Juvenile Court Remains in Question
COSSACK: Good news for our Internet-savvy viewers: You can now watch BURDEN OF PROOF live on the Worldwide Web. Just log onto www.cnn.com and click your way to the BURDEN OF PROOF link. We now provide a live video feed Monday through Friday at 12:30 p.m. Eastern time. And if you miss that live show, the program is available on the site at any time via video-on-demand.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: The court proceeding for murder suspect Michael Skakel has been postponed until next month as Judge Maureen Dennis considers a request for media access. Skakel is accused of killing 15-year-old Martha Moxley in 1975. Skakel was also 15 at the time of Moxley's death, which is why prosecutors have brought the case in juvenile court. Rick, before we talk about the juvenile court issue, let me ask you about the statements that Michael Moxley -- Michael Skakel allegedly made. What kind of cross-examination would those who apparently may have heard these statements -- what would they be subjected to because they're from this Elan school?</s>RICHARD SILVERSTEIN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, from what I understand, there was some type of rehabilitation treatment center. I would think that the defense would request all their medical records, psychiatric records. And I think that the judge would probably have to do an in-camera inspection of those to determine whether or not they contain any information that bears on the credibility of those witnesses.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: What about the fact that these statements, if they were made -- and obviously a trial would determine that one way or another -- but that they're so old? They're from going back to the late '70s.</s>SILVERSTEIN: I'm not aware of any law that would prevent an admission of any type not being admissible because of the operation of time. I think, essentially, their case is going to hinge on those alleged admissions.</s>COSSACK: Mark, you mentioned to us that you had a question that you were pondering about the juvenile part of this case?</s>FUHRMAN: Well, it's interesting. Since we have all these attorneys assembled, I think I'm going to take this opportunity. Maybe I can get an answer. If we have this juvenile proceeding -- now, there's an arraignment going to be set. Now, the arraignment does not state that you have to enter a certain plea. The defendant can obviously enter any plea that they want. Now, if this is in open court with reporters and a camera there, and let's just hypothetically say, not necessarily Michael Skakel, but anybody in this position enters a guilty plea, waives time and wants immediate sentencing date, do you see how, now that you're in juvenile court and you've pled guilty in juvenile court, how can it go to superior court and how can the punishment be very much for a 39-year- old man in juvenile court? And how could you say, no, we're sending this to superior court because you have now eliminated the ability of this man to have a fair trial?</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Jeremiah, that's a good question for you, but let me add into the fix that once he hit 21, that the juvenile court, I assume, can't sentence him, so if he does plead guilty, that that would certainly be a factor. But, also, what about a no-contest plea?</s>JEREMIAH DONOVAN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think there's no doubt whatsoever that this case will be transferred to the superior court.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: But what if there's a plea before it gets transferred?</s>DONOVAN: Well, I don't think the juvenile court would permit the plea to take place.</s>FUHRMAN: Well how can they not permit it when they're arraigning somebody? Are they saying that you can't plead guilty?</s>DONOVAN: Well, because the juvenile court judge would simply say, look, I have the discretion to transfer this to superior court and I'm not going to let you plead guilty here.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: But if the arraignment occurs -- does the arraignment in Connecticut occur before the consideration of the transfer or does it occur after?</s>DONOVAN: Well, the arraignment may take place before the consideration of the transfer, but the judge is not going to allow a no-contest plea to be made during the course of that arraignment if she is considering transferring it to superior court. I mean, if you take a look at the factors she has to consider: Are they youth facilities that are appropriate for the fellow? You know, is there -- is it likely that he would pose a danger to the community after his maturity? Is the superior court a more appropriate venue in order to determine his guilt or innocence? And all those factors strongly militate toward transferring to superior court. What's interesting is whether it will get transferred to superior court in Bridgeport or in Stamford because the jury pools in those two places are very different.</s>COSSACK: Jeremiah, perhaps I can suggest something: Suppose that the juvenile court just came out and said, look, we -- I've made a decision: We do not have jurisdiction anymore and I'm transferring this matter right now to the adult court. Then, there would be no way for Michael Skakel to enter a plea. Wouldn't that be the case?</s>DONOVAN: And that's probably exactly what will happen, although I think this judge is very thoughtful. I mean, the fact that she's taken some time in order to determine whether to allow media there is important. I'm sure she wouldn't, at the arraignment, say, I'm transferring. But she would just not allow a plea to be entered before she had made a determination as to whether he should be transferred.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Rick, we've discussed it before on our show, the issue of statute of limitations. At the time of this murder, there was a five-year statute of limitations on murder. Subsequently, a year later, Connecticut changed it: no statute of limitations on murder. What's going to happen here?</s>SILVERSTEIN: Well, I think if they do a strict constructive analysis, the law in effect at the time of this murder, it acts as a complete bar to a prosecution in this case. There was a window from October of '73 till April of '76 where this is a category of a crime where a statute of limitations can be asserted as a defense. And there was a case in Connecticut, a murder case, kidnapping, that resulted in a dismissal on a similar motion.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Len, can you describe what it was like in the courtroom yesterday -- describe Michael Skakel and the lawyers? I mean, put us inside the courtroom.</s>LEVITT: Well, I didn't see Michael. Michael Skakel wasn't in the courtroom. It was just a group of -- it was an attorney for the five newspapers, group of reporters and the judge. It was really a very low-keyed kind of business. The judge introduced -- asked everybody to introduce himself. She spoke very softly. I mean, it was not much of an event.</s>COSSACK: All right, let's take a break. Up next: Can Michael Skakel get a fair trial in the Greenwich area? And should his counsel seek to move the case? Stay with us. (</s>BEGIN Q&A;) Q: According to lawyers arguing in New Mexico for juvenile court records to be kept from the media, how many states do not release names of arrested juveniles?</s>A: Twenty-six. (END Q&A;)