I don’t know all the details of this case but I know folks who were involved in investigating this case, which ultimately led to a successful prosecution. There’s damning evidence against Michael Skakel. Perhaps his defense attorney didn’t pursue every avenue he wanted but to say he didn’t receive an adequate defense with the best attorney Kennedy money could buy is absurd. Millions of dollars have likely been spent on his defense and appeals. Tell folks in jail who were represented by a public defenders about how unfair your conviction was.

The defense lawyer made little attempt to defend his client since the prosecution had such a good case. The judge who granted a retrial noted, Now Skakel has time to build a dream team defense.

I would have to imagine it’s actually far easy to mount a defense against charges from almost 40 years ago. Not only would the jury consider Michael Skakel to be far less of a threat and perhaps that he has already served his time but witnesses die, memories fade, evidence erodes. The accused and defense team have had 40 years to think up alternative scenarios and possible alibis that would be difficult to even assess at this point. We’ll see what happens…

I think the Skakel defense came up with the "cave man " theory, a prison informant said a group of guys were driving around looking for a girl to cave man, (hit her over the head and have sex).

I think the Skakel defense came up with the "cave man " theory, a prison informant said a group of guys were driving around looking for a girl to cave man, (hit her over the head and have sex).

Uh huh. And a six-iron is the typical weapon of choice for such an outing.

I don’t know all the details of this case but I know folks who were involved in investigating this case, which ultimately led to a successful prosecution. There’s damning evidence against Michael Skakel. Perhaps his defense attorney didn’t pursue every avenue he wanted but to say he didn’t receive an adequate defense with the best attorney Kennedy money could buy is absurd. Millions of dollars have likely been spent on his defense and appeals. Tell folks in jail who were represented by a public defenders about how unfair your conviction was.

That’s rite, especially when as I write this very message, a U.S prisoner sit’s on death row after his Lawyer was found to be sleeping at numerous point during his clients capital trial. What I found even more amazing is that the U’S Court of Appeals, and I the U.S Supreme Court both ruled not to over-turn the conviction, nor reverse it, nor would they allow this to be grounds for a new trial and refused to commute the sentence to Life without Parole.
The U.S Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer sleeping through the trial is not grounds to grant the man now awaiting a date with death a new trial and their reasoning is this: The Supreme Court does not grant new trials unless some new evidence comes to light that was not presented at the first trial for reasons that could be numerous and this evidence must be of such significance and importance that had it been entered into evidence at the first trial, it may have effected the overall trail verdict. In a nut shell, they say this very statement: "Council sleeping through part of his clients trial doesn’t necessarily mean that the defendant didn’t receive a fair trial"

So I suppose what they mean is sleeping is not proof that council was incompetent, ineffective and prejudicial to their clients case because while one is in a state of unconsciousness, one cannot speak coherently, peform tasks, nor argue for or against an issue so therefore if the appointed council carries out no action nor speaks any words at trial, he therefore cannot get anything wrong or incorrect or be incompetent. So one can only be a completely incompetent waste of time if and one is awake!

"Objection, your Honour! My Court appointed attorney has fallen asleep again!"

Judge: Over-ruled. The State may call it’s first witness. Proceed.

"But Your Honour, I…."

Judge: "One more word out of you and i’ll hold you in contempt."

25 minutes later the Prosecutor announces "No further questions"

Judge: Does the defence wish to cross-examine this witness?

I am not sure, Judge. Shall I wake him up and ask him?