Public Official’s Conviction Affirmed

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the criminal conviction of the former State Auditor of Accounts on charges relating to her daughter’s state employment.

NBC 10 Philadelphia

McGuiness was convicted of official misconduct and conflict of interest in July after she hired her daughter and offered her daughter special advantages not offered to other employees.

A 2021 indictment found that McGuiness offered her daughter a no-show job that included use of a state-owned vehicle and paid more than $19,000 into a bank account in which McGuiness is an owner.

The court

An elected state official was indicted and tried on criminal charges arising from her conduct while in office. The parties vigorously litigated the case, and the trial court issued numerous well-reasoned and even-handed decisions before, during, and after the trial. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant of three charges while acquitting her of two others. She now appeals, arguing that “the trial that led to the convictions was profoundly unfair and unconstitutional.”

Notwithstanding the defendant’s inflamed rhetoric, the record amply demonstrates that she received a fair trial. The defendant raises a mélange of issues on appeal, including that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the charged crimes and violated the defendant’s due process rights by suppressing exculpatory evidence. We reject those arguments because they distort the trial court’s holdings or misapply the law. We conclude, however, that one of the defendant’s convictions must be reversed because the legal insufficiency of one of the charges resulted in the spillover of evidence that prejudiced the jury’s consideration of a closely linked charge. We therefore reverse the defendant’s conviction for Official Misconduct. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s decisions and the defendant’s convictions.

Brady contention

McGuiness first argues that the State suppressed a substantial amount of ESI until two months before trial and that this suppression fatally undermines confidence in the trial’s fairness and the jury’s verdict. McGuiness contends that the State’s delayed production of this volume of discovery, coupled with its failure to search the ESI for exculpatory or impeachment evidence and point McGuiness to it, resulted in an unfair trial in violation of her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree that the State’s delayed production violated Brady and further hold that the proper remedy for the State’s delayed production, if any, was a continuance of the trial, which the Superior Court offered and McGuiness refused.

The court also rejected her claim of vindictive prosecution.

SEITZ, Chief Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the persuasive opinion of my colleagues in the Majority on all but one issue – that McGuiness’s conviction for Count IV should be reversed and a new trial ordered because of “prejudicial spillover.” According to the Majority, evidence relevant to Count III prejudicially spilled over into McGuiness’s conviction for Count IV after the Superior Court dismissed Count III after trial

WHYY reported on her October 2022 resignation

Convicted Delaware auditor Kathy McGuiness resigned Wednesday, just hours after a judge sentenced her to probation for misdemeanor official misconduct and conflict of interest convictions related to hiring her daughter.

Gov. John Carney had indicated he would exercise his constitutional duty to remove her from office upon her sentencing, which occurred about 10:45 a.m. in Kent County Superior Court.

Instead, Carney’s office announced about 3 p.m. that he received a letter from McGuiness saying she would resign Wednesday at 4:30 p.m., according to gubernatorial spokesman Emily David.

Coast TV has a story on defendant’s civil suit against prosecutors

Former Delaware State Auditor Kathy McGuiness is suing members of the Delaware Department of Justice, alleging defamation and violation of her constitutional rights under the fourth and 14th amendments during her 2022 case and conviction. Defendants include Attorney General Kathy Jennings, Chief Special Investigator Frank Robinson and Director of the Division of Civil Rights and Public Trust Mark Denney.

Court documents obtained by CoastTV allege that a search warrant used against McGuiness was obtained based on an affidavit of probable cause submitted by Robinson, and that the affidavit consisted of allegations that were later proven to be false or misleading. The affidavit said certain payments were made to a consulting group to avoid scrutiny and that payments were being split to avoid reporting thresholds. According to McGuiness’ complaint, Robinson admitted in a suppression hearing that he knew the information in the warrant was false at the time of writing.

(Mike Frisch)