Michael C. Skakel v. State of Connecticut — Palmer, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Palmer, dissenting, would have granted Skakel a new trial because the newly discovered Bryant evidence was admissible hearsay, satisfied the minimum credibility threshold, and, when considered with the original trial evidence, was likely to create reasonable doubt. He also would recognize an alternative injustice-based ground for a new trial. The separate concurrence agreed with affirming the denial of a new trial but argued that the Bryant evidence was inadmissible and that only genuinely self-inculpatory portions could qualify under the hearsay exception.