Juliana Peres Magalhães, 25, was sentenced on Feb. 13, 2026, in Fairfax County, Virginia, to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to manslaughter in a case tied to the killings of Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan. The sentence is the state maximum for manslaughter and far exceed the prosecutors’ recommendation that she receive credit for time already served. Prosecutors had cooperated with Magalhães’s testimony, using it to help convict her lover, Brendan Banfield, of murder. The judge said Magalhães’s conduct and lack of demonstrated remorse justified the harsher term.
Key Takeaways
- Sentence: Magalhães received a 10-year term—the statutory maximum for manslaughter in Virginia—on Feb. 13, 2026.
- Prosecutor recommendation: Prosecutors recommended she be given credit for time served; that would have allowed near-immediate release.
- Cooperation: Magalhães cooperated with authorities and testified against Brendan Banfield, aiding his conviction for the murder of his wife.
- Victims and method: Victims were Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan; prosecutors say Ryan was lured via an online fetish site where Magalhães and Brendan Banfield posed as Christine Banfield.
- Court findings: Judge Penney Azcarate cited lack of remorse, failure to call 9-1-1 when urged, and testimony that Magalhães fired a fatal chest shot into Ryan after he had been shot in the head by Banfield.
- Location: The sentencing took place in Fairfax County Circuit Court; the events that led to charges occurred at the Banfield home in Herndon, Virginia.
- Age and status: Magalhães, a 25-year-old Brazilian au pair employed by the Banfield family, had been in a relationship with Brendan Banfield.
Background
The case centers on events at a Banfield family residence in Herndon, Va., that culminated in the deaths of Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan. Authorities say Ryan was lured to the house through an online fetish platform, where profiles and messages suggested a meeting with Christine Banfield; prosecutors allege that Brendan Banfield and Juliana Magalhães used those profiles as bait. Magalhães, originally employed as an au pair for the family and later identified as Brendan Banfield’s lover, became a key witness for the prosecution after she pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
Prior to Magalhães’s cooperation, investigators had pursued multiple leads about motive, planning and coordination. The publicity around the trial amplified scrutiny of online sexual marketplaces and the risks they can create when used to arrange private encounters. Local law enforcement and the Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office carried the prosecution, and proceedings were held in the Fairfax County Circuit Court, presided over by Judge Penney Azcarate.
Main Event
Magalhães pleaded guilty to manslaughter in advance of a separate sentence hearing on Feb. 13, 2026. At her plea and during subsequent testimony in Brendan Banfield’s trial, she described involvement in the events that led to the two deaths. Prosecutors say Brendan Banfield shot Joseph Ryan in the head and that Magalhães later shot Ryan in the chest to ensure he was dead; the court record reflects those allegations as part of the factual basis for her manslaughter plea.
During the sentencing hearing, Judge Azcarate reviewed the case record and identified several aggravating factors. The judge noted that, according to testimony, when Christine Banfield cried out that someone should call 9-1-1, Magalhães did not do so. The court also referenced the sequence of actions in which Magalhães is alleged to have fired a final shot into Ryan after he had already been struck in the head.
Prosecutors had urged a lenient outcome for Magalhães on the grounds of her cooperation, recommending she be credited for time served since arrest, which would have made her eligible to go free almost immediately. The judge rejected that recommendation and imposed the full 10-year term available under Virginia law for manslaughter.
Brendan Banfield’s subsequent conviction for murder relied in part on Magalhães’s courtroom testimony. That conviction was a separate proceeding; the manslaughter plea and sentence for Magalhães resolved her criminal exposure in this case while leaving open other civil or administrative consequences.
Analysis & Implications
The disparity between the prosecutors’ recommendation and the judge’s sentence highlights a tension frequently present in plea-cooperation arrangements: courts weigh a defendant’s assistance against the seriousness of the underlying conduct. Here, the judge treated the alleged facts—especially the post-shooting action and perceived lack of contrition—as sufficient to outweigh the mitigation value of cooperation.
Legally, the maximum 10-year manslaughter term in Virginia places Magalhães’s punishment at the top of the statutory range, even as the underlying homicide convictions for Brendan Banfield carry far heavier penalties. The judge’s decision may signal to prosecutors and defense attorneys that cooperation does not guarantee leniency when a court concludes the defendant’s conduct was particularly culpable or callous.
Socially, the case has renewed attention on how intimate-worker relationships intersect with household power dynamics and risk, especially when the household employee becomes involved in private or illicit relationships with family members. Policymakers and advocacy groups may push for clearer protections for domestic workers and better screening or support mechanisms in similar employment contexts.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Prosecutor Position | Judge’s Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Magalhães outcome | Credit for time served (nearly immediate release) | 10 years (state maximum for manslaughter) |
| Manslaughter maximum (VA) | 10 years (statutory maximum under state law) | |
The table shows the gap between the prosecution’s request and the court’s ruling. The judge’s imposition of the statutory maximum, despite prosecutorial support for a brief or time-served disposition, underscores judicial discretion in weighing aggravating facts against cooperation benefits. Statutory maximums provide an upper bound; plea bargains and judicial evaluations determine the actual term.
Reactions & Quotes
Courtroom observers and legal commentators reacted to the sentence as a reminder that cooperation is not an automatic shield from serious penalties when courts find aggravating behavior.
“Her actions and the lack of expressed remorse led the court to impose the maximum term available under the statute.”
Judge Penney Azcarate
The judge’s statement summarized the court’s assessment of Magalhães’s conduct and demeanor. That assessment, as recorded in the sentencing hearing, formed the core justification for departing from prosecutors’ more lenient recommendation.
“We recommended credit for time served given her substantial cooperation in the broader investigation and trial.”
Prosecutor (Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney office)
Prosecutors told the court that Magalhães had provided valuable testimony that helped secure a murder conviction for Brendan Banfield. Their sentencing recommendation reflected standard practice to seek mitigation for substantial assistance to the state, even when that assistance relates to serious offenses.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Magalhães will face immigration consequences such as deportation or administrative removal remains unconfirmed publicly and depends on immigration authorities’ review.
- Details about any additional undisclosed participants or contributors to the planning of the killings have not been independently verified beyond court testimony.
- Specific sentencing outcomes or appeals by Brendan Banfield beyond his conviction referenced in court records were not detailed in the reporting available at the time of publication.
Bottom Line
The court’s sentence of 10 years for Juliana Peres Magalhães resolves her criminal exposure in the double homicide case but highlights judicial willingness to impose maximum penalties when the judge finds aggravating conduct and insufficient remorse. The decision diverged sharply from the prosecution’s recommendation and demonstrates that cooperation, while influential, is not determinative when the facts are judged severe.
For policymakers, legal practitioners and the public, the case raises questions about plea bargaining, the treatment of cooperating defendants, protections for domestic workers, and risks associated with arranging private encounters through online platforms. Observers should watch for any appeals, post-conviction filings, or parallel administrative actions (including immigration proceedings) that could alter the practical outcome for Magalhães.
Sources
- The New York Times — media report on sentencing and court proceedings
- Fairfax County Circuit Court — official court information and docket access (official)