Judge Was Not Hostile In Trial Of NJ Man Convicted Of Murdering Family, Prosecutors Say

COLTS NECK, NJ — The New Jersey man convicted of murdering his brother and his brother’s family did receive a fair trial, despite claims from his defense attorneys that argue otherwise, prosecutors said in a new brief filed on Monday.

Paul Caneiro, 59, of Ocean Township, was convicted on all counts in February after he was accused of murdering his brother, Keith, Keith's wife, Jennifer, and their children, Jesse and Sophia, in their Colts Neck home in November 2018 before setting the home on fire.

Shortly after Caneiro’s conviction, his defense attorneys, Monika Mastellone and Andy Murray, filed a motion for a new trial.

In a brief supporting their motion, Mastellone and Murray argued that the judge involved in Caneiro’s trial, Marc C. Lemieux, “denigrated” them both in and out of the jury’s presence, which ultimately denied him the chance at a fair trial.

• Read More: 'Hostile' Judge Denied Man Convicted Of Murdering Family A Fair Trial, Attorneys Say

Prosecutors say this isn’t the case, arguing that Caneiro did receive a fair trial before an impartial judge and an unprejudiced jury in a reply from Monmouth County Prosecutor Raymond Santiago, Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor Christopher Decker and Assistant Prosecutor Nicole Wallace.

“During the course of the trial, the Court had to rule on numerous objections made by both the State and the defense. In so doing, the Court at times ruled in favor of the defense and at other times in favor of the State,” prosecutors wrote. “The vast majority of the Court’s comments regarding these objections took place at sidebar, outside the hearing of the jury.”

“Neither the Court’s conduct at sidebar, nor the Court’s conduct or comments in the presence of the jury were prejudicial to the defense. The Court’s comments to defense counsel were neither denigrating, nor hostile,” the reply said. “Rather, the Court’s comments were focused on ensuring that the case was tried in an expeditious manner, that the jury understood the evidence, and that the Rules of Evidence were followed by the parties.”

The brief goes on to argue that the defense counsel’s “lengthy questioning” of witnesses was “riddled with repetitive questions that had been asked and answered multiple times; questions that were not relevant; questions that called for speculation and/or hearsay; and, in one instance, a blatant discovery violation that arose during the defense’s case-in-chief.”

“While the State objected on multiple occasions, there were times when the Court sua sponte sustained objections yet to be made. Such intervention on behalf of the Court was wholly appropriate,” prosecutors said. “...The fact that the defense repeatedly chose to step outside the Rules of Evidence to such an extent that the Court was left with no choice but to address same on multiple occasions does not equate to unfair criticism of the defense.”

“All attorneys, including those who represent criminal defendants, must abide by the rules, with which the Court was tasked to enforce,” they said.

Caneiro's attorneys argue the judge, Lemieux, “repeatedly questioned” their credibility after accusing them of committing an intentional discovery violation, and was critical of the defense witness’s credibility.

“Some of these occurrences were so staggering that both the media and the public reported on these instances,” they wrote. “If the public spectators were impacted by these moments, then so too were the jurors.”

But prosecutors said Lemieux instructed the jury on at least two separate occasions that “any interactions between the Court and the attorneys should have no impact on the jury’s decision.”

Lemieux went on to tell jurors that part of the court’s function is to rule on objections, instructing that “any interaction … between the attorneys and the Court should have no impact on you one way or another,” the brief says.

He also told the jury that the facts and credibility of the witnesses are solely for them to decide and that such decisions “should not be based on anything other than evidence.”

“The State never denigrated the defense – it simply responded and explained how the evidence proved defendant’s guilt,” prosecutors said. “Commenting on the evidence and defendant’s summation is not, and never has been, prosecutorial misconduct in New Jersey.”

The full brief filed by Santiago, Decker and Wallace can be read here.

A hearing on the motion for a new trial has been scheduled for April 20.

Previous Coverage

• 'Hostile' Judge Denied Man Convicted Of Murdering Family A Fair Trial, Attorneys Say
• NJ Man Convicted Of Murdering Brother’s Family Files Motion For New Trial
• NJ Man Murdered Brother, Sister-In-Law, Niece, Nephew, Jury Finds
• NJ Man Accused Of Killing Brother’s Family, Torching Mansion, Stands Trial
• Judge Rules On Caneiro Release In Colts Neck Slayings, Trial Date Set
• Accused Colts Neck Killer Now Charged With Insurance Fraud
• Brother Charged With Killing Family In Colts Neck Murders
• Colts Neck Fire Was Quadruple Homicide, Family 'Targeted:' MCPO