#

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. 

Geno Marconi used his authority as the New Hampshire Ports Director in an attempt to drive a rival business out of Rye Harbor, according to a lawsuit filed on Friday in Merrimack Superior Court.

The lawsuit, brought by the owners of the popular Rye Harbor Lobster Pound, may shed light on the criminal charges against Marconi and the scandal that’s ensnared his wife, Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi.

Rye Harbor Lobster Pound owners Sylvia Cheever and Nathan Hansom claim Marconi has been trying to bounce their business for years in order to aid his sister, Francesca Marconi Fernald, who operates Geno’s Chowder & Sandwich Shop, a restaurant started by their parents.

According to the lawsuit, Geno Marconi made it impossible for customers to park at the Rye Harbor Lobster Pound, interfered with its business relationship with local lobster fishermen, and imposed a unique “concession fee” shakedown.

“The series of actions taken against Rye Harbor Lobster Pound were driven by Marconi’s desire to harm a competitor to his family business and in retaliation against the Plaintiffs who were not part of Marconi’s network of allied businesses and individuals who worked for or were otherwise connected with the Port Authority,” the lawsuit states.

The concession fee, which took effect in 2023, was a 10 percent tax on RHLP’s gross monthly revenue. In total, the PDA forced RHLP to hand over more than $115,000 in 2023 and 2024.

According to the lawsuit, no other harbor business pays a similar fee at that rate.

“Upon information and belief, no other business was subject to a concessions agreement which required to payment of so-called concessions fees during this time period,” the lawsuit states. 

RHLP has been operating since 1996, and selling prepared food since 2005, according to the lawsuit. The business, like others in the same location, has paid the same $1,000 fee for its right to operate at the harbor, which is controlled by the PDA.

Another business in the harbor which sells prepared food, Rye Harborside, pays the $1,000 minimum fee to operate. Rye Harborside is owned by Granite State Whale Watch, which has connections to Marconi, the lawsuit states.

“Granite State Whale Watch is owned and operated by Sue Reynolds and her son Pete Reynolds. Sue Reynolds’s partner is Leo Axtin, who at all times relevant to this complaint was the Rye Harbor Master and reported to Marconi as the port director,” the lawsuit states.

Marconi began the campaign against the RHLP in 2020, according to Cheever and Hanscom’s lawsuit, after the business managed to succeed despite the COVID-19 lockdowns, according to the lawsuit. Marconi began by trying to force RHLP to stop selling chowder. He failed.

In 2021 the PDA, with pressure from Marconi, refused to grant RHLP a concession agreement for the 2021 season, according to the lawsuit.

Following a public outcry, then-Gov. Chris Sununu stepped in and granted RHLP a waiver to operate. Marconi then had state employees monitor RHLP, Cheever, Hanscom, and their customers, taking videos and keeping a daily activity log, according to the lawsuit.

In subsequent years, the PDA and Marconi reportedly required RHLP to hire security details, undertake building renovations, and remove outdoor seating. Now, Cheever and Hanscom are concerned the PDA will try to block them from operating for the 2025 season.

The lawsuit is seeking an injunction against the PDA allowing Cheever and Hanscom to operate without being subjected to arbitrary rules and without paying Marconi’s shakedown money. They also want monetary damages for the harm Marconi and the PDA reportedly did to their business.

Marconi was suspended last year by the PDA as the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office opened its criminal investigation into his sketchy behavior. He’s since been indicted for allegedly leaking private driver’s license information and destroying evidence. Marconi recently filed paperwork to retire from his state job.

This isn’t the first time Marconi’s been the subject of a work-related controversy. In 2006, Marconi was accused of misusing public resources for his own benefit, taking improper gifts like lobsters and liquor in his role as ports director, and using racist slurs about a ship captain trying to do business with the state.

A subsequent drive-by shooting at the home of one witness who complained about Marconi has gone unsolved. No one was ever charged for shooting or other threats made against witnesses. Marconi has denied involvement.