Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | RSS | Ways to Listen
14: Melanie is sentenced and transferred to prison. She begins the long process of appeals and holds out hope that her conviction will be overturned. Will the courts grant an appeal or will her life sentence stand?
For Images related to this episode, visit: https://directappealpodcast.com/images/#ep14
Credits
- Hosted by: Meghan Sacks and Amy Shlosberg
- Produced by James Varga
- Written by Meghan Sacks
- Recorded, mixed, and edited by Justin Kral at JC Studios
- Music and underscore by Dessert Media
- Legal Counsel: Barry Janay
- Special thanks to Alan Tockerman
- Producer-At-Large Adam Curry
Very fine podcast. The info and situation is put in the real legal framework in which it now resides. Of course, this is sad for those of us believing the defendant’s side because of the starkness of the legal situation … and its technical/process emphasis vs. “a truthful outcome” emphasis.
And, regardless of what anyone of us says on any side of this case … there is a truth. Either the prosecution was wrong or they were right. Either Melanie did this murder or did not do it. If you continue a quest for this truth, meaning having a willingness to change your mind midstream in your investigative efforts, that is a good fight regardless of any final outcome.
One thing nice about being outside of the legal establishment, or any careers associated with it, is you can concentrate on trying to discern the truth, rather than prioritizing an established protocol of technicalities and judicial process. For as one gets into appeals the cards are almost exponentially more stacked against the wrongfully, but now convicted person, which seems appropriate since lower courts have established guilt. However, one who is on the defendant’s side of the story is often struck how the search for truth has been discarded for technicalities and procedures … almost wholly regardless of significance to the truth of the matter.
IMAGINE THIS TRIAL DONE TODAY WITH WHAT IS NOW KNOWN:
IMO, it would seem if the trial was done from anew (not a retrial), without the sensationalist media around, and with all evidence and situations that are now known considered, investigated, and weighted appropriately in a trial … Melanie would be found not guilty for sure, and to me, it even seems obvious she is factually innocent. But as many a falsely accused, and then wrongfully convicted, citizen slowly learns … you will be told straight to your face “the truth is not what matters now”.
In my opinion, at least 1 out of 20 criminal cases in the USA fall into this category of wrongfully convicted who never end up getting relief or valid pursuit of the truth(i.e., a fair trial). The public and officials must be made to realize it is inherent in the system and processes/rules need to be changed … and this is another reason to keep up the good fight.
Many people are wrongfully convicted every year. Everyone within the judicial establishment knows that from the advent of DNA evidence over the past few decades. So that mandates that there are many more wrongful convictions in which DNA was not so applicable.
We must loosen up the protocols to allow for these systematic and tragic outcomes to be more often found. For even if one is not moved by the great injustice done to the wrongfully convicted, their family, and their friends … murderers are left on the streets due to the state’s intransigence. That should be enough for anyone even if they are all about the “law and order” argument.
This episode was upsetting. The appeal process is like a cruel joke. The expert made a comment about it being fair because you get so many “bites of the apple.” It’s more like tempting a thirsty man with a glass of water and pulling it away just before he can drink. Having a process that is about technicalities rather than about truth or innocence is right out of Kafka—a frighteningly surreal bureaucracy.
The information about the jurors’ wall of silence is also chilling. The prosecutor asked Meghan if she’d spoken to any of the jurors. It’s almost like she is a part of that refusal to talk. Disturbing.
Eddie, I wholeheartedly agree with you. What I found really chilling was the prosecutor being so sure that the jurors would not speak to Meghan. How could she possibly know that if she has not spoken to these people herself. In New Jersey there is a law that after the trial the attorneys are not allowed to approach the jurors on their decision. What is weird is the woman who was very angry and downright nasty about it leads one to believe that perhaps there was something fishy going on. To respond to Meghan the way that she did is beyond bizarre. As for the appeal process I agree with you. The sad part is the State never wants to admit that they made a mistake nor do the higher Courts. The only time they’re willing to do that is if they have no other choice because there’s clear-cut evidence to point to someone else. So many innocent people sit behind bars for crimes that they did not commit all because some overzealous prosecutor wants another notch in their belt.
If this is episode 14, where is the comprehensive list?
https://directappealpodcast.com/ and review the posts or use Stitcher or some other app to play the podcast and there will be a list of all episodes.
I’ve been following from here for months and I see a list of five.
If they’ve been dumping episodes elsewhere, I don’t think I want to know at this point.
Cheers.
@flea…I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but if you click on this link it will take you to all of the episodes. Hope this his helpful.
oops…here’s the link
https://directappealpodcast.com/
I want to make clear in my previous post that I am not insinuating that the prosecutor spoke to the jurors. I’m just saying that I find it weird the way the one juror acted on the phone and the prosecutor being so sure that they wouldn’t speak I guess can be attributed to the fact that they haven’t spoken in 12 years.
@Julie
Ah Julie, you’re too nice. This is a podcast devoted to wrongful convictions. Innocent people dont end up in jail because prosecutors are “overzealous” or “overstep their bounds.” Innocent people end up in jail because prosecutors break the rules.
All those unfortunate defendants that ended up being wrongfully convicted, which were later exonerated thru DNA evidence, is clear and convincing evidence that prosecutors break the rules. The rule of law means nothing to a prosecutor.
I have read 100’s of case law cases on prosecutorial misconduct that get exempted from their conduct and the only pictures that emerge from all those cases is simply this,
“The names and the faces change but the games are still the same.”
(unknown author)
A couple of points about John, the appellate attorney’s statements:
1) Although he stated the process was fair in his mind because you have multiple chances, he has won a big appeal or two so has a very vested interest. He works within the appellate system, and so can’t damn the whole system as seriously slanted.
2) And then he said you HAVE TO GET THE RIGHT JUDGE for any hope in the appellate process, and that a lot of it is ARBITRARY. That emphatically states it often is unfair … in other words, you must GET LUCKY. It was almost a secondary note in the conversation. The particular judge and his decisions in the original trial was also HUGE.
Jake,
Well said. I was thinking the same thing. He has to think or say it is fair in order to continue to work in that system. I personally couldn’t do it because it would just kill me psychologically.
It is sad, but I truly believe that the chances of her getting a new trial are slim to none. Unless enough money can be raised that a private investigator could really do some hard digging they would have to come up with some substantial evidence that the Courts would even consider giving her a new trial. It is very sad. I truly believe in her innocence and always have.
DFC40–You are correct. You took the words right out of my mouth. They are above the law and they prove it constantly.
Did Melanie ever file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence? In most jurisdictions,the defendant must show that the evidence is (1) material, and not “merely” cumulative, impeaching, or contradictory; (2) that the evidence was discovered after completion of the trial and was not discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand; and (3) that the evidence would probably change the jury’s verdict if a new trial were granted. Her direct appeal raised errors at trial. And her PCR claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. But in the past dozen years, is there any newly discovered evidence that would warrant a new trial?
Dear Amy and Mahan, I Do Believe Thant Melanie is not the Person who did the crime I watched both the 48 Hours & ABC’S 20/20 Jonathan Tad Fisher Thank You again so much for doing the Podcast
The hosts and producers have made a deeply engaging and highly professional podcast. I binged the whole thing in two days. I applaud their efforts and would gladly listen to another podcast should this team examine a different case.
However, I believe the podcast suffers from two significant flaws.
First, though the podcast claims to be an unbiased examination of the case, it is basically presented from Melanie’s point of view. I recognized that the prosecution, the detectives, and the jurors refused to cooperate, and I know great efforts were made to get them to comment on the record. But I believe no efforts were made to speak to the victim’s family or friends, who may have been able to correct any misstatements, clear up any ambiguities or, at a minimum, provide greater context. The irony is that we hear primarily from Melanie, the person who refused to testify under oath in her own defense and be subject to cross-examination at trial (as, of course, was her right). If you do not – or cannot – explore and examine all sides and perspectives, I believe you should be reluctant to proceed.
Second, perhaps due to the flaw above, the podcast emphasizes the weakest parts of the state’s case (e.g., the place where the victim was dismembered) while ignoring or breezing past the really damning evidence that established Melanie’s guilt. There were 23 days of testimony, so I cannot summarize it all here. But I encourage listeners to read the Appellate Division’s 2011 opinion on the direct appeal:
https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases11/pr20110316b-McGuire-opinion.pdf
From pages 7 to 31, the Appellate Division summarizes the evidence presented at trial. While you touch upon the majority of these “bad facts,” you underplay the number of Melanie’s trips to Atlantic City, the emails sent and calls made from the victim’s phone – in specific the 1:10 a.m. call on May 2 made just 16 minutes after Melanie’s EZ Pass pinged a toll booth on the Atlantic City Expressway – her lies or ommissions to the detectives, the unusual absence of activity on her parents’ EZ Pass, and her curious stays at the Red Roof Inn, where she paid in cash, “although she could presumably have stayed in her apartment, or with her children in her parents’ Ocean County home.” There is so much in the trial record that is left unexplored or unexplained.
I will say that I think you did a terrific job discussing the intricacies of all the appeals, including the motion for post-conviction relief.
And I do look forward to the episode coming in October.
As for the hosts of the podcast not reaching out to the victim’s family and friends you don’t know that they didn’t and if you do know then that means you’re somebody very closely connected with this. As for calls and messages sent from the victim’s phone there’s no proof that it was Melanie as the person who was using his phone. As for spending a lot of time saying that the state’s case did not make sense due to prosecutor emphasizing that the murder was committed in the townhouse…of course time is spent discussing that on this podcast because it doesn’t make sense and there’s no proof of it in any way, shape or form. This woman was put away for the rest of her life on proof of nothing. You claim that her behavior was strange and that there’s things that are unexplained..well the State’s case is unexplainable as well. They needed to more fully look into his friends and associates. Maybe they should have spent more time looking in Virginia.
I believe you are mistaken … on both counts.
Perhaps you should really read the podcast twice … if only “binge-ing”.
The emperor has no clothes.
Just recently, some copycat podcaster put out a 1-hour podcast entitled, Case 120: Bill McGuire. All the Melaine McGuire naysayers broke out the champagne and are celebrating what they are calling an “EXCELLENT” presentation of the facts with no bias. HA!!!!
In case you missed all the twisted and biased newspapers that wrote about the McGuire case, in case you missed COURT TV’s televised trial and never read the Glatt book and didn’t get a chance to watch 48hrs, Snapped etc., this is the podcast for you. All one gets here, is all that crap just warmed up. (if you don’t believe that, just check their website for the resources they relied on )
When you turn this thing on you’re subjected to a monotone narrator who is doing this thing anonymously.HA! Not one piece of an official court document is ever mentioned, no one, from either side, is interviewed. A complete waste of time.
When anybody compares that crap to what the people at DA put out in 14 episodes,
it bespeaks to me of a group of people who are just simply, stupid.
I heard some of that. The host is Australian and tells the story like a spooky campfire tale. It’s not at all a think piece. He is clearly just doing it for entertainment…but this isn’t entertaining—it is someone’s life.
@Eddie
You’re correct, definitely not a think-piece, that’s why most people will be attracted to this shallow piece of trash. When it comes to State vs. McGuire, most people have an aversion to “thinking.”
What happened to the GoFundMe page
The Go Fund Me page was sadly taken down by Go Fund Me. We are currently in the process of starting a page on another site. We will keep you posted. Thank you!
@Amal
Is there a reason why they took it off?
Not really. They said it violated the terms and conditions about raising money for legal fees, but we are not raising money for that—we are raising money for an investigator. All that aside, there are many pages for trying to help the wrongfully convicted AND for legal fees specifically. They have no phone number so it is very hard to communicate with them.
@Amala
I just read the GFM TERMS, they reserve the right to refuse any campaigns related to legal defenses of crimes. Technically, PI’s would be gathering evidence to support a criminal defense, so they wouldn’t change their position.
If there are other sites, that might be the way to instead of dealing with this organization.
Thanks
We are done with Go Fund Me, but as I say, there are hundreds of pages up for such needs. Why was ours taken down and all the others remain? We put the page up in the first place because there were so many others. I wish there were a site devoted to this type of fundraising.
There is a new site to support our quest to raise funds to fully investigate this crime. For those of you who believe in Melanie’s innocence, we thank you and ask you to contribute to this fund. Thank you!
https://www.supportful.com/b96f6be6-d765-4ea1-b448-0abc7248ce61
I haven’t commented previously, I’ve listened to all episodes in the last week or so. I wanted to comment some understanding of the reaction of the juror. For any of the jurors being a juror in this trial could be life changing and traumatic. Imagine having to view the images of the victim’s dissected body. You can never unsee those images. They would be right in thinking that who ever was responsible is a scary person you would want to have nothing to do with. Clearly the prosecution did a good enough job that convinced the jury that person was Melanie. No wonder the jurors don’t want to be contacted by someone (representing Melanie in a way) about the case ten plus years later. It could trigger feelings of fear that the killer knows your phone number, your name, where you live, your family. How frightening! I’d feel threatened so the angry response is natural. It could bring back to mind those horrible images and details that they surely wish to forget. I am not saying I believe Melanie is guilty but clearly the prosecution convinced the jury beyond reasonable doubt. There are many many details that seem highly suspicious. By all means try to speak with the prosecution or defence lawyers or expert witnesses but I feel the jury should be left alone to move on in life and put behind them images and details of a crime they never wished to know about. Well that’s my two cents!