Judge reserves decision on McGuiness intimidation charge

A Delaware Superior Court judge who heard arguments April 7 has reserved a decision on motions filed by State Auditor Kathy McGuiness to have two charges against her dropped.

McGuiness appeared in Superior Court in Wilmington primarily to dispute a charge of intimidating potential witnesses, but her attorney, Stephen Wood, has also filed a motion to dismiss a charge of structuring, in which McGuiness is accused of awarding no-bid contracts to a campaign consulting firm that had worked on her 2016 run for lieutenant governor. 

McGuiness is also charged with felony theft, misconduct and conflict of interest. She has pleaded not guilty; a trial date is scheduled for Monday, May 16.

In his argument for dropping the intimidation charge, Wood said the state’s indictment is vague and not specific on what McGuiness did that constituted intimidating potential witnesses. Prosecutors claim that employees within the auditor’s office became concerned about what they viewed as potential misconduct by McGuiness. Prosecutors say McGuiness submitted “e Records” requests, which would have allowed her to view the content of employees’ email accounts. The state also alleges that McGuiness tried to discriminate against employees concerned about her conduct.

Wood argued that the threshold for intimidation comes when a person becomes aware they are under investigation. He said the earliest McGuiness could have been aware she was under investigation was September, when the Attorney General’s Office executed a search warrant of the auditor’s office, including McGuiness’ computer. 

However, Wood said the state’s indictment does not point to any specific instances of McGuiness trying to dissuade a witness from testifying. He said the state’s case comprises vague allegations with no facts linking to evidence.

“It’s just stuff,” Wood said.

Deputy Attorney General Mark Denney said staff within the auditor’s office became aware of potential misconduct by McGuiness, and McGuiness took actions that constituted intimidation, specifically, trying to read their emails.

“To call this indictment vague is ridiculous,” he said.

Wood argued on behalf of another motion he had filed, asking to compel discovery in relation to charges of conflict of interest. His line of argument touched on two of the charges against McGuiness: conflict of interest and structuring. 

On the first, McGuiness, a former Rehoboth Beach commissioner, is accused of giving her daughter a no-show job that paid out $19,000 in state funds. On the second, McGuiness is repeatedly accused of structuring contracts for the firm My Campaign Group that were designed to be just below the threshold required by state law to be subject to a competitive bid process. 

Regarding McGuiness allegedly putting her daughter on the auditor’s office payroll, Wood argued that nepotism isn’t a crime in and of itself, and that other department employees in Delaware have kids or spouses working there. He asked Judge William C. Carpenter to be allowed to further investigate this, and to be able to look at contracts with all state departments to see if any campaign consultants got contracts. Wood specifically mentioned the Attorney General’s Office in regard to this line of inquiry.

In response, Denney said the defense has misconstrued the state’s argument. He said the issue of campaign contracts speaks to a state of mind by McGuiness to try to skirt around the law. Denney then added that if there was any evidence of something similar to what McGuiness is accused of in the AG’s Office, it would be investigated. Wood then stood up and said he’d make a deal with Denney that if he can find similar evidence of nepotism in the AG’s Office, Denney will indict them too.

Carpenter tried to regain control of the hearing and had the attorneys wrap up. 

The issue then came to the trial date, which Carpenter seemed unsure could be made due to the defense motions. He suggested the possibility of moving the trial to late summer or early fall. Wood then said that his client would prefer to have the trial start in May. Carpenter told him that as the judge, he’ll determine the trial date. 

Carpenter reserved decision on the motion to dismiss the intimidation charge and did not set a hearing date for the motion to dismiss the structuring charge.