Update: The Reversal
New Evidence Found in Cold Case Spurs DNA Testing Request
After decades of conviction, previously overlooked evidence has reentered a long-dormant investigation into the 1989 murder of Sharon Johnson. A discovery of multiple evidence boxes — one revealed by a courthouse clerk and another found during a Department of Justice office move — has prompted renewed legal action and a court-approved path toward DNA testing that may finally clarify who killed Sharon.
How forgotten evidence boxes emerged in New Hampshire murder investigation
The new material surfaced in two unlikely ways: a clerk who had listened to reporting reached into a courthouse basement and found a box, while another box surfaced when a DOJ building was being demolished. Those finds yielded physical items — stained clothing, a long-blade knife, fingernail clippings with possible blood, and hundreds of pages of lab documents — that were not previously available to defense counsel pursuing post-conviction testing.
What post-conviction DNA testing will involve and expected timeframes
The court agreed to allow DNA testing after the state withdrew its objection just before a scheduled hearing. The State Forensic Lab will begin quantitative testing to determine how much recoverable DNA exists on each item. Forensic teams must carefully identify swab or cut locations on delicate items such as shirts, knife handles, and clippings. Degraded samples, seasonal exposure, and a backlog at the state lab mean results could take months or longer.
Items targeted for analysis and possible forensic outcomes
- Fingernail clippings — may hold foreign DNA from an assailant.
- Stained shirt — found roadside but labeled incorrectly as victim clothing.
- Knife — discovered near the crime scene and described as a long-blade kitchen-style weapon.
- Archived lab files — reveal a surprising 2004 DNA profile of the victim's husband.
Possible results range from a non-matching profile that enters national databases and leads to another suspect, to matching profiles with parties connected to the family. Each scenario will require careful legal and investigative interpretation: exclusionary results could support a retrial request, while ambiguous or expected matches will raise complex questions about meaning and context.
After 35 years, this procedural reopening is less a dramatic courtroom victory than a procedural gate opening: methodical testing now stands between decades of uncertainty and a much clearer picture of what the evidence truly reveals.
Key points
- File a court petition to request post-conviction DNA testing on cold-case evidence immediately.
- Inspect all agency storage locations to locate miscataloged or missing evidence boxes now.
- Prioritize quantitative DNA testing to assess recoverable DNA before full analysis begins.
- Document chain-of-custody and storage conditions to support challenges against evidence mishandling.
- Compare any recovered DNA against CODIS to identify possible matches to known offenders.
- Prepare expert witnesses in forensic genetics to explain degraded DNA interpretation in court.
- Use newly discovered lab files to reassess past investigative timelines and testing attempts.
FAQ
Why did new evidence surface now after decades?
Two separate discoveries revealed additional material: a courthouse clerk found a box after hearing reporting, and a second box turned up during a Department of Justice office move and demolition, exposing items not previously provided to defense counsel.
What types of items will be DNA tested?
Planned testing includes fingernail clippings, stained clothing (a roadside shirt), a long-blade knife, cigarette butts, soil samples, and other bodily samples taken during the original investigation.
How long will DNA testing and analysis likely take?
The State Forensic Lab will start with quantitative testing; timelines vary widely due to degraded samples and a lab backlog, so results could take months or longer.
Could DNA results lead to Jason Carroll’s exoneration?
Yes. If testing yields a profile that excludes Jason and matches another known individual, it could support a retrial or exoneration effort; however, interpretation of mixed or expected family DNA will require legal argument.
