Michael C. Skakel v. State of Connecticut — Zarella, J., concurring

Summary

Justice Zarella concurred in the result affirming the denial of Skakel’s petition for a new trial but disagreed with the majority’s decision not to resolve the admissibility of Bryant’s evidence. He reasoned that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay because Bryant’s statements were not sufficiently against his penal interest, lacked the required trustworthiness, and, alternatively, included severable self-serving statements that could not be admitted with any self-inculpatory portions. Justice Palmer, dissenting, would have granted a new trial based on the Bryant evidence and other newly discovered information concerning the investigation.