#

The New Hampshire Supreme Court could soon decide whether judges, or elected officials, should determine how much the state kicks in for local schools. If it decides the power belongs with the courts, the result could be a more than $500 million increase in state taxpayers’ share of funding for education.

Justices heard oral arguments Tuesday in the ConVal education funding appeal as New Hampshire Solicitor General Anthony Galdieri argued Superior Court Judge David Ruoff’s decision is unconstitutional.

Ruoff ruled in 2021 the real cost of the constitutionally mandated adequate education is at least $7,300 per pupil, while Galdieri and the state say it’s $3,900. Galdieri said Tuesday that Ruoff erred by including line items like school buses, building maintenance, and facility costs into his calculation. The legislature only funds direct costs, such as teacher salaries and learning materials, through the education adequacy grant system.

“The (Supreme Court) already decided the legislature only has to pay for what’s been defined,” Galdieri said. 

But Michael Tierney, ConVal’s attorney, said the legislature’s funding definitions exclude costs like heating oil, cleaning supplies, and even positions like principals and superintendents from the formula. 

“The state’s funding is woefully inadequate and unconstitutional,” Tierney said.

Galdioeri also objects to Ruoff overstepping the legislature by setting a number at all, arguing that violates the separation of powers. Tierney counters judges set damage amounts in court cases all the time.

In addition, Ruoff’s number crunching didn’t come out of the blue. He was ordered to come up with a number by the Supreme Court.

The Peterborough-based Contoocook Valley Regional School District filed its lawsuit in 2018, and was soon joined by dozens of other school districts, saying the state’s then $3,600 per pupil was well below the real cost of an education. The districts wanted at least $10,000 per pupil.

The state has since increased the per pupil amount up to $4,100

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1990s Claremont decisions that all New Hampshire children have a right to an adequate education and that the state must fund it. Galdieri said the base adequacy grants system is not constitutionally mandated, but simply the way the legislature decided to meet the constitutional obligation to fund an adequate education.

But the legislature’s solution focused solely on funding basics like teachers and materials, leaving individual communities to pay for the buildings, school busses, maintenance, and other school costs on their own.

While the parties dispute where the funding should come from, there is no debate over the fact that New Hampshire taxpayers spend more for K-12 education than nearly every other state. Average per pupil spending in the Granite State has passed the $20,000 mark, and no district spends less than Ruoff’s $7,300 per pupil minimum.

Ruoff originally ruled in favor of the districts, but he did not set a number saying that is the job of the legislature. The state appealed that decision and the Supreme Court sent the case back to Ruoff, this time telling him to hold evidentiary hearings and come up with the real cost. 

Ruoff’s order has been stayed pending the outcome of the current appeal. If it were to go into effect it would suddenly require an additional $500 million in taxpayer money for education. Progressives have argued this spending would require that the state would have to give up its vaunted “New Hampshire Advantage” and embrace either a broad-based income or sales tax.

But Republican leaders like incoming Gov. Kelly Ayotte and new state Senate President Sharon Carson say tax hikes are not on the table. Carson was asked by WMUR if the courts should decide how much is “adequate,” she replied, “absolutely not.”

“That’s not their job. That’s our job. That’s the legislature’s job. The responsibility has been given to the legislature by the people of the state, not to the courts,” Carson said.

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. 

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.

A Republican prosecutor running a tough-on-crime campaign against a Democratic defense attorney should have checked his evidence before launching the political attack that’s now backfiring.

Hillsborough County Attorney John Coughlin’s reelection campaign recently launched a website attacking his opponent, Kim Kossick, for defending alleged Valley Cemetery rapist Amuri Diole. Diole was arrested in April 2021 for the violent rape of a woman for two hours in the cemetery.

But court records show Diole had been released from jail a week before the alleged rape because prosecutors in Coughlin’s office failed to file the necessary paperwork to keep the dangerous suspect locked up.

“I can’t change history. I can’t change the facts,” Coughlin told NHJournal.

At the same time, Coughlin’s opponent is trying to use the campaign website to get Diole off the hook for ever facing a trial over the horrific crime he allegedly committed.

Kossick is taking heat for running as a liberal reformer.

Because the campaign website mentions the Diole case, Kossick filed a motion in court to have the criminal charges dismissed. Diole was deemed incompetent to stand trial in the alleged rape in 2022 and is currently being held in the New Hampshire State Prison Secure Psychiatric Unit in Concord as the state seeks to have him ruled a sexually violent predator and then have him further held on an involuntary civil commitment.

But under state law, if Diole is ever returned to competency through medical treatment, he could then go on trial for the alleged rape. Kossik wants Diole to avoid prosecution in the future because, she says, Coughlin’s attack on her work defending Diole against the civil commitment taints the potential jury pool.

“The website is targeted at Hillsborough County voters and jurors,” Kossick said. “The people on the voting rolls are the jurors.”

Coughlin supporters say it is an example of the progressive approach Kossick would take to prosecuting crime. The issue has even reached the New Hampshire governor’s race.

On WMUR, Adam Sexton asked Democrat Joyce Craig if she supported the effort to use a campaign attack ad to get Diole exempted from prosecution. She appeared to defend her fellow Democrat.

“Everyone has the right to a civil defense,” Craig said. “And Kim Kossick is doing her job, and I believe that the county attorney has to be someone who represents our county and is always doing what’s right.”

Kossick says the real issue is that Diole wouldn’t have been out and able to commit the crime of Coughlin’s office had done its job.

“Coughlin doesn’t know what’s going on in his own office,” Kossick said.

Kossick was appointed to represent Diole during the civil commitment proceedings in the 2021 rape case, and ended up appealing the commitment to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided against Doile. Coughlin’s website attacks Kossick for representing Diole.

“Instead of ensuring justice for the victim, Kossick prioritized the legal defense of a man deemed too dangerous to release into society,” the website states.

Coughlin, echoing the website, told NHJournal that Kossick does not prioritize the rights of victims and their families as evidenced by her work to represent Diole. 

“The website is about her judgment and about victims rights, and her failure to protect the victims of crimes and their families,” Coughlin said.

But NHJournal reviewed the court records in Diole’s criminal history and found a failure by Coughlin’s office put Diole on the street a week before the alleged rape.

According to court records, Diole was jailed in early 2021 as the result of a 2018 assault case in Nashua. When the issue of Dole’s competency was raised in pre-trial in that case, he underwent an examination by Forensic Psychologist Mathilde Pelaprat. On Jan. 27, 2021, Judge Charles Temple deemed Diole a danger to himself and others and ordered Diole held for 90 days, giving time for prosecutors to have Diole committed.

But prosecutors failed to get the involuntary commitment order within the 90 days, forcing Temple to release Diole in his April 23, 2021, order. 

“In accordance with RSA 135:17-a, V, the defendant is released from custody at the Hillsborough County House of Corrections. The State has been unable to secure an involuntary commitment order and the 90 day hold period expires on April 27, 2021. As such, Mr. Diole’s release is mandatory under RSA 135:17-a, V,” Temple wrote.

According to media reports, Diole went from living in the Valley Street Jail in Manchester to the Valley Cemetery across the street for the next six days before he was arrested again for the brutal rape. 

Coughlin blamed Diole’s release on the fact one of his assistant county attorneys was unable to get a qualified specialist to examine Diole within the 90-day timeframe. Prosecutors must use specially qualified experts from a pre-approved list provided by the state to examine people for involuntary commitment proceedings, he said. 

“We made reasonable efforts to identify specialists,” Coughlin said.

Since Dole’s re-arrest for the alleged rape, Coughlin said his office worked with the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office on an expanded list of qualified specialists to make sure people who are a danger to the community can be committed. 

Kossick said blaming her, a defense attorney, for representing a criminal ignores the right every American has for a vigorous defense under both the United States Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution.

“Defense attorneys are the only people standing between the government and their client,” Kossick said.

Kossick was surprised that Coughlin, a former judge, would attack her for the work she did as a defense attorney. Not only does such an attack undermine the criminal justice system, but it is totally out of character for Coughlin, she said.

“We all thought John Coughlin was a very good judge,” Kossick said. “We all thought he was great because he never revoked bail and never put anyone in jail. I can only assume he’s pandering to somebody.”

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 Ports Director Geno Marconi is formally facing criminal charges a day after his wife, Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, was indicted for interfering in her husband’s criminal investigation.

A grand jury indicted Marconi on 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.

Also charged on Thursday: Bradley Cook, chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain. Cook was indicted on one class B felony charge for Perjury as well as two counts of class A misdemeanor False Swearing.

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

The purpose of the alleged lying and leaking of confidential records by two public officials is not yet clear. Cook spoke to the press before he was called to testify before the grand jury in September. Cook blamed the whole drama on Gov. Chris Sununu and a development plan for Rye Harbor that both Cook and Marconi opposed.

“I would say all of this is because Geno would not bend a knee to Chris Sununu, wouldn’t do what the governor wanted, and instead supports what is right and fair for other people,” Cook told InDepthNH.

Cook did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday. Marconi’s attorneys also did not respond.

Granite State political circles have been buzzing about the Marconis since Geno was placed on leave from his Ports job in April without explanation. That was followed by the stunning news that Justice Hantz Marconi was put on 90-day administrative leave in July, also without an explanation.

It now appears punitive action was taken after she allegedly approached Sununu in a private meeting. Hantz Marconi had been recusing herself from Supreme Court cases involving the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office for months. The Supreme Court issued a new order Thursday extending Hantz Marconi’s leave indefinitely as she deals with the criminal charges. 

Hantz Marconi, 68, was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2017 after being nominated by Sununu. She is close to the mandatory retirement age of 70 for New Hampshire judges. Her term ends in February 2026.

Cook and Marconi both opposed the Pease Development Authority’s (PDA) $1 million plan to develop a raised platform at Rye Harbor for retail shops and restaurants. Though it had backing from the PDA and Sununu, the plan was amid local opposition shelved in August.

Cook and Marconi are due in Rockingham Superior Court on Nov. 27 for arraignment. Hantz Marconi is due for her arraignment in Merrimack Superior Court on Nov. 21. She’s accused of trying to pressure Sununu to drop the investigation, and she is alleged to have sought private information from PDA Chair Steve Duprey. 

Republicans who spoke to NHJournal on background are split on the matter. Many are friends of Justice Hantz Marconi and find it hard to believe she would intentionally break the law, even on behalf of her husband. Others complain that, once she knew the situation she was in, she should have resigned and allowed another justice to be appointed. And there is widespread criticism of how Formella is handling Justice Hantz Marconi’s part in the scandal.

“If he has enough to charge her, then he should have enough to get her to resign and avoid this mess,” one Republican activist told NHJournal.

Another Republican with close ties to Pease said the information blackout is a problem.

“It’s the biggest mystery out there. Somebody should let us know what the hell is going on. This has been going on forever.”

This isn’t the first time in recent memory a New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice has been in trouble. In 2000, Associate Justice Stephen Thayer’s divorce wound up before the state Supreme Court, forcing two of his fellow members to recuse themselves. That resulted in Chief Justice David Brock appointing two different judges to a panel overseeing the Thayer divorce. 

In the mess that ensued, Thayer was forced to resign to avoid criminal charges and Brock was impeached. He was acquitted in the Senate.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi is facing two felonies for allegedly trying to influence the criminal investigation into her husband, New Hampshire Division of Ports and Harbors Director Geno Marconi.

“No person is above the law, and the evidence in this case required investigation and presentation to the grand jury,” said Attorney General John Formella. “The decision to charge a sitting justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court was not made lightly, and it comes after careful and thoughtful deliberation. It is my hope that the public will be reassured that all individuals, including public officials, are treated equally under the law.”

According to the indictments, during a June meeting Hantz Marconi tried to get Gov. Chris Sununu to stop the investigation into Geno Marconi by using Sununu’s influence with the New Hampshire Department of Justice. 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.

Hantz Marconi’s attorneys Richard Guerriero, Jonathan Kotlier, and Oliver Bloom issued a statement shortly after the indictments were announced proclaiming her innocence.  

“Justice Hantz Marconi is innocent. She did not violate any law or rule. We will fight the charges to the fullest extent permitted by the law, starting with motions to dismiss the case, which we anticipate filing soon. We intend to fight these wrongful accusations in court, where the fight should occur, and not in the media,” the statement reads.

Hantz Marconi was suspended from her job on the high court this summer, though at the time there was no explanation for her sudden removal. The deadline for her 90-day administrative was pending for later this month. 

Geno Marconi was suspended from his job by the Pease Development Authority Board this spring, and again, without a public explanation. A grand jury has reportedly heard evidence against Geno Marconi. So far, no charges have been filed. 

The indictments claim Hantz Marconi interfered with the investigation on multiple occasions starting in April, tried to get Sununu to pressure the Department of Justice, and tried to get privileged information out of Pease Development Authority Chair Steve Duprey about her husband’s case.

She is charged with two class B felonies – one count of Attempt to Commit Improper Influence and one count of Criminal Solicitation of Improper Influence, as well as five class A misdemeanors – two counts of Criminal Solicitation of Misuse of Position, one count of Criminal Solicitation of Official Oppression, one count of Official Oppression, and one count of Obstructing Government Administration. 

Class B felonies are punishable by up to 3.5 to 7 years in state prison and a fine of up to $4,000. Class A misdemeanors are punishable by up to 12 months in a house of corrections and a fine of up to $2,000.

She is now scheduled to appear in Merrimack Superior Court on Nov. 21 for arraignment. 

Democrat Jeff Woodburn’s journey from state Senate Minority Leader with his eye on the Corner Office in Concord to convicted petty criminal came to a close Wednesday when the Coos County politician was carted off to jail.

Woodburn appeared before Grafton Superior Court Judge Lawrence MacLeod after the state Supreme Court rejected his last appeal to avoid serving jail time. MacLeod denied defense attorney Mark Sisti’s request to suspend the two 30-day jail terms, and his request to stay the sentence for another appeal. 

MacLeod said the sentences for the two criminal mischief convictions are appropriate based on Woodburn’s violent behavior.

“I’m not going to second guess that,” MacLeod said.

Sisti then tried a last-ditch argument to keep Woodburn out of jail, saying his client had already been punished enough.

“The expense of litigation has been backbreaking, his reputation has been attacked for years, and the impact on him cannot be measured,” Sisti said in his motion for a suspended sentence.

Sending Woodburn to jail is unjust, and serves no purpose, especially in light of the dozens of similar cases Sisti cites that resulted in no incarceration, he argued.

“The real question is: why is Jeff being singled out for incarceration when many others, some as high profile or higher profile than he is, receiving suspended sentences for offenses as bad or worse than his,” Sisti wrote.

Sisti claimed in court on Wednesday that Woodburn is being singled out and given an unfair sentence by prosecutors angry that he went to trial and appealed his domestic violence and simple assault convictions and won.

“You’re looking at the living, breathing personification of a trial penalty. He had the audacity to go to trial,” Sisti said.

But Senior Assistant Attorney General Joshua Speicher rejected that argument, saying it’s Woodburn who is trying to upend justice and get special treatment. Speicher called Sisti’s argument an “11th-hour Hail Mary.”

“Although he claims that he is the victim of unfair punishment, what the defendant actually asks of this court is special treatment that is unavailable to other defendants,” Speicher wrote. “The defendant is not special, and does not deserve special treatment. He stands before this court as a convicted criminal who has been sentenced to serve stand committed time, and has exhausted all rights to appeal.”

Woodburn’s political career crashed in 2018 when he was charged with assaulting his former girlfriend in a domestic abuse case. Woodburn had been grooming the woman to be his first lady when he ran for governor, according to court records.

The case against Woodburn has dragged on for seven years, with the former state senator getting his 2021 convictions for simple assault and domestic abuse overturned by appealing to the state Supreme Court.

A second trial on the assault charges ended with a hung jury earlier this year, and New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella opted to drop the case rather than go for a third trial. That left just the two criminal mischief convictions, which the Supreme Court refused to reconsider. 

According to court records, Woodburn bit the woman during a December 2017 argument as she drove him home from a party. An intoxicated Woodburn demanded to be let out of the car and planned to call a friend for a ride. When the woman reached to take his phone, he allegedly bit her hand, according to the allegations.

Woodburn argued in this year’s second trial that he was acting in self defense when he bit the woman. 

As for the criminal mischief, Woodburn kicked in the door to the woman’s house and she refused to let him inside about a week after the fight in the car, according to court records. Earlier that year, in August 2017, he reportedly kicked her clothes dryer, breaking the appliance, according to court records. 

Amanda Grady Sexton with the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said today’s hearing represents accountability, finally, for Woodburn.

“Former Senator Woodburn will begin serving his jail sentence today, despite repeated efforts to avoid accountability—even after being found guilty by a jury of his peers. We commend the bravery of the survivor, and hope this outcome brings some sense of closure after nearly 7 years,” Grady Sexton said.

Former Democratic State Senate Minority Leader Jeffrey Woodburn is about to check in at the crowbar motel as Coos Superior Court Judge Peter Bornstein rejected what could be his final attempt to stay free.

On Thursday, Bornstein ordered Woodburn to appear in court for a sentencing imposition hearing. That hearing is to be set for the earliest possible date, according to the order. 

Woodburn urged his looming 30-day jail sentence on two convictions for criminal mischief be changed to a suspended sentence. But Bornstein rejected Woodburn’s recent motion to avoid jail, saying there are no facts in dispute.

“[E]ven if the Court was to consider the defendant’s request for sentence modification on the merits, it would deny same because his criminal mischief sentences reflected all relevant facts and circumstances and appropriately balanced and promoted the goals of sentencing,” Bornstein wrote.

Attorney General John Formella praised the ruling.

“The original sentences imposed on Mr. Woodburn for criminal mischief were carefully considered and were consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case. This outcome reflects our commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all convictions are addressed in a manner that respects both the victims and the integrity of the judicial process,” Formella said.

Woodburn’s political career crashed in 2018 when he was charged with assaulting his former girlfriend in the domestic abuse case. He fought the case for seven years and managed to overturn 2021 convictions for simple assault and domestic abuse by appealing to the state Supreme Court.

A second trial on the assault charges ended with a hung jury earlier this year. New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella opted to drop the case rather than go for a third trial. That left just the two criminal mischief convictions, which the Supreme Court refused to reconsider. 

According to court records, Woodburn bit the woman during a December 2017 argument as she was driving him back from a party. An intoxicated Woodburn demanded to be let out of the car, and he planned to call a friend for a ride. When the woman reached to take his phone, he allegedly bit her hand, according to the allegations.

Woodburn argued in this year’s second trial that he was acting in self defense when he bit the woman. 

As for the criminal mischief, Woodburn kicked the door to the woman’s house and she refused to let him inside about a week after the fight in the car, according to court records. Earlier that year, in August 2017, he reportedly kicked her clothes dryer, breaking the appliance, according to court records. 

Disgraced former Democratic leader Jeff Woodburn is out of appeals, but he’s still trying to avoid jail time on two counts of criminal mischief, the only surviving convictions from the seven-year-old domestic violence legal saga that ended his career.

Woodburn’s attorney, Mark Sisti, is asking the court to suspend the two 30-day sentences against his client, allowing the former Senate Minority Leader to essentially go free. Sisti told NHJournal on Monday it makes no sense to jail Woodburn. But the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office continues to pursue the punishment.

“I can assure you, no one in the state of New Hampshire is serving jail time for similar convictions,” Sisti said. “We’re talking about someone with absolutely no criminal record.”

Woodburn was contacted by NHJournal, but he referred questions to Sisti.

While the state Democratic Party has been silent on Woodburn’s case, he has the public backing of at least one former Democratic lawmaker, his current girlfriend Patty Dwyer.

“Jeff is a wonderful man who is honest, intelligent, funny, and thoughtful,” Dwyer wrote to Coos Superior Court Judge Peter Bornstein. 

Woodburn first met Dwyer when they both served as Democratic state representatives. Dwyer, a party volunteer and former teacher from Manchester, has long been a controversial Woodburn booster. Dwyer took to social media in 2021 to attack the victim after Woodburn’s first trial ended in convictions on simple assault, domestic violence, and the two criminal mischief counts. 

“The ‘lady’ is a huge liar and a thief, not to mention a SOCIOPATH!” Dwyer posted on social media. “She is an affront to woman who actually do experience domestic violence! Botton line; its the age old story of a woman scorned!” [All typos in the original.]

Dwyer’s comments attacking a domestic abuse victim did not prevent the Manchester Democratic Party from giving her the C. Arthur and Lillian Soucy Award in 2021 for her leadership in the party. The award is named for the parents of current Senate Minority Leader Donna Soucy (D-Manchester.) Soucy did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

NHJournal reached out to North Country Democrats running in this year’s election about whether it’s time for Woodburn to simply serve his sentence after losing his appeals. None would agree to comment on the record.

In his motion opposing jail time for his client, Sisti argues Woodburn is being unfairly punished because he was in a high profile elected office. Sisti is asking for the sentence to be suspended for two years, during which Woodburn will remain on good behavior.

“He should not be disproportionately punished because of his notoriety or the media attention to this matter. He should stand on equal footing with all other N.H. citizens in a similar situation with a similar background. A sentence involving actual incarceration would be excessive and would serve no logical purpose,” Sisti wrote.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office did not offer a comment other than the court motion filed in opposition to Sisti’s request for no jail time.

“The defendant’s objection should be summarily denied, as the defendant has waived any and all rights to appeal or request modification of the previously imposed sentence. Furthermore, the defendant has offered no valid basis upon which this court could grant his request,” Senior Assistant Attorney General Joshua Speicher wrote.

Sisti said the state is trying to save face in its pursuit of Woodburn after major setbacks to the prosecution ended up gutting the case.

“What have they got left after everything? After seven years, they have two minor misdemeanor convictions, and nobody got hurt on either of them,” Sisti said.

Woodburn was first charged in 2018 for allegedly abusing his then girlfriend. He was convicted in May 2021 on counts of domestic violence, simple assault, and criminal mischief after his first trial in 2021, but a later Supreme Court ruling overturned the domestic violence and simple assault charges, sending them back for a second trial. That second trial ended with a hung jury earlier this year, and New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella opted to drop the case rather than go for a third trial. 

According to court records, Woodburn bit the woman during a December 2017 argument as she was driving him back from a party. An intoxicated Woodburn demanded to be let out of the car, and planned to call a friend for a ride. When the woman reached to take his phone, he allegedly bit her hand, according to the allegations.

Woodburn argued in this year’s second trial that he was acting in self-defense when he bit the woman.