The most recent Laurie List of dishonest cops can be seen here: https://indepthnh.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/November-5-2024-EES-List.pdf

By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org

One police officer accused of lying is getting removed from the state’s Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, while another accused of lying will remain on the list.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued case orders on Tuesday on two separate Laurie List appeals, and while the cases are similar, the different results highlight the fact the court is still defining how Laurie List functions since it became a public document in 2021.

The Laurie List, or EES, is a list maintained by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office of police officers with known credibility issues that need to be disclosed to defense attorneys. After the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism, publisher of InDepthNH.org, sued the state to make the list public, New Hampshire’s courts have been adapting to the new legal landscape.

Neither officer is named in the lawsuits decided Tuesday, but both share basic facts. Both officers were put on the EES after being accused of lying in incidents that took place more than a decade ago, and both officers had lower court judges rule the triggering incidents did not need to be disclosed during trials when considered as part of possible evidence.

But the key facts the Supreme Court seemed to base the decisions on is the weight of the evidence against the officers.

The first John Doe was accused of lying during an internal investigation in 2013, but the Supreme Court justices found his reported lie came down to a possible misunderstanding of an unclear question.

 In 2013, the officer was told by a relative of his police chief that a complaint had been submitted over some incident. The same day, the officer was given a letter that an internal investigation was underway into the complaint, and he later spoke with the investigator. During that interview, the officer was asked how he learned about the investigation.

“[T]he plaintiff ‘verbally stumbled with a response’ and gestured to the department’s mail slots. He then said ‘from your . . . letter advising of the complaint,’” court records state.

The officer was never disciplined over the complaint, but instead the investigator determined that he lied about first hearing about the investigation from the letter and not from the chief’s relative.  However, the officer claimed he learned about the complaint before he got the letter informing him about the investigation, and therefore he did not lie.

It was over this alleged lie that the officer was placed on the EES, and not over any complaint or other misconduct. The Supreme Court ruled that the potential confusion over the interviewer’s question creates enough doubt about whether or not the officer lied at all. 

“The plaintiff claims that, although he told the investigating officer that he had spoken with another officer regarding the complaint, ‘he was honest in answering that he only became aware of the investigation when he was formally apprised of it in writing,’” the Supreme Court ruled. “We agree with the plaintiff that it is unclear whether the investigating officer asked him when he first learned of the complaint or when he first learned of the investigation.”

The case against a second John Doe, a New Hampshire State Trooper, is less ambiguous, according to the court. More than 14 years ago, the Trooper failed to appear at an Administrative License Suspension hearing. When he requested a rescheduled hearing, the trooper claimed he never got the first notification that was sent to his email account, and actually testified he never got the email during the rescheduled hearing.

Unfortunately for the trooper, a follow-up internal investigation found that not only did he get the original email notification, he reportedly deleted that email after he missed the first hearing. The trooper was disciplined and he appealed to the Personnel Appeals Board, which also found he lied during its hearing. 

Even though he went on to have an exemplary career and the incident was more than a decade old, the lies about the email are enough to keep him on the EES, the Supreme Court ruled.

“In light of these undisputed facts, we conclude that while the misconduct occurred over ten years ago and, according to the trial court, the plaintiff ‘apparently had an exemplary career as a trooper’ since then, the misconduct is nevertheless potentially exculpatory impeachment evidence ‘that is reasonably capable of being material to guilt or to punishment,’” the justices wrote.

The fact that a lower court judge deemed the trooper’s email lies did not need to be disclosed during other proceedings does not mean the incident can’t be disclosed at some point, the Supreme Court ruled. Whether an EES issue is disclosed to a defendant in a criminal case depends on the facts of the criminal case and does not reflect an opinion about the EES status.

“That the circuit court concluded that disclosure of that information to the criminal defendants in two separate criminal proceedings was not required does not necessarily mean that the court concluded that the information was not ‘potentially exculpatory,’ and that plaintiff’s name should be removed from the EES,” the Supreme Court ruled.

LEBANON, N.H. (WCAX) – Police have arrested a man in Sweden who they say sexually exploited a child online in New Hampshire.

Lebanon police started investigating a report of a 12-year-old girl being sexually exploited back in March.

Investigators say they identified the suspect as Kim Niklasson, 22, of Vaxjo, Sweden.

After coordinating with Swedish police, Niklasson was arrested last month and charged under Swedish law for child rape via the internet.

Monday, Lebanon police got a warrant for Niklasson’s arrest. He faces numerous charges in New Hampshire including endangering the welfare of a child and criminal solicitation for manufacturing child sexual abuse images.

Copyright 2024 WCAX. All rights reserved.

CONCORD — A judge is considering whether New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and his staff should be blocked from prosecuting New Hampshire Supreme Court Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi. Her attorneys allege a conflict of interest due to the attorney general serving Gov. Chris Sununu, a key witness in her case.

Hantz Marconi, 68, a Stratham resident, has been charged in a high-profile case for allegedly interfering in the state’s criminal investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi, 73, the longtime New Hampshire Ports and Harbors director. Hantz Marconi has pleaded not guilty to two Class B felonies and five misdemeanor counts.

Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg, who heard arguments from both sides Monday, will decide whether state prosecutors can try Hantz Marconi’s case or whether they should be replaced by outside counsel, in accordance with the defense’s request. 

Hantz Marconi is accused of speaking with both Sununu and Pease Development Authority board of directors chairperson Stephen Duprey to influence the criminal investigation into her husband, actions her defense argues are protected by the First Amendment and through judicial immunity. 

Hantz Marconi’s attorney makes case in court

Richard Guerriero, a lawyer for Hantz Marconi, filed a joint motion on Oct. 31 to dismiss the seven charges against her and disqualify the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office from prosecuting the case. The attorney has claimed that Formella cannot be unbiased in the case as Sununu’s pick for state attorney general.

On Monday, Guerriero furthered the argument, saying in court the state should hire outside counsel to try Hantz Marconi’s case rather than existing state prosecutors. Guerriero said Formella previously served as legal counsel for Sununu, who he described as “the key witness in this case.”

“In the simplest terms, our position starts with the reality that every accused person is entitled to a prosecutor who is impartial, and that’s a constitutional right, as we’ve outlined in our proceedings and our pleadings,” Guerriero said.

The charges in Hantz Marconi’s indictment accuse her of telling Sununu the investigation into Geno Marconi was the result of “personal, petty and/or political biases.” The indictment further alleges she felt the investigation “needed to wrap up quickly because she was recused from important cases pending or imminently pending before the New Hampshire Supreme Court,” per the October charging documents. 

Past case filings from Guerriero state Hantz Marconi requested a meeting with Sununu through his staff, which was then allegedly held with the governor’s legal counsel present during regular business hours. Her attorney also states the meeting was approved by New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald.

More on Geno Marconi’s case: Details emerge in felony case bail hearing

“I don’t think we can ignore the fact that Attorney General Formella has a particularly close relationship … with this one very powerful public official,” Guerriero said. “His (Formella’s) personal interests are directly tied to this very powerful and important witness, and under that unique circumstance, not any other circumstance in this case, there is a limitation that’s not fair to the defense.”

Sununu appointed Formella to be the attorney general in 2021. Hantz Marconi was nominated to the New Hampshire Supreme Court by Sununu in 2017 and was sworn in by the governor in August the same year.

Honigberg, the presiding judge in Hantz Marconi’s case, took the matter under advisement and noted a decision on Guerriero’s motion to disqualify state prosecutors will be released at a future date.

Hantz Marconi and Guerriero both declined to speak to reporters after the Monday afternoon proceeding ended.

Attorney general’s prosecutors argue their side

Joe Fincham, assistant attorney general, and Dan Jimenez, senior assistant attorney general, are prosecuting Hantz Marconi’s case. They fought against Guerriero’s motion to disqualify their office from prosecution, stating their office is impartial in the case.

“At it’s heart, it was a motion that, in our estimation, basically demanded special treatment. Just like we would in any other case, we objected, because no one, justice or citizen, is entitled to special treatment in criminal prosecutions,” Fincham said after the motion hearing Monday.

Hantz Marconi remains free on bail

Hantz Marconi was charged with one count of attempting to commit improper influence and one count of criminal solicitation of improper influence, both felonies. She was also charged with two counts of criminal solicitation of misuse of position, one count of criminal solicitation of official oppression, one count of official oppression, and one count of obstructing government administration, all Class A misdemeanors.

Hantz Marconi is free on personal recognizance bail.

Previously: NH Justice Hantz Marconi asks for charges to be dropped, cites First Amendment, immunity

Guerriero previously requested prosecutors compile a bill of particulars of all her alleged criminal activity if all the charges against her are not dismissed. 

Hantz Marconi was charged before her husband, Geno Marconi

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office announced on Oct. 16 that a Merrimack County Superior Court grand jury indicted Hantz Marconi on the seven charges. A day later, a Rockingham County grand jury’s charges against Geno Marconi were released. 

Geno Marconi was charged with two Class B felony counts for allegedly tampering with witnesses and informants and falsifying physical evidence. He was also hit with four Class A misdemeanors – two counts of Driver Privacy Act violations and two counts of obstructing government administration.

The state’s port director appeared in Rockingham County Superior Court last week, pleading not guilty to six state charges. A county judge approved conditions calling for Geno Marconi to be free on personal recognizance bail and a no-contact order preventing him from discussing the facts of the case with all staff of the Pease Development Authority and the agency’s board of directors.

The criminal charges against the Stratham couple were preceded by both Marconis being placed on leave from their respective positions. 

Hantz Marconi, the third woman to sit on the state’s high court, has been on paid administrative leave from the state Supreme Court since July 25. The order regarding her leave was extended by the remaining Supreme Court justices in mid-October.

In April, Geno Marconi was placed on paid leave from his position, which is overseen by the Pease Development Authority.