By NANCY WEST, InDepthNH.org
The Attorney General has filed a complaint against state Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi to the Judicial Conduct Committee reporting the pending criminal indictments against her.
Hantz Marconi also self-reported the charges through her attorneys while disagreeing with the allegations and maintaining her innocence, according to a statement the JCC released Thursday.
The state Supreme Court oversees the disciplinary process for judges through the Judicial Conduct Committee.
The indictments are the same ones made public Oct. 16 alleging Hantz Marconi tried to interfere with a criminal investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi, the director of the Division of Ports and Harbors, which is part of the Pease Development Authority.
They allege she talked to Gov. Chris Sununu and Pease Development Authority Chairman Steve Duprey about Attorney General John Formella’s investigation of Geno Marconi and how it was disrupting her work at the Supreme Court, calling it politically biased and petty.
Geno Marconi was on paid leave at the time and has since been indicted. Hantz Marconi is on paid leave and has agreed not to practice law until the criminal charges are resolved.
The JCC statement Thursday confirms there is an investigation into Hantz Marconi, explaining that such probes are confidential at the early stage with some exceptions.
The JCC and judge must keep confidential when a disciplinary matter is before the committee until the report is dismissed, a statement of formal charges is filed, or the committee has taken remedial action.
Court rules provide that should an investigation become publicly known, is of broad public interest and public confidence in the administration of justice may be undermined, the committee may issue a brief statement to confirm the existence of a disciplinary matter before it, which the JCC did Thursday.
The release explained the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits not only actual improprieties like a violation of the law or court rule, but also the appearance of impropriety.
“(T)hat is, creating a perception in reasonable minds that a judicial officer had violated the Code or had otherwise engaged in conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament or fitness to serve as a judge,” the release said.
On Oct. 16, a Merrimack County grand jury indicted Hantz Marconi for Attempt to Commit Improper Influence, Solicitation to Commit Improper Influence, Official Oppression, Solicitation to Commit Official Oppression, Obstructing Government Administration, and Criminal Solicitation of Misuse of Position.
“The Judicial Conduct Committee resolved to offer this brief public statement to confirm the pendency of a resulting disciplinary investigation before it arising from these matters,” the release said.
Confidentiality at the initial stages of every investigation is intended to encourage reporters to come forward without fear that the judge will learn about the report and retaliate, the release said.
And to encourage witnesses to cooperate without fear that the judge will learn about the report and retaliate; to reassure participants that the media or others will not contact or harass them; to allow the committee time to encourage an infirm or incompetent judge to resign before charges may become public; and, to protect a judge’s reputation from unfounded allegations that may prove baseless, the release said.
Formella also pushed back Tuesday against Hantz Marconi’s motion to disqualify him and lawyers in his office and dismiss all indictments against her claiming Formella has a conflict of interest.
Formella filed an objection to Hantz Marconi’s Oct. 31 motion Tuesday, after her lawyer Richard Guerriero filed a new motion last Friday to dismiss the indictments claiming they violate Hantz Marconi’s First Amendment rights.
“(Hantz Marconi’s) remedies in effect amount to immunity from prosecution and are unsupported by applicable law relating to the role of the Attorney General.
“(Hantz Marconi’s) motion generally alleges that undersigned counsel have a conflict of interest individually, that Attorney General John Formella and or the attorney general as a public office has a conflict of interest that extends to the entire DOJ and that these conflicts require the extraordinary remedy of dismissal of the indictments in this case,” according to Formella’s objection.
Whether a conflict of interest exists is a question of law and whether the appropriate remedy for such a conflict would be dismissal of the indictments is also a question of law, Formella’s objection states.
“…(Hantz Marconi) requests that the Court [h]old an evidentiary hearing on this motion if the prosecution disputes any factual assertions in the foregoing motion.”
Formella said the court will not hear any motion grounded upon facts, unless they are verified by affidavit, or are apparent from the record or from the papers on file in the case or are agreed to and stated in writing signed by the parties or their attorneys.
And there are no such affidavits by Hantz Marconi, papers in this case (aside from the charging documents), or agreement by the parties to support any factual allegations in her motion, the objection states. “Accordingly, there are no grounds for this Court to hold a hearing on this motion regarding factual disputes.”
Hantz Marconi’s lawyer Richard Guerriero argued in the Oct. 31 motion that Formella and his department lawyers have a conflict of interest individually based on a pecuniary interest, his job and past work for Sununu and his family.
“Defendant claims that because the Attorney General in one capacity represents the governor, and because Governor Sununu is likely to be a fact witness in a trial in this matter, the Attorney General has an irreconcilable conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
“However, Defendant identifies no interest of Gov. Sununu, either in his official capacity as Governor or in his private capacity as a fact witness, that would be in opposition to the Attorney General’s duty to enforce the criminal laws of the State of New Hampshire,” the objection states.
Guerriero wrote: “The Attorney General alleges that Justice Hantz Marconi attempted to commit and solicited commission of the crime of improper influence by telling Gov. Chris Sununu that an investigation into Geno Marconi was the result of personal, petty and or political biases, that there was no merit to the allegations against or subsequent investigation into Geno Marconi and or that the investigation into Geno Marconi needed to wrap up quickly because she was recused from important cases” pending before the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Geno Marconi was indicted for allegedly tampering with witnesses and informants by purposely retaliating against a witness or informant by providing confidential motor vehicle records pertaining to N.L. to another individual B.C. April 4 in violation of the Driver Privacy Act.
N.L. is believed to be Neil Levesque, the vice chairman of the Pease Development Authority. And B.C. is believed to be Bradley Cook. Geno Marconi was also indicted for allegedly falsifying physical evidence by deleting a voicemail/and or voicemails from a phone on April 22.
Bradley Cook of Hampton, the chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council, was indicted for perjury and false swearing. Cook is accused of making a false material statement while testifying before a grand jury that he did not communicate with/and or receive materials from Geno Marconi relating to the pier permit of N.L.
An arraignment/bail hearing for Hantz Marconi has been scheduled for Dec. 2 in Merrimack County Superior Court.
JCC Statement Regarding NH Supreme Court Justice Hantz Marconi
