Michael C. Skakel v. State of Connecticut

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of the petitioner's petition for a new trial based on four categories of allegedly newly discovered evidence. It held that the trial court properly evaluated the credibility of the third-party culpability evidence after determining that it was admissible, and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the evidence was either not credible, not newly discovered through due diligence, or unlikely to produce an acquittal. The court also declined to reach an independently asserted reasonable-cause or Brady claim that the trial court had not decided. Justice Palmer, dissenting, would have ordered a new trial based principally on the Bryant evidence and its asserted impact when viewed with the original trial evidence; Justice Zarella, joined by Justice McLachlan, concurred in the result but would have held the Bryant evidence inadmissible.