#

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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