Top N.H. Judge’s Impeachment Trial Nears End

Lawyers gave closing arguments Thursday in the impeachment case of New Hampshire’s chief justice, ending a two-week trial.

Lawyer Joseph Steinfield argued in his closing statement that Chief Justice David Brock deserves impeachment because he allowed a subordinate judge to improperly influence his own divorce case.

Steinfield also accused Brock of lying about this and other incidents during Steinfield’s 14-year tenure as chief justice.

Brock’s lawyers, in their own summations, insisted the judge did nothing wrong. They said the charges brought by the state House of Representatives do not meet any of the three standards for impeachment in the New Hampshire Constitution. The standards are maladministration, bribery and corruption.

“The Senate should not assume the role of the Judicial Conduct Committee,” Brock lawyer Steven Ross said. “That’s not what impeachment is for.”

The state Senate is expected to render a verdict next week in the first impeachment trial in New Hampshire’s 216-year history.

The trial was sparked about a year ago when Associate Justice W. Stephen Thayer resigned, and state Atty. Gen. Philip McLaughlin revealed that had Thayer not resigned, he would have faced criminal charges.

McLaughlin said Thayer illegally sought to influence a panel of judges to sit on an appeal of his divorce. The entire court had disqualified itself from participating in the case because of possible conflict of interest.

McLaughlin said Brock had improperly allowed Thayer to comment on the appointments in a hallway conversation outside the court’s conference room.

The chief justice was also accused of lying to investigators and of calling a trial court judge in a case involving a senior state senator--Brock denied making the call--and of lying to House investigators.