BRENTWOOD – The trial for the state Ports and Harbors Director Geno Marconi, 73, has been delayed until early next year after his attorneys withdrew their objection to putting it off, which had been requested by prosecutors.
Attorneys General Joe Fincham and Dan Jimenez sought the delay because they are also prosecuting Marconi’s wife, state Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, and her trial is scheduled for jury selection Nov. 4, the day after Geno Marconi’s was scheduled, and they couldn’t handle both trials at the same time.
Judge David Ruoff set jury selection for Geno Marconi’s case for Feb. 17, 2026, at a brief hearing Friday in Rockingham County Superior Court. The trial date won’t be set until the final pretrial hearing, but will likely start during one of the following three weeks after jury selection.
On Oct. 1, Ruoff denied four motions filed by Marconi’s lawyers, Richard Samdperil and Joseph Welsh, to suppress evidence, dismiss indictments related to motor vehicle records, dismiss indictments related to deleting voicemails and denied without prejudice, Marconi’s motion on judicial notice and jury instruction.
Marconi is charged with one count of witness tampering, one count of falsifying physical evidence, two counts of obstructing government administration, and two counts of disclosure/misuse of DMV
records.
Four of the six charges relate to motor vehicle records – tampering with witnesses, obstructing government administration, and two counts for violation of the Driver Privacy Act in the Fall of 2024, according to Ruoff’s 28-page detailed order.
The indictments related to motor vehicle records each contain an allegation that Marconi improperly provided “confidential motor vehicle records pertaining to (Neil Levesque) to another individual, (Brad Cook).
Marconi’s lawyers argued to dismiss those indictments on the basis that the discovery provided by the State does not indicate that the “motor vehicle documents” referenced would constitute “department records.”
“In other words, (Marconi) argues that the State cannot prove its case because the motor vehicle documents that underlie each of the four indictments do not meet the statutory definition,” Ruoff wrote.
In denying the motion, Ruoff wrote: “In sum, the Court finds that motor vehicle registrations constitute both ‘department records’ and ‘motor vehicle records’ under the DPA. See RSA 260:14. Therefore, to the extent that the indictments related to motor vehicle records allege that Defendant improperly provided ‘confidential motor vehicle records pertaining to N.L. to another individual, B.C.’ in reference to motor vehicle registrations, the Court concludes the indictments are adequately plead.”
Two of the indictments deal with Marconi allegedly deleting voicemails.
The defense argued that the indictment for falsifying evidence is insufficient because it fails to identify that the voicemail or voicemails are evidence of any crime, whereas the second indictment for obstruction fails because it does not state how deleting voicemails is unlawful conduct, Ruoff wrote.
Ruoff concluded that those indictments “are constitutionally adequate because they contain the elements of the offenses and enough facts to notify (Marconi) of the charges against him such that he can prepare for trial and defend against double-jeopardy.”
Marconi has been employed as the Director of the Division of Ports and Harbors for the Pease Development Authority since 2002 and was placed on paid administrative leave April 18, 2024, pending a criminal investigation.
Justice Hantz Marconi, 69, is on paid leave from the state Supreme Court. She was indicted for allegedly trying to improperly influence the criminal investigation into her husband by meeting with Sununu and speaking with Steve Duprey, chairman of the Pease Development Authority. Sununu and Duprey both told investigators Hantz Marconi did nothing illegal, according to court records.
Hantz Marconi told Sununu the investigation into her husband was “the result of personal, petty and or political biases, that there was no merit to allegations against or subsequent investigation into Geno Marconi,” and it was interfering with her work in the court, according to court records.