FAIRFAX, Va. — A northern Virginia circuit judge ruled on Friday that prosecutors’ case against an IRS agent charged with killing his wife and another man cannot include a recorded interview from the defendant’s young daughter.
Fairfax Circuit Court Chief Judge Penney Azcarate on Friday denied prosecutors’ motion on the admissibility of the young child’s conversation with a forensic interviewer about what she believed was happening the morning her mother was killed at her home. That child’s father, Brendan Banfield, was later charged with aggravated murder in the February 2023 deaths of his wife, Christine Banfield, and Joe Ryan, a man who was invited to the house that day.
Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Eric Clingan argued that the child’s interview should be admissible evidence at trial because she is a victim of her father’s alleged killing. The killings occurred while the child was in the Banfields’ basement, authorities have said. In December, Banfield was indicted with child abuse and felony child cruelty in connection with the case.
“It’s an act of abuse against her by virtue of what her father did that morning,” Clingan said in court.
Meanwhile, John F. Carroll, who represents the father, argued in court that Banfield did not consent for his child to be interviewed by authorities at the police’s headquarters.
Azcarate sided with the defense, citing a statute that a child’s interview would be admissible only if the child was being directly victimized by the parent. She acknowledged authorities later pressed child abuse-related charges, but she said those indictments were not the basis for officials’ interview of Banfield’s daughter that day.
“The interview doesn’t fall within the statute,” Azcarate said.
The evidentiary hearing is one of a series of developments in the officials’ multifaceted investigation and prosecution of Christine Banfield and Ryan’s killings.
Carroll also moved on Friday for the court to rescind Banfield’s indictment and remove Clingan, the lead prosecutor, from the case. In his arguments, Carroll argued that Clingan guided Banfield’s co-defendant in an interview, though Azcarate denied both motions.
That co-defendant, Juliana Peres Magalhães, was originally arrested and charged with second-degree murder in the case. At the time of the killings, Magalhães and Banfield informed authorities that they walked in on Ryan attacking Christine Banfield and both shot him with different weapons, attorneys have said in court.
But last year, Magalhães pleaded guilty to manslaughter in what prosecutors have long described as a scheme led by Banfield and the au pair to frame Ryan in the stabbing of Christine Banfield.
Ahead of her plea, Magalhães provided a proffer to officials and was interviewed by Clingan, attorneys have stated in court.
Her proffer corroborated a catfishing theory that Ryan was lured to the home on a social networking platform for people interested in sexual fetishes. She also corroborated the theory that Magalhães, who began working for the family in 2021, and Brendan Banfield had a romantic relationship that began before the killings, and that she helped the husband in his conspiracy to kill his wife.
“I’m just so upset and heartbroken for doing this to Brendan,” the au pair wrote to her mother from the Fairfax County jail last October in a message, which has since been entered into court evidence. “I love him and he loves me too, I have no doubts. But it’s the right thing to do. For you. I want to be with you again.”
Despite her proffer, a divide appears evident among officials over the catfishing theory. Brendan Miller, a digital forensic examiner with the police department, testified earlier this month that his analysis of forensic evidence also suggested Christine Banfield was seeking to have an affair with Ryan.
Miller testified that his analysis was based on multiple devices, and he concluded that Christine Banfield had connected with Ryan through a social networking platform for people interested in sexual fetishes and matched her with Ryan.
His findings diverged from a theory held by other officials in the department that the messages Ryan had been receiving were actually from Brendan Banfield posing as his wife.
Deputy Chief Patrick Brusch, who oversaw the department’s major crimes bureau at the time, confirmed in testimony earlier this month that he said Miller would “never be doing another digital forensics case in your major crimes bureau” after he analyzed the evidence.
Carroll, Banfield’s attorney, argued in court that officials were not adhering to proper investigative guidelines when building their case and backing Brusch’s catfishing theory without the supporting facts.
In a court filing, Carroll wrote that Brusch resigned from the department after the hearing in which he had testified.
He wrote in another motion that “there is a willfulness in the lack of recognition of the science,” adding: “The digital forensics are facts, and the Commonwealth chooses to ignore and disregard those facts.”
___
Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
