STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MELANIE MCGUIREÂ (05-10-0164, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2150-14T4

Background

Melanie McGuire was convicted after a 26‑day jury trial of murder, weapon possession, desecration of human remains, and perjury for the death, dismemberment and disposal of her husband; sentenced to life under NERA plus additional terms.
State's circumstantial case included internet searches on home computers, forensic linkage of garbage bags from the suitcases to bags found at McGuire's home, evidence she obtained a gun and a forged prescription for chloral hydrate, and proof of an affair and motive.
McGuire filed a timely pro se PCR petition, later represented by counsel, requesting (a) testing of garbage bags and the decedent's laptop hard drive, and (b) relief based on trial counsel's failure to retain or call experts (ballistics, pharmacology, luminol, expanded computer forensics) and certain fact witnesses (neighbor, maintenance supervisor, RMA co‑workers).
The PCR court (Judge Ferencz) denied discovery and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, finding McGuire failed to show good cause for discovery and failed to make a prima facie Strickland claim because counsel’s choices were reasonable strategic decisions and prejudice was not shown.
This appeal challenges the denial of discovery and the refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing on McGuire’s ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims; the Appellate Division affirms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McGuire)	Held
Whether PCR court erred in denying discovery/testing of garbage bags and decedent's laptop	Discovery not required absent good cause; further testing unlikely to establish IAC or change outcome	Testing could show bags from different batches or laptop searches from decedent, supporting IAC for trial counsel's failure to test	Denied—no good cause; additional testing would not undermine counsel’s reasonable strategy or show prejudice
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling/retaining experts (ballistics, pharmacology, luminol, expanded computer forensics)	Counsel made reasonable strategic choices; existing cross‑examination and defense experts addressed key issues	Failure to retain these experts was deficient and prejudicial	Denied—no prima facie IAC; counsel’s choices fall within reasonable trial strategy and no reasonable probability of different outcome
Whether supplemental retainer agreement created a conflict of interest limiting expert retention	Fee arrangement did not create a constitutionally significant conflict; no evidence counsel declined experts for fee reasons	Agreement created incentive to avoid hiring experts, impairing defense	Denied—no legal authority showing such an arrangement per se creates conflict; speculative and unsupported by record
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling fact witnesses (neighbor, maintenance supervisor, RMA co‑workers, evidence of decedent’s pharmacology training)	Counsel reasonably omitted or used statements selectively; calling witnesses risked harmful or redundant testimony	These witnesses would have corroborated McGuire’s account and undercut State’s timeline/forgery theory	Denied—trial strategy justified; witnesses’ likely testimony was weak, cumulative, or risked opening damaging lines; no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (1997) (PCR discovery available only for relevant, non‑privileged material upon good cause)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (adopting Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (prima facie standard for granting evidentiary hearing in PCR)
State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307 (2005) (deference to counsel’s tactical decisions about calling witnesses)
State v. Norman, 151 N.J. 5 (1997) (attorney fee arrangements can create a conflict requiring relief in extraordinary circumstances)
State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391 (2004) (standards of review for PCR findings and legal conclusions)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1999) (no automatic right to investigatory “fishing” in PCR)
State v. Reevey, 417 N.J. Super. 134 (App. Div. 2010) (de novo review where no evidentiary hearing was held)