Dead Certain: The Martha Moxley Murder
Episode: "The Joker"
Podcast by NBC News Studios, hosted by Andrew Goldman
Air Date: December 23, 2025
Episode Overview
In "The Joker," Andrew Goldman delves into the controversial and ultimately disastrous defense of Michael Skakel in the Martha Moxley murder trial—one of Connecticut’s most infamous and perplexing cases. The episode examines the eccentric and self-promoting defense attorney Mickey Sherman, whose egotistical approach, bungled strategies, and media obsession ultimately became the grounds for Skakel’s conviction being vacated more than a decade later. Through interviews, legal analysis, and rarely heard behind-the-scenes stories, Goldman explores how a murder trial of national significance could be undermined by hubris, incompetence, and potentially, quiet conflicts of interest.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Mickey Sherman's Vegas Seminar: Style Over Substance
-
[01:06-05:31]
Sherman, notorious for his TV personality and showboat style, delivers a seminar for defense attorneys in Las Vegas six months before Skakel's trial, focusing on his love for the media spotlight and proving how little he emphasizes traditional legal prep."I'm one of those schmucks every night on one of the shows...I thought that I know how to handle this, I can deal with the media. And boy, was I wrong."
— Mickey Sherman [02:28]"I think you gotta have fun with it. I mean, too many people just look upon our jobs as absolute drudges...for better or for worse, I've never been someone, I certainly have fun with it, and I probably have too much fun, which will probably be the primary criticism."
— Mickey Sherman [03:04] -
[05:31-06:39]
Sherman brags about his media collection of himself, relationships with key case authors like Dominic Dunne and Mark Fuhrman, illustrating his fixation on publicity over defense work."He and I have become good friends because we do all these TV shows together and we scream at each other, and then we go out to dinner and stuff like that. So I guess I’m somewhat hypocritical."
— Mickey Sherman (on Mark Fuhrman) [06:31]
2. Prioritizing Publicity over Legal Work
-
[07:08-08:23]
Sherman gets lured into the social circles of editors like Tina Brown, using client notoriety for access to celebrity events rather than effective legal defense. This obsession with being in the limelight—against the advice of experienced friends like Barry Scheck—foreshadows his disconnection from his client's dire legal stakes."Mick, you're doing a good job. Keep below the radar. Keep the public appearances down."
— Barry Scheck, quoted by Mickey Sherman [08:13]
3. After the Verdict: Sherman’s Dubious Loyalty
-
[10:23-13:05]
After Skakel’s conviction, Sherman publicly pledges allegiance to his client but immediately dashes off for television appearances and celebrations with people instrumental to the prosecution, like Dominic Dunne, further damaging the Skakels’ trust."Yes, we are bitterly disappointed...But I will tell you, as long as there’s a breath in my body, this case is not over as far as I’m concerned."
— Mickey Sherman [10:23]"Mickey did come to see me, but it was after days and days. And when he did, he called a press conference and he showed up on his Harley..."
— Michael Skakel [12:34]
4. Unraveling Sherman's Defense: Expert Insight & High-Profile Flaws
-
[14:23-18:49]
Andrew Goldman interviews Linda Kenney Baden, briefly on Skakel’s team, who demonstrates how a robust defense might have looked. She critiques handing the prosecution easy wins—mishandled evidence (like the golf club grip), absence of trial preparation, lack of proper photo evidence of Skakel's slight build, and failure to highlight reasonable doubt."When I look at [the autopsy photos], that imprint’s not made when she’s on the ground...She’s standing up."
— Linda Kenney Baden [15:17]"You can point to a third party, what's called the SODDI defense—some other dude did it."
— Linda Kenney Baden [52:24] -
Linda condemns Sherman's jury selections, his inattention to trial strategy, and his refusal to use jury consultants or show jurors authentic contemporaneous photos of Michael.
"What the fuck are you doing putting a police officer on the jury?"
— Linda Kenney Baden [30:27]
5. A Defense Team in Disarray: Dubious Choices and Lost Opportunities
-
[25:59-27:08]
Skakel’s "dream team" becomes a revolving door of inexperienced lawyers, as Sherman ejects experienced attorneys (including Kenney Baden) and ignores their advice."If they can chop Grudberg or they can chop Linda Kenney, I mean certainly I could get chopped."
— Steven Seeger, defense team member [26:54] -
Jury selection mishaps—such as placing a police officer who had been assaulted by a prior client on the Skakel jury—raise eyebrows among legal experts and investigators alike.
"You put Brian Wood [a cop] on the jury? ... Oh, Mick, I don’t know what you’re doing. This was craziness by him."
— Vito Colucci, private investigator [29:38]
6. Crucial Blunders at Trial
-
[32:05-36:46]
Sherman fails to combat the prosecution’s portrayal of Skakel as a strong, capable killer; he neglects to present clear evidence of Skakel’s small physical stature at the time of the crime, instead allowing misleading, post-pubertal photos to be shown."The Michael in this photo looks so tiny next to his own 19-year-old brother...Skinny legs, likely prepubescent...tragically sweet looking."
— Andrew Goldman [34:49] -
He omits the concept of reasonable doubt from closing arguments, shocking colleagues:
"Anytime you're in a criminal case, reasonable doubt, you start with that, you end with that. I never heard it. Not once."
— Many Margolis, Tommy Skakel's attorney [36:33] -
Key witnesses who could have impeached the prosecution's star witness or corroborated Skakel’s alibi were never contacted or called, as detailed by investigator Vito Colucci.
"I would say, Mick, you got to call this person here, you got to call that person there. Yeah, don't worry...He thought in his mind the case was going to be a slam dunk."
— Vito Colucci [38:48]
7. Hubris and Financial Misconduct
-
[46:09-50:03]
Sherman’s personal life—marked by recklessness (e.g., an affair and a stolen laptop), lavish spending, and billing excess—even as the Skakel family’s resources dwindle. He stays at luxury hotels and buys expensive vehicles with legal fees, instead of funding a proper defense."Witnesses weren't called because Mickey Sherman had spent the money. He spent the money on cars for his kids, trips."
— Michael Skakel [50:03]
8. Conflict of Interest and the Saudi Defense That Wasn’t
-
[52:24-54:38]
Sherman’s refusal to implicate the potentially more likely suspect, Tommy Skakel (Michael’s brother), may have been influenced by the fact that Tommy’s lawyer, Manny Margolis, recommended Sherman to the Skakel family—raising questions of loyalty and unspoken agreements that potentially devastated Michael’s case."Manny Margolis picked him [Mickey Sherman to defend Michael]. He’s the one that brought him in. That’s an absolute fact."
— Steven Skakel [54:17]
9. Legal Repercussions: Sherman's Incompetence Vacates the Conviction
-
[59:27-63:44]
Skakel’s appellate team uses the Vegas seminar tape and Sherman’s failures as grounds for habeas relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge Bishop, moved by Sherman's own words and his many missteps, grants a new trial:"Trial counsel’s failure in each of these areas of representation were significant and ultimately fatal to a constitutionally adequate defense. As a consequence of trial counsel’s failures…the state procured a judgment of conviction that lacks reliability. The habeas petition is granted."
— Judge Bishop, quoting his opinion [61:03] -
In 2018, Michael’s conviction is vacated. The state later declines to retry, making Michael legally innocent—but public suspicion lingers.
"I would have rather had them say, vindicated. He didn’t do it. Wasn’t what I was expecting."
— Michael Skakel [66:02]
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
Sherman’s Defense Philosophy:
"Have fun with it...I probably have too much fun, which will probably be the primary criticism."
— Mickey Sherman [03:04] -
Jury Selection Disaster:
"What the fuck are you doing putting a police officer on the jury?"
— Linda Kenney Baden [30:27] -
On Skakel’s Confidence in Sherman:
"You get on an airplane, you assume that the guy who's flying the plane knows what the fuck he's doing."
— Michael Skakel [25:59] -
On Sherman’s Ineptitude:
"I could spend an entire season enumerating the things that Mickey Sherman did, or more accurately failed to do, that doomed his client."
— Andrew Goldman [36:46] -
Bishop’s Blistering Opinion:
"The defense of a serious felony prosecution requires attention to detail, an energetic investigation and a coherent plan of defense capably executed...The habeas petition is granted."
— Judge Bishop, quoting his opinion [61:03]
Important Segment Timestamps
| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|---------| | 01:06–05:31 | Sherman’s Vegas seminar—jokes and media fixation | | 10:09–13:05 | Aftermath of Skakel conviction; family’s disappointment in Sherman | | 14:23–19:04 | Kenney Baden’s demonstration of alternative defense; critique of Sherman | | 25:59–27:08 | Sherman ejects experienced legal team members; inexperienced replacements | | 27:34–32:05 | Jury selection errors and analysis | | 36:33–38:48 | Failing to address reasonable doubt; ignored witness tips | | 46:09–50:03 | Sherman’s indulgent lifestyle and financial mismanagement | | 52:24–54:38 | Questions about conflicts of interest and the non-inclusion of Tommy Skakel as a suspect | | 59:27–63:44 | Habeas hearing and Judge Bishop’s scathing rebuke of Sherman | | 66:02 | Michael Skakel on bittersweet legal innocence |
Conclusion
This episode exposes how the combination of Mickey Sherman’s ego, inexperience, and dubious ethics directly contributed to Michael Skakel’s conviction—one later overturned solely because Sherman’s representation was so far beneath constitutionally required standards. The episode serves as a sobering lesson in how fame, money, and misplaced loyalty can derail justice and upend lives. Through incisive interviews and diligent reporting, "The Joker" depicts a trial gone awry not by lack of resources or opportunity, but by the fatal flaws of its lead defense attorney.
For Next Time
The preview for future episodes teases deeper examination of the Skakel family, unresolved questions about alternate suspects, and the persistent legacy—fair or not—of the Kennedy name in American crime and culture.
"I'm not a Kennedy. I'm a Skakel through and through."
— Michael Skakel [67:12]