Good afternoon. This is a arraignment and bail hearing in the matter of state
of New Hampshire versus Brittany Baronet, which all parties appear by.
WebEx would counsel for the state. Identify yourself, please.
Scott Chase for the state, Your Honor,
and would counsel for the defendant. Identify yourself?
Yeah,
Your honor. Richard Guerriero for Mr Baron.
Okay. And Miss Baron, have you have been able to hear everything that I've
said that the attorneys have said so far?
Mhm.
Mrs. Barone, can you hear me? Yes. Way. Were you able to hear the two attorneys
just now?
Um, no.
You did not hear the attorneys. It was a little distorted by Okay. You can
hear me, though, right? Okay. Let me just have attorney chase. Identify
himself again. Let's make sure you can hear him. Attorney Chase, Stop thinking
you're going to see your Robert and also here, Benjamin, about you from the
state. And I think we're obviously getting feedback. Maybe from attorney
Gary Eros connection. But I'm not sure we're now it's muted. It's better. Now.
Say your name again and we'll see. Mr Heard that Scott Chase for the state of
New Hampshire.
Mr. Baron, we over here. Attorney Chase just now. Yes, Your Honor. Okay. And
now, Attorney Guerrero, would you identify yourself again?
Yes, Your Honor. Richard Guerriero for Mr Baron. Mr. Baron, were you able to
hear your attorney just now? Yes, I was your order. Okay, if at any time during
these hearing you can't hear either me or any of the attorneys or anyone else
speaking, let me know and will do what we can to solve that problem turning
your air. Or do you Does your client waive reading of the three complaints
and plead not guilty? That's correct, Your Honor. I reviewed them with her
just before this call. Okay, Very good. I'll note her pleas of not guilty to
all three charges of falsifying physical evidence. Attorney Chase.
What's the state recommending for bail on the reasons for the recommendation?
Your Honor, the state is asking for preventative detention. While the state
recognizes that the defendant has been cooperative and has assisted
investigators. This case is especially heinous and gruesome. The brutality of
the crime, combined with the fact that the defendants destruction of evidence,
was in an effort to conceal a capital murder is especially alarming. And
concerning for the safety of the general public beyond just cleaning up
physical evidence in the victim's car. After driving Jonathan's body nearly
200 miles north of the crime scene in Jonathan's own car deep into the north
woods, the defendant decapitated Jonathan wrapped his head in a tarp and
placed it in a grave in order to prevent investigators from identifying
Jonathan if his body was ever found. The defendant then wrapped Jonathan's
body in a tarp and dragged him deeper into the woods, where investigators
found him in a shallow brook. This was all with the intent to conceal a
capital murder. Had this defendant successfully destroyed that evidence,
her husband, the alleged murderer, may very well have evaded detection and or
apprehension. And currently, your honor, the investigation is ongoing. Evidence
is still being collected and process if released. There are no guarantees that
this defendant will not attempt to further conceal or destroy any other
evidence, and for those reasons, your honor and the facts in the affidavit
there is clear and convincing evidence that releasing the defendant will
endanger the safety of another person or the public, and accordingly, the
state again requests that the court order. Preventative detention Me
Attorney Guerrero.
Yes, Your Honor. You'll forgive me if I am not perfectly organized. I found out
about this case at about 1 15 and literally had time. Thio read the
affidavit once and to talk to Mr Baron for about 15 minutes. But I do have
quite a bit to say, having just conducted that preliminary inquiry. And
I will tell you that although there are very few cases like this at which I
start with the weight of the evidence, I think that's where we start on the
veil. Factors here on D e Think if you look in particular at the affidavit of
pages four and five, you will see that in everything that the state alleges
that Mr Baron did she did under duress. And I mean under duress, meaning direct
fear from her for her life after having been beaten according to the New
Hampshire State Police account of this and and in their interview with her, um,
if you look at page four, um, this really started with her being beaten
severely. If you look at her face right now, to the extent that you can see it
she still has the bruising on her face and around her eyes, and it's described
in the affidavit. Armando beat her severely and threatened her. Um, hey,
put a gun in her mouth. An obvious threat to kill her. He applied enough
force to her neck toe. Make it difficult for her to breathe to the
point that she passed out on DCI IPT her tooth in the incident, she was, to
say the least severely threatened, severely beaten and placed in fear of
her life. The conduct that she is accused off is conduct that she engaged
in after having been ordered, according to the affidavit submitted to this
court, to engage in that conduct by Armando. I mean, if you look on pages
four and five, there's no less than half a dozen times where it refers to
her being ordered and in spite being being ordered under that duress to
participate in and some respects in this conduct, not willfully but having
to do what she was made to do under with fear for her own life. When she
was threatened and ordered to harm the victim, she refused to times eso to say
that she is acting willfully and acted in anything other than under duress, I
think is wrong on the state's own evidence, confirms that. That, of
course, is from her statement to the police, and I'm sure that's what their
response would be. But what they also cannot dispute, and that they would
have to testify directly to, is that she then and not only provided a
statement but cooperated fully and led to the discovery of evidence which
ended up in Armando being arrested in plain English. She helped solve this
crime, and rather than conceal evidence or falsify evidence, she led the police
directly to evidence. Um, she was beyond cooperative. I I mean, it's it's
hard to imagine being beaten like that, threatened with your life in this
situation and being fearful and then cooperating with the police. And yet
that's what she did by the account of the police. So to say that she's, um,
that the weight of the evidence is significant here is the opposite of
what the state has presented. Her injuries were confirmed by a trip to
the hospital and by the testimony of the state troopers. When you add the
fact that they don't have a lot of weight of evidence of regarding these
three charges, the fact that she's not accused of violence against any person
and that she's cooperated and then you look at her personal background to my
knowledge, has no prior criminal record. She's been a resident of New Hampshire
for the past six years. She's been living in Jaffrey and employed our
proposal would be that she be released on Elektronik monitoring and continue
to live at the same address in Jaffrey, a 63 main street. We would agree to any
reasonable conditions of that release. I would note that she has a minor child
that is obviously involved in this case that child needs. Her mother. She is a
nine year old daughter on day is simply not a good reason to detain her here.
When you think about the factors that we look at, is she going to show up for
court? Obviously an electronic monitoring will ensure that she shows
up and that we know where she is. Is she a threat to the community? There is
no evidence whatsoever that she is a threat to the community. The evidence
is that she's a victim who cooperated with the police. So our position is
that she should be released on personal recognizance bail with a special
condition of electronic monitoring under the supervision of the Cheshire
County House of Corrections.
Thank you, Attorney. Taste your reply. Yes, sure. There is no doubt in the
state does not deny that there is substantial evidence that the defendant
was assaulted by her husband, Armando. Um, however, there. And while there are
factors surrounding her crime that may have impacted her decision to commit
those crimes, those factors were taken into consideration when the state
evaluated What charges to see and more importantly, are factors that are for a
jury to consider and determining her not in determining her threat to the
community. For example, um, defense counsel said that there was no evidence
of violence. There was evidence that she used the knife from machete to cut
the victims rips, um, or hands after he was, um, kidnapped, forced into the car
at gunpoint again. Those charges weren't brought out of consideration
for the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. Um, whoever
discount the fact that the defendant drove nearly 200 miles in a separate
vehicle with a cell phone on her person. Uh um, and transporting the body for
three hours approximately, Your honor, with multiple opportunities anywhere in
between, um Ringe and the scene of the of her crimes demonstrates that she had
multiple opportunities to avoid committing the crimes that she is
currently charged with the crime. And another example of that is the steering
wheel itself. Her cleaning that steering wheel was after Armando, as
your honor. Concede the affidavit had gone to destroy other evidence beyond
that. Your Honor, she did cooperate. She cooperated after she was caught.
She had multiple opportunities prior to being caught by New Hampshire fishing
game. Thio seek help to avoid regardless. You know, in addition to
the 200 miles that she drove and had the opportunity Thio prevent herself
from from feeling like she needed toe commit any of the crimes. The incident
of hunters. Um, you know, three different times, or at least twice
where she had opportunities with those hunters. Um, to say I need help.
Armando wasn't there. It was her and the victim's body. And she did nothing
to alert the hunters or any authorities that she needed help. But Instead, she
continued to participate, um, in an effort to conceal evidence to prevent
the discovery of that evidence. And again, we're talking about in a crime
of capital murder in a heinous crime. She was well participating in hiding,
destroying or concealing evidence that could have prevented the detention from
an alleged murderer, which is the most dangerous situation that could have
happened is if he failed to be apprehended or charged with these
crimes because there was no evidence. So the fact that the case is ongoing,
the fact that evidence is continuing to be discovered and to be processed is
support for the clear and convincing evidence that she is a danger to the
public.
Yeah. Anything further? Yes, Your Honor, I just want to point out that not only
had she been threatened with a gun in her mouth and beaten severely and
ordered by Armando to participate in this conduct of destroying evidence
concealing evidence, Um, depending on what aspect of your looking at Armando
in fact, had access to her daughter and later did have custody of their
daughter so beyond fearing for her own life. Even after she was left alone,
she had no idea what else he was going to go do. And I would point out that
there is no allegation of any violence that she engaged in that was not under
the direct duress. And I mean direct duress in the sense of being threatened
with death after having been beaten direct duress from Armando. I simply
don't see how the state can say that they carried their burden by clear and
convincing evidence or demonstrated that she's a danger to the community.
Elektronik monitoring will be more than sufficient. Thio ensure that the jail
knows where she is. They protected the community. There is no evidence of any
other violence of any other kind in her life. There is no evidence of other
instability in the form of drug use or other criminal record. There's no
evidence of any failure to appear. There's simply no reason to deprive
this woman who is presumed to be innocent of her freedom at this point.
Your Honor, if I make one more point, you may, Your honor. As you can see in
the affidavit when Armando, the individual who defense counsel is
claiming, was directing all of the defendant in this case his actions when
he left her in the woods with the body with the evidence, he left her with two
firearms. When, when law enforcement found her, she had a loaded nine
millimeter handgun on her person. She did not make any effort to defend
herself for the evidence of the crime. She was armed with two firearms. She
had complete opportunity to notify others to seek help to avoid, um,
Armando coming into contact with her Children, both when she was driving the
200 miles up north, she could have called authorities. She could have
pulled into authorities. She could have flag somebody down in the road. There's
there's numerous opportunities for her to have, in short, that Armando was not
gonna have contact with her Children beyond that yet again. When she had the
opportunity when she was in the woods, she had firearms to defend herself. She
took no action to defend herself, to alert authorities or to help the
situation at all. Eso again based upon all of that, in the totality of the
circumstances, um, by clear and convincing evidence she is a threat to
the public. Um, if she is released, Your Honor You know, just make one new
point. I don't wanna take up your time here, but she there's not an obligation
to report a crime. And there's certainly not an obligation to report
it when you've been threatened with death and beaten. She had No, I mean,
she just simply not obligated. I mean, I know the state wishes she had done
that, but she was not obligated to do that. And frankly, her fear is totally
understandable.
Yeah.
Okay, Well, haven't considered the allegations in the probable cause
affidavit the each party's arguments and office of proof
and all relevant circumstances under the bail statute, at least that this
time I do agree with state that it is established by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendants released one danger, the safety of the public.
So I am going to grant the request for preventive detention at this time.
Anything further, Council?
See, Your honor. Not at this time, your honor. Okay. Very good that this matter
is concluded.
Thank you.
Mhm.