Bear Brook – Episode: Trial in a Trial Release Date: March 20, 2023

Introduction to the Case

Bear Brook, a critically acclaimed true crime podcast from New Hampshire Public Radio, delves deep into complex murder investigations that challenge conventional law enforcement methodologies. In Season 2, titled A True Crime Story, host Jason Moon explores the troubling case of Jason Carroll, who is serving a life sentence for a murder he maintains he did not commit. The primary evidence against Carroll is his own taped confession, raising profound questions about the reliability of such confessions and the processes surrounding them.

The Arrest and Initial Trials

By 1991, the New Hampshire legal system had made significant moves in the Sharon Johnson case. Three individuals—Ken Johnson, Tony Puff, and Jason Carroll—were arrested and charged with capital murder. The prosecution's case rested heavily on confessions and testimonies, leading to separate trials for each defendant. However, the defense faced a labyrinthine legal landscape:

• Legal Representation and Charging Differences: Each defendant received a different set of charges and was represented by separate legal teams. For example, both Jason and Tony faced kidnapping charges, with Tony additionally charged with sexual assault—a charge that was eventually dropped.

• Death Penalty Constraints: The defense teams successfully argued that the death penalty, under New Hampshire law at the time, was unconstitutional if a defendant pled guilty before a jury was seated. This legal maneuver forced the prosecution to rely solely on testimonies, particularly those of Jason and Tony, to secure convictions.

Defense Strategy by Mark Sisty and Paul Toomey

Mark Sisty and Paul Toomey, seasoned defense attorneys, spearheaded the defense for Tony Puff. Their strategy was multifaceted:

1. Challenging Confession Validity: The heart of their defense was to dismantle the credibility of Tony's taped confession. They meticulously highlighted discrepancies between Tony's account and the available evidence.

   • Mark Sisty (04:44): "What would you do in that circumstance if you were Carol or Puff? You know, I think the odds were that one of them would flip rather than they both hang tough."

2. Highlighting Investigation Flaws: Sisty and Toomey scrutinized Detective Roland Lammy's investigation methods, suggesting that Lammy's aggressive tactics may have coerced false confessions.

3. Undermining Prosecutorial Evidence: With the inability to present key confessions without violating constitutional protections, the defense focused on the inconsistencies within the prosecution's narrative.

Inconsistencies in the Confession

A significant portion of the episode details the glaring inconsistencies in Tony Puff's confession:

• Timeline Discrepancies: Tony claimed that Sharon Johnson's car was returned to the mall on the night of the murder ([17:36]-[19:19]), but evidence showed the car was only found on Saturday, three days later.

  • Tony Puff (18:10): "Get out of the car. Put the keys in my pocket."
  • Mark Sisty (19:19): "This is not where Sharon's car was actually found."

• Murder Details: Tony stated that Sharon was fully clothed during the assault and that he and Jason each stabbed her twice. In reality, Sharon sustained 14 stab wounds, and her bra had been tampered with beforehand.

• Exculpatory Details: Tony mentioned moving the car back to a specific location, which was factually incorrect, undermining the confession's credibility.

Conflict with Detective Roland Lammy

Central to the defense was their portrayal of Detective Roland Lammy as an overzealous investigator whose methods may have led to coerced confessions:

• Pre-existing Theory: Lammy approached Tony with a preconceived notion of his guilt, influencing the interrogation's direction.

• Interrogation Techniques: The defense argued that Lammy employed intimidation and manipulation, leveraging Tony's financial and legal vulnerabilities to extract a confession.

  • Mark Sisty (28:30): "I just don't think. I think he would do what it took to get confessions and do what it took to convict people he thought were guilty."

• Unauthorized Communication: A pivotal moment occurred when Lammy broke court protocol by discussing case details with his partner outside of the courtroom, leading to significant legal repercussions.

  • Paul Toomey (44:15): "It's a pretty basic rule common to virtually every criminal trial."

The Trial and Jury's Decision

The trial culminated in a dramatic showdown:

1. Phone Call Controversy: During the trial, Lammy was caught discussing case details with Detective Neil Scott, violating court orders. This led to hearings that questioned Lammy's credibility and impartiality.

   • Mark Sisty (46:17): "I think it was huge. I mean, our whole thing was that he was a dirty cop. And then he got to prove it in front of the jury."

2. Closing Arguments: Mark Sisty aggressively attacked Lammy's integrity, portraying him as a "liar" who manipulated evidence to fit his narrative.

   • Mark Sisty (46:41): "Mark had no mercy for Lammy. He called him a liar."

3. Jury Deliberation: Despite initial convictions possible within hours, the jury deliberated for nearly six hours before reaching a unanimous not guilty verdict.

   • Robert Hoagland (submission excerpt): "I thought there was no question about whether he was guilty or not... But I ended up voting not guilty."

Aftermath and Implications

Tony Puff's acquittal sent shockwaves through the New Hampshire legal community:

• Public and Media Reaction: The Union Leader published an editorial questioning Lammy's methods, although his superiors defended his actions staunchly.

• Impact on Co-defendant: With Tony acquitted and Ken Johnson released due to insufficient evidence, Jason Carroll became the sole defendant. The prosecution now faced the daunting task of securing a conviction without the previously expected testimonies.

• Legal Precedents: The case highlighted critical issues regarding confession reliability, interrogation practices, and detective conduct, potentially influencing future legal proceedings and investigative protocols.

Notable Quotes

• Mark Sisty ([03:09]): "I never doubted for a minute that she was made promises. Lambie made promises to her that he could never possibly keep."

• Mark Sisty ([28:30]): "I mean, the facts he wanted to come out were the facts that he would have been comfortable with with regard to the theory of his case, the way he looked at it. But sometimes that won't match up with reality."

• Mark Sisty ([46:41]): "Mark had no mercy for Lammy. He called him a liar. He said he'd shamed police work."

Conclusion

Bear Brook's episode "Trial in a Trial" masterfully dissects the complexities of the Tony Puff case, underscoring the precarious balance between investigative zeal and the preservation of constitutional rights. Through meticulous analysis and compelling narratives, the episode raises essential questions about the integrity of confessional evidence and the lengths to which legal practitioners will go to unveil the truth.