Editor’s note: This story includes descriptions of violence, including domestic assault.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has denied an appeal in the case of Armando Barron, who is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder after killing 25-year-old Keene resident Jonathan Amerault.

On April 2, the court issued an order denying Barron’s request, which was filed on the grounds of three potential errors made during his original trial: whether the court failed to properly strike one of the jurors, whether the court erred in giving jury instruction around false exculpatory statements related to Armando Barron’s statements at the time of the murder, but not related to those made by one of the witnesses in the case; and whether the court erred when it redacted portions of a violence risk assessment before disclosing it to the defendent.

The court found in all three cases that there was no error made in any of the three points.

In September 2020, Barron’s wife, Brittany Barron, who has since reverted to her maiden name of Brittany Mitchell, told him she wanted a divorce. Barron looked through her phone and discovered messages between her and Amerault, who was a workmate. Barron assaulted his wife, and then used her phone to lure Amerault to Annett State Park in Jaffrey, where he assaulted him, attempted to coerce Brittany to kill him and then shot him when she refused.

Barron instructed Brittany to drive Amerault’s car, with Amerault’s body, to a remote campsite in northern New Hampshire, while he followed in their own car. There, they took actions to cover up the crime, including Brittany removing Amerault’s head at Barron’s instruction, attempting to conceal the body and and attempting to clean and hide Amerault’s vehicle.

Barron was charged with 13 counts, including first-degree murder, kidnapping, solicitation to commit murder, solicitation to commit first- and second-degree assault, reckless conduct and domestic violence. He was tried in a seven-day trial in the Cheshire Superior Court in May of 2022, where he was found guilty and sentenced to life without parole for the murder charge.

In his appeal, Barron, through his attorney, argued that one of the jurors should not have been selected because during the selection process, she would not state that if she had a reasonable doubt as to guilt, she would acquit.

The state argued that the juror provided “adequate assurance” that she could be fair and impartial, and received instructions from the court as to the nature of reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court agreed with those arguments.

“Juror number 1 did not demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to apply the correct constitutional standard as set forth in the trial court’s jury instructions, and therefore her disqualification was not required,” the court concluded.

Barron also argued that the court failed to meet an “evenhanded” standard related to false statements made by Barron and his then-wife. The defense objected at the time regarding instructions regarding false exculpatory statements, or that alternatively, that the same instructions should have been given around Brittany’s testimony regarding statements she made to coworkers about knowing where Amerault was after he was reported missing, and that when she was found alone at the campsite by Fish and Game officers she told them her injuries were from a mutual fight with a female friend.

While the court did not give false exculpatory evidence instruction to the jury related to her testimony, it did give instruction on judging the credibility of witnesses, including that if there was conflict between witness evidence, that the jury should consider that they do not have to accept testimony as true on its face, and can use their common sense and judgment, the witnesses believability, demeanor, interests, reasonableness and biases.

The court found the defense had not cited “any binding authority” requiring “evenhandedness” regarding the court’s decision to issue jury instructions on false exculpatory evidence, and that it was not persuaded it was appropriate or necessary to have given those instructions in this case.

As part of the case, Brittany was charged with falsifying evidence for actions she took after being left alone at the campsite by Barron. During her trial, a psychiatrist completed a violence risk assessment, which aims to identify situations where an individual is at higher risk of becoming violent. The state requested a review of the assessment prior to trial, which the court granted, but also issued an order declining to disclose the assessment to Barron. After objection by the defense, the court reconsidered its initial ruling and ruled to disclose a redacted version of the assessment to Barron.

The defense argued the assessment should be reviewed in full to ensure that there was not relevance to Barron’s defense. However, the court ruled that the decision to release the redacted version of the assessment was reasonable.

Ashley Saari can be reached at 603-924-7172, Ext. 244, or asaari@ledgertranscript.com. She’s on X @AshleySaari MLT.