McGuire attorneys file motion for new trial New witness claims William McGuire owed loan shark $90K BY KATHY CHANG Staff Writer Defense attorneys for Melanie McGuire filed a sealed motion last week for a new trial based upon a new witness who contends that William T. McGuire owed $90,000 to a loan shark whom the witness once worked for in early April 2004. "We have interviewed this witness twice," said defense attorney Stephen Turano, who filed the motion on June 27. "The second time, I presented a lineup of photographs and the witness had no problem identifying the man he saw as William McGuire." The attorney said the witness, who is currently an inmate in a New Jersey prison, wrote a letter to Joseph Tacopina's New York City Madison Avenue office informing the attorneys of the new information. The witness learned of Melanie McGuire's April 23 conviction of first-degree murder of her husband in their Woodbridge Center Plaza apartment after a seven-week trial in Middlesex County, when he read it in a newspaper account, the attorney said. "He has made no attempt to gain from this," said Tacopina. The attorneys have filed the motion under seal to protect the identity of the witness, and the motion refers to the new witness as NW. Turano presented the new information at a motion hearing June 18. "The witness was working as a bookkeeper for a crime family in the Philadelphia and South Jersey area," said Turano. "A person, who was identified as William McGuire in the presence of the witness, went to meet and talk with the loan shark to discuss the debt. After the meeting, the loan shark told the witness to "put him down in the books for $90,000." The jury of nine women and three men found Melanie McGuire, a 34-year-old former fertility clinic nurse, guilty of first-degree murder of her husband, William McGuire, and later dismembering his body between April 28 and May 5, 2004. She faces up to 50 years in prison when she is sentenced at 9 a.m. July 19. William McGuire's remains were found in the couple's three matching green suitcases, which washed up along the Virginia coast on May 5, 11, and 16, 2004. The defense during the trial stressed that William McGuire was a gambler who "gambled beyond his means," and left open the possibility that someone other than his wife killed him. "He was a big and heavy gambler who gambled beyond his means," said Tacopina during his closing argument on April 16. "Yes, the McGuires closed on their house, but there were no efforts to see where the funds were coming from. There could have been street debt and behind payments. There is no suggestion that he was shot because of debt, but it is a reasonable possibility to be investigated." During the trial, Leon Sarao, the casino supervisor at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, testified that from its records, McGuire took a total of 12 trips over a 24-day period to the casino in 2003 and took one trip in 2004. McGuire won $30,775 in table games and lost $56 in slots in 2003. In 2004, McGuire lost $4,100. Turano argued that these records only show rated play, which means play using a casino card. A Currency Transaction Report that is required by law shows transactions over $10,000. In 2003, it showed that William McGuire had a total buy in [of chips] of $97,000. During her closing argument on April 17, Assistant Attorney General Patricia Prezioso discounted Tacopina's closing argument concerning the possibility that a "loan shark" or an "Atlantic City mobster" could have killed William McGuire. "There is no evidence that he was a degenerate," said Prezioso. "He worked three jobs and just closed on a $500,000 home." Prezioso contended that a mob hit probably would not look like the McGuire murder. "Usually a message is sent on late payments, such as leaving the body to send a message to the family, not pack the body in suitcases," she said. "And if we would want to go 'full Sopranos mode,' the 'Atlantic City mobsters' would not disregard how Billy was found. Let's say he did leave that apartment - why was his wallet left [found in the storage facility where McGuire moved all her items] and why was no one called?" Superior County Judge Frederick P. DeVesa sitting in New Brunswick previously denied motions filed by McGuire's defense attorneys on June 18 calling for a new trial. McGuire's attorneys cited in their motion a lack of sufficient evidence presented by the state for the jury to reach the verdict that they did, and that 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, may have tainted the jury.