Maloney's retrial bid fails again Former police detective fights murder verdict

By Andy Nelesen
anelesen@greenbaypressgazette.com

On the eighth anniversary of his wife's death, John Maloney lost his bid for another day in court when the state Supreme Court failed to find enough information to warrant revisiting his case in the interest of justice.

Maloney, a former Green Bay police detective and arson investigator, was convicted in February 1999 of murdering his 40-year-old estranged wife, Sandy, and setting her Huth Street home on fire. A Brown County jury took 11 hours to convict Maloney after a nine-day trial.

The prosecution's linchpin at trial was a videotaped conversation recorded in Las Vegas in which Maloney admitted he was at the Huth Street home before his wife's death.

Maloney, 49, maintains his innocence and contends Sandy Maloney's death was not murder, but a suicide attempt followed by an accidental fire. Maloney has said he was at home with one of his sons when Sandy Maloney is thought to have died and his statements on the videotape were taken out of context.

Embroiled in Maloney's conviction is the fact that the special prosecutor assigned to the case, former Winnebago County District Attorney Joe Paulus, has since been convicted of accepting bribes and is serving a 58-month stint in a federal prison.

In its ruling published Friday, the state's highest court determined there was not enough information to conclude Paulus did anything improper in this case.

"Maloney fails to allege sufficient material facts that link Paulus' misconduct in other cases to the handling of evidence in this case," Justice Louis Butler Jr. wrote for the court. "Absent any such link, we conclude that Maloney's allegations … fail to justify remand on the basis of this record."

Maloney, in a phone interview from Dodge Correctional Institution, said he was disappointed in the court's decision.

"It's not, obviously, what I wanted to hear or what I thought I would be hearing," Maloney said Friday. "It's still not right. I'm not happy with the decision. I know my family isn't either.

"I'm not giving up, either."

Maloney is eligible for parole Feb. 10, 2024.

Lola Cator, Sandy Maloney's mother, said she was relieved by the court's decision.

"I'm thankful," Cator said. "At least for now, we don't have to go to trial. I thank the dear Lord."

Maloney's audience before the state Supreme Court was unique in that the case went before the seven-member panel twice. His initial bid for post-conviction relief hinged on the assertion that his trial lawyer, Gerald Boyle, was ineffective.

The justices denied that motion but kept jurisdiction of the case and asked the lawyers to argue whether the court had the authority to order an evidentiary hearing in the interest of justice, and if so, whether it should do so in this case.

Those questions brought Maloney's case back before the justices for a second time and ultimately yielded Friday's decision.

"Maloney has failed to present sufficient material facts that would lead this court to conclude that Paulus' behavior amounted to misconduct that caused (Maloney's trial) attorney to choose one theory of defense over another," the court said. "This court's power of discretionary reversal does not allow a defendant to obtain a new trial in an attempt to present a different defense theory years after the one presented by a competent counsel failed to persuade the jury."

Lawyers from the state Justice Department handled the Maloney appeal and argued that there was no evidence that Paulus tainted Maloney's case.

"We're very pleased with the ruling," said Justice Department spokesman Kelly Kennedy. "Although there may have been some misconduct on the part of Mr. Paulus in other cases, (Maloney) couldn't specifically tie them in to this case."

Kennedy said Justice Department lawyers offered the justices transcripts from a "48 Hours" television segment about the Maloney case to ensure the court had all the information it needed to make an informed decision.

"That was a way to make sure that the record was clear," Kennedy said.

The court agreed with the state's position.

"Maloney has alleged no facts that would substantiate allegations that evidence on which the prosecution relied was compromised," the court said. "Maloney has not presented this court with any objective factual assertions that, if true, would lead to the conclusion that Paulus unlawfully altered the tapes or manipulated any evidence to Maloney's detriment."

The court held open the possibility that new information could surface that would show that Paulus acted improperly in Maloney's case.

"Though Maloney has failed to allege sufficient material facts to support allegations that Paulus acted unlawfully in his prosecution of Maloney, if any current or future investigations uncover evidence that Paulus' actions in prosecuting Maloney constituted misconduct, Maloney may file his motion to the trial court raising such misconduct at that time," the court said.

Maloney said he plans to forge on with his efforts to clear his name. A petition at the federal level is one option. A plea to the governor is another.

Maloney said he plans to pay close attention to developments in pending investigations focusing on Paulus' actions.

"There's other avenues and there's more steps," Maloney said. "I can't tell you directly what they're going to be … but I'm not giving up."

Maloney's sister, Ginny, said she was shocked when she learned of the court's decision. That shock turned into frustration as the day wore on. It's Maloney's sixth loss at the appellate level.

"They're never getting the whole picture at one time," Ginny Maloney said.

"This has been going on seven years," she said. "We need help. We need to find someone that's going to step up and help us with this. Financially, we are broke. We've been paying lawyers for seven years — almost $200,000 in lawyer fees and we are no further ahead than we were before."