Scene photos: We developed an interactive scene reconstruction of the Belle Haven neighborhood using Satellite that allowed the user to zoom in and out of aerial photographs of the crime scene, the Moxley residence, and the Skakel residence. By clicking on any one of numerous arrows on the aerial photograph, the user could zoom into the diagram of the skakel home as well as to obtain a closer view of the area of the crime scene where the police found the physical evidence. In addition, the interactive diagram contained numerous crime scene photographs (of the houses, golf club pieces, and bloody trail leading to the victim's body) that were simultaneously shown and plotted to the aerial photographs and house diagrams.
- Autopsy Photos: We worked with forensic pathologist Dr. Henry Lee to identify the most important autopsy photos. We then developed an interactive autopsy/medical presentation that allowed the attorneys to organize and have immediate access to those pictures.
- Transcript Evidence: We created a never-before-seen custom transcript presentation tool that allowed the attorneys to read hours worth of a dead witness's testimony from the probable cause hearing into evidence (over a two-day period). After trial, Assistant State's Attorney Susann Gill said that the transcript tool kept the jurors attention riveted to the screen which allowed them to hear the critical information contained within those transcripts.
- Audio and Video: We digitized and formatted Michael Skakel's audiotaped interviews with a ghost writer. We proofread the transcripts while developing an interactive multimedia audio tool. We then synchronized the digital audio with the digital transcripts using Echo so that the jury could listen and read along in order to maximize their understanding of the content. We also developed a closing argument presentation using this same technique which, after being his conviction, the defense challenged on appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The Supreme Court ruled upheld the unique and novel use of the technology in the proosecutorsclosing argument.
- Equipment and Trial Assistance: Among the equipment that we brought into the courtroom was a 4500 lumen projector, a laptop computer, and a document camera.We professionally shipped, placed, and connected the equipment in the courtroom when the trial began and broke it down efficiently as soon as the trial finished. In addition,WIN Interactive provided strategic legal consulting as well as technical assitance during the trial.
WIN Studio Tools Used:
Supreme Court of Connecticut:
Supreme Court of Connecticut said:
‘‘[C]ounsel is entitled to considerable leeway in deciding how best to highlight or to underscore the facts, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, for which there is adequate support in the record. We therefore never have categorically barred counsel’s use of such rhetorical devices, be they linguistic or in the form of visual aids, as long as there is no reasonable likelihood that the particular device employed will confuse the jury or otherwise prejudice the opposing party. Indeed, to our knowledge, no court has erected a per se bar to the use of visual aids by counsel during closing arguments. On the contrary, the use of such aids is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.’’ State v. Ancona, supra, 270 Conn. 598.
“By juxtaposing the photographs of the victim with the defendant’s statements, the state’s attorney sought to convey to the jury in graphic form what the State believed was the real reason for the defendant’s panic, that is, that he had killed the victim.” State of Connecticut v. Michael Skakel, SC 16844, January 24, 2006
Press Coverage:
TIME MAGAZINE, Martha, R.I.P.,
It was [Jonathan] Benedict's summation that turned the tide. . . .
[H]is closing argument was a tour de force. Orchestrating a barrage of tapes, photographs and flashing transcripts, Benedict wove dozens of disparate facts into a simple scenario as chilling as any thriller . . .
CNN: Jeffrey Toobin Esq., Legal Analyst (June 4 & 7, 2002):
"Benedict did something utterly brilliant . . . he put up that transcript [of Michael Skakel], and he played the audiotapes and he put up
[photographs of] Martha Moxley, and
it was utterly chilling and riveting, and unforgettable . . . The courtroom was transfixed. . . Courtrooms are quiet usually, but there was no one breathing as he did that. . . . Jonathan Benedict gave one of the best summations I have ever heard, because he did what lawyers are supposed to do in summation. He took different parts of the evidence, brought it all together and made you see it in a new way."
NEWSWEEK, At Long Last, 'Martha's Day,'
In the end, the scales were tipped against him by prosecutor Jonathan Benedict's trenchant closing argument. Benedict was able to connect the dots for jurors . . .
HARTFORD COURANT, Lawyers Praise State's Case,
The confident hand of a veteran prosecutor, assisted by shrewd audiovisual theatrics, delivered the surprising Skakel guilty verdict . .
HARTFORD COURANT, Skakel Prosecutors Prevail In Case Once Viewed As A Long Shot
During deliberations, the jurors asked to rehear some of Jonathan Benedicts closing arguments. . . . Defense attorney Mickey Sherman, who vowed to appeal the verdict, complained about the multimedia presentation that ended the closing arguments -- a projected photo of a smiling Martha Moxley that dissolved into a grim crime scene photo.
PEOPLE, Called To Account
What Kennedy cousin Skakel ultimately did have going against him was the skill of prosecutor Jonathan Benedict whose closing statement to the jury was quickly hailed as a masterpiece. . . . Though Skakel never took the stand during trial, Benedict used his words, as uttered in conversations and interviews over the years, against him to devastating effect.
VANITY FAIR, Triumph By Jury
His summation was as brilliant as anything I have heard in a courtroom. He was like Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird. It's too bad the speech wasn't televised because it should be shown to law students.
FAIRFIELD WEELY, Pity Poor Michael,
In his hour-and-a-half before the jury, Benedict assembled dozens of disparate elements that hinted at guilt into a monster capable of overpowering reasonable doubt. He laid down a logical tale -- based on inferences more than evidence -- that the jury could take into their deliberations and use as a model to construct guilt. He also, wisely and to great effect, used Skakel's words to ghost writer Richard Hoffman as a coda to a bravura summation.