'Hostile' Judge Denied Man Convicted Of Murdering Family A Fair Trial, Attorneys Say

COLTS NECK, NJ — The lawyers of a New Jersey man convicted of murdering his brother and his brother’s family say the judge involved in his trial “denigrated” them both in and out of the jury’s presence, ultimately denying him the chance at a fair trial.

On Monday, Monika Mastellone and Andy Murray, the attorneys for Paul Caneiro, filed a brief supporting their motion for a new trial, which was filed after Caneiro was convicted on all counts in connection with the deaths of his brother and his brother's family.

• Read More: NJ Man Murdered Brother, Sister-In-Law, Niece, Nephew, Jury Finds

In the brief filed on Monday, Caneiro’s lawyers argue that Judge Marc C. Lemieux engaged in “repeated conduct that denigrated defense counsel both in and out of the presence of the jury” throughout the trial.

Starting on the first day of the trial, Mastellone and Murray say that Lemieux was “often impatient, critical, and hostile” towards them, adding that there were “numerous instances” where Lemieux chastised and was accusatory toward the defense.

During a variety of sidebars, Caneiro’s attorneys argue that Lemieux also “exhibited a clearly angry demeanor” toward them, which could be seen by the jury.

“Such demeanor included pointing at counsel, becoming flushed, scowling, squeezing a stress ball, and other angry gesticulations,” they wrote. “This conduct continued throughout the course of the trial. This conduct, particularly when it occurred in the presence of the jury, prejudiced the defense.”

In addition to criticism of Lemieux’s conduct, Caneiro’s lawyers said that he also accused them of “committing an intentional discovery violation” for not disclosing a screenshot that they had for less than a day and did not use at trial.

According to Mastellone and Murray, the judge “repeatedly questioned” their credibility during the exchange and was also 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.”

The issue was further exacerbated by an “exceptionally positive rapport” that Lemieux built with the jury during the trial, the attorneys said.

In their brief, Mastellone and Murray argued that this rapport, when contrasted with the judge’s “consistent negative treatment of the defense,” undermined the patience and impartiality that the court must exhibit before the jury.

In addition to Lemieux, the attorneys also accused Christopher Decker, the deputy first assistant prosecutor of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office, of denigrating them during the trial.

In one instance, Mastellone and Murray argued that the evidence in the case was consistent with there being two perpetrators rather than just one.

In response, the attorneys said Decker stated, “I’m a little sick of hearing about two people.”

They went on to highlight other comments he made during the trial, including “Should we be stupid or should we follow the evidence?” which they said was a response to the defense’s argument that Paul and Keith’s brother, Corey Canerio, should have been better investigated.

“These comments demeaned the defense, improperly included the prosecutor's own personal opinion about the defense, and essentially told the jury that the defense was ‘stupid,’” the attorneys wrote.

During the trial, the defense argued that Corey Caneiro would have the same “or even greater” financial motive in the case as the state alleged Paul Caneiro did, as Corey would stand to gain $1.5 million through an insurance policy if Keith and his family were deceased.

“This information was presented at trial through the testimony of various witnesses,” the attorneys wrote in their brief. “Certain witnesses were also able to confirm that Corey had knowledge of the trust based on communications that he had with Keith about it.”

“However, none of these witnesses testified — one way or another — whether Corey had knowledge that he was a beneficiary,” they continued. “This information was simply never presented to the jury and Corey did not testify at trial.”

Though Corey did not testify, Mastellone and Murray said the State “repeatedly told the jury that ‘Corey had no idea’ and that Corey ‘didn’t even know about’ the fact that he was a beneficiary,” and argued that it “shouldn’t have to prove” that Corey didn’t have anything to do with the murders.

“These prejudicial statements…not only provided the jury with information found nowhere in the trial but also unfairly misstated the State's burden and shifted the burden to the defense,” they wrote.

“...the State was well within its rights to make arguments to the jury that dispelled or disproved the defense,” they continued. “However, the State was not within its rights to argue information that was never testified to by any witness, or to renounce its burden, or to shift the burden to the defense by faulting them for not presenting more information pertaining to Corey Caneiro.”

A reply brief from the prosecution is due on April 6, according to a report from NJ.com.

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

The full brief filed by Caneiro’s attorneys can be read here.

Previous Coverage

• 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