McGuire judge nixes motions for new trial
Melanie McGuire's attorneys say jury was influenced by media
BY KATHY CHANG
Staff Writer

State Superior Court Judge Frederick P. DeVesa denied motions filed by Melanie McGuire's defense attorneys on June 18 that called for a new trial for the 34-year-old former fertility clinic nurse.

"I am satisfied that this [nine-woman, three-man] jury paid careful attention to the enormous amounts of evidence [over 80 witnesses]," he said. "The defendant's steps were well documented and I am satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict."

McGuire made her first appearance in the courtroom since April 23 when she was found guilty in the first degree of killing her husband, William McGuire, and later dismembering his body in their Woodbridge Center Plaza apartment in 2004.

His remains were found in the couple's three matching green suitcases, which washed up along the Virginia coast on May 5, 11 and 16.

McGuire sheepishly walked into the courtroom and smiled at her parents, Michael and Linda Cappararo, and her friends, Selene Trivizas and Allison LiCalsi, who sat in the courtroom.

McGuire, who wore business attire throughout the seven-week trial, was handcuffed with a loose-fitting, bright green T-shirt, pants and sneakers.

Joseph Tacopina and Stephen Turano's motions cited a lack of sufficient evidence presented by the state for the jury to reach the verdict that they did, and the outside influences of the media, which included references to a specific blog found on Court TV's Web site and a note left by a jury member, who was excused from deliberations.

The defense argued that the state's case lacked a real motive and failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that William McGuire was killed between April 28 and May 5, 2004, in the Woodbridge Center Plaza apartment, or even in New Jersey.

The defense also argued that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt "the role" of the unknown accomplice.

"There were five searches of the apartment, and four of them were done by Thomas Lesniak [forensic scientist for the New Jersey State Police]," said Turano. "There was no blood, fibers, DNA, or tool marks found in the apartment, which was searched by Lesniak after another family had already moved in."

Turano said the jury learned that Dr. Bradley Miller, who had a three-year love affair with Melanie McGuire, and McGuire were not making immediate plans to be with each other, through Miller's testimony and wiretap conversations.

Turano also cited that Assistant Attorney General Patricia Prezioso presented new evidence to the jury during her closing arguments made on April 17, when she said that "William McGuire was given chloral hydrate with wine, and a silencer was probably used to shoot him."

"We were not allowed to negate those items," he said.

The judge, who made a summation of the case, said that even though the defense raised significant unanswered questions about the details of the murder, he believed the jury was able to make the inferences that they needed to make.

"This was a well-planned and well-executed criminal episode with volumes of concealment that had no direct evidence where it took place," said DeVesa. "This episode spanned almost four states and involved poison and surgically made cuts to William McGuire's body."

The defense's motions also asked if they could re-interview the nine-woman, three-man jury to ask them additional questions about a blog entry on the Court TV Web site that referred to one of the jurors as having "hard eyes."

During the trial, jurors learned that one of the jurors was referred to as having "hard eyes" on a blog site.

"Yes, it was troublesome to learn that jurors learned that from an outside source, but when we went to look for the blog after the trial, it was like searching for a needle in a haystack," said Tacopina.

Tacopina called the blog scathing and prejudicial.

"Not only did that blog describe that juror as having 'hard eyes,' but that blog opined guilt upon Melanie McGuire, called her a 'sociopath' and said she should be 'hanged' for her demeanor and body language," he said.

Tacopina also had concerns about statements made by jurors during two interview sessions with the state in DeVesa's chambers.

"My concern is every juror talked about this blog entry about 'hard eyes' with each other and said there was a general concern about how the media was portraying them," he said.

"One juror said she was even upset that she didn't get a nickname by Court TV," he said.

The defense also argued the words "to do what is right" that was in a note left by a juror that was excused by the court before deliberations, could have influenced the jury's verdict.

The note, which was brought into the jury room, was addressed to all the jurors and read, "I am praying for all of you today, that you will have the wisdom to do what is right."

The judge said after the two interviews with the jurors that he was satisfied that the jury was not influenced by outside media attention, and said, "It would no longer be a good cause to re-interview the jurors at this time."

As for the note, DeVesa said after interviewing the jurors, the words "do what is right" was not telling the jurors how they should vote.

"For the record, the note does speak for itself and is an innocent farewell because under the circumstances, she could not say farewell to the other jurors," he said.

DeVesa did ask the state to inquire about an Internet communication dated April 21 at 4:55 a.m. that the defense said looked like it was written by a juror. The defense said the communication was deleted shortly after it was posted.

The communication, which was a response to another communication, read, "OK, we are leaning toward guilty."

"It could possibly be an indication that a juror wrote this," said DeVesa. "There's no reason not to look into it."

The state complied.

DeVesa said the seven-week trial could not have been more fair for the defendant.

"There is no likelihood that a new trial would be even more fair than this one," he said.

McGuire will be sentenced at 9 a.m. July 19.