Last week prosecutors filed their opening appellate brief in an effort to persuade the Connecticut Supreme Court to reverse a trial court’s judgment that Michael Skakel’s former attorney, Michael “Mickey” Sherman, did not provide a constitutionally adequate defense at Skakel’s murder trial. Not surprisingly, the gist of the state’s argument is that the trial judge improperly “second guessed” Sherman’s defense tactics.
According to the Supreme Court’s electronic docket, Skakel’s opposition brief is due on September 8, 2014, although I wouldn’t be surprised if his attorneys’ ask for an extension of time; the state’s opening brief is 247 pages long!
Nancy Grace is not taking Federal District Court Judge Vanessa Bryant’s recent rejection of her motion to dismiss Michael Skakel’s libel suit sitting down. Today she filed a motion asking Judge Bryant to reconsider her ruling.
Of course he is.
Let me take a step back now and explain what I’m talking about. Michael Skakel is. . . . Wait, do I even need to tell everyone who he is? If I do, the point I want to make in this post is, well, wrong.
With the State of Connecticut having indicated its intent to appeal the trial court decision that Michael Skakel’s attorney, Michael (“Mickey”) Sherman, failed to provide a constitutionally adequate defense for his client, many are now speculating about what the Appellate Court or, more likely, the state Supreme Court will do with the appeal. Will the Court affirm Judge Bishop’s decision, or will it reverse?