Michael C. Skakel v. State of Connecticut

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of the petition for a new trial after concluding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements for relief based on newly discovered evidence. It held that the trial court properly distinguished admissibility from ultimate credibility and reasonably determined that the third-party culpability evidence was not credible, that the alleged investigator-book arrangement would not likely produce an acquittal, and that several proposed witnesses and exculpatory materials were not newly discovered because due diligence could have uncovered them earlier. Justice Palmer, dissenting, would have granted a new trial based principally on the Bryant evidence, while Justice Zarella, joined by Justice McLachlan, concurred in the result but would have held that the Bryant statements were inadmissible hearsay.