Maloney case probe continues

By Jim Collar
of The Northwestern

A Friday Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the Brown County murder case against John Maloney suggests that state justices hold concerns about the possibility of further corruption on the part of Joe Paulus, a Winnebago County prosecutor said.

The Supreme Court Friday rejected the former Green Bay police officer’s claims of ineffective counsel by his trial attorney, though declined to uphold an appeals court decision to deny him post-conviction relief. While ineffective counsel arguments aren’t reason for a new trial, the court asked for further arguments on whether the case should return to the circuit court “in the interests of justice,” according to the ruling.

Maloney was accused and convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, arson and mutilating a corpse. Paulus, who served as a special prosecutor in the case, successfully argued that the former Green Bay arson investigator strangled his wife Sandy Maloney and set fire to the home. Some believe Sandy Maloney died accidentally.

Paulus is now serving a 58-month prison sentence on an unrelated conviction for bribery.

Michael Balskus, an assistant district attorney who filed a local John Doe petition for investigation into Paulus’ activities, said the Supreme Court’s decision to keep the case in its jurisdiction and seek more information is rare and suggests Paulus’ role will be more heavily scrutinized.

“I’ve never seen a court do something like this,” Balskus said.

The Maloney case is one of many being reviewed both locally and by the State Department of Justice in the wake of Paulus’ own conviction.

Paulus admitted taking $48,000 in bribes from Neenah defense attorney Milton Schierland. In return, Paulus reduced or dismissed six criminal cases and 16 drunken driving and traffic cases from 1998 to 2000. A John Doe petition filed in Winnebago County Circuit Court states that prosecutors are investigating to determine whether a transcript in the Maloney case was altered to exclude “exculpatory statements” by the defendant. The investigation would also probe other cases including the 22 still-secret cases of bribery for which Paulus was federally prosecuted.

The Winnebago County investigation was put on hold pending an investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Maloney’s Supreme Court arguments largely centered on videotaped conversations from Las Vegas between him and former girlfriend, Tracy Hellenbrand. Maloney at the Supreme Court level argued that his trial attorney should have challenged the admissibility of the tapes because Paulus violated ethical rules through his role in the undercover investigation and that the taping violated electronic surveillance laws.

Vince Biskupic, co-prosecutor during Maloney’s 1999 trial, was out of the office Friday and couldn’t be reached for comment.

Sheila Berry, a former victim-witness coordinator for Paulus and an advocate on behalf of Maloney, believes the Supreme Court will eventually reopen the case based on interests of justice. Pushing forward on Maloney’s ineffective counsel arguments meant they would had to set new precedents on a district attorney’s role in undercover investigations, she said.

Balskus said concerns regarding Paulus’ tactics in the case can be read between the lines of the Supreme Court decision.

Footnotes in the Supreme Court decision reference the $27,000 Paulus paid an outside firm to edit videotapes used in court. It further referenced notes from Paulus to the firm indicating he had replaced, modified or added new excerpts for inclusion.

Balskus said the Paulus factor can’t be ignored.

“They’re saying, ‘we take a look at the case beyond what’s presented in the briefs,’” he said. “Joe Paulus’ behavior has to be looked upon.”

Berry believes the Supreme Court’s decision for further review bodes well for Maloney.

Had the court upheld the appellate decision, Maloney still could have filed another appeal based on new information that has since come out after Paulus’ conviction. If the Supreme Court eventually decides a new trial is necessary in the interests of justice, however, it would spare Maloney from starting over and spending even more time in prison, she said.

“I think the light John sees is now at the end of a very short tunnel,” Berry said.

Jim Collar: (920) 426-6676 or jcollar@thenorthwestern.com