New Hampshire Legislature Impeaches Chief Justice

CONCORD, N.H. — The state’s chief justice was impeached by the Legislature on Wednesday in the first such action against a New Hampshire public official since 1790. He will face a state Senate trial that could result in his removal from the bench.

Deepening a constitutional crisis that began over a divorce case, the state House voted, 253 to 95, to impeach David A. Brock for a host of alleged offenses, some of them more than a decade old. The vote came after seven hours of debate.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Mock said that the high court broke its own rules and that Brock as chief justice was responsible.

“Did they live up to their own code? No,” Mock said. He added: “And who was the boss?”

Brock, 64, said through his lawyer that he looks forward to the Senate trial, where he will be allowed to call and cross-examine witnesses.

“He has done nothing wrong,” lawyer Ralph Lancaster said.

Brock, who has been chief justice since 1986, is accused of improperly calling a lower court judge in 1987 about a politically connected lawsuit, talking to another justice about the handling of that justice’s divorce, lying under oath during the investigation and allowing justices who had been disqualified from hearing certain cases because of conflicts of interest to comment on pending rulings.

In testimony last month, Brock apologized for poor judgment but said he meant no harm and reacted to a sensitive situation concerning a colleague’s divorce case as best he could.

The investigation has already forced the resignation of one justice and placed two others under a cloud.

GOP state Rep. Albert Hamel said the House could restore the high court’s moral authority only by voting for impeachment. “I hope that we have equal fortitude, guts, courage, to do what we have to do in this situation.”

Republicans control both the Senate and House. Brock is also a Republican.

The last impeachment in New Hampshire was 210 years ago. Woodbury Langdon, a justice of the Supreme Court who was described as “arbitrary and haughty,” resigned before his Senate trial.

Brock is accused of telephoning a lower court judge in 1987 to remind him that a state senator involved in a lawsuit could help win pay raises for the court’s members.

The impeachment articles also charge that Brock in February asked for then-Supreme Court Justice W. Stephen Thayer III’s opinion about the appointment of an appeals panel in Thayer’s divorce case and later discussed the panel with Thayer privately. Thayer resigned earlier this year to avoid possible criminal prosecution.

Disclosure of Thayer’s intervention prompted a group of ex-wives of other New Hampshire judges to threaten a lawsuit in April. The women argue they were unable to get competent lawyers or decent divorce settlements because of their husbands’ influence.

Some legislators argued there is convincing evidence Brock made the telephone call regarding the state senator, and they said that alone is impeachable. Others said the call, if made, showed bad judgment but was not willful misconduct.

Brock has denied making the call.

“Of course it was intentional. He dialed the telephone. It wasn’t to discuss the Sunday golf game,” Mock said.

Brock’s lawyers and other supporters said the Judiciary Committee lowered the threshold for impeachment too far. Historically, they said, officials have been impeached for willful misconduct, not poor judgment.

They said there is no evidence Brock committed any impeachable offenses, which the state Constitution defines as “bribery, corruption, malpractice or maladministration.”

On Monday, Brock said that he would consider resigning if he could do so with dignity and only if the House did not adopt the article of impeachment accusing him of lying.

If he resigns now, before he turns 65, he will get no pension unless the Legislature changes the law.

Earlier in the investigation, Justices Sherman Horton and John Broderick were accused of ethics violations for not immediately blowing the whistle on Thayer. But the Judiciary Committee decided against impeaching or reprimanding the two justices, saying months of publicity had damaged their reputations enough.