NEW BRUNSWICK — Attorneys for Melanie McGuire, who shot and dismembered her husband in 2004, made good strategic decisions for the former nurse during her 26-day jury trial in 2007, an appeals court ruled in upholding a decision.
McGuire, now 44, who is serving a life in prison term, had appealed the denial of her post-conviction relief petition decided by Superior Court Judge Bradley Ferencz in 2014.
A three judge panel of the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division, in a 25-page decision that was decided on Aug. 7, agreed with the denial decision.
“Judge Ferencz thoughtfully addressed each of [McGuire’s] arguments in his comprehensive written decision,” said the three-judge panel, adding that they found no merit in McGuire’s arguments on appeal.
McGuire was represented by Michael A. Priarone, an assistant public defender, in her appeal.
In 2007, McGuire was found guilty by a Middlesex County jury following a seven-week trial of shooting and drugging her husband in the couple’s Woodbridge apartment the night of April 28, 2004, cutting up his body and dumping his remains in the Chesapeake Bay inside three matching suitcases. The jury deliberated for 14 hours before reaching a verdict.
She was also found guilty of possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose and perjury.
In her appeal, McGuire argued that her trial lawyers were ineffective because the attorneys failed to have experts test key evidence in her case against the state including garbage bags that William McGuire’s body parts were found in compared to garbage bags police seized as evidence at her father’s home and the hard drive from the laptop that was recovered from the victim’s vehicle.
In 2007, McGuire was represented by Joe Tacopina and Stephen Turano, now both partners at Tacopina, Seigel and Turano, P.C. in New York.
Ferencz in his decision said the trial counsel made the reasonable strategic decision to not risk their own expert finding conclusive indisputable evidence that the bags were the same.
“Instead counsel chose to attack the credibility and conclusions of the state’s expert in an attempt to undermine their findings and find reasonable doubt in the state’s case,” he wrote, adding that the same holds true for the search of the laptop hard drive.
McGuire also argued that her trial counsel failed to retain additional experts because of a provision in the supplemental retainer agreement that reduced the attorney’s fee with the retention of additional experts.
The decision noted that McGuire signed the retainer after the state and her trial counsel agreed on the witness list.
The Appellate Court affirmed Ferencz’s decision and denied McGuire’s appeal.
