#

After being accused of withholding evidence, prosecutors agreed to drop their objections and allow a 60-day delay in the criminal trial of Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi.

The trial had been set for Sept. 2, but significant issues remain unresolved, including accusations that prosecutors are withholding evidence and manipulating the discovery schedule to disadvantage the defense. The defense is also questioning the role of Attorney General John Formella as the initial investigator in the case. And there is the broader legal question of what, if anything, sitting members of the state Supreme Court can be required to testify to on the witness stand.

On Thursday, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg ordered the trial pushed back until at least November. A hearing scheduled for Friday on the defense motion to dismiss the indictments and to disqualify Formella—along with the state’s motion to quash a defense subpoena seeking Formella’s testimony—has been postponed to the week of Sept. 2 under Honigberg’s order.

Hantz Marconi is charged with several counts for allegedly trying to get Gov. Chris Sununu and others to drop the investigation into her husband, former Ports Director Geno Marconi. The most significant charges involve events during a meeting in Sununu’s office last year at which the Republican governor’s lawyer, Rudy Ogden, served as a witness.

This week, Hantz Marconi’s attorneys, Richard Guerriero and Jonathan Kotlier, accused the state of playing games with the evidence. In a filing Monday, they said they have repeatedly requested records of Sununu’s meetings with other judges, similar to his meeting with Hantz Marconi.

Twice the state has claimed no such records exist, and twice the defense has disputed that assertion.

“Nevertheless, the defense believes that the State still possesses the requested material. For example, since October of 2024, the defense has been asking the State to produce records of Sununu’s meetings with other judges or justices. In writing, the State has twice denied possessing such evidence. Yet, the discovery produced by the State indicates that such meetings occurred,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote.

According to the defense, the state also tried to shield Formella’s role as the original investigator who appears to have initiated the case against the sitting justice—a role they argue violates Department of Justice rules and could make Formella a material witness. Evidence implicating Formella as a potential witness was only recently released, the defense says, and prosecutors have argued it is now too close to the trial to litigate Formella’s alleged conflict of interest.

“The State would like to manipulate the proceedings so that no matter when the defense asserts Formella’s conflicts of interest, there will always be a procedural bar,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote in a July 21 filing.

Before the delay, the stage was set for an unusual trial likely to feature testimony from a who’s who of state leaders about a murky set of facts. Sununu, Formella, Ogden, New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, Pease Development Authority Chair Steven Duprey, and Associate Justices Patrick Donovan, Melissa Countway, and James Bassett are all potential witnesses.

Both Sununu and Ogden, who is now a Superior Court judge, have said Hantz Marconi did nothing improper or illegal during her conversation last year. Duprey also told investigators he spoke with Hantz Marconi and did not believe she crossed any legal or ethical lines.

Hantz Marconi maintains she was expressing frustration about recusing herself from Supreme Court cases involving the Department of Justice while her husband was being investigated by the Public Integrity Unit of the Attorney General’s Office. How that conversation became a criminal case remains unclear, given statements from Sununu, Ogden, and Duprey denying wrongdoing. It was not known until last month that Formella had initiated the investigation on his own.

Geno Marconi, who has since retired as Ports Director, faces trial in November on charges of illegally obtaining private driving records and sharing them with Bradley Cook. Cook, a fishing boat captain and former chair of a ports advisory committee, also faces charges in the alleged records scheme.

The case against Geno Marconi and Cook is as unusual as the one against Hantz Marconi. Prosecutors say Geno Marconi obtained and shared the car and boat registrations of Pease Development Authority Vice Chair Neil Levesque. However, according to records in Geno Marconi’s case, Levesque was applying for a pier permit at the time and was required to submit copies of his vehicle registrations. Court records indicate Marconi and Cook would have had access to those records in their official roles.

Levesque and Geno Marconi have clashed in recent years over Marconi’s management of businesses operating at Rye Harbor. A civil lawsuit accuses Marconi of targeting the owners of the Rye Harbor Lobster Pound restaurant to benefit his sister, Francesca Marconi Fernald, who operates Geno’s Chowder and Sandwich Shop, a business started by their parents.

With a month to go before the criminal trial of Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, defense attorneys are accusing the state of withholding critical evidence and creating procedural hurdles that could jeopardize her right to a fair trial.

Justice Hantz Marconi is facing multiple felony charges stemming from an alleged attempt to interfere with an investigation into her husband, former Ports Director Geno Marconi. Prosecutors say Hantz Marconi’s alleged misconduct occurred during a meeting with Gov. Chris Sununu last year, in the presence of Sununu’s then-legal counsel, Judge Rudy Ogden.

The trial is currently scheduled to begin September 2 in Merrimack Superior Court. But defense attorneys Richard Guerriero and Jonathan Kotlier filed a motion last week asking the court to delay the proceedings by at least 60 days, citing unresolved legal questions and outstanding discovery disputes.

Chief among their concerns is the state’s continued denial that it possesses records of Sununu’s meetings with other judges—records the defense argues are directly relevant to their case.

“Since October of 2024, the defense has been asking the State to produce records of Sununu’s meetings with other judges or justices,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote. “In writing, the State has twice denied possessing such evidence. Yet, the discovery produced by the State indicates that such meetings occurred.”

The defense has previously accused the state of trying to obscure the role Attorney General John Formella played in initiating the investigation, raising concerns of a potential conflict of interest. According to court filings, evidence indicating Formella acted independently in launching the probe was only disclosed recently—too late, the defense says, to fully address its implications before trial.

“The State would like to manipulate the proceedings so that no matter when the defense asserts Formella’s conflicts of interest, there will always be a procedural bar,” the attorneys wrote in a July 21 filing.

In addition to seeking a trial delay, the defense has filed multiple pending motions, including one to dismiss the charges entirely and another to disqualify Formella. There are also eight individual motions to dismiss specific counts, as well as a motion seeking a bill of particulars to clarify the accusations.

“Yet, trial is now one month away,” Guerriero and Kotlier noted. “The defense cannot properly prepare for trial without knowing which charges will be tried and without the bills of particulars.”

They argue that even if the court ruled on all pending motions immediately, the defense would still need time to assess the rulings, consider motions for reconsideration, and potentially seek pretrial review by the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The case has already drawn in nearly all of the state’s top judicial and executive figures. Subpoenas have been issued for Attorney General Formella, former Gov. Chris Sununu, Judge Ogden, and all five members of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald has been named as a witness, and Associate Justices Melissa Countway, Patrick Donovan, and James Bassett have also been subpoenaed. Last week, Supreme Court legal counsel Erin Creegan filed a motion seeking to limit what questions can be posed to the justices if they take the stand.

Creegan argues that New Hampshire’s constitution does not allow judges to be called as witnesses unless there is no other way to introduce essential facts or theory.

For example, MacDonald can only testify if he understood that Hantz Marconi was aware in May of last year that a grand jury was investigating her husband, Creegan wrote. The other three justices should not be made to testify at all, Creegan wrote, since they have no pertinent facts to offer to the jury. 

“It is understandable that a party may wish to invoke the prestige of a judicial officer, particularly the highest judicial officers in the state, to aid their case. But that is precisely the abuse of the prestige of the judicial office, and its potential to overbear a jury’s consideration of the facts at issue, that a trial court may guard against,” Creegan wrote.

She specifically argued that MacDonald should only testify if it is necessary to establish whether Hantz Marconi knew her husband was under grand jury investigation in May of last year. The remaining justices, she claimed, have no relevant testimony to offer and should not appear before the jury at all.

Guerriero and Kotlier said Creegan’s motion raises “unprecedented” legal issues that further justify postponing the trial.

Judge Martin Honigberg is scheduled to hear arguments Friday on the motions to dismiss the indictments and disqualify the attorney general. He could rule on the trial date then, or the motion to delay could become one more unresolved issue as the clock ticks toward the Sept. 2 trial date.

In the wake of the horrific murder of 25-year-old Sandra Marisol Fuentes Huaracha’s murder by her estranged husband, Michael Gleason Jr., the state’s Supreme Court chief justice has ordered a review.

But that’s not fast enough for Executive Councilors Joe Kenney (R-Unity) and John Stephen (R-Manchester), who have written the court and asked for Magistrate Stephanie Johnson to be immediately barred from hearing more bail cases due to her troubled track record.

“Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order 2024-03, which empowers the Chief Justice to remove a magistrate for cause at any time during their five-year term, we urge you to exercise this authority without delay and remove Magistrate Johnson from her position,” they wrote to state Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald and Administrative Judge Ellen Christo.

“This step is essential not only to hold accountable those whose judgments have led to preventable loss but also to restore confidence in our bail processes. We stand ready to support any necessary reforms to strengthen our system and prioritize victim safety.”

Kenney raised questions about the case when the Executive Council met in Coos County last week, and Stephen has been railing about Johnson since learning about her role in a previous bail fiasco.

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know this magistrate’s not making appropriate decisions. And some are so outrageous, you have to question her ability to sit and judge on these cases going forward, and I want to make sure we do the best we can for our victims,” Stephen said on the NHJournal podcast Monday.

“I called on the court to immediately remove this magistrate from any of her duties. And we’ve got to be serious about bail, and we have to stop this nonsense,” Stephen added.

In late April, Johnson allowed Gleason out on $5,000 cash bail after his arrest on serious felony charges, including sexual assault, kidnapping, domestic violence, and theft. Gleason eventually posted bail and, on the morning of Sunday, July 6, made his way to La Casita Mexican restaurant in Berlin, where Fuentes Huaracha worked.

He shot her multiple times with a shotgun, then went into the bathroom and turned it on himself, according to the state Attorney General’s Office.

This isn’t the first time Johnson’s been called out for allowing a violent criminal to get bail. In February, Johnson allowed Kyle Bisson, 26, to go free on no-cash bail after he was charged with stabbing a Manchester man between 9 and 13 times during an altercation on Elm Street. At the time, Bisson’s criminal record included a conviction for domestic violence. 

Stephen said he called for action against Johnson at the time. Now he says he won’t sit back and wait.

“I’m not trying to be vindictive. I just want to make sure we protect the public and safety,” Stephen said.

“I have asked the court — and I spoke to the administrative head of the courts — to please make sure this individual, at the minimum, is not hearing any more bail cases.”

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald announced Monday he’s assigning Christo and Associate Supreme Court Justice Mellisa Countway to review the Gleason case and how Johnson handled it.

“The judicial branch will work with the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee to the extent the committee examines the circumstances in these cases,” according to a statement from MacDonald’s office.

Johnson was appointed in December to be one of New Hampshire’s first bail magistrates under yet another legislative change to the state’s beleaguered bail system. Gov. Chris Sununu first signed a bail reform bill into law in 2018, which was supposed to make it easier for non-violent offenders to get no-cash bail. Instead, many charged with violent crimes were getting out and committing new crimes due to the reform.

Last year’s legislative attempt to update the reform added magistrates like Johnson to the mix. The 2024 law required people charged with serious, violent crimes to get bail hearings before a judge or magistrate. The new bail magistrates solely set bail for people charged with serious crimes when judges were not available, like on weekends or holidays.

Johnson is a private practice attorney who has been a prosecutor for several years. She worked as an assistant attorney general for the New Hampshire Department of Justice and as a Rockingham Assistant County Attorney.

Stephen said he’s concerned by comments suggesting concerns about the costs of keeping suspects like Gleason in jail may have played some role in the magistrate’s ruling.

“The county is going to have to pay the expenses of (holding) an individual prisoner,” Stephen acknowledged.

“We shouldn’t be looking at cost in the equation of whether someone’s a risk to the public,” Stephen added. “If that’s happening, that’s wrong. And it’s got to stop.”

Gov. Kelly Ayotte pushed for a whole new bail system that keeps violent offenders in jail as soon as she was sworn in as governor this year. Her bail reform, which takes effect in January, does away with magistrates. She told the Executive Council last week that Huaracha might be alive if her reform had been in effect earlier this year.

“There’s a reason why one of the first priorities I had as governor was to make sure that we reversed some of the so-called reforms that were made that led to these unintended consequences that were very tragic,” Ayotte told the Council.

Stephen isn’t alone in singling out Johnson. Last week, Rep. Lori Korzen (R-Berlin) sent Johnson a letter demanding she resign from her post. 

“Our community deserves leaders who act with the utmost vigilance and responsibility, particularly in matters where lives are at stake,” Korzen wrote. “My deepest sympathies remain with the family of Marisol Fuentes and all those affected by this senseless act. I urge you to consider the impact of this decision and to take the necessary steps to help our community heal and move forward.”

Lawyers for Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi say Attorney General John Formella broke Department of Justice policy by privately questioning former Gov. Chris Sununu, according to a new motion to dismiss the criminal case against the suspended judge.

And because of Formella’s conflicts, the lawyers are requesting that Formella and the Attorney General’s Office be replaced by a special prosecutor in this case.

In a motion filed last week in Merrimack Superior Court, Hantz-Marconi’s lawyers say newly disclosed evidence shows Formella is a conflicted witness whose own bias prejudiced the investigation from the start.

“The discovery shows that Attorney General Formella will be a necessary witness at trial because he was the first person to interview Gov. Sununu and legal counsel (Rudy) Ogden about the Hantz-Marconi meeting, which is at the heart of this case,” lawyers Richard Guerriero and Jonathan Kotlier wrote.

As a result, “Formella made himself a trial witness when he conducted those interviews alone with no investigator as a witness, despite standard practices in his office and ABA guidance to the contrary. Moreover, the discovery shows that Formella’s conflict of interest has resulted in prejudice that is evident throughout the investigation and prosecution of this case.”

The motion also complains to the court that evidence of Formella’s role in instigating the criminal case against Hantz-Marconi, including notes of his conversations with Sununu and Ogden, was not disclosed to the defense until recently, according to the motion.

“Formella failed to take the standard precaution of having an investigator present for the interview, despite the warnings from groups like the American Bar Association, that a ‘prosecutor should avoid the prospect of having to testify personally about the content of a witness interview’ by having a ‘trusted and credible person,’ such as an investigator, conduct the interview or at least witness it,” the lawyers wrote in the motion.

Formella’s private conversations with Sununu and Ogden were not known when Guerriero and Kotlier previously raised Formella’s close relationship with Sununu as grounds to have him and his office removed from the case. At the time, Judge Matin Honigberg denied that motion, in part, by pointing out Formella was not a witness to the case.

“The court understands defendant’s assertion to be that AG Formella or other AAGs (assistant attorneys general) may become conflicted because they could, hypothetically, become witnesses if the governor approached them with information regarding his conversation with the defendant. The court dismisses such a theory as speculative,” Honigberg wrote in his Dec. 18 order denying the motion to disqualify Formella.

While neither Honigberg nor Hantz-Marconi’s lawyers knew about Formella’s private conversations, prosecutors were aware he spoke to Sununu and Ogden, and gathered information about the case, according to the new motion.

“Formella and the prosecutors knew on Dec. 18th that it was not mere speculation. Formella and the prosecutors knew that Formella was a witness because, exactly as the court described in its order, ‘the governor approached them [specifically Formella] with information regarding his conversation with the defendant.’ Formella and the prosecutors knew that was a fact, but they did not reveal that to the defense or the court in their objection to the first defense motion or at the Dec. 2nd hearing,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote.

“One can imagine that if Formella had recognized the potential of a conflict of interest and if the prosecutors had filed such a motion and revealed Formella’s personal role in the case as the first interviewer of Sununu and Ogden, and the likelihood of Formella being a witness at trial, this court may well have had concerns.”

Asked about the defense’s claims, the Attorney General’s Office released a statement saying, “We will respond to this latest defense motion by filing an objection in court.”

Hantz-Marconi’s June 6 meeting with Sununu is the crux of the criminal charges against her. She’s accused of trying to pressure Sununu and others to intervene in the criminal case against her husband, former New Hampshire Ports Director Geno Marconi. Formella first learned about the meeting during a regular phone call with Sununu, who mentioned it in passing, according to the new motion.

Instead of stopping the conversation, though, Formella started asking Sununu about his chat with Hantz-Marconi, according to his own notes. He later called Ogden for a separate interview session about the June 6 meeting with the judge. During those conversations, both Sununu and Ogden told Formella there was nothing criminal being asked of them, the notes show.

“The manner in which Formella first learned of the meeting shows that neither Sununu, the supposedly improperly influenced government official, nor Ogden, his legal counsel and an experienced attorney, perceived anything illegal or any reason to make a report of any misconduct. Formella is a direct witness to this exculpatory evidence,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote.

How Hantz-Marconi’s June 6 conversation with Sununu became a matter of criminal charges is still a mystery. When the Public Integrity Unit began its criminal investigation into Hantz-Marconi, there was no written complaint filed with the office, even though Formella’s own policies require such a complaint.

Formella crafted the memorandum founding the Public Integrity Unit at Sununu’s direction in 2021. In that memo, Formella explicitly states that no investigation would start without a written complaint that included the identity of the person making the complaint.

“Yet, despite the explicit policy, there is no written complaint against Justice Hantz-Marconi in the discovery provided by the prosecutors from the Public Integrity Unit. Presumably, after multiple rounds of discovery and with the trial coming up quickly, if a complaint had been filed, the state would have produced it by now. Yet, by their own accounts, Sununu, Ogden, and Duprey did not file written complaints – they did not even perceive any illegality or misconduct on the part of Justice Hantz Marconi. Nor is there evidence that any other person filed a complaint against Justice Hantz Marconi,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote.

According to the motion, it seems Formella was trying to determine if Hantz-Marconi was badmouthing him during the conversation with Sununu. Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, another high-profile witness, reportedly told Formella that Hantz-Marconi called him “weak” and “very political” during her talk with Sununu. Both Ogden and Sununu denied that when asked during a subsequent interview with investigators. They even said Hantz-Marconi did not mention Formella at all during the June 6 meeting, according to the motion.

Because of Formella’s now confirmed role in the case and the fact that he can be called as a witness, Guerriero and Kotlier argue that not only should he be dismissed from the case, but his entire office should be removed in favor of an independent prosecutor.

“This is a case where the lawyer who will be a necessary witness at trial is the chief law enforcement officer of the State of New Hampshire, the supervisor of all front-line prosecutors, the author of his office’s policy regarding the initiation of complaints against public officials, the first person to interview the most important witness in the case, and in all likelihood, the only person who knows why this investigation and prosecution moved forward. There is no removing him from any part of this case. His entire office is disqualified because he is disqualified,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote.

Geno Marconi was just doing his job as New Hampshire’s Ports Director when he shared copies of an unnamed man’s car and boat registrations with Bradley Cook, then the Chair of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council.

That’s the claim in a flurry of new court filings in Marconi’s criminal case, pushing to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that no crime was committed. His lawyer, Richard Samdperil, also wants evidence of deleted voicemails tossed out, arguing they were obtained without a warrant.

The indictments against Marconi are at the center of a scandal that’s snared his wife, Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi, as well as former Gov. Chris Sununu, and state Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald. But the question that’s dogged the cases against Marconi, Hantz-Marconi, and Cook is, what did they do?

According to prosecutors, Marconi shared the confidential motor vehicle records of N.L. with Cook and then deleted at least one voicemail from his cell phone after learning about the investigation. N.L. is believed to be Neil Levesque, the vice chair of the Pease Development Authority and someone who clashed with Marconi over his management of Rye Harbor.

But Marconi argues he never shared private information from N.L.’s motor vehicle records. Instead, N.L. gave Marconi copies of his car registration, a relative’s car registration, and boat registration as part of N.L.’s application for a pier use permit, according to the motions filed in court this month. 

At the time of N.L.’s application, Marconi was Director of Ports and Harbors and, as such, served as vice chair of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council. In that role, he worked with the council on all day-to-day business, according to the motions.

“Mr. Marconi’s duties include the general and active supervision and direction over the day-to-day business and affairs of the DPH and its employees, subject to the control of the PDA and its Executive Director,” Samdperil wrote. 

Members of the council, like Cook, are supposed to work with Marconi on port operations. There is no indication in the law that council members are barred from seeing records like pier use permits, Samdperil wrote. If the case won’t be dismissed, Samdperil wants the state to prove Marconi knew he was committing a crime given the law authorizing the council to work with him.

“The jury must find that beyond a reasonable doubt that ‘providing records pertaining to N.L. to another individual [Cook]’ was not authorized by [the law],” Samdperil said.

Samdperil also wants the voicemail evidence suppressed, arguing it was taken from Marconi’s private cell phone account that was not listed in the search warrant application. Marconi’s PDA provided cell phone was disconnected in April of last year when he was first placed on leave. But he kept the physical phone and set up a new cell phone account with a new, private cell phone number a few days later, according to court records.

The PDA pressured Marconi to give the phone back as well, since it was legally PDA property, according to court records. Marconi did get a new phone and moved his new cell phone account to the new device, giving the old phone back to the PDA. 

A month later, investigators for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office obtained a warrant for the old phone, listing his PDA phone number in the warrant application. During the search of the old phone, investigators obtained voicemail records associated with Marconi’s new, private number. Samdperil argues nothing from the new account on the old phone should be allowed.

Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham responded that the account number does not matter, anything on the phone was fair game.

“Whatever expectation of privacy Defendant may have in the contents associated with his personal phone number, when he placed those contents on the PDA’s physical device, he lost any reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents,” Fincham wrote.

No rulings have yet been made on any of the motions. 

Hantz-Marconi is currently on leave from the Supreme Court and charged with trying to get Sununu to intervene on her husband’s behalf. She’s fighting the charges, and argues she did nothing criminal in talking to Sununu about her husband and the impact the pending investigation had on her work.

Sununu seems to agree, according to a transcript of his interview with investigators. 

“No, there was no ask, there was nothing ‘Governor, I wish you could do this,’ or there was nothing like that. She was expressing frustration. Clearly not asking me to do anything,” Sununu told investigators. “I, I didn’t get the sense that, I didn’t get the sense that anything was illegal about the conversation.”

According to Hantz-Marconi’s pleadings, MacDonald advised her there was no crime in her talking to Sununu before the June, 2023 meeting.

“I think you can do that – You are a constituent and have concerns,” MacDonald reportedly told Hantz-Marconi.

With an associate justice a defendant, and the chief justice a likely witness, the remaining four members of the state Supreme Court preemptively recused themselves from the case last year. 

Lawyers for Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi say the state’s key witness, former Gov. Chris Sununu, doesn’t think she committed any crime.

Hantz-Marconi is charged with felonies for allegedly trying to get Sununu to end the criminal investigation targeting her husband, Ports Director Geno Marconi, during a June 6 meeting in Sununu’s office. 

But in a bombshell filing made public Monday night, Hantz-Marconi’s lawyers say new evidence demands the criminal charges against the sitting justice be dismissed. According to the transcripts filed with Hantz-Marconi’s motion, Sununu told investigators she never tried to get him to interfere in the criminal investigation.

“No, there was no ask, there was nothing, ‘Governor, I wish you could do this,’ or there was nothing like that,” Sununu said according to the transcript. “She was expressing frustration. Clearly not asking me to do anything.”

Defense lawyers Richard Guerriero and Jonathan Kotlier filed the transcripts Friday in Merrimack Superior Court as part of their effort to have the charges dismissed. The attorneys previously filed a motion to dismiss the charges for lack of a crime, to which the state objected. However, the state provided the transcripts to the defense before a decision on the dismissal was made. Guerriero and Kotlier say the state has essentially now proven there was no crime.

“[N]ow that discovery has been produced, it is clear that the defense was exactly right to ask the court to dismiss the indictments because they do not state any crime and because there is nothing in discovery which would inform a bill of particulars or an amended indictment such that the state could allege a crime,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote.

Hantz-Marconi is currently on leave from the Supreme Court and has agreed to have her law license suspended pending the outcome of the criminal case. She maintains she never crossed any legal or ethical lines when talking to Sununu, an assertion seemingly backed by Sununu’s own words.

“I, I didn’t get the sense that, I didn’t get the sense that anything was illegal about the conversation,” Sununu told investigators. “No, I mean about halfway through the conversation I kept waiting, is she gonna ask me for something, or for something, or to do something, like and even imply that I should, ‘Governor, you need to dah, dah, dah,’ no, never came. So there’s technically no ask of me.”

Present at the June 6 meeting with Sununu and Hantz-Marconi was Rudy Ogden, Sununu’s then-legal counsel. Ogden also told investigators that the judge never asked Sununu to get involved in her husband’s investigation.

“[T]hat’s why I say in terms of her not asking for anything, it – it never was, it never went more than saying this needs to end quickly…Like it was never, ‘it needs to end quickly, and geez, if you talk to them, you should tell them that, or this needs to end quickly, and I think you can do that.’ It was never anything like that,” Ogden told investigators.

Geno Marconi was placed on leave from his position as Ports Director in April while the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation. That pending investigation forced Hantz-Marconi to recuse herself from hearing cases involving the Department of Justice, a significant part of the caseload for the Supreme Court.

Her frustration at sitting out 20 to 25 percent of the cases led her to speak to Sununu, according to statements filed in court. Hantz-Marconi has previously disclosed she first cleared the potential ethical problems of the meeting with Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, who told her she had a right to talk to the governor about her concerns.

She is also accused of trying to get Pease Development Authority Chair Steven Duprey to intervene in her husband’s suspension, an accusation Duprey denied when he spoke to investigators, according to the Friday filing.

“According to Duprey, Justice Hantz Marconi ‘was calling, obviously, because I’m a friend.’”

Duprey told the investigators Hantz-Marconi understood he had no say in the investigation, and she never asked him to get involved. Instead she wanted to vent about the difficulties she was facing as a result of her husband’s legal troubles, Duprey said. 

“I think she was very appropriate in not trying to cross the line,” Duprey said.

Geno Marconi was indicted last October along with Brad Cook, the chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain. They are accused of crimes involving leaking information about an unnamed victim to further an unstated motive.

Marconi illegally provided Cook with the confidential driving records of another person, known in the indictments as N.L., according to the indictments, and believed to be PDA Vice Chair Neil Levesque. 

Marconi also is alleged to have deleted a voicemail in order to hinder any investigation, the indictments state. Cook, for his part, is accused of lying to the grand jury when questioned about N.L.’s driving records.

In a statement, Attorney General John Formella’s office defended the decision to charge Hantz Marconi.

“The Merrimack County Grand Jury heard all of the evidence in this case and determined that there was probable cause to charge the defendant with the crimes for which she was indicted. This case will continue to proceed as required by New Hampshire law, and the defendant will be entitled to the same due process as any other defendant – no more, no less. We will try this case in court based on all of the evidence collected and not in the media using just a portion of that evidence.”

Prosecutors are more than two months late producing evidence against Ports Director Geno Marconi, his lawyers say, and they’ve filed a motion asking the court to force the state to start showing its hand. If not, the attorneys argue, an upcoming meeting on the disposition of the case should be canceled.

Marconi is charged with felonies in a scandal that’s also snared his wife, Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, as well as a host of other Granite State political heavyweights.

Marconi’s lawyers filed a motion demanding discovery on Dec. 20, writing that the delays are holding up the case. Marconi was indicted by a grand jury in September, and his lawyers asked for discovery on Oct. 17, according to the motion. Marconi pleaded not guilty on Nov. 27.

“Although the pretrial disclosure in direct indictment cases is typically due 45 calendar days after the entry of a not guilty plea by the defendant … it has now been over 90 days since the defendant was indicted and more than 60 days since discovery was requested,” lawyers Richard Samdperil and Joseph Welsh wrote.

But Rockingham Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman isn’t pausing the case calendar. In an order issued Dec. 31, Schulman wrote that he “assumes” prosecutors are in the process of getting evidence, including any exculpatory evidence, to Marconi’s lawyers. The case is currently set for a dispositional conference on Jan. 14. 

Marconi is charged with two class B felonies – Tampering with Witnesses and Informants and Falsifying Physical Evidence. He’s also charged with four class A misdemeanors – two counts of Driver Privacy Act Violations and two counts of Obstructing Government Administration.

Marconi and Brad Cook, chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain, are accused of crimes involving leaking information about an unnamed victim to further an unstated motive.

Marconi illegally provided Cook with the confidential driving records of another person, known in the indictments as N.L., according to the indictments. Marconi also is alleged to have deleted a voicemail message in order to hinder any investigation, the indictments state. Cook, for his part, is accused of lying to the grand jury when questioned about N.L.’s driving records.

It is known that Marconi’s bail orders prohibit him from contacting Neil Levesque, a member of the Pease Development Authority Board. It’s also been reported that Levesque, Pease Development Authority Chair Steve Duprey, and the rest of the board met with Attorney General John Formella and Gov. Chris Sununu in April to discuss the emerging criminal investigation against Marconi.

Marconi and Cook both opposed the PDA’s plan to redevelop Rye Harbor to make it more retail friendly, a plan that Sununu supported. 

Marconi was placed on leave in April, after the meeting with Formella. Hantz-Marconi was forced to recuse herself from Supreme Court cases involving the Department of Justice while the criminal investigation proceeded. Frustrated at being sidelined, Hantz-Marconi met with Sununu in July to talk about the investigation interfering with her ability to serve on the court.

That conversation between Hantz-Marconi and Sununu became the basis for the criminal charges against the associate justice. She’s accused of trying to pressure Sununu to drop the investigation, though she strongly denies that is the case. Hantz-Marconi denies she did anything wrong. In court documents her lawyers have filed, it was learned Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald told her before the July meeting with Sununu that there would be nothing improper with the conversation.

The entire Supreme Court has since recused itself from Hantz-Marconi’s criminal case, as well as from her state attorney discipline process.

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella may owe his career to Gov. Chris Sununu, but that doesn’t stop him from prosecuting Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, according to a ruling released Wednesday.

Merrimack Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg denied Hantz Marconi’s motion to remove Formella from the case and to dismiss all the charges against her, saying she hasn’t shown evidence that Formella’s conflict of interest is anything other than speculative.

“Even assuming AG Formella owes much of his legal career to Gov.  Sununu, the Court is not convinced that such a history requires disqualification without a factual basis to support a showing that AG Formella has been or will be unable to perform his statutorily mandated duty to remain impartial given his personal relationship with the governor,” Honigberg wrote.

Richard Guerriero, one of Hantz Marconi’s lawyers along with Jonathan Motlier and Oliver Bloom, said they may appeal Honigberg’s ruling. 

“We respectfully disagree with the judge’s decision and we may appeal it at some point. However, this was a preliminary issue arising in the earliest stages of the case. Rest assured, we will continue to fight the attorney general’s accusations on every lawful basis until Justice Hantz Marconi is vindicated,” Guerriero said in a statement.

Hantz Marconi is accused of trying to intervene with Sununu and Pease Development Authority Board Chair Steve Duprey on behalf of her husband, Ports Director Geno Marconi, who is currently under criminal investigation. Marconi is charged with releasing private driver records and destroying evidence in his separate case.

Formella has long been associated with Sununu, working as his private attorney before Sununu ran for governor, serving on his transition team, and later as his counsel in office. Unlike most states where attorneys general are elected by the public, New Hampshire’s is nominated by the governor.

Hantz Marconi’s lawyers argued to the court that Formella’s relationship with Sununu, and Sununu’s role as a key witness in the criminal case against Hantz Marconi, present a disqualifying conflict. They wanted a special prosecutor appointed and the criminal indictments thrown out, since Hantz Marconi claims a potentially biased prosecution team presented evidence to the grand jury. 

But Sununu said during press questions following Wednesday’s Executive Council meeting that Formella goes to the “nth degree” to make sure politics stay out of prosecutions. He also pushed back on an NHPR report showing he was at an April meeting with Formella, Duprey, and other members of the PDA board before Geno Marconi was suspended and the criminal investigation started. Sununu had previously claimed he knew nothing about the case.

“I think that article was complete garbage. I meet with the attorney general all the time. The fact that I had a meeting with the attorney general, (that) it somehow implies that there was something, some other part of the discussion that wasn’t being disclosed, is complete nonsense and awful reporting by (NHPR’s Todd Bookman). It was completely unnecessary and inappropriate,” Sununu said. 

He also made it clear there are two separate cases — Geno Marconi and questions about his actions at Pease, and Hantz Marconi and her alleged actions on her husband’s behalf.

“Justice Marconi is very different from the Geno issue, which is what this (story) was about. I know I’ve never talked to an investigator about that,” Sununu said.

“Put it this way, the attorney general has never questioned me,” he added.

Geno Marconi clashed with the Pease Development Board over a proposed Rye Harbor development that Sununu backed. While the board and Sununu supported spending $1 million in federal money on a raised shopping area at the harbor, Marconi and his co-defendant Brad Cook opposed the plan. The PDA backed off the plan in September following push back from the community. 

Geno Marconi is accused of leaking private information of an individual known as N.L. in the indictments. It’s believed that N.L. is Neil Levesque, PDA vice chair and the executive director of the New Hampshire Institute for Politics at Saint Anselm College.

Levesque was at the April meeting with Formella, Sununu, and the rest of the board.

Soon after Geno Marconi was placed on leave, Hantz Marconi was forced to recuse herself from Supreme Court cases involving the Department of Justice. Frustrated with sitting out important decisions, Hantz Marconi scheduled a meeting with Sununu to discuss the issue, according to court records.

Before she met with Sununu, Hantz Marconi discussed the matter with Chief Justice Gordan MacDonald, who was the attorney general before Formella. MacDonald reportedly told Hantz Marconi there would be nothing illegal or inappropriate in talking to Sununu.

“I think you can do that—You are a constituent and have concerns,” MacDonald told her, according to court records.

Add Neil Levesque, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, to the list of high profile names involved in the odd scandal surrounding Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi and her husband, Geno Marconi. 

Both Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi and Geno Marconi face criminal charges in a case that’s already roped in Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, Gov. Chris Sununu, and Attorney General John Formella. The biggest mystery involving the Marconis is what, exactly, they allegedly did.

When Geno Marconi waived his arraignment in Rockingham Superior Court last week on his criminal charges, he was ordered to have no contact with Levesque as part of his bail conditions. Levesque is also the Pease Development Authority’s vice chair, the body that suspended Geno Marconi from his job as ports director in April.

Geno Marconi allegedly disclosed the driving records of an individual known as N.L. in court documents, and then later erased a voicemail message regarding those records. Geno Marconi’s codefendant in that case is Brad Cook, the chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain.

Judge Hantz Marconi is due in Merrimack Superior Court Monday for an arraignment on charges she allegedly abused her office when she tried to get Sununu to intervene in her husband’s pending investigation during a June meeting.

Since she was indicted in October, Hantz Marconi’s lawyers have already filed motions to dismiss the charges, and to get Formella booted from the case. According to her filings, Hantz Marconi sought advice from MacDonald before she talked to Sununu, resulting in the Chief Justice telling her she had a legal right to speak to the governor about her concerns. 

Hantz Marconi wants Formella removed from the case due to his long-standing personal and professional relationship with the government’s star witness, Sununu. Formella was Sununu’s private attorney before becoming legal counsel in office, and then attorney general.