At the time Martha Moxley was murdered, there was a five year statute of limitations in effect. In order to get around it and affirm Skakel's convction, the Court reversed its prior ruling of more than 20 years standing that an amendment excluding murder from the time limit could not apply retroactively.
If the defendant was a Joe Schmo no one ever heard of, would the decision have been the same? Or did the court want to affirm Skakel's conviction so badly it was willing to reverse it's own precedent to do so?
From the AP link above:
Skakel appealed his conviction to the Connecticut Supreme Court last year, arguing among other issues that the five-year statute of limitations expired when he was charged in 2000. The court unanimously rejected the appeal in January. That decision overturned a 1983 precedent.
The Connecticut General Assembly eliminated the statute of limitations for murder in 1976. The state Supreme Court ruled that because the Moxley murder occurred within a five-year window of that legislation, the change applied to his crime. Skakel's attorneys argued that the decision violated his due process rights under the U.S. constitution by retroactively applying the law.
"I am confident that our petition will present the United States Supreme Court with compelling reasons to hear Mr. Skakel's case and overturn his conviction," Olson said.
TalkLeft's prior Skakel coverage is here. My chronology of news articles on the case from 2002 is here; 2001 is here. My overall view of the case:
Despite the paltry lack of credible evidence and the lack of any physical, forensic or DNA evidence linking Michael to the murder, the jury convicted. I have always thought the jury did not decide the case based on the evidence presented and refuted, but on their sympathy for Dorothy Moxley....
As to what went wrong at the trial, my view is here.
