Court Review Finds Evidence Existed to Detain Berlin Murder Suspect

CONCORD — An internal court review released Monday concludes there was enough evidence to hold Michael Gleason in preventive detention months before he allegedly shot and killed his wife in Berlin on July 6, then died by suicide.

The review, ordered by New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald after the July 6 incident, examined court records from Gleason’s criminal and related civil cases. The two-member committee—Associate Justice Melissa B. Countway and Circuit Court Administrative Judge Ellen V. Christo—was directed to provide “an immediate accounting” and suggest improvements to how bail is handled in domestic-violence cases.

8.25.25_GleasonReportFinal.pdf

Download PDF • 2.66MB

According to the report, the case began April 25, when Gleason was charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault, kidnapping and theft involving his wife, Marisol Fuentes. He was released April 27 on $5,000 cash bail after a weekend magistrate proceeding; no recording of that proceeding exists. On July 6, Gleason allegedly shot and killed Fuentes at a Berlin restaurant before killing himself.

At an April 28 arraignment, prosecutors sought preventive detention, arguing the seriousness of the charges, that Gleason attempted to flee arrest, and that he was found with Fuentes’s phone. The court denied that request, instead asking Gleason to provide proof the bail money came from his own account given an allegation he had taken $8,000 in cash from Fuentes. The court later found probable cause on all three charges at a May 21 hearing; prosecutors did not revisit bail at that time, the report notes.

Executive Councilor John Stephen (R-Manchester) said "The court’s internal review makes it clear: there was sufficient evidence to hold Gleason in preventive detention, yet he was released. That failure had fatal consequences and must never be repeated. I renew my calls for the immediate termination of Magistrate Stephanie Johnson and call on the legislature to further review the Circuit Court Judge’s decision to continue bail in whatever context it deems appropriate.

Even so, the panel determined that, based on facts available at the initial bail stage, “sufficient evidence existed to hold Gleason in preventive detention.” Indicators of dangerousness included the violent nature of the alleged offenses and Fuentes’s sworn statements and injuries documented by police.

The report also flags gaps in enforcing firearm-relinquishment provisions tied to protective orders. Four separate court orders required Gleason to surrender firearms and ammunition, but the record is unclear whether he did so; one return-of-service form lists the firearms line as “N/A.” The committee recommends revising return-of-service and criminal bail protective-order forms to capture a clear “yes/no” on relinquishment and to specify items surrendered.

Beyond that, the committee lays out five recommendations aimed at bail decisions in domestic-violence cases: training for judges and court staff on risk indicators and forthcoming changes to the bail statute; training for attorneys, victim advocates and police on how to amend, revoke or appeal bail; better forms and processes around weapon relinquishment; improving early access to counsel and advocates for survivors; and exploring system-wide information-sharing to flag escalating risk.

The report situates these recommendations alongside legislative changes taking effect later this year. The Legislature repealed and re-enacted RSA 597:2 effective Sept. 21, 2025, eliminating magistrates, adding a domestic-violence-specific provision, and changing the dangerousness standard supporting pretrial detention from “clear and convincing evidence” to “probable cause.” Additional adjustments to the list of serious offenses requiring court—rather than bail-commissioner—review take effect Jan. 11, 2026.

The committee emphasizes that its work was confined to written court records and did not include interviews with judges, parties or other stakeholders. It also notes that the unified timeline was compiled with hindsight and simultaneous access to four case files—advantages frontline decision-makers do not have amid busy dockets.