Connecticut / Reading the court record
The Martha Moxley case: why one missing witness mattered
The missing witness was not a new forensic discovery. His existence had been mentioned before the trial. In 2018, Connecticut's highest court returned to the question of what Michael Skakel's defense lawyer should have done with that lead, and what the jury might have made of the answer.
Read the judicial opinions ↓The case behind the appeal
Fifteen-year-old Martha Moxley's body was found behind her family's Greenwich home on October 31, 1975. A jury convicted her neighbor Michael Skakel of murder in 2002. The decision examined here came years later, during a challenge to the quality of his legal representation. It concerned whether his lawyer's failure to investigate an alibi witness had made the trial unfair. It was not a proceeding to decide who else might have killed Martha.[1]
The witness was Denis Ossorio. At the later habeas hearing, he said he had seen Skakel at the Terrien home on the evening of October 30, 1975, while visiting Georgeann Dowdle. He also testified that he had been living in Greenwich and available at the time of the murder trial, but had not been contacted. The habeas judge found him credible. That finding became central to the Supreme Court majority's analysis.[1]
A lead already in the record
Dowdle had mentioned being with her boyfriend in her grand jury testimony. The majority considered that a lead counsel should have followed. Lawyer Michael Sherman acknowledged reading the testimony, but explained that he had not expected the boyfriend to be helpful. The majority's criticism focused on the gap between assuming a person had nothing useful to say and making a reasonable effort to find out.[1]
The relationship between the witnesses mattered. Skakel's trial alibi had relied on family members. The prosecution argued that they were protecting him. Ossorio was not another relative repeating the same account. In the majority's view, a credible witness outside that family group could have changed the way jurors assessed the relatives' testimony as well as the broader accusation of a family cover-up.[1]
An error still has to matter
The court applied a two-part test. Skakel had to establish that his lawyer's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced his defense. The opinion explains why imperfect representation alone is not enough. The second inquiry asks whether the failure was serious enough to undermine confidence in the outcome. That requires examining the missing evidence alongside the case the jury actually heard, rather than treating any uncalled witness as an automatic reason for a new trial.[1]
The majority concluded that both requirements were met. It emphasized the alibi's importance, how readily Ossorio could have been located and the potential effect of his testimony. Its conclusion was that the defense's omission undermined confidence in the verdict. The remedy was another trial at which the defense could present his account. It was not a substitute jury verdict declaring Skakel innocent.[1]
The disagreement was substantial
Justice Dennis Eveleigh dissented, joined by Justices Carmen Espinosa and Christine Vertefeuille. He disputed both the finding of deficient performance and the conclusion that the missing testimony prejudiced the defense. He argued that the alibi did not account for every period in which the murder could have occurred and criticized the majority's assessment of the evidence. The published decision therefore preserves a real disagreement about the effect of the missing witness, not simply a technical correction everyone accepted.[2]
The controlling majority upheld the habeas judgment granting a new trial. In October 2020, prosecutors announced that they would not retry Skakel, saying they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Those were separate events: the court's ruling about representation, followed by the prosecutor's assessment of whether to take the case back to a jury. Keeping them separate makes the legal history clearer without claiming that either event solved Martha's murder.[1][3]
Sources and references
PDF page numbers include each document's opening notice. The article distinguishes testimony, the habeas court's credibility finding, the majority's holding and the dissent's position. It does not reproduce the separately restricted syllabus or procedural history.
- Skakel v. Commissioner of Correction, majority opinion, SC 19251Released May 4, 2018 · Connecticut Supreme Court opinion
References use PDF page numbers, including the cover and syllabus. Analysis relies on Justice Palmer's opinion, especially Parts III-V and VII, not the publisher's case summary. The court's file includes separately restricted prefatory material, so readers are linked to the original.
- Skakel v. Commissioner of Correction, Justice Eveleigh's first dissent2018 decision; report published June 5, 2018 · Separate judicial opinion, reproduced by Justia
The opening pages state Eveleigh's disagreement, joined by Espinosa and Vertefeuille. A dissent explains a judge's position; it is not the controlling judgment.
- Associated Press: prosecutors will not retry Michael SkakelOctober 30, 2020 · Contemporaneous report of the Stamford court hearing
Used only for the later decision not to seek a second trial and the prosecutor's stated reason. It does not replace the judicial opinions used for the article's legal analysis.
This article examines the 2018 decision and the reported 2020 decision not to retry the case. It does not assert a present conviction or adjudicate later civil claims. Sources checked October 3, 2026.