#

Former Strafford County Sheriff Mark Brave earned at least seven years in prison for the multitude of lies he spun out to cover up his thefts and affairs, prosecutors say.

“The truthfulness of law enforcement officers, and the sanctity of their oath to tell the truth in official matters, is central to the concept of ordered liberty in the State of New Hampshire,” Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham and Assistant Attorney General David Lovejoy wrote in a sentencing memorandum filed Monday.

Brave, New Hampshire’s first elected Black sheriff and a former rising star in the state Democratic Party, torched his career when he was caught stealing taxpayer money to fund multiple extramarital affairs. Brave was given multiple opportunities to show remorse and tell the truth, prosecutors say, but he chose his own path.

“Instead, during the investigation into the defendant’s conduct, the defendant publicly and repeatedly accused the State and other local government officials of conspiring to pervert justice and persecute the defendant without any factual or legal basis – motivated, the defendant claimed, by base political vendettas and racial biases,” Lovejoy and Fincham wrote.

“Throughout the investigation and prosecution, and in an effort to conceal his charged crimes and other frauds he perpetrated upon this Honorable Court, the defendant chose to repeatedly lie to the State, chose to repeatedly lie to the Strafford County Grand Jury, and chose to repeatedly lie to this Honorable Court – all in an effort to avoid and pervert the system of justice that he was sworn to uphold.”

Brave is scheduled to be sentenced this month in Strafford Superior Court on two felony counts of perjury, the only charges in his plea agreement yet to be resolved. Brave pleaded guilty in February to the perjury counts as well as charges of theft by deception, and falsifying physical evidence. 

The plea deal allows Brave to get suspended sentences for the theft and falsifying evidence convictions, but the perjury Brave committed during his testimony before a Grand Jury in 2023 is a different matter. Lovejoy and Fincham argue Brave knew what he was doing when he swore to tell the truth during that testimony.

“The defendant then spent approximately one hour and 45 minutes lying about virtually every aspect of his repeated thefts – sometimes repeating old lies, sometimes telling new ones, and sometimes attempting to reconcile differing lies. A complete accounting of all of the defendant’s material lies to the Grand Jury would be monumental. The aggregated lies in the five perjury indictments in this case provide just a sampling of the contempt for the truth, for the sanctity of the defendant’s oath, and for the authority and solemnity of the Strafford County Grand Jury that so permeated the defendant’s testimony,” they wrote.

Monday’s sentencing memorandum will likely inspire a response from Brave and his attorney, Leif Becker, ahead of the sentencing hearing. The state wants Brave to get 3.5 to 7 years in prison on each perjury conviction, and wants those sentences to run consecutively, not concurrently.

According to Lovejoy and Fincham, Brave is beyond hope of rehabilitation and needs prison to punish his lies, to restore public trust in law enforcement, and to discourage other public officials from following his example.

“The sentence in this case must aid to repair the damage done by the defendant’s crimes to the public perception of the integrity of the criminal justice system and government institutions generally, including assuring the public that law enforcement officials (and other individuals) are sufficiently deterred from undermining the integrity of proceedings by committing Perjury,” the prosecutors wrote.

There were at least three women Brave was romancing with taxpayer funds, according to court records. Monday’s filing makes clear his lies and fraud extended to his paramours. One woman, Kenisha Epp Schmidt, gave Brave $2,300 so he could help her buy a used car. But that deal followed the typical Brave playbook for money and relationships.

“She had given the defendant $2,300.00 to help with purchasing a new car because she trusted him at the time, but the defendant never delivered the car and always had excuses for why there was no car and why he could not give her the money back. Ultimately, Schmidt had to file a police report with the Dover Police Department concerning the defendant’s actions,” Fincham and Lovejoy wrote. 

A Superior Court judge slammed the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office for prosecutorial misconduct in the Andy Sanborn criminal case, saying its mishandling of privileged communications seized through a warrant amounts to “gross negligence.”

Attorney General Formella’s office, on the other hand, says it’s a “simple mistake.”

“The Court finds that the NHAG exhibited gross negligence at several points throughout its execution of the warrant and subsequent taint review of the seized material that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct,” Merrimack Superior Court Judge John Kissinger wrote in an order released Wednesday.

Though Kissinger is not dismissing the charges against Sanborn as defense lawyers asked, the judge is disqualifying Assistant Attorney General David Lovejoy from the case and suppressing any evidence Lovejoy improperly viewed. Kissinger is also booting forensic accountant Don Swanson from the case as he also improperly viewed privileged material.

The documents in question include a confidential memo written by Sanborn’s defense lawyers analyzing the legal issues in the case. Financial documents improperly viewed by prosecutors reportedly lay out core defense strategies, according to Kissinger’s order.   

Michael Garrity, spokesman for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, called Wednesday’s ruling a win since Kissinger did not dismiss the charges or order the state to pay attorney’s fees in the matter, as Sanborn’s team wanted. The fault for the prosecutorial misconduct rests with the software vendor the state used to handle documents, according to Garrity’s statement.

“What actually occurred was a simple mistake, which the New Hampshire DOJ deeply regrets. When the New Hampshire DOJ hired a third-party vendor to duplicate a database of seized materials, the contractor inadvertently included privileged documents. As soon as the NH DOJ became aware of the error, our prosecutors raised the issue in court and informed Mr. Sanborn’s lawyers and the Court, including the fact that one of our prosecutors and a forensic accountant inadvertently had contact with privileged documents.

“As a result, that prosecutor and the forensic accountant will no longer be involved in the case. This was not intentional misconduct, but a single, unintentional mistake that was promptly addressed,” Garrity said.

Zachary Hafer, Sanborn’s attorney, declined to comment when reached on Wednesday.

Sanborn is charged with theft by deception for allegedly filing a fraudulent application for state COVID relief money, taking more than $140,000 he was not entitled to for his Concord Casino. Sanborn’s Win Win Win LLC is also charged with theft by deception for the same alleged crime.

According to Kissinger’s order, parts of which are redacted, prosecutors failed from the start to take appropriate steps when they seized documents during the investigation. When investigators obtained a warrant to seize business documents from Sanborn, they did not tell the judge signing the warrant about the potential for attorney-client records being included, Kissinger found.

The exact date the warrant was issued, as well as the location it was executed, is redacted from the public order. Kissinger does state that both Andy Sanborn and his wife, Rep. Laurie Sanborn (R-Bedford) were present when investigators seized the records.

Instead of having a taint team ready when the warrant was executed, the prosecutorial case team, led by Assistant Attorney General Dan Jiminez, did nothing to protect Sanborn’s rights until his lawyers complained, Kissinger found. The investigators even recorded the fact they were taking a desktop computer that displayed documents on the home screen marked “Zach,” or “Zach Hafer,” according to Kissinger.

Attorney-client communications are protected by law and, generally, cannot be disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is in place to safeguard the right to a fair trial. 

In cases where sensitive material, such as attorney-client communications, are potentially part of evidence in a criminal investigation, a taint team is used. Those teams are a separate group of lawyers called in to review all the material to separate out anything that legally ought not be seen or used by investigators and prosecutors.

The state did not act to protect the privileged documents until Sanborn’s lawyers contacted Jimenez on May 24. All investigators were then told not to view any of the documents, and then the taint team was assembled.

But Kissinger faults Jimenez for setting ground rules for the taint team’s disclosure decisions without consulting either a judge or Sanborn’s attorneys about what should be considered privileged before it was released. The taint team finished its work on July 9 and subsequently made the documents available through Everlaw, a legal document software program. 

First, on July 12, David Portal, Senior Infrastructure Technologist for the Attorney General’s Office, went through a document folder in Everlaw marked “clean” and deleted the privileged documents, according to the order. 

Sanborn’s lawyers filed their lawsuit over the privileged documents on July 30, under seal. After a review in August, Sanborn’s lawyers told the court there was a large volume of privileged material in the “clean folder.” On Sept. 19, Portal learned that the investigating case team prosecuting Sanborn made a copy of the “clean” folder before he deleted privileged documents on July 12, Kissinger states.

The dispute over the documents may explain why Sanborn has not been charged over allegations he committed federal COVID fraud.

Much of the privileged material prosecutors took deals with Sanborn’s defense against the New Hampshire Lottery Commission. The commission first accused Sanborn of improperly obtaining more than $840,000 in federal COVID funds and spending it on sports cars and paying himself rent. Before Kissinger made an order in the documents lawsuit, Sanborn was arrested for state-level fraud allegations.

Sanborn continues to fight over his now revoked casino license, claiming the state interfered with his efforts to sell his business. Sanborn was ordered to sell last year after an administrative law judge sided with the Lottery Commission. One of his appeals in the revocation fight is headed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. 

Embattled and indicted Concord Casino owner Andy Sanborn is learning the hard way that the house always wins.

Under a state order to sell his business before his gaming license is revoked, Sanborn’s lawyers claim the state has rejected his proposed buyer without good reason. This revelation came Friday as attorneys for Sanborn and the state tried to talk around the buyer’s rejection during an administrative law hearing before Hearing Officer Gregory Albert.

Any individual who buys Sanborn’s casino will need to pass a suitability determination process conducted by the state. Because the results of suitability determinations are not public, in order to protect the reputation of rejected buyers, neither side was able to say directly that the buyer was rejected. However, the rejection was obvious based on the context of the discussion.

Adam Katz, one of Sanborn’s lawyers, said the state is manipulating the case to prevent Sanborn from selling the business, has scared off multiple potential buyers, and has now rejected a qualified buyer based on errors.“The buyer is still trying to engage with the state on why their [suitability determination] letter is nonsense,” Katz said.

Assistant Attorney General Jessica King objected to any discussion that could reveal the result of the suitability determination, but acknowledged under questioning her office told the buyer there is no way to appeal the determination.

“There is no clear mechanism to appeal suitability in the law,” King said.

The buyer has no blemishes on his record and is someone no one could object to buying the casino. He was stopped from divulging the reason for the denial by King. King rejected Katz’s arguments that the state is interfering with the sale, telling Albert the Lottery Commission met with the buyer several times to go over the suitability determination process.

“This narrative the state is trying to obstruct and prevent this sale is false,” King said. “There is no evidence the state is actually trying to prevent anything.”

Last year, Administrative Hearing Officer Michael King ordered Sanborn to sell his business within six months after determining that the former Republican State senator obtained more than $800,000 in federal COVID relief funding he was not entitled to. Sanborn then used the money on improper purchases, such as prepaying his rent and buying sports cars. 

Sanborn was indicted last month on state theft charges for allegedly inflating his revenue in order to qualify for state COVID funds, getting about $140,000 more than he was entitled to get.

Since the sale order was issued, Sanborn has been trying and failing to sell the business. He obtained an extension from Albert, who took over the administrative law end of the case this year after Michael King retired. 

“[Sanborn] has been trying to sell and walk away for months. He wants to put this mess far in the rearview mirror,” Katz said.

Albert’s last extension, issued in September, allowed Sanborn 15 days to sell the business once the buyer had passed through the suitability process. Now that 15 days have passed since the buyer was rejected, the state says Snbiorn must lose his gaming license. The state also argues Albert overstepped his legal authority issuing the 15-day grace period.

Katz told Albert he does have the authority to issue an extension, since it allows Sanborn to comply with the original order to sell. Katz blamed the state for interfering with the sale and working against the original sale order.

“The point of [the original] order is to complete a sale quickly,” Katz said. “Mr. Sanborn clearly has worked to sell. The only problem is the chicanery from the state.”

A top Stratham Democrat Jonathan Caldwell got caught red-handed over the weekend stealing a political sign put up by a Republican voter.

That Republican, Peter Lessels, is now pushing to have Caldwell charged.

“I filed a report with the police,” Lessels told NHJournal.

Caldwell chaired the Stratham Town Democratic Committee as recently as 2022, and is listed as Democratic state Sen. Debra Altschiller’s campaign treasurer. He could not be reached for comment.

Last week, Lessels put up a large, homemade sign near the campaign signs for several Democrats with the message that they “Supports men in women’s sports.” Lessels’ sign featured the message and arrows pointing to the Democrats’ signs.

“They do support that. That’s just a fact,” Lessels said.

The area where the signs are going up is public property on a traffic circle in Stratham. Lessels said political signs are allowed on that property.

Lessels’ sign disappeared after a few days. It’s not the first time Lessels dealt with sign theft. He was part of Republican Don Bolduc’s 2022 campaign for U.S. Senate and had numerous signs stolen or damaged during that effort.

Lessels made a replacement sign and put it up in the same spot Sunday morning. A few hours later, he was driving nearby and spotted a man taking the sign out of the ground and putting it in his car. 

Lessels confronted the man he later identified as Caldwell about taking the sign. In an interaction caught on video, Caldwell said the owners of a nearby antiques store wanted Lessels’ sign removed. 

Unless a political sign is put up illegally, such as on private property without permission, or public property where signs are not allowed, no one can remove those signs.

“That’s illegal,” Lessels said.

Lessels followed Caldwell’s car and called police, who eventually stopped Caldwell. Lessels said the officer had Caldwell open his car trunk, found the sign and confiscated it as evidence.

The Stratham Democrat isn’t new to politics, or to campaign complaints. In 2022, he had a visit from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office about his campaign finance reports, according to Department of Justice records. Caldwell was issued a warning letter due to problems with the committee’s finance reports, including missing information about donors, and an unexplained $890 surplus. Caldwell blamed the previous committee treasurer for the errors. He also blamed a local Republican for creating controversy by filing the complaint in the first place.

“As I noted to Investigator [Richard] Tracy, this complaint is from an aggrieved State Rep candidate who came in fourth of four in the 2020 election. To what end, other than petty harassment? There is clearly no intentional malfeasance,” Caldwell wrote to Deputy General Counsel Myles Matteson.

Sign stealing during campaign season is both illegal and frequent. This summer, state Rep. Scott Wallace (R-Danville) was charged with multiple misdemeanors for allegedly stealing or damaging campaign signs in Brentwood. 

“Unfortunately, ’tis the season,” Brentwood Police Lt. Justin Doty said.

Wallace did not respond to requests for comment from NHJournal. 

Andy Sanborn drew another bad card and may have lost his stake.

Arrested last week for alleged COVID fraud, the former state senator and his casino business are now indicted on felony charges for stealing from the state. 

The indictments handed up by the grand jury this week are related to Sanborn’s alleged fake numbers in his application for the Main Street Relief Fund grants. According to the indictments, Sanborn allegedly inflated the receipts for his casino by more than $1 million, netting about $188,000 in grant funds he was not entitled to.

Sanborn’s Concord Casino is technically owned by Sanborn’s Win Win Win LLC. According to the indictments, Sanborn’s June 2020 application for the grant funds inflated the business receipts and wrongly claimed that Win Win Win had been in operation for at least a year.

Sanborn, as an individual, is indicted on one felony count of theft by deception, and his LLC is charged with one count of theft by deception and theft by unauthorized taking. The charges against Win Win Win, which holds his gaming license, could end his bid to sell the casino business.

Sanborn is under state order to sell the Concord Casino as the result of another fraud accusation. He allegedly applied for federal COVID relief funds to which he was not entitled, and then misspent the $844,000 on things like sports cars and car equipment. He also allegedly used his various LLCs to prepay himself about 20 years’ worth of rent.

Sanborn is due in court next week for an arraignment on the charges. 

Former Strafford County Sheriff Mark Brave (D) is getting yet another life lesson about consequences as a grand jury in Rockingham Superior Court handed up criminal indictments connected to the lies he allegedly told in order to get a free lawyer.

The 39-year-old disgraced ex-lawman and one-time New Hampshire Democratic Party star is getting two new felonies and three new misdemeanors added to the long list of criminal charges that forced him from office last year. The indictments come after Brave turned down at least two different plea agreement offers earlier this year.

Brave was charged last summer for allegedly stealing $19,000 in taxpayer money in order to fund his love life, and then lying about it when brought before a grand jury. The new indictments allege Brave followed up his arrest in the theft and perjury case by lying to the courts about his income and place of residence.

Brave allegedly hid the fact he cleared a substantial amount of money from the sale of his Dover home in order to qualify for a free public defender. Brave reportedly made enough money from the sale to buy a 1968 Porsche and pay a year’s lease up front on an apartment in Massachusetts.

At the time, however, Brave was under court orders to reside in New Hampshire. The disgraced Democrat got around that order by simply lying, according to the indictments. Brave told court officials he was living in a Dover apartment rather than out of state.

When the alleged lies were discovered late last year, Brave was still Strafford County Sheriff. He was collecting his salary while on administrative leave, despite no longer living in the state. The revelation about the Massachusetts apartment and his income forced Brave into a December deal to finally resign from his post in order to stay out of jail for violating his bail order.

Now the lies have come back to bite Brave in the form of the new indictments. 

Prosecutors said last month, before the indictments were handed up, that any trial in the original case won’t happen until next year. There’s still the opportunity for Brave to seek a plea agreement. But with the new charges it appears he does not have leverage in any possible negotiation.

Elected in 2020 as New Hampshire’s first Black sheriff, Brave promised to reform the police culture within the department. At the time, though, the Strafford County Sheriff’s Department focused less on law enforcement and more on civil process service.

Brave allegedly promoted a woman he took to Florida on the county dime to a “special deputy” position despite the fact she was not a certified police officer. He allegedly maxed out his county credit card on expenses from taking various women on dates and short vacations. Brave wooed so many different women, in fact, that he could not identify a specific woman when questioned by investigators. At the time, Brave was married, though he’s since divorced.

Earlier in the investigation, Brave claimed his fellow Democrats on the Stratford County Commissioners were racists who were out to get him. That’s unlikely to be an effective strategy in court, lawyers tell NHJournal.

Strafford County voters now face the choice between Republican Scott Tingle and Democrat Kathryn Mone. 

Mone’s resume includes her recent stint as the North Hampton Police Chief where she oversaw a mass employee exodus while she micromanaged the staff, according to sources. The town was stuck with a $150,000 tab settling a case overseen by Mone that involved two of her officers improperly arresting a woman for drinking beer at home while watching baseball, after they performed an illegal search.

Former Portsmouth attorney and one-time congressional hopeful Justin Nadeau is now indicted on 15 felony counts related to his alleged scheme to steal close to $300,000 from a mentally impaired client. 

He’s just the latest New Hampshire Democrat to find himself in legal peril.

A grand jury convened in Rockingham County handed up 11 indictments for falsifying physical evidence, two indictments for financial exploitation of an impaired adult, and one count each for theft by deception and forgery. 

The charges stem from information that came out during Nadeau’s ethics case before the state Professional Conduct Committee. Nadeau was ultimately disbarred after he was allegedly caught falsifying evidence during the PCC investigation.

“It’s difficult for me to imagine something worse for a lawyer to do,” one PCC member said, according to the court records.

Nadeau went before the PCC after he allegedly got a client who was impaired by a traumatic brain injury, Exeter woman Shawn Fahey, to give him close to $300,000 in loans in 2018. Nadeau allegedly secured the loans with a condo he did not own, and the anticipated proceeds from a pending defamation lawsuit he had against the Portsmouth Police Department.

Before his fall from grace, Nadeau had political ambitions and ran an unsuccessful campaign in 2004 against then-Congressman Jeb Bradley (R). 

Nadeau isn’t the only Seacoast Democrat in the dock. Former Stafford County Sheriff Mark Brave is facing trial for theft of county funds to pay for his affairs. The Democrat hoping to replace him, former North Hampton police chief Kathryn Mone, is facing questions about her handling of a wrongful arrest case during her last job, a case that cost North Hampton $150,000.

While Nadeau is at the beginning of his criminal prosecution, the legal struggles of former state Senate Democratic leader Jeff Woodburn of Coos County are coming to an end. Woodburn is expected to be sent to jail at his sentence imposition hearing on Wednesday in Grafton County. Woodburn was convicted of criminal mischief after he was charged with assaulting his former girlfriend in a domestic abuse case.

And then there are former state Reps. Andrew Bouldin and Stacie Laughton. A former Manchester representative, Bouldin changed his name to Andrew Kennedy and was seeking another term in the House in Lee, N.H. But he dropped out after NHJournal reported on an investigation into allegations of “grooming” — plying a teen with alcohol and making sexually suggestive comments, according to a police report.

Laughton is behind bars awaiting trial on a federal charge of sexual exploitation of children, and aiding and abetting. Laugton is a biological male who identifies as a female and allegedly committed the crimes with his girlfriend, who worked at a Massachusetts day care.

Nadeau is due in Rockingham County Superior Court on Oct. 23 for his arraignment.

A Democratic lawyer who once had dreams of elected office is facing prison time for allegedly stealing money from a disabled client and then doctoring evidence.

He’s the second New Hampshire Democrat to be hit with news of potential jail time in the past 24 hours.

Police arrested Justin P. Nadeau Wednesday on charges of theft by deception, forgery, multiple counts of falsifying physical evidence, and financial exploitation of an elderly, disabled, or impaired adult.

The charges stem from information that came out during Nadeau’s ethics case before the state Professional Conduct Committee. Nadeau was ultimately disbarred after he was allegedly caught falsifying evidence during the PCC investigation.

“It’s difficult for me to imagine something worse for a lawyer to do,” one PCC member said, according to the court records.

Nadeau went before the PCC after he allegedly got a client who was impaired by a traumatic brain injury, Exeter woman Shawn Fahey, to give him close to $300,000 in loans in 2018. Nadeau allegedly secured the loans with a condo he did not own, and the anticipated proceeds from a pending defamation lawsuit he had against the Portsmouth Police Department.

Nadeau allegedly told Fahey that until the defamation lawsuit was resolved he was “strapped for cash.”

It was a tough 24 hours for New Hampshire Democrats.

Portsmouth’s Nadeau was the Democratic nominee in New Hampshire’s First Congressional District in 2004, losing to incumbent Republican Jeb Bradley by nearly 30 points. 

Nadeau’s defamation lawsuit against the Portsmouth police arose from an arrest of Portsmouth man Christian Jennings. Jennings was allegedly found with quantities of marijuana, Ecstasy, amphetamines, a loaded gun, and $42,000 in cash. According to police, Nadeau was handling an $85,000 marina investment for Jennings before the arrest, though the marina deal never closed. Nadeau brought the lawsuit when police opened an investigation into whether or not he was laundering drug money. The defamation case was settled in 2019.

Nadeau also allegedly hid the $165,000 he collected after he sent Fahey to a Massachusetts attorney to handle her injury case, according to the PCC investigation. Nadeau reportedly collected referral fees from the Massachusetts attorney as well as other money related to Fahey’s case.

Nadeau slow-walked producing documents related to the case for the PCC. The Democrat even destroyed his computer before the hearing, according to court records. Nadeau claims he made all the appropriate conflict of interest disclosures and eventually produced printed copies of the letter he claimed he sent her.

However, James Berriman, the computer expert hired by the PCC, looked through Nadeau’s office server and found the dates on the documents Nadeau gave to the committee were fake, and the documents were created well after he took the money from Fahey.

“As a member of the PCC observed at oral argument before the PCC, ‘the Berriman Report and the spoliation of evidence, in my mind . . . is one of the most significant violations I have seen in decades of practice before the ADO before joining this committee,’” a New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling states.

Nadeau appealed his disbarment, but the Supreme Court ruled in April that he crossed too many lines to be let back into court, at least not as an attorney.

Nadeau is due in Rockingham County Circuit Court in Portsmouth for an arraignment on Sept. 9.

Facing 64 years in prison on charges he stole taxpayer money, spent it on his girlfriends, and then lied to a grand jury, former Strafford County Sheriff Mark Brave is rolling the dice on a possible trial.

Brave did not accept the proposed plea agreement reached in mediation by the court-ordered deadline, meaning the case now moves to a jury trial. Brave had until Friday to accept the deal crafted in mediation with Rockingham County Superior Court by Justice Peter Fauver.

“No Notice of Intent to Plea was filed by the parties by May 24, 2024. Accordingly, we anticipate this matter being placed on the court’s trial track, in accordance with Justice Fauver’s report,” Michael Garrity, spokesperson for the New Hampshire attorney general, told Foster’s Daily Democrat.

The mediation was ordered in the case after Brave and prosecutors came to an impasse in plea negotiations. Brave and his attorney Leif Becker refused the Attorney General Office’s proposal, and the state declined Brave and Becker’s counter agreement.

Veteran defense attorney Mark Sisti, who is not part of Brave’s case, said no party is bound to accept any recommended proposal created during mediation. At the end of the day, the defendant is in control.

“The decisions whether to try a case or not try a case are totally on the shoulders of the defendant,” Sisti said.

While it can sometimes be in the best interest of either the defendant or the state, or occasionally both, to avoid going to trial, judges and lawyers cannot stop a determined defendant. 

It’s unknown what the sticking point might be in the mediated proposal. Fauver’s mediation report is under seal, as are the previously rejected proposals from the state and Brave. Sisti said that in these situations there is usually something the accused doesn’t like.

“There must have been a point the defendant couldn’t accept,” Sisti said. 

Sentences in criminal theft cases typically result in restitution orders that require the defendant to pay back the stolen money. Some prison time is also common in cases with multiple felonies, though defendants taking plea agreements generally get shorter stays in lock up as one of the benefits.

Plea agreements save time in court and money for the state and defendant, as well as allowing both parties to avoid the risk of losing a jury trial. Juries are often seen as unpredictable by prosecutors and defense attorneys. 

Judges impose the sentences when the jury is done, and convictions after a trial generally result in significantly more prison time.

Brave is potentially risking a lot by turning down two agreements. He’s charged with several counts of perjury, as well as felony theft and felony falsifying evidence. On top of that, Brave is a less-than-sympathetic character for juries to consider.

The story of a sheriff allegedly maxing out his county-issued credit card to facilitate multiple extramarital affairs is not likely to gain the sympathy of jurors. At one point, Brave admitted to investigators he did not know the name of one of his tryst partners, as there had been so many, according to court records.

While he was being investigated for the alleged thefts, Brave went on a public relations offensive, including playing the race card. Brave made the investigation public knowledge and told media that Strafford County Commissioners were harassing and bullying him, accusing one of being a racist.

After he was charged last year, Brave was caught violating his bail orders by moving out of state, and lying to the court about his money in order to get a free public defense attorney.

Still, Sisti thinks Brave has options before a jury hears about his alleged misdeeds, and unexpected things happen in the run-up to trials.

“It’s not clear the case will ultimately go to trial. A lot can happen,” Sisti said. 

Lovelorn lawman Mark Brave is heading to mediation with the prosecutors in his felony theft case after the two sides failed to reach a plea deal.

Brave, the former Democratic Strafford County sheriff, is accused of stealing taxpayer money to fund extramarital liaisons. The scandal has so far cost Brave his marriage, his million-dollar Seacoast home, and his job. It could also put him behind bars for years.

Brave and prosecutors are at loggerheads over a possible plea agreement, including any incarceration, restitution, and fines. After the state made an offer to Brave and his attorney, Lief Becker, Brave countered with his own proposal. The state rejected Brave’s take on the deal.

Neither plea offer was available Tuesday.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge James Kennedy ordered Brave and prosecutors to try mediation to reach an acceptable plea agreement. Criminal mediation, also known as a felony settlement conference, typically involves a judge not connected to the case working with both sides to reach a consensus.

According to New Hampshire Judicial Branch Policy, cases suitable for felony settlement conferences involve defendants who admit wrongdoing. The conferences include input from the alleged crime victims as the judge guides all parties to a deal.

Failing a deal from the settlement conference, Brave will get a trial date for the eight felonies stemming from his alleged theft and coverup. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 64 years in prison.

Brave was a rising star in the New Hampshire Democratic Party as the state’s first elected African American sheriff when his illicit love life caught up with him. The formerly married Brave was using his government-issued credit card for plane tickets, hotel rooms, and expensive meals with at least three other women. At one point in the investigation, Brave was unable to name one of the women he was seen with, as he could not remember them all.

While under investigation last year, Brave publicly lashed out at the elected Strafford County commissioners, all Democrats, who he blamed for the scrutiny from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office. Brave even accused his fellow Democrats of being motivated by racism.

Brave’s troubles got worse after he was charged with stealing $19,000 in taxpayer money, perjury, and destruction of evidence. Under pressure from county officials, he agreed to go on paid administrative leave. The court also ordered him to continue living in New Hampshire pending trial.

But Brave lied to the court and prosecutors about his living arrangement and finances, according to court records. Brave hid the fact he cleared hundreds of thousands of dollars for himself selling his marital home in Dover for $1.5 million, and cried poor to get a free public defender, according to a report filed by prosecutors.

While he told the court he couldn’t afford a lawyer, Brave prepaid $50,000 for a year’s lease on an apartment in Massachusetts and bought a 1968 Porsche convertible, the state claims. Brave got around the court order to stay in New Hampshire by lying to the court and prosecutors and giving them the address of his now ex-wife’s Seacoast apartment.

Prosecutors moved to revoke Brave’s bail and threatened to hit him with new theft charges for illegally collecting more than $10,000 in salary as an elected New Hampshire official living out of state. Brave and Becker reached an agreement in December in which Brave finally resigned as sheriff in exchange for staying out of jail.