A Suffolk Superior Court judge this week denied a motion filed by an attorney for PHILIP MARKOFF (D.O.B. 2/12/86), ruling that “mere speculation” was not enough to warrant further inquiry into the grand jury investigation that led to Markoff’s indictment for murder and other crimes.

Citing Massachusetts case law in response to the defense motion to produce evidence, Judge Frank Gaziano wrote that “the trial court should conduct an inquiry into the prejudicial impact of preindictment publicity where the defendant is able to raise ‘a prima facie showing of bias or prejudice so egregious as to result in an indictment based on ‘hatred or malice’ within the meaning of G.L. c. 277, Sect. 5 [the oath of Massachusetts grand jurors].’”

In a decision filed Monday, however, Gaziano found that there was no such showing.

“The existence of pervasive media coverage of a crime is not enough to carry the defendant’s burden of proof,” Gaziano wrote, citing a 1985 case in which the state’s Supreme Judicial Court found that “the exhibits of media coverage do nothing to establish animosity on the part of the grand jury toward the defendants.”

Addressing attorney John Salsberg’s claim that the grand jury’s indictment of Markoff on counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and other offenses was tainted by media coverage of the case, Gaziano wrote that “He has not … pointed to any facts suggesting that grand jurors were influenced by feelings of bias or prejudice. Moreover, the defendant has not demonstrated that the indictments were improperly based on feelings of ‘hatred or malice,’ as opposed to indictments properly returned after the grand jury considered evidence that the defendant committed the charged crimes.”

In his June motion, Salsberg implied that police or prosecutors “leaked or otherwise released to the media … confidential testimony, documents, exhibits, or other evidence or information developed during the secret grand jury proceedings in this matter.”

In his decision, Gaziano found “that the defendant failed to establish that the media reports attributed to unnamed law enforcement officials pertain to ‘matters occurring before the grand jury’ …. The news stories … do not mention testimony before the grand jury or evidence obtained through grand jury subpoena or other coercive means.”

Prosecutors had challenged Salsberg’s allegations from the start.

“I can state for the Court that … no such information has made it into the public domain, nor was disseminated in any fashion,” Assistant District Attorney Edmond Zabin told the court on June 23. “The grand jury heard about forensic links to the defendant, fingerprints, [and] information gleaned from internet service providers …. It is quite a stretch to say that the grand jury’s determination of probable cause [to indict Markoff] was tainted by media coverage of the case.”

Zabin, the chief of all homicide prosecutions in Suffolk County, also noted that in formation least half of the news stories Salsberg appended to his motion were later demonstrated to be partially or wholly incorrect, establishing that the sources of that information were not involved in the investigation or grand jury proceedings.

Markoff’s case will return to Suffolk Superior Court on Aug. 11.