Frederick J. Murray v. New Hampshire Division of State Police, et al.

In December 2005, Fred Murray, represented by Timothy Ervin of Gallant & Ervin, LLC, filed a lawsuit against the law enforcement divisions of New Hampshire in Superior Court. Murray claimed that law enforcement’s refusal to release records related to Maura’s disappearance violated the Right-to-Know (FOIA) laws. Murray therefore sought an injunction that would compel the agencies to hand over the documents.  In January 2006, the Superior Court determined that the documents were investigatory in nature and that releasing them could potentially disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, Murray appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.  In December of 2006, the Supreme Court sided with Murray, concluding that law enforcement agencies had not met their burden to justify withholding the documents. The Supreme Court remanded the decision back to Superior Court. During the second round in Superior Court, several documents were released but for the most part, the judge maintained his initial position that the documents should be withheld.

Nancy Smith (above) for the defense and Tim Ervin (below) for Murray at the NH Supreme Court, Nov. 14, 2006.

This stance was supported by declarations from then Assistant Attorney General Jeff Strelzin, who, in his 2007 testimony, estimated a "75% likelihood of prosecution" in the matter. Yet, seventeen years have elapsed with no noticeable advancement, and there's no evidence to suggest that a prosecution is forthcoming. Some might argue that the stagnation presents a compelling argument that the case is now prime for renewed legal action.

Despite the Superior Court’s refusal to release most of the documents, there was some useful information that became public as a result of the lawsuit (including but not limited to the documents detailed below). 

Fred Murray (above) listens to oral arguments in the gallery before speaking to WMUR outside the court room.

Video & Case Files

The above video here portrays  Timothy Ervin and Nancy Smith (representing the state), and their arguments before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in November of 2006. As stated above, ultimately Murray prevailed at this level. However when the case was remanded back to the Superior Court, Judge Vaughn once again sided with the state’s contention that releasing the case records could jeopardize a law enforcement proceeding. It is clear from Judge Vaughn’s denial it his final written order (pg. 6) that Jeffrey Stelzin’s testimony that there was a “75% chance” played a critical role in his ultimate decision to withhold the documents.

  • The Bill in Equity is Fred Murray's formal complaint accusing law enforcement violated transparency laws and, demanding corrective legal action.

  • This is a subpoena showing the approximate time Butch Atwood called 911 the night of February 9, 2004 (7:43 PM).

  • This Right-to-Know (FOIA) request from Fred Murray to New Hampshire Fish & Game cites the search dates in 2004.

  • This FOIA request from Fred Murray to UMass Police Department stating Maura’s hard drive and all files associated with her email address were handed to NHSP.

  • This is a list of the firefighters that responded to the scene on February 9, 2004.

  • This is the accident report associated with the single car crash Maura was involved in during the early morning hours of Sunday, February 8th in Hadley, MA.

  • This is a letter from Fred Murray to then Governor Lynch dated February 9, 2005.

  • This document outlines Murray's exhaustive efforts to obtain information from various agencies and his repeated denials.

  • This is the opinion of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire dated December 20, 2006. The Supreme Court sided with Murray, vacating the prior decision and remanding the case back to Superior Court.

  • This document is a transcription of a hearing on the merits that occurred during second round at Superior Court on April 13, 2007.

  • This document outlines additional written arguments to supplement theit arguments at the hearing on the merits, that the state submitted in support of their objection to release documents during the second round at Superior Court.

  • This is the Order dated June 11, 2007, which denied Murray’s request for records in the second round at Superior Court. Once again, Judge Vaughn sided with the state’s position that their release could interfere with law enforcement proceedings. It is notable that the judge based his decision, in part, on testimony from the state proclaiming there was a “75% chance of prosecution in the case” (page 6).