By Mark Bodi

Public confidence in the justice system depends not only on verdicts and rulings, but on consistency — especially from those charged with defending the law. When the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office speaks with two voices on judicial integrity, it undermines the very principle it claims to uphold.

In the ongoing Youth Development Center case, victims’ attorneys sought a simple disclosure: whether Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire had applied for a potential appointment to the state Supreme Court under Governor Kelly Ayotte, who happens to be a defendant in the case. The request wasn’t sensational — it reflected a reasonable question about transparency. If a sitting judge were seeking promotion from a litigant who is also the governor, most citizens would see disclosure as fair and prudent.

But instead of treating the inquiry as due diligence, Assistant Attorney General Samuel Garland scolded the plaintiffs. In a filing, he called their motion “entirely inappropriate,” “baseless,” and “even worse” than questioning executive officials. He argued that even suggesting bias “undermines confidence in the judiciary.” In effect, the state’s lawyers claimed that asking about a possible conflict of interest itself amounted to an attack on the courts — a stance that discourages transparency and chills legitimate public inquiry.

Then came the case of Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi. In 2024, she was indicted on multiple felony and misdemeanor charges alleging that she had tried to influence a criminal investigation involving her husband. Prosecutors said she sought intervention from then-Governor Chris Sununu in that matter. In 2025, she entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to a single misdemeanor count of criminal solicitation (misuse of position). All other charges were dismissed. She paid a modest fine and, under the plea terms, the offense was deemed not a “serious crime,” allowing her law license to be reinstated and her return to the bench.

After the settlement and plea, Attorney General John Formella issued a highly charged public statement. He called her conduct “unlawful and unethical,” a “serious breach of the public trust,” and said her reinstatement “undermines confidence in our criminal justice system.” He added that he was “disappointed” the court allowed her to resume her duties — even though his own office had agreed to the very plea settlement that made that possible.

The irony is hard to miss. When victims’ lawyers in the YDC case asked a question about potential judicial bias, the Attorney General’s Office condemned them for supposedly eroding trust in the courts. Yet when a sitting Supreme Court justice reached a negotiated resolution under the law, the Attorney General himself publicly condemned both her conduct and the court’s discretion.

If raising questions about judges is “inappropriate,” then the Attorney General’s own televised rebuke should meet that same measure. The difference, of course, is who is speaking. When ordinary citizens challenge authority, they’re accused of undermining the system; when the state does it, it’s framed as moral clarity.

Consistency is the bedrock of credibility. The public doesn’t expect perfection from prosecutors, judges, or attorneys general — only fairness and even-handed standards. By lashing out in one case and grandstanding in another, the Attorney General’s Office deepens the cynicism it claims to resist.

A more responsible approach would have been restraint. In the YDC matter, the office could have recognized that asking for disclosure was a legitimate transparency concern. In the Marconi case, it could have allowed the judicial and ethical process to speak for itself without public posturing. Instead, New Hampshire’s top law office managed to occupy both extremes — silencing scrutiny when it came from citizens and amplifying outrage when it suited politics.

Our justice system isn’t strengthened by selective indignation. It’s strengthened by fairness, humility, and respect for process — whether that process protects a governor, a judge, or a victim. At a time when confidence in public institutions is already fragile, New Hampshire deserves an Attorney General’s Office that models balance, not contradiction.

Mark Bodi is a Portsmouth resident, retired president of O’neil Griffin Bodi, a former NH State Legislator, state official and  has served as a guest speaker at The Harvard Kennedy School of Government.