Advocates against domestic violence are calling for the courts to routinely review their decisions on domestic violence cases in response to an internal review that determined the courts released Michael Gleason Jr. on bail despite evidence that he was dangerous.
Gleason was released in April and murdered his estranged wife in July.
In April, 25-year-old Marisol Fuentes-Huaracha filed a domestic violence protection order, stating that Gleason was “capable of seriously harming or killing [her] if he had the chance.” She also said Gleason had access to guns “everywhere in the house.”
Her plea came after Gleason was arrested on charges of aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and theft, all of which involved her. The court granted the order, instructed him to surrender his firearms and then released him on bail two days later.
On July 6, he fatally shot Fuentes-Huaracha outside the Mexican restaurant in Berlin where she worked.
Lyn Schollett, executive director of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said the review exposed serious flaws in how the criminal legal system handled the case and called for the judiciary to review more domestic violence cases.
“The defendant in this case was ordered four times to relinquish his firearms and still had access to a gun that he used to kill Marisol,” Schollett said. “This is unacceptable and New Hampshire has a responsibility to do better.”
System flaws
One major issue Schollett said the review exposed was a lack of communication between the courts.
At the time of the murder, Gleason was tied to four separate court cases — including one in which a 17-year-old filed a stalking complaint on July 1 and warned that he had access to firearms.
Schollett called it “problematic” that no one followed up to confirm whether Gleason had surrendered his weapons, despite warnings from two victims that he had easy access to guns.
The review also found many signs of intimate partner violence, like “physical or sexual violence, stalking, emotional abuse, psychological abuse and financial or economic abuse” that gave the courts enough evidence to deny bail to Gleason.
Even with all these markers of danger, Magistrate Stephanie Johnson set Gleason’s bail at just $5,000 — less than the amount he had allegedly stolen from Fuentes-Huaracha. Judge Janet Jay Subers of the Berlin Circuit Court also affirmed the bail.
“I think this report shows that survivors are credible witnesses to their own experiences,” Schollett said. “When a survivor indicates that they are in danger and expect their risk of harm to increase, it’s very important that be taken seriously.”
Criticism of judicial system
Gov. Kelly Ayotte and John Stephen, a member of the executive council, have called for Johnson’s resignation.
The Judicial Branch confirmed Tuesday that magistrates Johnson and Jaye Duncan are no longer part of its staff. Frank Weeks continues to serve in the magistrate system. The magistrate system, which took effect in January, will come to an end in September after Ayotte signed a bill to dissolve it.
“The court’s internal review makes it clear: There was sufficient evidence to hold Gleason in preventive detention, yet he was released,” Stephen said. “That failure had fatal consequences and must never be repeated.”
Apart from determining that the courts had enough evidence to deny Gleason’s bail, the internal judicial review committee also recommended reforms to help the judicial system handle domestic violence cases more effectively.
Among the most important, Schollett said, is improving information sharing between the courts.
“Information in this case was so incredibly compartmentalized among the five judges and the one magistrate who were involved in various aspects of Marisol’s cases,” she said. “The current court system is a case management system, but it doesn’t truly share real data in real time. Had any of these judges had more comprehensive information, the outcome could have been different here.”
The judge at Gleason’s arraignment in district court knew a domestic violence protection order existed but did not have access to the pleading that Gleason had access to firearms, according to court records.
Although the committee acknowledged technological barriers to information sharing, it recommended that the judicial branch explore alternative ways to collect and share relevant information throughout a domestic violence case, ensuring ongoing support for survivors and their families.
The committee also noted that Fuentes-Huaracha initially did not have a lawyer, and the 17-year-old woman who filed a stalking petition against Gleason on July 1 was also self-represented.
“When a survivor indicates that they are in danger and expect their risk of harm to increase, it’s very important that be taken seriously.”
Lyn Schollett, executive director of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
While the committee did not speculate as to whether having an attorney or counsel representation could have changed the outcome for her, it said, “There is no doubt that Fuentes would have benefited from the assistance of one or both — in the courtroom and beyond.”
In 2024, just 16% of plaintiffs in domestic violence cases and 5% of those in stalking cases had legal representation, highlighting a significant gap in support for survivors navigating the court system.
The review also recommended a revision of the forms for domestic violence and stalking complaints, as well as criminal bail protective orders, to allow courts to more quickly enforce provisions requiring individuals to surrender firearms and other dangerous weapons.
Schollet hopes routine internal reviews of domestic violence cases will become standard practice.
“There is a lot more to do. There are systems that need more resources and more collaboration to truly address the problem of domestic violence,” she said. “We think this report is a step in the right direction.”
