Defense attorneys vow to appeal verdict Melanie McGuire was sentenced to life for the murder of her husband BY KATHY CHANG Staff Writer NEW BRUNSWICK - Defense attorneys for Melanie McGuire said they are optimistic about her appeal process. "We have full confidence that we can win this," Joseph Tacopina said. McGuire was sentenced July 19 for the murder and dismemberment of her husband, William McGuire, in 2004. She will be almost 101 years old before she would be eligible for parole. McGuire's defense attorneys - Tacopina and Stephen Turano - have teamed up with Jamie Kilberg of Baker Botts LLP in Washington, D.C., whose international law firm is recognized for its creative approach to the legal and business issues facing its clients. The attorneys said they are planning to appeal on several grounds, including jury misconduct involving Internet blogs, a note, territorial jurisdiction and the Brady violation. During the trial, jurors learned that one of the jurors was referred to as having "hard eyes" on a Court TV 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," Tacopina said. 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 N.J. Superior Court Judge Frederick P. 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," which was in a note left by a juror who 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." Tacopina said there was a Brady violation, which he explained was when the prosecution knows a piece of evidence will be favorable to them. "In this case, they knew that Dr. Bradley Miller [who had a three-year affair with McGuire] had perjured himself under oath during grand jury testimony and we did not know about it until he testified," said Tacopina. Miller lied to the grand jury in 2005 that he did not have sexual relations with McGuire after he worked with state police to have a consensual wiretap made with McGuire. He had sexual relations with McGuire one time after the wiretaps. Tacopina said a jury might hear additional testimony from William McGuire's first wife, Marci Paulk, which was not heard during the seven-week trial in March. DeVesa limited Paulk's testimony and would not allow her to tell the 12-woman and four-man jury that William McGuire had left her in 1994 and tampered with her bank accounts. Tacopina also said there was an issue over territorial jurisdiction and accomplice liability that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. "There is still the issue of 'if not her, then who else,' " he said. "That is still the unanswerable question." In response to the defense's decision to appeal, the state - Assistant Attorney General Patricia Prezioso and Deputy Attorney General Christopher Romanyshyn - said they have the "fullest confidence in their trial record" and said they would not comment on the issue of an accomplice. The defense filed a motion for a new trial in June 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; however, a state police investigation revealed that the new witness, Christopher Thieme, was not credible and had provided false information to law enforcement in the past. Thieme was convicted in Middlesex County in April 2007 of second-degree aggravated assault for beating his neighbor with the heavy end of a pool cue. Thieme was also convicted of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. He was sentenced to seven years in New Jersey State Prison, Trenton. On several occasions, Thieme provided false information to authorities, including one instance when he provided specific information to members of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force regarding a terrorist event he said would occur on May 14 and May 16, and the time when he provided information to the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office concerning a homicide. Thieme claimed that the alleged killer confessed to him; however, the individual was incarcerated at the time of the subject murder. Not only did Thieme provide false information to authorities, he has claimed that he is a singer, an aspiring Anglican priest, a naval reservist, an intelligence officer who was assigned to a Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan, a military contractor who is training for a mission in Somalia, the U.S. Intelligence Community's premier middle Africa expert, a multimillionaire, the owner of the Newcastle financial group, a wounded war veteran, has traveled to Chad and Sudan, and that he has Irish Republican Army connections. Authorities learned that Thieme has not traveled outside of the United States for at least the past five years. The defense withdrew its motion for a new trial based upon the state's investigation of the witness. "Clearly, this witness is in no way shape or form credible," Tacopina said. "This information was presented to us by someone in jail who wrote us a letter. We were duty bound to ask if this was truthful and to hold a potential hearing."