#

Prosecutors did not hide evidence by failing to ask New Hampshire Lottery Executive Director Charles McIntyre about calling Concord Casino owner Andy Sanborn a “lying sack of trash.”

Sanborn faces criminal charges for allegedly filing false financial information in order to get COVID relief money. He’s also fighting the state in court over the forced sale of his casino. His lawyers wanted to depose McIntyre, as well as Director of Taxpayer Services Lisa Crowley, claiming the state failed to pursue questions that could clear Sanborn during their separate interviews with investigators.  

Merrimack Superior Court Judge John Kissinger recently ruled that Sanborn’s defense lawyers are free to ask their own questions during witness testimony at trial, but they don’t have the right to get either McInTyre or Crowley to sit for sworn depositions. McIntyre expressed a personal animus toward Sanborn during his interview with investigators, which defense lawyers claim demonstrates a potentially disqualifying bias.

But Kissinger wrote in his order that Sanborn likely already knows if McIntyre does not like him as a person, and prosecutors are not responsible for plumbing the depths of their relationship.

“To the extent, for example, that the defendants seek to explore Mr. McIntyre’s alleged animus toward Mr. Sanborn, the Court finds that whatever animus exists is known to Mr. Sanborn and may be properly addressed in cross-examination,” Kissinger wrote.

Prosecutors have already had their knuckles rapped by Kissinger after he found they violated attorney-client privilege when executing a search warrant last year. 

“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,” Kissinger wrote in January.

Assistant Attorney General David Lovejoy and forensic accountant Don Swanson were both kicked off the case by Kissinger as a result.

McIntyre’s January 2024 interview with members of the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office included numerous anecdotes about Sanborn’s behavior and truthfulness. In one answer, McIntyre told investigators the Lottery Commission had long dealt with Sanborn’s non-compliance when it came to following audit and cash management regulations. For his part, Sanborn blamed the Lottery Commission for holding back his business, McIntyre said.

“I mean, certainly first the cash management, and then the expansion, where he basically lied to us and said: ‘Oh, you’re the last thing holding us up.’ And then I find out he didn’t get approval for his fire sprinkler system yet. It’s like: ‘You lying sack of trash.’ Like (sigh). Yeah, so, correct. It was, it was a constant catching up with him,” McIntyre said in the transcript.

McIntyre painted Sanborn as a difficult person who tried to bully his way through licensing procedures and audits with the Lottery Commission. He was constantly trying to get around the process by essentially calling ‘the manager,’ McIntyre said, including McIntyre’s own cell phone.

“I made the mistake of giving it to him, and I regretted it from that moment until I stopped answering his phone calls,” McIntyre said.

Sanborn even tried to use supposed political allies like House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) and former Gov. Chris Sununu to weigh in on his behalf, to no avail, McIntyre said.

“It was, like: ‘Oh, we’re going to bring the speaker in, you’re going to get yelled at.’ And the Speaker never said anything, he never said ‘You need to do this, you need to do this.’ (Packard) never once did. And Sununu, the same way. I don’t, like I said, I don’t want to waive a privilege, but he never asked me for any — to do anything for them,” McIntyre told the investigators.

Sanborn is a former Republican state senator whose career highlights include a failed bid for the GOP nomination in the First Congressional District in 2018. While a state senator for Bedford, Sanborn was investigated for alleged sexual harassment of a Senate intern in 2013, though he maintains it was a misunderstanding about a crude joke.

State prosecutors claim they have witnesses who can prove Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi committed crimes. But who those witnesses are and what their evidence is appears to be secret.

So now, Hantz Marconi’s lawyers are asking the court to force prosecutors to let them see the evidence and reveal their mystery witnesses.

Hantz Marconi has maintained her innocence since she was indicted last October on charges of using her position on the state Supreme Court to get the criminal investigation into her husband, Embattled Port Authority Director Geno Marconi, quashed by Gov. Chris Sununu. 

After their motion to get the indictments dropped was rejected, Hantz Marconi’s lawyers filed new challenges, including a demand for a bill of particulars. Such documents are detailed statements describing the alleged criminal conduct, as well as a description of the evidence prosecutors have to support the charges.

According to defense attorneys Richard Guerriero and Jonathan Kotlier, the state has so far failed to show why the judge is now a defendant. Hantz Marconi is charged with attempt to commit improper influence, criminal solicitation, official oppression, criminal solicitation, and obstructing government administration, among other crimes.

According to documents filed in the case, the charges stem from Hantz Marconi’s meeting with Gov. Chris Sununu and a phone call she conducted with Pease Development Authority Board Chair Steve Duprey in which she discussed the investigation involving her husband.

The problem, according to Guerriero and Kotlier, is that all of the charges against Hantz Marconi require proof that she purposefully engaged in criminal conduct in those conversations with Sununu and Duprey. However, the evidence provided so far by prosecutors undermines the state’s charges. 

According to interview transcripts, Sununu told investigators Hantz Marconi never asked him to get involved in the investigation.

“No, there was no ask, there was nothing (like) ‘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.”

Present at the June 6 meeting with Sununu and Hantz Marconi was Rudy Ogden, Sununu’s legal counsel at the time. Ogden also told investigators 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.

Duprey told the investigators that Hantz Marconi called him to vent about the difficulties she was facing as a result of her husband’s legal troubles, and not to ask him to do anything illegal about the investigation.

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

When challenged on those statements during the hearing on Hantz Marconi’s previous motion to dismiss the indictments, Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham claimed to have more evidence that would show a crime was committed, including several other witnesses.

“There were facts and circumstances leading up to that meeting, which we expect to be presented at trial, as well as what happened inside the room. Matters which (Sununu) and Rudy Ogden knew nothing about,” Fincham said in court.

However, Guerriero and Kotlier argue the state has not provided any of that information in the discovery process, and they want Fincham to reveal his cards. Without that information, they say they cannot fully prepare for trial.

“[T]o the extent that Attorney Fincham alluded to ‘facts and circumstances leading up to the meeting’ and ‘[m]atters which the governor and Rudy Ogden [know] nothing about,’ the defense has no notice of these allegations,” Guerriero and Kotlier wrote. “[I]f the State has additional information or other witnesses who allegedly will enable the jurors to infer the Accused’s intent, then that information must be provided to the Accused. Bills of particulars are necessary for the Accused ‘to prepare an intelligent defense.’”

Geno Marconi was placed on leave by the Pease Development Authority board last year when the Attorney General’s Office opened the investigation that would result in indictments against him, his wife, and his friend, Bradley Cook, in October. Geno Marconi is accused of getting hold of private driver’s license information on an N.L., giving that information to Cook, and destroying evidence during the subsequent investigation.

Geno Marconi butted heads with the PDA board and Board Chair Neil Levesque for years. Levesque accused Marconi of wrongdoing in managing operations at Rye Harbor. A lawsuit filed in January by owners of Rye Harbor Lobster Pound accused Geno Marconi of trying to drive them out of business to benefit friends and family who operate competing businesses. 

Geno Marconi has since retired from his position as ports director. His criminal trial is set for later this year. 

Attorneys challenging Tennesse’s law banning sex-change medical procedures for children before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday struggled to make their case before skeptical judges. If the court upholds Tennessee’s law, that would add more support to a similar law here in New Hampshire.

The Biden administration’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar joined ACLU attorney Chase Strangio in challenging the law. They suffered a major setback when Strangio was forced to admit a commonly-used argument regarding sex-change treatment for minors and suicide is in fact false.

Both the Biden administration and the ACLU argue Tennessee’s ban, which is similar to the ban Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law this summer, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. They argue that because hormone treatments can be given to minors struggling with the impacts of puberty to advance their sexual development — such as giving males testosterone — but these treatments can’t be used to change a child’s sex — giving testosterone to females — it is discriminating on the basis of sex.

Without those treatments, children deemed to be suffering from gender dysphoria will be at risk of suicide, according to Prelogar.

“Left untreated, gender dysphoria can result in severe physical and psychological harms. Those harms include ‘debilitating distress, depression, impairment of function, substance use, self-surgery to alter one’s genitals or secondary sex characteristics, self-injurious behaviors, and even suicide,’” Prelogar wrote in her brief to the Court. 

Alito confronted Prelogar with multiple studies that found no significant change in suicide rates, including research from Sweden and Great Britain. For example, he cited the United Kingdom’s Cass Review, which found little evidence to further the viewpoint that the benefits of transgender treatment are greater than the risks.

“I wonder if you would like to stand by the statement in your position, or if you think it would now be appropriate to modify that and withdraw your statement?” Alito asked.

Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer who was born a biological woman and now identifies as a man, conceded the facts show suicide among untreated transgender adolescents does not happen, but claimed untreated transgender kids think about suicide.

“Completed suicide is thankfully and admittedly rare,” Strangio said. 

The actual rarity of transgender-identifying adolescents committing suicide hasn’t stopped Democrats from using the trope to argue in favor of surgically altering children or allowing schools to socially transition kids behind their parent’s back.

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley claimed transgender kids would kill themselves if schools were legally barred from hiding transitioning efforts from parents.

“[The children] will be kicked out or beaten (to death) or commit suicide,” Buckley wrote on social media.

Strangio also didn’t help the cause by appearing on CNN and suggesting that children as young as two years old know they were born in the wrong bodies.

“These are doctors who are wanting to treat their patients in the best way that they know how, based on the best available evidence to us,” Strangio said of doctors who give hormone treatments to young children. “And these are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for six or seven years before they had any relief.”

Given the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, it is likely to side with Tennessee and uphold the ban. The conservative justices generally expressed skepticism that the medical science surrounding transgender adolescents is settled as more data comes in from Europe showing the harms of using surgery and hormone therapy on children, contradicting the current state of medicine in America.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the fact that the medical communities in progressive European countries are expressing reservations should give leaders in America pause.

“If it’s evolving like that and changing, and England’s pulling back and Sweden’s pulling back, it strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court,” Kavanaugh said.

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over whether states have the right to ban gender reassignment medical procedures for minors. It’s a case that could impact New Hampshire’s newly-passed law.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Biden administration want to overturn the transgender surgery ban put in place by Tennessee. It outlaws doctors giving puberty-blocking medications to children whose parents identify them as transgender. The law also bans doctors from performing procedures like vaginoplasties, the surgical creation of a vagina from other parts of the body; phalloplasty, the surgical creation of a penis; and metoidioplasty, the transformation of a clitoris to a penis, on children.

Supporters of those bans note the surgeries are permanently disfiguring and difficult — if not impossible — to entirely reverse. Earlier this year, the Biden administration released a policy statement declaring its opposition to sex-change surgery for minors.

That was a reversal from the same Biden health officials whose original draft guidelines would have lowered the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies.

In response to those aggressive actions by the federal government, states began passing laws banning the extreme procedures from being performed on children. Tennessee’s ban is similar to the law Gov. Chris Sununu signed this summer, HB 619.

“HB 619 ensures that life-altering, irreversible surgeries will not be performed on children,” Sununu said in his signing statement.

If the Biden administration and the ACLU are successful at the Supreme Court arguing against the Tennessee ban, HB 619 could be in trouble. However, conservative lawyer Ian Huyett with Cornerstone, said even if Tennessee wins, New Hampshire could still lose.

“The Tennessee case is about whether a state can ban gender transition therapy for minors under the federal Equal Protection Clause,” Huyett told NHJournal. “New Hampshire has a narrower ban on genital reassignment surgery on minors, RSA 332-M, that is similar to Tennessee’s law. A victory for Tennessee in this case could insulate that law from federal Equal Protection Clause challenges.

“However, our state courts in New Hampshire are the final authority on the New Hampshire Constitution—and they do not need to follow the federal courts. Our state courts could still hold that the state Constitution provides a right to chemically castrate minors, or a right to go into the locker rooms of the opposite sex. That could then be the law in New Hampshire for 10 years, regardless of what the US Supreme Court says,” according to Huyett.

The ACLU lawyer who will be arguing the case before the Supreme Court claimed Tuesday that children as young as two years old can “know” they were born in the wrong bodies.

“Our argument is that it treats people differently because of their sex,” attorney Chase Strangio — who was born female and now lives as a male — told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “These are young people who may have known since they were two years old who they are … It’s not the kids who are consenting to the treatment, it’s the parents who are consenting to the treatment.”

Strangio claimed years of medical data show gender reassignment surgeries and puberty blockers are good for transgender children.

“This is medical treatment that provides critical benefits to adolescents that need it,” Strangio said. 

However, the data does not actually show that children need gender reassignment. Great Britain banned puberty blockers for children after the National Health Service commissioned Dr. Hilary Cass to perform an independent review of medical treatment for children who identify as transgender. The Cass Report found a shocking lack of data to back up the life-changing treatments given to children.

“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” the Cass Report states. 

Several other European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and France, are taking a more restrictive approach to gender-reassignment procedures as more data become available.

In the U.S., however, studies that raise questions about gender reassignment have been suppressed or left unpublished due to politics.

For example, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH, is the group that developed the SOC-8 guidelines for medical care for children for the federal Health and Human Services agency. 

WPATH is the group that recommends castrations as a medical treatment for men who identify as eunuchs. Even still, WPATH’s first draft of the SOC-8 guidelines included age limits for children seeking gender reassignment treatment. But Biden’s Surgeon General Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, reportedly pressured WPATH to remove age restrictions from the SOC-8 draft, court records show. 

WPATH was caught hiding evidence that did not support gender reassignment surgeries and other treatments for children in other instances, according to court records.

Dr. Karen Robinson, research team leader from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine working on SOC-8, reported to HHS that WPATH was suppressing her research because it found there is no real evidence gender reassignment surgeries actually helped children. 

Robinson first reported to HHS that her researcher looked at the reported benefits of gender reassignment procedures and “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents.” At the same time she told HHS that WPATH was blocking her from publishing the report.

“[WPATH is] trying to restrict our ability to publish,” Robinson wrote to HHS.

WPATH was simply enforcing its policy that all SOC-8 researchers write articles that “use the Data for the benefit of advancing transgender health in a positive manner,” according to court records.

The person accusing New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi of potential lawbreaking is Gov. Chris Sununu.

The person prosecuting her alleged wrongdoing, Attorney General John Formella, works for Sununu.

And that, Hantz Marconi’s lawyers argue, is a conflict of interest. So they’re asking Merrimack Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg to throw out the case as a result.

Prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office say it’s just her legal team’s attempt to grab a get-out-of-free card.

It’s now up to Merrimack Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg to decide who’s right.

Hantz Marconi is accused of illegally trying to influence Sununu to intervene in the criminal investigation involving her husband, Ports Director Geno Marconi, during a June meeting. Geno Marconi was indicted three months later on charges he leaked confidential driver’s license records and destroyed evidence.

In Merrimack Superior Court in Concord on Monday, Hantz Marconi’s lawyer, Richard Guerriero, said Formella cannot fairly prosecute the case due to his personal and professional relationship with Sununu. Formella represented Sununu in private practice, worked on Sununu’s original transition team after the 2016 election, served as the governor’s counsel, and now owes his current position as attorney general to Sununu. 

“Every accused person is entitled to a prosecutor who is impartial,” Guerriero said. “I don’t think we can ignore the fact Attorney General Formella has a close relationship with this one very powerful public official.”

Formella is supposed to represent every New Hampshire citizen as attorney general, but he can’t do that fairly given his previous role as Sununu’s attorney and his attorney general duties that require he represent the governor in civil matters.

The case has highlighted a problem that comes from a system where the attorney general is selected by the state’s chief executive. In 43 states and the District of Columbia, the top cop is elected by the voters. Only four other states follow the New Hampshire model.

“A prosecutor cannot serve two masters,” Guerriero said. “He can’t be loyal to his client, and at the same time fairly assess the merits of a possible case against an accused person.”

Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham countered that the alleged conflict of interest Guerriero is claiming is nothing more than an attempt to derail any criminal charges against Hantz Marconi.

“The defense is asking for immunity. If you commit a crime in front of the governor … you are immune from prosecution in the state of New Hampshire,” Fincham said. “This alleged conflict means no one can prosecute this defendant … which is an absurd result.”

But Guerriero said prosecutors are trying to blame him when they knew for months Formella’s conflict is a live legal issue in the case. He spoke to them before the case against Hantz Marconi was brought to a grand jury, urging them to appoint a special prosecutor. Short of hiring an outside prosecutor, Guerriero said they could have taken steps to remove Formella from the prosecution and shield him from the case to protect Hantz Marconi’s rights and avoid the conflict. But that did not happen.

“This could have been different,” Guerriero said. “But they plowed ahead and now we’re here three months later.”

Guerriero wants the charges dismissed and have the state start over with a new, independent prosecutor. Because grand juries only consider evidence presented by a prosecutor, without any argument from a defense attorney, it’s essential the prosecutor be absolutely fair and impartial, Guerriero said.

“The only protection we have at the grand jury is if the prosecutor is impartial,” Guerriero said.

For his part, Honigberg seemed skeptical of Guerriero’s argument Formella is conflicted due to his role as civil litigator for Sununu and the rest of the executive branch. The judge remarked every attorney general represents every governor in civil matters while also prosecuting every criminal case. 

But things get murky when it comes to the matter of Formella’s prior relationship with Sununu.

Attorney-client ethics rules mean Formella is bound not to disclose information he learned about Sununu in private practice and as the governor’s counsel, even if it is exculpatory for Hantz Marconi, Honigberg noted. 

Guerriero, speaking hypothetically to the judge, suggested that if Formella knew something about Sununu’s statements or actions regarding the Pease Development Authority (PDA).

“Suppose there was some interest of Sununu’s in the Pease Development Authority that [Formella] discussed with Sununu. It’s knows [Sununu’s] taken action at Pease. Suppose something the governor said about Pease becomes an issue, contrary to what he’s saying now,” Guerriero said.

Geno Marconi clashed with the Pease Development Board over a proposed Rye Harbor development. 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 a 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. 

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.

New Hampshire’s $100 million housing investment, InvestNH, is starting to pay off.

“InvestNH was absolutely critical in allowing more housing to be built,” said developer Jack Franks.

Franks, president and CEO of Avanru Development Group, said InvestNH’s help was key to some of his new affordable housing projects in Newport, Swanzey, and Hillsborough.

“Hillsborough would not have happened,” Franks pointed out.

Polls consistently show housing costs are a top priority for Granite Staters, and many of the state’s employers say housing is one their biggest challenges in attracting quality workers. Using federal ARPA relief funds to get more apartments and homes built, InvestNH is making a difference, though there’s still a long way to go.

“This crisis is not going to be solved overnight, but we are working with local leaders to get them the resources they need to match housing needs in their community,” said Department of Business and Economic Affairs Commissioner Taylor Caswell.

Administered by the BEA, InvestNH has already impacted more than 4,657 new housing units throughout the state, according to Caswell, with more to come.

BEA worked through InvestNH to create a capital grant program to fund the development of affordable housing; a demolition program to assist municipalities in preparing for or addressing housing challenges and project developments in older dilapidated properties; a per-unit incentive grant program that awarded municipalities $10,000 per unit of approved affordable housing, and the Housing Opportunities program, which assisted 67 communities to review and develop planning and zoning strategies to facilitate appropriate housing in their towns.

“The goal with these one-time funds has been to help accelerate affordable housing units getting to market and setting the stage for more private investment in affordable housing statewide by providing incentives and resources to local communities,” Caswell said.

BEA used InvestNH to fund: $64 million for the Capital Grant program that impacted 1,605 new units; $16.2 million for the Per Unit Grants program that impacted 1,910 units; $11.5 for the Demolition Grants program that impacted 2,302 units; and $7.9 million for the Housing Opportunity Planning Grants program that went to 67 communities throughout the state.

BEA’s new state Housing Champions program will soon be able to continue the InvestNH programs, thanks to state general funds totaling $15 million.

Even with InvestNH, New Hampshire has a vacancy rate of around 1 percent or less, according to Franks, leaving Granite Staters to pay more for rent or looking out of state for a decent home they can afford.

“It’s beyond critical mass at this point. It’s at absurdity, the amount of housing that’s needed in the state,” Franks said.

Of his three new developments, two were fully rented soon after opening. Both the Swanzey and Newport apartment projects now have waiting lists, and the Hillsborough development is taking applications now.

The biggest obstacle to building more affordable housing that Franks encounters are the sometimes redundant and contradictory local regulations that slow construction, or stymie projects altogether. Franks hopes incoming Gov. Kelly Ayotte will work to streamline those regulations and cut the red tape that make the housing crisis worse. 

Ayotte told NHJournal she’s ready to help.

“Tackling New Hampshire’s housing crisis is a key priority for my administration — we need more housing for our workforce, our seniors, our families, and every community across our state,” Ayotte said. “As Governor, I’ll work to streamline the state permitting process, cut unnecessary red tape that creates barriers to construction, and bring stakeholders together to discuss how we can incentivize construction of more affordable housing while respecting local control. Working together, we’ll keep New Hampshire moving in the right direction.”

Attorney General John Formella and his entire office need to be dismissed from Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi’s criminal case due to serious conflicts of interest, according to her attorney Richard Guerriero.

“Attorney General Formella and his subordinate attorneys should not have been handling this matter before the grand jury and should not be prosecuting it now,” Guerriero wrote in a motion filed Thursday.

Ultimately, Guerriero wants all of the charges dismissed. Short of that, he wants Formella and his office removed from the case entirely. The concern Guerriero raises is that Formella not only has a long-standing personal and professional relationship with Gov. Chris Sununu, but he considers himself to be the chief executive’s lawyer in his role as attorney general.

Hantz Marconi is charged with felonies for allegedly trying to pressure Sununu to drop the criminal investigation into her husband, New Hampshire Ports Director Geno Marconi. That makes Sununu, Formella’s friend and client, the state’s key witness in the alleged crimes. 

Before becoming attorney general, Formella was a private attorney working for Sununu and his family who worked on the campaign for governor, and then became Sununu’s legal counsel in office. In his role as attorney general, Formella told NHJournal during a podcast interview that he considers himself Sununu’s attorney. 

“As far as the relationship with the governor, for every attorney general, the governor is probably their most important client. So, it’s an attorney-client relationship,” Formella said. 

The attorney general is the state’s chief prosecutor as well as the governor’s attorney in civil matters, according to memos from the Department of Justice.

Formella is tasked with making decisions on criminal prosecutions handled by his office, and he is in charge of directing his staff who handle the day-to-day work. With Hantz Marconi’s case, the prosecution is being handled by the Public Integrity Unit (PIU), which was created by order of Sununu in 2020 and not the legislature. Guerriero wrote that means the PIU can be subject to Sununu’s wishes, and not the work of the public.

“As a result of how it was created, Gov. Sununu has unique power over the PIU. Sununu determines what funding to recommend to the legislature for the PIU. Furthermore, he has the power to unilaterally dissolve the unit by executive order,” Guerriero wrote.

Because of that lack of impartiality, all of the indictments need to be dismissed, Guerriero wrote. The charges were handed up by a grand jury two weeks ago, but because of Formella and his office’s conflict of interest, Guerriero argues the grand jury’s findings should be discounted. Grand jury proceedings happen in secret, and there is no one representing the accused. Instead, prosecutors alone present evidence for the jurors to consider.

“If there is any chance a grand jury will make a fair decision about whether to indict a person, rather than simply signing off on the indictments presented to them, it depends on the impartiality of the prosecutors,” Guerriero wrote. “The prosecutors here are not impartial.”

Four Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, have recused themselves from the case. MacDonald, like Sununu, is a witness in the case as he reportedly told Hantz Marconi she had a right to talk about her husband’s investigation with the governor before the June meeting at the heart of the matter.

“I think you can do that. You are a constituent and have concerns,” MacDonald reportedly said.

Hantz Marconi then made an appointment with Sununu through official channels to speak with him on June 6 in his office. Sununu’s current legal counsel, Rudolph Ogden attended the meeting, which was on Sununu’s official calendar.

“The meeting was open and documented in multiple ways — not exactly the usual route to corruption,” Guerriero wrote.

Hantz Marconi and Gereero maintain there was no crime committed, and the state has not alleged any actual criminal acts.

Hantz Marconi allegedly told Sununu there was no merit to any of the allegations against her husband and the case “needed to wrap up quickly because she was rescued from important cases pending or imminently pending before the New Hampshire Supreme Court,” the indictments state.

No threat was made, nor was there any improper request, Guerriero claims. Prosecutors have not yet made their evidence available to the defense, so it is not clear who reported Hantz Marconi to Formella. Earlier this week, a panel of substitute judges sitting for the recused Supreme Court ordered Hantz Marconi’s law license suspended based on the fact she’s been charged with a felony.

Geno Marconi has been on leave from his job directing the ports since April of this year while the criminal investigation into his alleged acts proceeded. Geno Marconi and Bradley Cook, the chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain, were both indicted the same week as Hantz Marconi. Geno Marconi is accused of giving confidential driving records of an unnamed person to Cook, though the official charges give very little detail about the alleged crime. 

Hantz Marconi is facing charges of Attempt to Commit Improper Influence, Criminal Solicitation of Improper Influence, Official Oppression, Criminal  Solicitation of Official Oppression, Obstructing Government Administration, and Criminal Solicitation of Misuse of Position. Geno Marconi is indicted on felony charges of 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.

The four remaining New Hampshire Supreme Court justices won’t hear any arguments related to Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi after they ordered themselves off the case.

“Resolving it would require us to adjudicate the conduct of a current colleague, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi,” the justices wrote in the order.

The order comes Wednesday hours after Hantz Marconi’s legal team filed a motion to boot Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald from the case, naming him as a material witness in her alleged crime. Hantz Marconi is charged with trying to pressure Gov. Chris Sununu to stop the criminal probe into her husband, New Hampshire Ports Director Geno Marconi.

Justice Barbara Hantz Marconi listens to oral arguments during a 2023 hearing.

According to the indictments handed down last week, Hantz Marconi met with Sununu in June and tried to get him to stop the investigation into Geno Marconi. She allegedly told Sununu there was no merit to any of the allegations against her husband and the case “needed to wrap up quickly because she was recused from important cases pending or imminently pending before the New Hampshire Supreme Court,” the indictments state.

But, according to the motion filed Wednesday, MacDonald encouraged her to talk to Sununu about her husband’s investigation, and told her it would not be illegal for her to do so.

“Justice Hantz Marconi did meet with Governor Sununu on June  6, 2024. The meeting was entirely lawful and proper. One of the key facts demonstrating that the meeting was lawful and proper is that Justice Hantz Marconi communicated with Chief Justice MacDonald prior to meeting with Governor Sununu. Justice Hantz Marconi explained to Chief Justice MacDonald that she was considering requesting a meeting with the Governor. The Chief Justice’s response was, ‘I think you can do that – You  are a constituent and have concerns.’ Justice Hantz Marconi understood this comment to confirm her view that she had the right to seek to address the Governor, just as any other citizen would have that right,” her motion states.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald

Hantz Marconi was placed on administrative leave soon after that June 6 meeting. Geno Marconi has been on leave from his job directing the ports since April of this year. Both were indicted last week.

Hantz Marconi is facing charges of Attempt to Commit Improper Influence, Criminal Solicitation of Improper Influence, Official Oppression, Criminal Solicitation of Official Oppression, Obstructing Government Administration, and Criminal Solicitation of Misuse of Position. Geno Marconi is indicted on felony charges of 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.

Geno Marconi is accused of giving confidential driving records of an unnamed person to Brad Cook, chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain. Cook is charged with one count class B felony Perjury as well as two counts of class A misdemeanor False Swearing.

In the meantime, Hantz Marconi agreed to a suspension of her law license as the case against her is proceeding. The New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office planned to open up a formal proceeding to get Hantz Marconi suspended, but the justice agreed to the suspension.

If she were to fight the Attorney Discipline process, Hantz Marconi’s law license case would eventually end up before the Supreme Court and MacDonald. The Supreme Court’s total recusal effects that process, as well any challenges she brings during her criminal trial in Merrimack Superior Court.

Rather than merely having MacDonald remove himself from the case, Associate Justices James Bassett, Patrick Donovan, and Melissa Countway are also stepping aside. If a full slate of alternates cannot be found, however, at least some of the justices will take their seats.

“Our recusal is conditioned upon the availability of substitute justices to participate in this case. In the event that substitute justices are not available, the ‘rule of necessity’ may compel our participation,” the order states. 

Under state law, the courts will randomly pick substitutes from a pool of retired Supreme Court and Superior Court justices. If there are not enough retired justices available, a random selection will be made from active Superior Court Justices, and then District Court justices if the need arises.

New Hampshire’s only death row inmate wants his sentence for killing a police officer commuted, and his clemency quest may become part of this year’s election.

Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs was murdered 18 years ago, leaving behind a wife and young children. His killer, Michael “Stix” Addison, was quickly caught, tried, and convicted of capital murder. The woman who prosecuted the case and sought the death penalty, Kelly Ayotte, could be the next governor. 

Addison, 44, was in Merrimack Superior Court in Concord on Monday seeking to have the death sentence imposed by the original unanimous jury overturned.

Ayotte told NHJournal on Monday she still believes Addison should face the ultimate punishment for murdering Michael Briggs.

“As attorney general, I sought a death sentence for Michael Addison for his cold-blooded murder of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs. The jury found Addison guilty of capital murder and imposed the death sentence. I testified against the repeal of the death penalty, and I still believe that he should be executed for killing Officer Briggs,” Ayotte said.

Despite having served as mayor of Manchester, the city Officer Briggs served, Democrat Joyce Craig has said little about Addison’s attempt to avoid the death sentence.

Craig would not respond to a request for comment from NHJournal about the convicted murderer’s request for leniency. When asked by WMUR if she supported clemency for Addison, she gave a one-word reply:

“No.”

Manchester’s crime problem on her watch, along with homelessness and opioid addiction, have emerged as key issues in the campaign for governor. Those issues plagued her time as mayor and helped get Republican Jay Ruais elected last year. 

Addison’s attorney, Jon Cioschi, pointed to New Hampshire’s decision to repeal the death penalty in 2019 (HB 455) in his current arguments for commutation. Cioschi said the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the United States Constitution.

But Assistant Attorney General Audriana Mekula said in court that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has already weighed in on Addison’s case, upholding the death sentence.

“As it stands, the historical and textual analysis is the way to look at this, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has already held that the sentence, the death penalty, in general and as applied to this particular petitioner, is constitutional,” Mekula said.

The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence in a 2013 ruling, and in a 2015 sentence review. Both rulings found Addison’s death sentence does not violate the Constitution and that the sentence is appropriate.

“We conclude that the defendant’s sentence is neither excessive nor disproportionate and, accordingly, affirm his sentence of death,” the Supreme Court ruled in 2015.

But Cioschi said the 2019 repeal law is evidence New Hampshire no longer supports the death penalty and imposing death on Addison violates the will of the people.

“HB 455, the repeal, is clear, reliable, objective evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in New Hampshire.” Cioschi said. 

While the legislature voted to pass HB 455, Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed the law, saying it represented a miscarriage of justice for Briggs and his surviving family.

“This bill is an injustice to not only Officer Briggs and his family, but to law enforcement and victims of violent crime around the state,” Sununu said at the time.

The legislature voted to override the veto, however, and the repeal became law more than 20 years after Addison was sentenced to die by lethal injection.

Addison and his partner in crime, Antoine Bell-Rodgers, had pulled off three violent armed robberies in the days before Briggs was murdered. On Oct. 16, 2006, Briggs and fellow Manchester Police Officer John Breckenridge responded to a report of a fight at the home of Bell-Rodgers and Addison. 

The two men allegedly tried to leave when they saw the officers, but Briggs ordered the pair to stop. Bell-Rodgers did stop, but Addison kept walking away. Briggs again ordered him to stop, and that was when Addison turned around and shot Briggs in the head. Briggs, at that point, had not upholstered his pistol. Addison fled the state, and was later caught in Dorchester, Mass.

Bell-Rodgers is currently serving a 60-years-to-life sentence for his role. 

During his appeal, Addison argued that his difficult childhood, including a drug addicted mother who abused him, were mitigating factors in the crime. Addison was 26 when he killed Briggs. 

Not mentioned in Addison’s litany of mitigating factors is the fact he knew Briggs before the murder. In 2003, Briggs saved his life, giving Addison first aid after Addison was shot by another man in Manchester. 

Judge Daniel St. Hilaire ordered both sides to provide more information for their arguments. The next hearing is set for October.