On Oct. 7, in a scene remarkable if not unprecedented, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, a justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, pleaded no contest in Merrimack County Superior Court to a charge of criminal solicitation, a class B misdemeanor. She was found guilty and fined $1,200.
In pleading no contest to the charge, Hantz Marconi did not admit guilt but acknowledged that prosecutors had sufficient evidence to prove that she had sought to have then-Gov. Chris Sununu intervene to curtail an ongoing investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi, director of the Division of Ports and Harbors within the Pease Development Authority.
The prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General James Boffetti, told reporters following the hearing that her actions “represented a serious breach of the public trust. This conviction today reinforces a fundamental principle of our justice system, that no one is above the law, not even a justice of the Supreme Court.”
Subsequent events, however, demonstrated that if Hantz Marconi is not in fact above the law, her case has certainly lowered the bar. Within hours of the plea hearing, the Supreme Court lifted the administrative leave it had imposed when she was originally charged in the case; and a couple of days later a panel of judges reinstated her to the practice of law, determining that her offense did not meet the definition of a serious crime. By Wednesday of this past week, she had returned to the Supreme Court bench and was scheduled to begin hearing cases again.
Hantz Marconi originally faced seven charges, including two felonies, in connection with her private meeting with Sununu in the summer of 2024. (Sununu subsequently told investigators that he found the conversation awkward but not rising to the level of favor-seeking.) As part of the plea deal, prosecutors dropped those charges in favor of the single misdemeanor count of criminal solicitation.
And although Attorney General John Formella said her conduct was “unlawful and unethical” and “undermines confidence in our criminal justice system,” prosecutors agreed under the terms of the plea deal to classify her actions as not constituting a “serious crime.” That position was adopted by the panel of judges that reinstated her to the practice of law.
Serious or not serious? From our vantage point, trying to use one’s high office to secure favorable treatment in a criminal case is the very definition of a corrupt act that should disqualify anyone doing so from further government service, much less from the administration of justice. But the prosecutors in this case seem to be trying to have it both ways: denouncing her actions in strong terms, while legally administering a slap on the wrist. The question arises: Why did not the Attorney General’s Office insist that she step down from the Supreme Court immediately as part of the plea deal?
Gov. Kelly Ayotte seems mystified as well. “I really think this is something that needs to be addressed to the Department of Justice, to the attorney general,” she told reporters last week. Ayotte added that she is looking forward to naming a replacement for Hantz Marconi, who reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70 in February.
From a practical standpoint, Hantz Marconi’s return to hearing cases poses several difficulties. Presumably, she will have to recuse herself from all matters involving the Attorney General’s Office, which brought the criminal case against her. It also brings her back to serving alongside Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, which is supremely awkward in itself.
Hantz Marconi has claimed that prior to her meeting with Sununu, she spoke with MacDonald, who gave her the green light to approach the governor. MacDonald later told prosecutors that no such conversation took place. In judicial circles this is called conflicting testimony; in layman’s terms, it appears that somebody was lying, which is not a sterling qualification for sitting on the state’s highest court.
And then there’s the fact that Geno Marconi is still awaiting trial on charges that he improperly shared protected motor vehicle information and pier permit fee details about the vice chairman of the Pease Development Authority. He has pleaded not guilty, and his trial is scheduled for next month. Issues in that case might well end up in some fashion before the Supreme Court.
All in all, this debacle adds further to the growing impression that the judicial-political complex in Concord is run by and for insiders.