Ex-officer argues before high court He says missteps warrant new murder trial

By GINA BARTON
gbarton@journalsentinel.com

Posted: April 12, 2005

Fond du Lac - A former Green Bay Police detective convicted of murdering his wife and setting her body on fire argued Tuesday before the state Supreme Court that missteps by both his defense attorneys and the prosecution should warrant him a new trial.

But much of the discussion centered not on that argument, but rather on a transcript of the television news magazine "48 Hours Mystery," which was sent to the justices by an official in the state attorney general's office.

John Maloney, 48, was convicted in 1999 of homicide, arson and mutilating a corpse. He maintains his innocence.

At Maloney's trial, former Winnebago County District Attorney Joe Paulus convinced the jury that Maloney bludgeoned his wife, strangled her and set her body on fire. Defense attorney Gerald Boyle put forth the theory that Maloney's then-girlfriend, Tracy Hellenbrand, was the real killer.

Paulus was subsequently convicted of taking bribes in drunken driving cases and is serving time in a federal prison. His conviction has called into question his actions in other prosecutions, including Maloney's.

Several hours of videotaped arguments between Maloney and Hellenbrand were key to Maloney's conviction. Hellenbrand, who was cooperating with authorities, knew the conversations were being recorded. Maloney did not.

Attorney Lew Wasserman argued that because Paulus committed serious ethical breaches in the way he obtained the tapes, Maloney should receive a new trial at which they could not be used.

Justice N. Patrick Crooks asked both Wasserman and Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. O'Brien about the "48 Hours" transcript., which had been mailed to justices by one of O'Brien's superiors. The program publicized the theory that the victim's death was an accident that occurred when she tried unsuccessfully to hang herself, then drank herself into a stupor and dropped a cigarette, which ignited the blaze.

Crooks asked O'Brien about a $27,000 bill for editing of the videotapes. The bill contained notes about the tapes being modified and clips being added to them.

"Is there any reason to believe the tapes were altered in any way?" Crooks asked.

O'Brien said he was unfamiliar with that aspect of the case, but said Maloney surely would have known if the tapes were altered and could have alerted his defense attorney before trial.

The Supreme Court could uphold Maloney's conviction, order a new trial based on Wasserman's arguments, or decide Maloney deserves a new trial based on a miscarriage of justice.

A ruling in the case is expected by June 30.