Janet March was going to see a divorce lawyer with her mother on August 16, 1996. Before the appointment could happen, Perry March called her parents. He said his wife had left after an argument. Janet never came back. Years later a jury convicted Perry of murdering her. Her remains were still missing. [1]
Plans for the children
Janet and Perry married in 1987. He attended Vanderbilt Law School with financial help from her parents and became an attorney. As the marriage deteriorated, Janet wanted him to live elsewhere. The court record describes a woman planning her children’s schooling and a birthday. The arrangements she left behind were part of the prosecution’s case against a voluntary departure. [1]
A witness saw Perry walking a bicycle in the parking lot where Janet’s car was later found. The house had been cleaned before the housekeeper came. Investigators examined a removed hard drive and changes to Perry’s vehicle. Perry later moved to Mexico with the children. He was arrested there in August 2005 and returned to Tennessee. [1]
The father’s account
The jury watched a videotaped deposition from Perry’s father, Arthur. He said Perry described Janet’s death as an accident after an argument. Arthur said he helped dispose of a hard drive and Janet’s remains. A search of a place he identified failed to recover her. Jurors had Arthur’s account of his part in concealment and the version he said his son gave him. They had to weigh both against the rest of the evidence. [1]
A new plan inside the jail
While detained in Nashville, Perry spoke with another inmate, Russell Farris. According to the court’s account, Perry mistakenly believed Farris was jailed for first-degree murder.
He sought Farris’s help in killing Janet’s parents, the Levines.
The discussions continued over weeks. Farris eventually contacted his mother and lawyers, and information reached investigators. In October 2005, he agreed to cooperate.
A recording device was placed in his cell. The plan involved Arthur March helping facilitate the killings and providing a route to refuge in Mexico.
The conspiracy was a separate crime. It also supplied evidence in the prosecution concerning Janet’s disappearance because it concerned people with potentially damaging testimony.
Other inmates reported statements Perry made about Janet’s death. The use of those statements later raised questions about constitutional protections and the role of cooperating witnesses.
The jail recordings concerned a plan to kill the Levines. Arthur’s deposition concerned what he said had happened years earlier. Jurors could hear both kinds of evidence, with separate prosecutions for the murder and conspiracy. The murder case still depended on evidence that could be assembled without recovering Janet. [1]
Convictions and a qualified appeal ruling
On August 17, 2006, a jury convicted Perry of second-degree murder, destruction of evidence and abuse of a corpse. A separate prosecution produced a conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
The combined sentences described in the federal opinion totaled 56 years.
Perry challenged the admission of statements made during his return flight and while incarcerated. In 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief.
The reasoning matters. On two claims, the court assumed constitutional error without deciding the question and concluded that any error was harmless in light of the other evidence. On another, it found that the state court’s decision did not meet the demanding standard for federal habeas intervention.
The judgment stayed in place. Janet’s parents had expected to go with her to a lawyer. They spent years seeking answers about where she had gone, and in jail Perry sought help killing them. The verdict answered who was responsible for Janet’s death. It left the family without her remains. [1]
Case brief
Nashville / Forest Hills, Tennessee · 1996
- Recorded outcome
- Perry March convicted in 2006; aggregate 56 years; federal relief denied in 2014
Key moments
People in this case
- Janet March
Murder victim
Photo at source · Oxygen · labeled case photograph - Perry March
Convicted of murdering Janet March
Photo at source · Oxygen · labeled case photograph
Look closer · 3 visuals
Inside the evidence.
Open a visual to explore what it contributed to the case—and the limits of what it shows. These original illustrations explain the record; they are not photographs of the actual evidence.
The removed hard drive
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
Arthur testified that Perry asked him to dispose of the hard drive, part of the evidence concerning concealment.
No recovered drive or its contents are shown. This is an illustration of an item described in testimony.
A deposition on video
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
Arthur’s recorded deposition described Perry’s admission of an accidental death after an argument and Arthur’s own actions.
This is not a still from the deposition. The account was witness testimony; Janet’s body was not recovered.
A second criminal plot
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
The jail conversations concerned a plan to kill Janet’s parents and became evidence in a separate prosecution.
Evidence of the later plot is not an eyewitness account of Janet’s death.
★ Key evidence used in a conviction · ✓ Exclusion or reversal · ◇ Disputed evidence · ⊘ Excluded at retrial · ◆ Identity / investigative finding, not a conviction. A symbol does not mean one item proved the whole case.
Follow the locations
Put the story on the map.
Follow the dated entries, then select an event to find its regional setting. Shared-location pins open a group of events. Evidence symbols identify important findings and their limitations.
Open the map in its own window ↗Sources & further reading
- March v. McAllister, No. 13-5870 — Sixth CircuitTrial evidence, separate conspiracy, sentence and qualified habeas ruling.
Editorial review: 2026-11-12 · 617 words