Trial in a Trial

Summary

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.

Transcript

[Mark Sisty]

Netcredit is here to say yes because.

[Paul Toomey]

You'Re more than a credit score.

[Mark Sisty]

Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner.

[Paul Toomey]

Banks and serviced by Netcredit.

[Mark Sisty]

Applications subject to review and approval.

[Paul Toomey]

Learn [e-mail] partners NetCredit credit to the.

[Mark Sisty]

People.

[Paul Toomey]

Hi, I'm Dahlvette Quince.

[Mark Sisty]

One way to help manage type 2 diabetes is to regularly exercise. My exercise program can help get you into a routine that works for you. Keep in mind managing blood sugar also takes the right diet. Hi, I'm celebrity chef Franklin Becker. Ever since I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I've adapted my cooking style without sacrificing flavor. If you want to learn more tips about diet and exercise, visit my type2transformation.com don't miss the Hulu original docu series Devil in the Family. The Follow Ruby Frankie My wife created a YouTube channel.

[Paul Toomey]

Thumbs up. Subscribe but only what we wanted to show.

[Mark Sisty]

I'm still recording a three part series event. She said the children were demonically possessed.

[Paul Toomey]

Get out.

[Mark Sisty]

That blew the powder keg. Ruby crossed a line to psychotic. All right, I'm on emergency. Open the door. Hulu Stabil in the Family the Fall of Ruby Frankie. All episodes now streaming on Hulu. I'm Todd Bookman, a reporter at New Hampshire Public Radio. For the last six months, I've been thinking a lot about a cat named Sergeant Tibbs who goes missing, who's then.

[Paul Toomey]

Found, and who would land at the center of so much human pain, anger and and confusion. It's not about the cat anymore. It's just about everything else.

[Mark Sisty]

The final days of Sergeant Tibbs. A new podcast from NHPR about what.

[Paul Toomey]

We owe our pets and each other.

[Mark Sisty]

Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts. Previously on bear Brook. Season 2 A True Crime story. Right from the top again. Jason, when were you first contacted? July 27, 1988. To do what? Kill Sharon Johnson. By whom? Tony Puff. I want you to explain to the jury if you will, and I know it's very difficult to do this, but I must ask you, how does Tony Puff feel about having participated in the murder of Sharon Johnson? I feel bad and I'm sorry it took place and I wish it had never even happened. Karen basically said to me all kinds of promises have been made to him and I trust Roland Lammy explicitly. And we got into kind of a heated discussion. I never doubted for a minute that she was made promises. Lambie made promises to her that he could never possibly keep.

[Paul Toomey]

By the year 1991, the state of New Hampshire had their story of who killed Sharon Johnson. They had arrested three people and charged them all with capital murder. Ken Johnson, Tony Puff, and Jason Carroll waited in separate jails for their day in court. None of them could afford to pay for their own attorney, so the court assigned them each a different team of lawyers. A judge also decided to try each of them separately. They faced different sets of charges in addition to capital murder. For instance, Jason and Tony were charged with kidnapping, since it was they who allegedly abducted Sharon from the mall. And Tony alone was charged with sexual assault for allegedly touching Sharon's breasts during the attack, though that particular charge was later dropped. And so the stage was set for three trials, each with a different defendant, a different set of defense lawyers, and a different jury. Ken was scheduled to be tried first, then Tony, then Jason. For the defense teams, it was a complicated situation. Their interests were aligned, but only so long as they were all pleading not guilty and not testifying against each other at any time, one of the three could try to cut a deal with the state and turn on the others. Ken was represented by Buz Schur and Jim Moyer.

[Mark Sisty]

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. I mean, that was the anxiety on our part. It would be hard to believe when faced with a capital charge that you're not gonna flip to save your life.

[Paul Toomey]

But by the fall of 1991, about two years since they were all arrested, Jason and Tony hadn't flipped. One possible reason for that. The three defense teams had joined together and successfully argued that New Hampshire's death penalty law, as it was written then, was unconstitutional. Back then, only juries could impose the death penalty in New Hampshire. So if a defendant pled guilty before trial, before a jury was seated, they'd be sentenced by a judge and therefore escape the death penalty. The defense lawyers argued, and the courts agreed that undermined defendants constitutional right to a trial by jury, since by definition, that was the more dangerous route for them. So the death penalty was now off the table for Ken, Tony, and Jason. Ken's trial was scheduled to start in just a few weeks, and the prosecutors were in a real bind. Unless Jason or Tony agreed to testify as witnesses, the state could not enter their confessions as evidence against Ken. That's because the sixth amendment to the Constitution gives criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses who testify against them. If Jason or Tony's words were going to be used to say that Ken was guilty. Ken's lawyers had a right to cross examine Jason and Tony, but Jason and Tony didn't have to testify because of the fifth amendment to the constitution, the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves. The lead prosecutor told a reporter he and his staff spent countless hours trying to find a way around this. But in the end, they couldn't. And so In October of 1991, prosecutors did something they really, really did not want to do. They dropped all the charges against Ken Johnson. No matter how convinced they were that Ken was guilty, without Tony or Jason's testimony, they just didn't have a case.

[Mark Sisty]

The reason I remember this so well is that we picked him up from the jail. They were releasing him. Duncan Dome. My car was in the shop that day, and I had borrowed my mother's car. And my mother's car had a unique license plate. It said granny. And so we jumped in the car, we went to pick him up from the jail, and there's press all outside. I'm in the car waiting, like the getaway car. And I think, buzz, you got out and said, come on, Kenny, let's go. And for some reason, Ken decided instead of getting in the car and driving away, walking across Willow street or Elm street, whatever it was, to Dunkin donuts with the press following him, just, you know, the cameras, everything following him, and we're saying, come on, come on. He got himself a cup of coffee.

[Paul Toomey]

Jim says Ken said nothing to the reporters. He just calmly bought a cup of coffee and then walked back to the car.

[Mark Sisty]

My mother then saw it on Channel 9 news that night and saw her car. She was really pissed. What are you putting murderers in my car for?

[Paul Toomey]

Even the mother of Ken's lawyer seemed to think he was guilty. But the state knew they couldn't win at trial, so they let him go. Ken, the state's lead suspect from almost the moment Sharon was murdered, was a free man. Now it was just Tony and Jason, each facing life in prison. This is Bear Brook Season 2 A true crime story. I'm Jason Moon. Do you have saving money written down as one of your new year's resolutions? What if you could make that automatic? Acorns makes it easy to start automatically saving and investing so your money has a chance to grow for you, your kids, and your retirement. You don't need to be an expert because acorns will recommend a diversified portfolio that fits you and your money goals. And guess what? You also don't need to be rich, because acorns lets you invest with the spare money you've got right now. Or you can start with $5 or even just some change. You can set your account to do roundups from your purchases with multipliers, or you can do automatic deductions from your bank account.

[Mark Sisty]

It is so easy.

[Paul Toomey]

I started Acorns about a year ago and I cannot believe how quickly my savings has added up. You don't need to feel like financial wellness is impossible because Acorns gives you small, simple steps to get you and your money on track and it builds great habits. It did for me. Basically, Acorns does the hard part so you can give your money a chance to grow. Head to acorns.combrook or download the Acorns app to start saving and investing for your future today. Paid non client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns Tier 2 compensation provided investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors, LLC, an SEC registered investment advisor. View important [e-mail] Brooke.

[Mark Sisty]

With an advanced network, cybersecurity solutions and trusted partnership, Comcast Business powers more businesses than anyone Comcast Business powering possibilities restrictions apply. Call or visit comcastbusiness.com to learn more. Don't miss the Hulu Original docu series Devil in the Family the Follow Ruby Frankie My wife creating a YouTube channel.

[Paul Toomey]

Thumbs up subscribe, but only what we wanted to show.

[Mark Sisty]

I'm still recording a three part series event. She said the children were demonically possessed.

[Paul Toomey]

Get out.

[Mark Sisty]

That blew the powder keg. Ruby crossed a line to psychotic 9 online emergency.

[Paul Toomey]

Open the door.

[Mark Sisty]

Hulu Stabil in the Family the Fall of Ruby Frankie all episodes now streaming on Hulu.

[Paul Toomey]

Colon cancer is considered one of the most preventable but least prevented cancers. That's why screening for colon cancer is critical. Sometimes people want to avoid the drama.

[Mark Sisty]

Of screening with a colonoscopy.

[Paul Toomey]

You know, the prep, the downtime, all of it.

[Mark Sisty]

Thankfully, there's the cologuard test, a non invasive screening option for adults 45 and older at average risk that is delivered right to your door.

[Paul Toomey]

Early detection is critical when caught early, colon cancer is survivable in 90% of the cases.

[Mark Sisty]

With the cologuard test. The process is simple.

[Paul Toomey]

The test is delivered to your door. You send the sample back to the lab and get results within two weeks. The best part?

[Mark Sisty]

The cologuard test is covered by most insurance plans.

[Paul Toomey]

The cologuard test is intended to screen adults 45 and older at average risk for colorectal cancer. Ask your healthcare provider about screening with cologuard Cologuard is available by prescription only. Visit cologuard.com to learn more.

[Mark Sisty]

What did we walk into? I mean, the fact pattern was horrendous. I mean, a kidnapping, a brutal murder of a pregnant woman. And, you know, this is something that, you know, you're starting basically with two and a half strikes against you before you step in the box.

[Paul Toomey]

This is Mark Sisty, one of the lawyers who defended Tony Puff. I talked with him and his former partner, Paul Toomey. They worked together for decades. By their count, they defended as many as 80 people charged with murder. Talking to them feels like talking to two brothers who grew up together. They have lots of stories, like the time their office burned down.

[Mark Sisty]

The fire was a good story, too. Oh, gosh, go on. One of our clients is reputed to have said it who was looking for something. No, no, no, no. He wanted to continue. We were his six lawyers, and the first five quit because they were afraid of him. And we were the stupid ones who took it. Sure, we'll take the case. He took it on a Thursday. It burned down on, like a Monday. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Paul Toomey]

For a time, and probably still today, Mark and Paul were among the most famous defense attorneys in New Hampshire. Mark wears a ponytail and silver spectacles. Picture a Ben Franklin grizzled by dozens and dozens of homicide trials. It feels like Mark is always on his feet in a conversation, always quicker than you are and Paul. But Paul somehow managed to operate a small farm on his property while also practicing as an attorney. His tall face looks out at you from beneath a head of thick silver hair. For years, all the high profile cases seemed to go to Mark and Paul. Just a few months before they were set to defend Tony Puff in trial, they defended Pamela Smart, who you might have heard of. Smart was accused of conspiring with teenage boys to kill her husband.

[Mark Sisty]

Do you want this jury to understand that Bill Flynn decided to kill your.

[Paul Toomey]

Husband because you broke up with him?

[Mark Sisty]

I want this jury to understand the truth.

[Paul Toomey]

Pam Smart's trial attracted national attention. It was the first murder trial in the US to be televised live from start to finish. Which meant Mark and Paul were on TV a lot. People knew them. And now, once again, Mark and Paul were appointed to a case where someone was accused of conspiring with teenagers to kill their spouse. Tony's trial would all come down to his confession. That's because there was no other evidence against him. Police found no physical evidence linking Tony to this crime. No fingerprints in Sharon's car. No shoe impressions at the construction site. Nothing that proved he'd been with Sharon or was at the site where her body was found. Police also couldn't find evidence to corroborate key parts of Tony's confession, like the idea that Tony was paid by Ken to commit the murder, or that Tony and Ken had talked on the phone in the days before they killed Sharon. Police couldn't find any bank statements or phone records to back up either. No physical evidence, no paper trail, Just Tony's words on a tape and whether 12 jurors would believe them. The trial began on December 4, 1991. You already know what the prosecutors say happened. So I'm going to tell you about the case that Mark and Paul put on for the jury as a story. It had two main themes. One, Tony's confession is just not true.

[Mark Sisty]

It wasn't your typical confession case. Things just weren't adding up. And it was clearly appeared to be a coerced false confession case right out of the gate. I mean, it was clearly not true. It was clearly a not true confession.

[Paul Toomey]

Clearly not a true confession. To convince the jury of that, Mark and Paul directed their attention to parts of Tony's confession where he says things that just didn't line up with reality. One example of that comes near the middle of Tony's tape confession.

[Mark Sisty]

What happens now? We get in our vehicles underneath. Okay, what vehicles are we talking about now?

[Paul Toomey]

By this point, Tony has told detective Roland Lammy that he, Jason, and Ken all murdered Sharon at a construction site. Tony says after that, he and Jason got back into Sharon's green Subaru and drove it right back to the mall.

[Mark Sisty]

What happens? You get in the car. I shut the car. Get in the car. We go there, back to the mall. We put the car back behind the mall by the food court and sears.

[Paul Toomey]

Right.

[Mark Sisty]

Get out of the car. Put the keys in my pocket.

[Paul Toomey]

All right. This statement is a big problem for the investigators. Remember the mystery of the car from the early investigation. Sharon was murdered on a Thursday, but her car wasn't found at the mall until Saturday. And yet here in Tony's confession, he's saying they left it there on Thursday, the same night as the murder. But it's not just the wrong night. It's also the wrong location. The part of the parking lot Tony just said he left the car in between the food court and the sears is not the area where Sharon's car was found. This is a mall parking lot. So it's huge. Goes around the whole building. And in reality, Sharon's car was found on a whole different side of the mall, near the Sears Automotive entrance. So Tony's story about the car has a few issues. And during the interrogation, it seems like Lammy knows it. A few minutes later, he circles back to this detail about the car.

[Mark Sisty]

The car was moved again. Can you explain how that happened? You took the keys, you said. Where did you park it? At the Sears parking lot. I told one of the officers where I parked it. I don't remember what aisle it was, but it was not exactly in front of the food court. It was in between the food court and then.

[Paul Toomey]

See ya again. This is not where Sharon's car was actually found. Lammy tries again.

[Mark Sisty]

Now, let me ask you a question. Okay. I know you're having a hard time remembering. I don't want to put any words in your mouth, but is it that you don't remember if you went back and got the car again at this time? Or is it that you simply do remember that you only left her there once and took the keys? Did you go back after the car the next day? That night, later that night, into the morning? I went back to the car. I went back to the car. Okay, could you please explain that and with whom? It was by myself. All right. Why did you go back to the cab? To make sure I didn't leave anything. To make sure I didn't leave anything behind. Okay. Did you move it at that time? Did you go for a ride with it? Did you leave it someplace? Did you take it someplace and bring it back another day? No, I didn't go anywhere with it. Mm.

[Paul Toomey]

Despite being asked about it repeatedly and despite the hints from Lammy, Tony's story about Sharon's car just doesn't line up with what police know. Tony's confession puts the car back at the mall on the wrong night and in the wrong location. And there were plenty of other examples for Tony's lawyers, Mark and Paul, to choose from. Like how in describing Sharon's murder, Tony mentions a total of four stabs. Two from Jason, two from him. In reality, Sharon was stabbed 14 times. Or how Tony says Sharon was fully clothed when she was stabbed. In reality, Sharon's bra had been cut open with a knife in the front before she was stabbed. Or how Tony says he left the keys to Sharon's car underneath the seat when police found her car. The keys were nowhere to be found. And then there's this story Tony tells about meeting with Ken after the murder. It's maybe the biggest difference between Tony's confession and the known fact. Tony says sometime after the Murder doesn't say exactly when he drove to Ken's house to talk with him.

[Mark Sisty]

He asked me if I had told anybody, and I said, no, I haven't told anybody. And he. He asked me about Jason. Were you with anyone when he went to his house this morning? No, it was by myself. I was driving the 81 Malibu Classic. The color blue.

[Paul Toomey]

Okay. Detective Lammy has been trying to pry specifics from Tony this entire tape recording. And here's a rare instance where Tony delivers. He said he drove his car, a blue 1981 Malibu Classic, to see Ken at his house after the murder. Only Tony definitively did not do that. We know that because 12 days before the murder, at 3:20am Tony was pulled over in his blue 81 Malibu Classic for a broken tail light. Tony was driving with a suspended license. He was arrested, his car was impounded, and Tony never got the Malibu Classic back. So Tony's confession includes a scene where he's driving a car that in reality was held by the police at that time by the Allenstown police, in fact, the town that includes much of Bear Brook State Park. The cop handling Tony's case for that arrest was someone you might remember, Ron Montplaisir.

[Mark Sisty]

You talk about noise complaints, the country music was blaring.

[Paul Toomey]

Not that I don't like country music.

[Mark Sisty]

I do like country music.

[Paul Toomey]

Tony's confession didn't line up with the physical evidence, but that wasn't the only thing Mark and Paul wanted to show the jury. There were also all the inconsistencies between Tony's confession and Jason's. As far as Mark and Paul saw it, Jason's confession was good for Tony's case. If they were both there, why were their stories so different? But they had a problem. Remember how prosecutors couldn't bring in Jason's confessions to a trial for Ken without calling Jason as a witness? Well, Tony's defense couldn't either. In Tony's trial, Jason's confessions were legally considered hearsay, not allowed as evidence. The basic idea behind the hearsay rule is to keep unreliable gossip from leaking in through someone's testimony. But the hearsay rule has lots of exceptions, and the arguments around them can get notoriously complicated. And during the hand to hand legal combat of Tony's trial, Mark and Paul successfully argued one of those exceptions did apply in this case. The judge allowed the jury to hear Jason's confessions, partly because Tony's confession was recorded after Jason's. Tony heard Jason's confession at the construction site, and Lammy referenced what Jason said while interrogating Tony, Mark and Paul argued that influenced what Tony said and whether it was reliable. And for the jury to fairly weigh that argument, they needed to hear Jason's confessions, too. And so, with that bit of clever legal maneuvering, Jason's confessions entered Tony's trial. It was a bold move for Mark and Paul. The judge told the jury Jason's tapes were only to be taken to judge the reliability of Tony's confession and not for the truth of the matter. But still, the jury was going to hear Jason say Tony stabbed and strangled Sharon. But Mark and Paul felt it was worth it. The inconsistencies were too glaring. And so they made sure the jury heard lots and lots of them, like the motive for the murder. Tony says in his confession that Ken wanted Sharon killed because he was deep in debt. Jason says at first he wasn't told why Ken wanted his wife dead. Then later, Jason says it was because Sharon had caught Ken raping his daughter and doing some very other criminal acts. At the construction site. Jason says Ken and Sharon had a big argument before they stabbed her. Tony says Ken emerged from somewhere nearby only after Sharon had been stabbed. Then there's the murder weapon. Jason says the knife they used to kill Sharon was his, a brown folding pocket knife. Tony says the knife they used was white and silver and belonged to Lisa Johnson, Ken's daughter. The money. Tony says ken paid them $10,000. Jason at first says he was paid $500, then $2,000. Then finally he says they split the 10 grand. Tony says Ken paid them at his house on the night of the murder. Jason says they were paid in the morning, two days later. Why didn't Tony's confession, Jason's confession, and the physical evidence all line up? To Mark and Paul, the answer was obvious. Detective Roland Lammy. His conduct, his character. That was the second theme of their defense.

[Mark Sisty]

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.

[Paul Toomey]

Mark and Paul knew Lammy well. They'd faced off with him before in court. They actually kind of like him. But according to Mark and Paul, Lammy had a tendency to will his theory of a case into existence.

[Mark Sisty]

I never got the sense that he tried to convict people that he thought were innocent. I mean, I never got that sense at all. But 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. And that's a dangerous thing. I mean, it is.

[Paul Toomey]

I talked to a number of other defense attorneys who had clients Lammy investigated. They all agreed Lammy had this reputation. But none of them could point me to a specific instance where Lammy crossed a line. So whether that reputation was founded, I don't know. But it's what Mark and Paul saw here. A detective assured of his own theory who, through intimidation and insinuation, got Tony to confess to that theory. Mark and Paul saw a whole alternate version of the story of Lammy's investigation. One that answered the question, why did Tony say all of this if it weren't true? What would motivate him to do that? That's after the break.

[Mark Sisty]

Business. It's all the things that keep this world turning. And behind every one of these companies is a partner helping to keep it all moving. It's why the local flower shop and your favorite pizza joint. The startup and the stadium Hospitals and hotels, banks and restaurants nationwide all choose the advanced network cybersecurity solutions and round the clock trusted partnership from Comcast Business, the company that powers more businesses than anyone else. Comcast Business Powering possibilities restrictions apply. Call or visit comcastbusiness.com to learn more. Don't miss the Hulu original docu series Devil in the Family the Follow Ruby Frankie My wife creating a YouTube channel.

[Paul Toomey]

Thumbs up. Subscribe, but only what we wanted to show.

[Mark Sisty]

I'm still recording a three part series of that. She said the children were demonstrating demonically possessed get out. That blew the powder keg.

[Paul Toomey]

Ruby crossed a line to psychotic 911 emergency. Open the door.

[Mark Sisty]

Hulu Stabil in the Family the Fall of Ruby Frankie all episodes now streaming on Hulu. Colon cancer is considered one of the most preventable but least prevented cancers. That's why screening for colon cancer is critical. Sometimes people want to avoid the drama of screening with a colonoscopy. You know, the prep, the downtime, all of it.

[Paul Toomey]

Thankfully, there's the cologuard test, a non.

[Mark Sisty]

Invasive screening option for adults 45 and older at average risk that is delivered right to your door.

[Paul Toomey]

Early detection is critical when caught early, colon cancer is survivable in 90% of.

[Mark Sisty]

The cases with the cologuard test. The process is simple.

[Paul Toomey]

The test is delivered to your door.

[Mark Sisty]

You send the sample back to the lab and get results within two weeks. The best part? The cologuard test is covered by most insurance plans. The cologuard test is intended to screen.

[Paul Toomey]

Adults 45 and older at average risk for colorectal Cancer. Ask your healthcare provider about screening with cologuard. Cologuard is available by prescription only.

[Mark Sisty]

Visit cologuard.com to learn more. Hanaday presents in the red corner, the undisputed undefeated weed whacker guide champion of hurling grass and pollen everywhere. And in the blue corner, the challenger extra strength Hanaday eye drops that work all day to prevent the release of histamines that cause itchy allergy eyes. And the winner by knockout is Pataday. Pataday. Bring it on.

[Paul Toomey]

Mark. Sisty versus Roland Lammy was the main event of Tony Puff's trial. A showdown between two veterans of their trades. Cop versus lawyer, interrogator versus cross examiner. Mark Cross examines Lammy for hours. One of the things he hones in on is how Tony acted during the investigation. Behaviors that Mark says just don't make any sense. If Lammy's theory is true, remember how when Lammy first makes contact with Tony, Tony agrees to help in the investigation and they go down to the motel in Rhode island and try to get Ken to incriminate himself. I don't have the audio of Tony's trial, but it's not hard to read the sparks into the transcript of the courtroom. Back and forth between Mark and Lammy on this. Mark is basically saying it's crazy to think that Tony would volunteer to fly up to New Hampshire to help police catch the guy who paid him to commit murder. Why would Tony be trying to entrap his own co conspirator who could just as easily take Tony down with him? Mark says, that's absolutely ridiculous, isn't it? Lammy fires back, it's not ridiculous if Ken knew police were listening. Mark says, okay, now we're going to hear some objective fact that Ken Johnson knew the police were listening. Tell the jury the objective fact. Lammy says it's just a conclusion. It's a conclusion without any support. Right, Sergeant? Pretty much. Could we. We call that speculation. Right. Lammy is forced to answer yes. If Tony really did kill Sharon, why did he agree to fly from North Carolina to New Hampshire to help in the investigation twice. Once in March of 89 when he tried to entrap Ken Johnson. And again about eight months later when he walked right into Lammy's trap at the construction site. Lammy said it was because Tony was conning them, trying to throw police off the scent. But Mark and Paul had a different story about a 19 year old kid under the thumb of state police about serious incentives for Tony to make stuff up that were just off stage in the police's telling of the story and about a detective who was willing to lie to make his theory of the case come true.

[Mark Sisty]

And that was the. That was everything. That was the beginning to the end. You're gonna see a lying cop. Can you stick with us on this?

[Paul Toomey]

Let's rewind the clock and hear the story of Lammy's investigation as told from Mark and Paul's perspective. Sharon Johnson is murdered in July 1988. For six months, police can't solve it. They can't figure out who this Bob is that Sharon was supposed to be meeting the night she was killed. And they can't figure out who moved Sharon's car. Lammy takes over the case in January of 1989. By March, he has a hunch that Tony might know something. But he has a hard time finding Tony, so he calls some of his relatives. Lammy talks to a couple, Deborah and George Gagnon. They will become key characters in Lammie's alleged manipulation of Tony. To the Gagnons, Tony was technically an ex step nephew, but not technically. Deborah and George were like parents to Tony. Deborah Gagnon testified at Tony's trial that when Lammy called looking for Tony, he asked her if we thought if Tony was asked to move a car from point A to point B, if he would do it. And I said yes. In his own testimony, Detective Lammy agrees. This is what happened. This means that Lammy had the notion in his head that Tony moved Sharon's car before he even talked to Tony. When Lammy finally gets Tony on the phone, lo and behold, Tony tells him Ken asked him to move Sharon's car. But why would Tony say even that much if it weren't true? In Mark and Paul's story, the answer is leverage. Lammy had leverage over Tony. Tony had several warrants out for his arrest when Lammy first called him. Motor vehicle violations that Tony had failed to appear in court for. He also owed child support payments to Lisa Johnson, Ken's stepdaughter. Mark and Paul argued that all of this provided a powerful incentive for Tony to play along with whatever Lammy had in mind, since Lammy could arrest him at any moment on his outstanding warrants. The implication from Tony's lawyers was that he was just trying to say or do whatever he thought Lammy wanted so he could avoid consequences like maybe say, he moved a car when he really didn't. And whether this view of events is accurate. Once Tony starts cooperating, Lammy does pull strings for him. He calls the local PD that held Tony's Arrest warrants. And they put the warrants on an inactive status. Tony learns play along with the cops, get favors. Now, Mark and Paul weren't arguing here that Lammy was knowingly planting a false story in Tony. Instead, they implied that Lammy just got fooled. A kind of confirmation bias. He squeezed Tony, Tony talked. And what Tony said matched Lammy's pre existing theory. And Detective Lammy wasn't shy about squeezing people. As this next moment shows in the fall of 1989, Lammy is looking for Tony for the second time. By this point, Lammy believes Tony was directly involved in the murder. He thinks Tony was playing him during their trip to Rhode Island. But again, Lammie can't find Tony. When Lammy calls Tony's parental figures, Deborah and George Gagnon, they tell Lammie they're not sure where he is either. But Lammie doesn't really believe them. And to provide a little extra motivation for the Gagnons to find Tony, he lies to them. Lammie tells the Gagnans that he thinks Tony has AIDS. Remember, this is 1989 when Lammy says this, just a few years before the peak of the AIDS crisis in America. Deborah testifies she was so frightened she drove her entire family to the doctor's office and asked to have them tested. By the way, Lammy lying to people like this, totally legal. And eventually it seems to work. He does get Tony on the phone again. And Lammy, who still has the same leverage over Tony, the inactive arrest warrants, the child support payments, convinces Tony to come back to New Hampshire once again. Only this time, Lammy is luring Tony into a trap. At the construction site, Tony is confronted by Jason and his confession. Tony says Jason is crazy. He says none of that ever happened. He tries to tell Lammy he didn't even move the car like he originally said. But now it's too late. Lammy is convinced Tony is guilty. Police interrogate Tony for three hours before they turn the tape recorder on. At one point, Tony asks to see Deborah and George Gagnon. Lammy calls them and they drive to the police station. They arrive about an hour and a half into Tony's interrogation. At Tony's trial, Deborah testifies. When they arrived, Tony's eyes were wide and bloodshot. She says he looked like a wild animal. George says he looked like death warmed over. Deborah testifies. Lammy kept telling Tony over and over again, it'll be easier if you cooperate. Debra testifies, Tony kept saying he had nothing to confess to. Debra testifies that at one point during the interrogation, Tommy Tony leaned onto her and whispered, I'm just going to tell them what they want to hear because they're not going to let me out of here unless I do. Finally, and this is according to the police report, Tony threw up his arms and said, I'm ready. And that's when the detectives turned on the tape recorder.

[Mark Sisty]

Tony, are you aware that this is being recorded? Yes. Would you speak it up, please? Yes. Thank you.

[Paul Toomey]

So this is the alternate version of the story that Tony's lawyers, Mark and Paul are putting forward. During the trial, lammy bullied a 19 year old Tony into confessing to his pre existing theories of the case. It was by no means a sure thing. There's still a taped confession where Tony Puff says he stabbed Sharon Johnson. And a lot of what the Gagnons testified to was disputed by police testimony. The inconsistencies in Tony's confession could be explained as simple mistakes in his recollection and convincing a New Hampshire jury that a state police detective was a liar. Remember, it's 1991. It would be hard to pull off today. Even harder then. But then Lammy does something that will change the course of the trial. Something that plays right into Mark and Paul's strategy. After a long day of being cross examined by Mark, Lammy goes home and takes a phone call. At the beginning of just about every criminal trial, the judge issues an order which says witnesses are not allowed to talk to each other until the trial is over.

[Mark Sisty]

Yeah, I mean, it's important so that they don't get together and, you know, meld their stories and make them right.

[Paul Toomey]

It's a pretty basic rule common to virtually every criminal trial. But on this night when Lammy gets home and picks up the phone, he breaks that rule. He gets a call from another potential witness in the case, his partner, Detective Neil Scott. According to Lammy, he and Neal talked about the fact that they would be questioned about Jason Carroll, which they were not expecting. During Tony Puff's trial, Lammy says he told Neil he was going to have to spend the night reading their old reports. Lammy said, I'm afraid I might screw up and not remember the details. Neil allegedly told Lammy he wouldn't remember either if he was called to testify. They say they weren't trying to coordinate their testimony, though at one point Neil acknowledged they weren't supposed to be talking about that. We'll never really know what was said on that phone call. The only reason we know it happened is because the prosecutor handling the case accidentally interrupted it. He called Lammy that night, while Lammy was on the phone with Neil, when Lammy switched lines to answer the call from the prosecutor, he said, hold on, I've got Neil on the phone. Maybe Lammy blurted that out because he didn't think it was a big deal, or maybe he didn't think the prosecutor would actually tell the judge, but he did.

[Mark Sisty]

That turned into a trial inside of a trial, which was a great opportunity for us, actually.

[Paul Toomey]

It became the most significant moment in the trial. Witness testimony was postponed for a week while hearings about this phone call were held. Detectives Lammy and Scott were forced to hire their own lawyers. Mark and Paul tried to have the whole case dismissed. The judge didn't go for that, but still, it was more than Mark and Paul could have hoped for.

[Mark Sisty]

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. The judge just. He was just furious. He was absolutely furious. And the jury could tell he was furious. And he gave them an instruction that Roland had disobeyed court orders, and they were free to disregard everything he said, which you don't hear that instruction very often from judges.

[Paul Toomey]

In his closing argument, Mark had no mercy for Lammy. He called him a liar. He said he'd shamed police work. And Mark did not let the jury forget how Lammy had violated the court order. Mark said, at the beginning of this case, we asserted he couldn't be trusted. And guess what? He proved it himself last Tuesday. Not to somebody on the street, but to you, to the judge, to everybody in this court. The prosecutor, Michael Ramsdell, fought back by arguing Lammy and Neil's phone call was a moot point since Neil wasn't even called as a witness. He said the defense had attacked Lammy from the beginning to distract jurors from the real evidence, Tony's confession. And with that, after 15 days, Tony's trial ended. Now it was up to the jurors. In the legal world, jurors are known as finders of fact. They are burdened with a profound, almost magical power and responsibility to decide what actually happened to transform a story into a verdict. And I said, I'm not at one time, by the way, I told them that they could take the Roberts rules and shove them where they when his son don't shine. Robert Hoagland was not impressed by the magic of being a juror. He especially did not like the way the jury foreperson ran the deliberation. She said, you are out of order to me. One Too many times. And I said, I'm not out of water. According to Robert, when the jury sat down to deliberate, everyone else was ready to acquit. He was the lone holdout. I thought he was guilty. I thought there was no question about whether he was guilty or not. The jury would have come back with a not guilty within 15 minutes if it wasn't for me. Robert says, for his fellow jurors and even for him, the hang up was Detective Lammy. Mark and Paul's plan to go after the character and conduct of Lammy. It worked. This guy was. These people didn't like that sergeant, and I didn't like him either. I thought he was an idiot. Do you think that was the number one factor why they voted not guilty? Yes, it really was. There was one person on the jury. Once the jury was handed the case, he walked into the room, he threw his coat down in a corner, got down on that coat, laid there and said, you guys can discuss, do whatever you want. Let me know when you're done. He's not guilty, and I'm not going to change my mind. I finally gave in and I shouldn't have. I knew he was guilty, and I ended up voting not guilty. That was the final vote. And then the judge came in and congratulated us and said we did the right thing and all this crap. And I was sitting there going, shaking my head. So basically, you voted not guilty just because it seemed hopeless and you wanted to get out of there, basically. After six hours and 46 minutes of deliberation, the jury acquitted Tony Puff of all charges. He was free to go. In the end, the jury didn't buy the state's story about Tony. They didn't believe his confession, and they didn't trust what Lammy had to say. And it went beyond the jury. After the acquittal, the Union Leader newspaper, the biggest paper in the state known for its conservative editorials, published an essay titled the Lami Controversy. The editorial referred to Lammy's perceived credibility gap. It said Lammy's role in the case should be carefully reviewed. But Lammy's superiors sprang to his defense. They said he did a excellent job and that no action would be taken against him. Jason Carroll's trial was scheduled to start just two months after Tony Puff's acquittal. Tony's lawyers publicly called on the state to drop the case after what happened in Tony's trial. To them, Jason's confession was even more problematic than Tony's.

[Mark Sisty]

Yeah, I mean, I think that Paul and I and I think anybody that knows anything about that case would say that. The big sore thumb sticking out in Carol's case is that confession. It just. You can't shake it. As a professional, you're looking at it. You can't shake it. I think if you had a police officer today, listen to that, they'd go, they'd be whore. They would never conduct an interrogation like that. Paul, at the beginning of this said, I felt sorry for Jason Carroll. Now, whether or not he is a murderer or not, okay, I felt sorry for him. And we had a co defendant and if we could dump it on Jason Carroll to get our guy off, we would have. But we didn't even go in that direction. I mean, that confession was. Was terrible.

[Paul Toomey]

The state's case was falling apart. Ken was released. Tony was acquitted. The only defendant left was Jason. Remember, in the state's theory, Jason got involved in the murder plot because of Tony, who a jury just said was not guilty to carry out a murder for Ken, who the state had just let go because they didn't have enough evidence. So how does another jury find Jason guilty? That's next time on bear Brooke Season 2 A True Crime Story A true crime story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon. It's edited by Katie Culinary. Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno Booth. Editing help from Lauren Chulgin, Daniela Ali, Sarah Plord, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian and Todd Bookman. Our news director is Dan Barrick. Our director of podcasts is Rebecca Lavoy. Fact checking by Danya Suleiman. Sarah Plord created our original artwork as well as our website bearbrookpodcast.com Photos and videos by Gabby Lozada. Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Me Moon. Bear Brook is a production of the document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

[Mark Sisty]

Business. It's all the things that keep this world turning. And behind every one of these companies is a partner helping to keep it all moving. It's why the local flower shop and your favorite pizza joint, the startup and the stadium, Hospitals and hotels, banks and restaurants nationwide all choose the advanced network cybersecurity solutions and round the clock trusted partnership from Comcast business, the company that powers more businesses than anyone else. Comcast Business powering possibilities restrictions apply.

[Paul Toomey]

Call or visit comcastbusiness.com to learn more.

[Mark Sisty]

Hanaday presents in the red corner, the undisputed, undefeated weed whacker guy. Champion of hurling grass and pollen everywhere. And in the blue corner, the challenger, extra strength hataday eye drops that work all day to prevent the release of histamines that cause itchy allergy eyes. And the winner by knockout is Patterny Hataday. Bring it on.