By NANCY WEST, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD – Lawyers for embattled state Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi want prosecutors to turn over the names of witnesses and evidence they have only hinted at so far allegedly showing she had a criminal purpose meeting with then-Gov. Chris Sununu and speaking with Pease Development Authority Chairman Steve Duprey.
Both Sununu and Duprey told investigators they perceived nothing illegal with their conversations with Hantz Marconi last year, according to motions filed by her attorney Richard Guerriero.
A motion filed April 16 asks Judge Martin Honigberg to order prosecutors to file bills of particular on each criminal charge against her to identify the evidence and witnesses that have been secret up to now.
Hantz Marconi, 69, of Stratham, met with Sununu in his office June 6, 2024, and spoke with Duprey April 19, 2024.
All seven indictments against her allege that during those conversations she was in some way trying to interfere with Attorney General John Formella’s secret grand jury investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi, 73, the director of the PDA’s Division of Ports and Harbors. They are both on paid leave, under indictment and awaiting trial.
Michael Garrity, Attorney General John Formella’s spokesman, declined to discuss whether there are secret witnesses or evidence against Hantz Marconi that hasn’t been turned over in discovery.
“We will respond to defense motions with court filings,” Garrity said.
Their arrests shocked the Seacoast area where the Marconis are well known. They have received an outpouring of support in op-eds and letters to the editor.
Supporters believe the criminal charges are the result of what Hantz Marconi told Sununu during their meeting, that 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.”
Guerriero wants the undisclosed evidence and witness names that were referenced at a Feb. 3 hearing on another motion to dismiss the indictments turned over to the defense.
“The Accused… respectfully requests that this Court order the State to provide bills of particulars because the State made reference in a February hearing to witnesses and/or evidence that will purportedly prove that Justice Hantz Marconi had a criminal purpose, but the defense has no notice of what witnesses or evidence would show purposeful conduct,” Guerriero wrote in the motion seeking bills of particulars.
At the Feb. 3 hearing in Merrimack Superior Court, Guerriero pointed out that all of the charged offenses require proof of a purposeful state of mind. He also said none of the indictments against Hantz Marconi include such evidence.
At that hearing, Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham said: “And the evidence in this case isn’t limited to what happened in that room with the (Sununu) meeting. There were facts and circumstances leading up to that meeting, which we expect to be presented at trial, as well as what happened inside the room. Matters which the governor and (lawyer) Rudy Ogden knew nothing about. They know what happened in the room, and as this Court’s familiar with, the State may have multiple witnesses, some of whom see one part of an ongoing episode. And what the jury hears is everything that goes into that. And from that, they make their inferences about whether she acted with the requisite criminal intent. And so we expected [sic] they would hear from the governor and from Rudy Ogden, but from other individuals, as well, leading up to that, including the conduct with Chairman Duprey,” Fincham said, according to Guerriero’s motion.
Guerriero wrote: “In other words, Attorney Fincham discounted the statements of the witnesses who were present for the relevant conversations and who denied any criminal purpose on behalf of Justice Marconi, because, according to the State, there is other evidence of a criminal purpose. The defense has not received any discovery which would indicate what that evidence might be.”
Guerriero said the New Hampshire Constitution guarantees “every subject shall have a right…to meet the witnesses against him face to face.
“The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution likewise guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
The New Hampshire Rules of Criminal Procedure require the State, “within forty-five calendar days after the entry of a not guilty plea” to provide the accused with “statements of witnesses.”
“Our Court has long recognized that justice is best served by a system that reduces surprise at trial by giving both parties the maximum amount of information,” Guerriero wrote.
The purpose of discovery rules is “to avoid a trial by ambush,” Guerriero wrote.
Hantz Marconi is charged with Attempt to Commit Improper Influence, Criminal Solicitation (Improper Influence), Official Oppression, Criminal Solicitation (Official Oppression), Obstructing Government Administration, and two counts of Criminal Solicitation (Misuse of Position).
The discovery provided to the defense so far includes statements by Duprey, Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, then-Governor Sununu, Rudy Ogden, Geno Marconi, and Margaret Lamson, according to the motion.
“(I)f the State has additional information or other witnesses who allegedly will enable the jurors to infer the Accused’s intent, then that information must be provided to the Accused,” Guerriero wrote.
Bills of particulars are necessary for the accused “to prepare an intelligent defense.”
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has described bills of particulars as “a tool for clarifying an inadequate indictment or complaint.”
Guerriero also filed five more motions to dismiss on April 18, all claiming the indictments against Hantz Marconi under the State’s interpretation are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
“(They) are, facially and as applied, unconstitutionally overbroad because they punish the exercise of First Amendment rights…(T)hey fail to put an ordinary reasonable person on notice of what conduct is prohibited and because they invite discriminatory enforcement by the State,” Guerriero wrote.
Geno Marconi, 73, was indicted for allegedly falsifying physical evidence by deleting a voicemail/and or voicemails from a phone on April 22, 2024. He was also indicted for allegedly retaliating against PDA Board Vice Chairman Neil Levesque by providing confidential motor vehicle records pertaining to Levesque to Bradley Cook, in violation of the Driver Privacy Act.
Cook, who had spoken out publicly in favor of Geno Marconi, was later indicted for allegedly lying to the grand jury investigating Geno Marconi.
Read previous coverage in InDepthNH.org here: https://indepthnh.org/?s=hantz+marconi