Skakel v. Commissioner of Correction

Summary

This dissent would uphold the habeas court’s conclusion that Michael Skakel received ineffective assistance of counsel and was entitled to a new trial. It focuses on counsel’s failure to investigate an independent alibi witness and failure to pursue a third-party culpability defense against Thomas Skakel while presenting an unsupported defense implicating Kenneth Littleton. The dissent concludes that these failures were deficient and prejudicial under the Sixth Amendment. Justice Palmer, joined by Justice McDonald, dissents from the majority’s contrary conclusions.