McGuiness asks for new trial in Supreme Court appeal

An appeal filed by former State Auditor Kathleen McGuiness over her misdemeanor convictions in 2022 is winding its way through Delaware Supreme Court.

In an opening brief filed in March, McGuiness asks for a new trial largely based on Brady violations she says were made by the prosecution. A Brady violation occurs when a prosecutor fails to provide a defendant or criminal defense attorneys with any evidence that is favorable or helpful to a defendant's case.

McGuiness’ legal team argues in a brief that the prosecution failed to provide exculpatory evidence in a timely manner that would show McGuiness is not guilty of the conflict of interest and official misconduct misdemeanors of which a jury found her guilty. She was sentenced in October 2022 to one year level 5 incarceration, which was suspended for one year of probation for both convictions. She was also fined $10,000 and ordered to serve 500 hours of community service.

McGuiness also lost in the Democratic primary to newcomer Lydia York, who is now state auditor.

In an answering brief filed May 8, the prosecution says it provided McGuiness’s defense with all of its exculpatory evidence surrounding McGuiness hiring her daughter to work in the auditor’s office, and giving her daughter special treatment. Prosecutors add that all the information they provided was public and readily available to McGuiness. 

“The Superior Court noted that much of it – any email involving McGuiness, her daughter or anyone else in her office – was available to McGuiness before and during trial even if the state had not produced it,” the brief reads. “But the state did produce it, as the court wrote, in a timeline that ‘plays in the state's favor as to their Brady obligation.’”

As for the timing, prosecutors say that evidence was provided to McGuiness’ defense team more than two months before the trial, and she was given the opportunity for more time, but she declined because of her approaching re-election bid for office. Before the trial, Superior Court Judge William Carpenter ruled that any digital evidence provided after March 31, 2022, is excluded.

“At McGuiness’ request, the court suppressed the referenced evidence, but in so doing, offered McGuiness ‘additional time to search and review the documents.’ McGuiness declined the offer,” the brief states.

McGuiness is also seeking reimbursement for attorney costs in her appeal, which the Superior Court denied.

“Setting aside clear law to pay $550 per hour to her retained private law firm, as McGuiness wishes, would exacerbate existing systemic inequities,” the brief states. “Compensating a wealthy defendant’s law firm by several times the court’s standard fees would metastasize the statutory entitlement into something absurd.”