By Craig Anderson

WILMINGTON —  In the recent superseding indictment of Delaware State Auditor Kathy McGuiness, her lawyer argues the allegations against her are inadequately defined and that a possible trial delay could hurt her political aspirations.

In a motion for dismissal of a structuring charge last week by defense attorney Steve Wood maintained that the superseding indictment presented a “new theory underlying the structuring charge (and payments) made that is opaque ...” and any supposed offense is not adequately justified by the prosecution.

Ms. McGuiness is facing charges of conflict of interest, felony theft, structuring aka non-compliance with procurement law, official misconduct, and act of intimidation. The defense has filed a motion to drop the act of intimidation charge as well.

Ms. McGuiness has pleaded not guilty to all counts.

The superseding indictment, returned March 28, would also prove problematic for Ms. McGuiness’s short-term political future, according to the motion.

The motion states that Ms. McGuiness “is an elected official who intends to run for re-election in November of 2022.

“Obviously, the resolution of these criminal charges will likely determine whether she is successful in that endeavor and the longer this matter hangs over her head, the more corrosive its effects become.

“(Ms. McGuiness) has also been the subject of ongoing efforts by some in the General Assembly to remove her from office, and clearly those efforts will not abate until this matter is resolved.

“It is (Ms. McGuiness’s) desire to proceed to trial as scheduled but the (superseding indictment) may well force her to choose between a speedy trial and adequate pre-trial preparation.

“That choice is untenable, especially given the wholly unnecessary delay in presenting count three (structuring) of the Superseding Indictment by the Grand Jury.

“The prejudice to the Defendant is obvious.”

According to the defense, the superseding indictment “made significant changes in the factual allegations (made earlier) in support of the structuring charge.

“Gone were the false assertions of multiple payments of less than $5,000,” made to My Campaign Group as part of a state contract for professional services.

The state alleged that invoices had been produced to avoid scrutiny by Division of Accounting.

Mr. Denney responded to the motion, in part, by saying the superseding indictment “actually provides more precise detail on the facts in support of structuring - even though it is not required to.”

Also, Mr. Denney maintained, the superseding indictment presented no new charges and the crime alleged in count three remains the same.

Additionally in its response, the state said it was focused on Ms. McGuiness’s state of mind regarding the transactions.

While the trial of Ms. McGuiness is scheduled to begin May 16, Superior Court Judge William C. Carpenter Jr. speculated that the proceeding could be pushed back into the late summer or early fall. The trial is tentatively scheduled for two weeks.

Judge Carpenter will consider this newest motion and render a decision in the near future.

With pending motions - including requests to drop structuring and act of intimidation charges in the case - Judge Carpenter noted that the litigation “is too serious to rush the process.”

Judge Carpenter also noted that his trial calendar, which includes at least two murder cases, is heavy due to a backlog of cases brought by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delaware Department of Justice spokesman Mat Marshall declined comment Monday. An attempt to reach Mr. Wood for comment was unsuccessful.