dictionary

From jury selection emerges the shape of the Skakel trial to come

NORWALK, Connecticut (Court TV) -- People who may end up deliberating the fate of Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel are being asked questions on everything from cats and dogs to whether they watch reruns of "I Love Lucy."

But at the heart of the lawyers' questions is whether prospective jurors can truly remain open-minded and fair. Skakel, the 41-year-old nephew of Ethel Kennedy, has been listening intently and conferring frequently with his lawyers in the selection of 12 jurors and four alternates.

"So, do you think he did it?" defense lawyer Mickey Sherman asked several people right out of the gate this week, referring to the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley.

RESOURCES Court TV's full coverage of the Skakel trial

Prosecutor Jonathan Benedict has asked every prospective juror variations of the question, "Would you hold the state to a higher standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt just because the crime occurred 27 years ago?"

Four days into the process, jury selection is becoming repetitive, but the pattern to the questions is slowly revealing what each lawyer appears to believe will be central issues for the jury.

Jury selection was scheduled to resume Tuesday.

Led by Benedict, prosecution lawyers seem particularly concerned that some people may want the prosecution to prove Skakel's guilt beyond "all doubt" -- not merely beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law.

"My view is that the evidence ... has to be bulletproof," said one man, who also used the word "ironclad" on his 15-page juror questionnaire. He was excused after Benedict argued that the man was apparently not able to follow the judge's instructions on the law.

A retiree who said he preferred "solid evidence" to circumstantial evidence was also excused. A woman who worked for a Stamford law firm said she would want to be absolutely certain -- not just convinced beyond a reasonable doubt -- before finding a defendant guilty. She, too, was excused by the prosecution.

Benedict has also repeatedly pointed out that the state's case against Skakel is a largely circumstantial one. He noted that there is no known eyewitness to Martha's bludgeoning death on Oct. 30, 1975, and that police who conducted the initial investigation did not have the advanced technology for examining materials at the crime scene as that used today.

Benedict asked one candidate if a fictional cat named "Socks" was in a room with a bowl of cereal and the cereal was gone when the man returned from answering the doorbell, could the man conclude that the cat was the culprit?

"I'd have no problem convicting Socks but I'd have to find out where Socks was," the man said, bringing laughter from the gallery.

A middle school teacher also said she'd convict "Socks" based on the circumstantial evidence, but when the defense got its turn, Sherman's associate, Jason Throne threw in a new twist.

"Would you view the evidence any differently if you knew there were other cats in the household?" Throne inquired. The woman said she would view it differently.

The question foreshadowed an anticipated defense strategy. There were plenty of people in the Skakel household and in the neighborhood who could have come across the murder weapon lying on the Skakel lawn, the defense may argue. Thomas Skakel, the defendant's older brother and a possible prosecution witness, was the last person known to have seen Martha alive and was the prime suspect in the crime for many years before the focus shifted to Michael Skakel.

Dogs also got their day as questioning proceeded. Defense lawyer Throne asked the middle school teacher how a Labrador retriever she once owned reacted when a stranger came to the door. "He'd bite them," the woman got out before Judge John Kavanewsky sustained a prosecution objection.

The issue of barking dogs may become important during the trial. The defense, which has listed a veterinarian on its witness list, is expected to argue that the numerous witnesses who heard dogs barking incessantly at about 10 p.m. on the night of the murder suggest the attack on Martha occurred then. Defense witnesses are expected to testify that Skakel was at his cousin's home in another part of Greenwich at about that time.

Sherman is also going to great lengths to make sure that prospective panelists are not trying to get on the jury merely to act on long-held beliefs about Skakel's guilt or innocence. He has asked numerous questions about what jury candidates have read or seen about the case on the many cable TV networks Sherman appears on regularly. He also asked prospective jurors about their TV viewing habits, including crime dramas, news shows featuring information about this case and, mysteriously, "I Love Lucy."

On Friday, a man who has lived in Greenwich 32 years quite candidly responded that he believes Skakel is probably guilty based what he has read or seen.

"So the slate isn't clean?" Sherman asked.

"To be absolutely honest with you, yeah," the man replied, and was excused from service moments later.

But most prospective jurors said they had not followed the case much in the media and could keep an open mind.

Another central theme of the questioning by both sides is the fact that Skakel's father, Rushton Skakel Sr. of Florida, is Ethel Kennedy's brother. The lawyers want to know whether the Kennedy connection, albeit a remote one, will work for or against Skakel or the prosecution.

A 28-year-old merchandiser for Coca-Cola, who was excused because his brother is a uniformed marshal in the courtroom, was asked by Sherman if he could separate all of the pretrial "hype and advertising" about the Kennedys from the real issues.

"There's been a lot of hype, a lot of publicity in this case. But in the end," Sherman said, "we only want you to buy the product." Passing Time

The jury selection process is expected to take two to three weeks to complete. Martha Moxley's mother, Dorthy Moxley of Chattham, New Jersey, has been passing the time sketching potential jurors in a book. She has been taking art lessons and practices by sketching her grandchildren from photographs.

"I find it very interesting," Moxley told reporters in the courtroom, referring to the jury selection process.

Sherman echoed the prevailing view in the 173-seat courtroom.

"You're talking to someone with a short attention span," Sherman said. "Jury picking is not my favorite thing, but I appreciate how important it is."

Prosecutors declined comment.