Caleb Lacey appeals conviction in Lawrence Avenue murder and arson

Caleb Lacey, the former Lawrence-Cedarhurst probationary volunteer firefighter who was convicted of murder and arson charges for starting a Lawrence Avenue fire on Feb. 19, 2009, that killed four people, filed an appeal last week to the New York State Appellate Division.

Martin Geduldig, Lacey’s appellate lawyer, said that the Nassau County jury that convicted him a year after the fire may have been prejudiced against him when jurors learned that Lacey had invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during an interview with detectives.

“During the police testimony, two detectives believed [Lacey] was lying about some things he was describing, so he pled the fifth and refused to answer any more questions,” Geduldig said. “A combination of police opinion that he was lying and his constitutional right caused the jury to have an adverse reaction. You can’t use the right to exercise your constitutional right to punish and undermine statements of a defendant.”

Geduldig said that two key details of the case could be grounds for a reversal of the verdict. On the day of the crime, video surveillance from outside the Lawrence-Cedarhurst Fire Department and local businesses on Lawrence Avenue showed Lacey wearing camouflage pants.

“One month after the event, Lacey hadn’t been arrested yet, and they seized five or six pairs of camouflage pants,” Geduldig said. “Only one pair was tested for gas stains” — the pair the Nassau County district attorney’s office argued were the pants Lacey wore when he ignited the fire.

“None of the other pants were tested, and [they] were deemed clean,” Geduldig explained. “There was no test done to be able to say that. [Lacey] ran a tree removal-trimming business and used power machinery that runs on gasoline, so clearly the stains on his camouflage pants could have come from the power machinery he used in his business. The assumption that the gas on the pants taken by police [was] from the fire scene is incorrect, and telling the jury the rest of the pants were clean of gas stains — there’s no basis for that.”

Another potential problem, Geduldig said, was the D.A.’s office’s use of a memory of Lacey’s from his childhood. “When he was 12 years old, he pretended to be a fireman, and wore a red cap and used the hose attached to his house,” Geduldig said. “The D.A. used that pipe dream when he was 12, six years before the fire, as a motive that that’s what he wanted to do. There’s no proof of anything at all.”

Christopher Cassar, Lacey’s defense attorney during the trial, said that claims of ineffective counsel are a common argument in an appeal. “You see it often … but it’s a tough argument to make,” Cassar said. “I have letters from the Lacey family here, thanking me and complimenting me on the work that was done. They know how hard and difficult that case was, and it sounds like an attorney trying to create an issue without any basis.”

The district attorney’s office has 60 days to respond to Lacey’s appeal by submitting a brief to the Appellate Division. “The brief won’t go in for another 60 to 90 days,” Geduldig said. “And it will take another 60 days before the case is on the court calendar and they ask us both to come in and argue the appeal.”

The district attorney’s office had no comment on the filing of the appeal.

Lacey’s father, the Rev. Richard Lacey of the Outreach Community Church in Inwood, said he strongly expects the truth to come out. “He is definitely innocent,” he said of his son. “Everything points to that and we’re expecting God to deliver.”