On Wednesday, April 30, 2025, InDepthNH reported that New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi is seeking undisclosed evidence and witness names from the Attorney General’s office related to her ongoing legal troubles. Her legal team filed motions requesting that prosecutors disclose specific evidence they have alluded to regarding her alleged criminal intent during meetings with then-Governor Chris Sununu and Pease Development Authority Chairman Steve Duprey.

The requests come amid serious allegations against Hantz Marconi, who is facing seven indictments that claim she attempted to interfere with a grand jury investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi, the director of the Division of Ports and Harbors at the PDA. Both Hantz Marconi, 69, and her husband, 73, have been placed on paid leave as they await trial.

Hantz Marconi’s attorney, Richard Guerriero, submitted a motion on April 16 asking Judge Martin Honigberg to compel the prosecution to file bills of particulars for each of the criminal charges against her. The motion emphasizes the need for clarity regarding the nature of the evidence and the witnesses that could potentially support the allegations against her.

According to court documents, Hantz Marconi met with Sununu on June 6, 2024, and spoke with Duprey on April 19, 2024. Both Sununu and Duprey have reportedly stated to investigators that they did not perceive any illegal conduct during their interactions with Hantz Marconi. Nonetheless, the indictments allege that her discussions with these officials were intended to obstruct the Attorney General’s investigation.

Michael Garrity, a spokesperson for Attorney General John Formella, declined to comment on the existence of any undisclosed evidence or witnesses, stating that the office would respond to defense motions through official court filings.

The situation has generated significant attention in the Seacoast region, where the Marconis are well-known figures. Public support has emerged for Hantz Marconi, with many expressing belief that the charges stem from her comments to Sununu, which suggested that the investigation into her husband was influenced by personal or political biases.

In her motion, Guerriero noted that during a February 3 hearing, the prosecution referenced evidence and witnesses that could purportedly demonstrate Hantz Marconi’s criminal intent. However, he argued that the defense has not been informed about the specifics of this evidence, which is critical for preparing a defense. He underscored that the charges against her require proof of a “purposeful state of mind,” which he claims is absent from the indictments.

Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham previously indicated that the evidence in the case includes not only the conversations held during the meetings but also the context and circumstances leading up to them. He mentioned that the state may present multiple witnesses who could provide insights into the broader situation.

Guerriero contended that the statements from witnesses present during the relevant discussions—who have denied any criminal intent on Hantz Marconi’s part—should not be disregarded. He emphasized that the defense has not received any discovery materials that detail the evidence purportedly supporting the state’s claims.

Both the New Hampshire Constitution and the U.S. Constitution guarantee the accused the right to confront witnesses against them. Guerriero argued that the state’s failure to provide a clear picture of the evidence and witnesses constitutes a violation of these rights, and he called for the court to ensure transparency in the legal process.

The charges against Hantz Marconi include Attempt to Commit Improper Influence, Criminal Solicitation (Improper Influence), Official Oppression, and several counts of Criminal Solicitation (Misuse of Position). The defense has received some discovery materials, including statements from key figures such as Duprey and Sununu, but Guerriero insists that any additional relevant information must be disclosed to the defense to facilitate an adequate response to the charges.

In addition to the motions related to evidence disclosure, Guerriero also filed five motions to dismiss on April 18, arguing that the indictments are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, potentially infringing upon First Amendment rights.

Geno Marconi faces his own legal challenges, having been indicted for allegedly tampering with evidence and retaliating against a PDA board member by sharing confidential records. His legal situation adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing case involving Hantz Marconi.

 

 

Source: InDepthNH