It turns out the Freedom of Information Act somehow does not cover the judicial branch at all in New Hampshire, so you have to rely on the New Hampshire Constitution instead:
I am responding to your communications to Chief Justice Nadeau requesting speedy trial reports for Belknap County from November 1, 2020 to present. You cite RSA 91-A as the basis for your request. Please be advised that the New Hampshire Judicial Branch is not subject to RSA 91-A, but rather responds to request for information in accordance with Part I, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution. There are no documents responsive to your request as reports have not been prepared during the period that the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing.
I had to send a certified letter to get that response, and I included a bumper sticker for this very site in the envelope. Both asking Judge O'Neill for a trial to be scheduled and asking Judge Tina Nadeau for documentation regarding the speedy trial calendar appears to be ruffling the right feathers so far. My response to the above admission probably greased the wheels of justice more than any other factor:
Date: Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Right to Know Request
To: Mary Ann Dempsey <MDempsey@courts.state.nh.us>
To implement the Superior Court policy on speedy trial, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court shall require the clerks to prepare and maintain a speedy trial report. In addition, the Chief Justice shall annually designate a justice to be the criminal case monitoring justice to oversee the policy in each court as of April 1 of each year. The Chief Justice as well as the criminal case monitoring justice will receive a copy of the monthly speedy trial report by the seventh day of each month. In consultation with the clerk of that court, the criminal case monitoring justice shall be responsible to see that the speedy trial policy is being adhered to and in addition to see that the criminal docket is arranged so as to avoid the 4 month and 9 month “show cause” hearings to the maximum extent possible through the case scheduling process. The monthly monitoring reports shall list in numerical sequence all active criminal cases pending for longer than 3 months, that is those not dismissed, nol prossed or in which sentences have not been imposed. The clerk of each court shall provide the senior presiding justice in that court with copies of the monthly monitoring reports.
On a quarterly basis the Chief Justice of the Superior Court shall ensure that the speedy trial reports from all ten counties are available electronically to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to assist the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in determining what changes, if any, may be necessary in the monitoring process.
Does this mean the judiciary in this state is using the Pandemic as an excuse to deny countless people awaiting trial their civil rights? The underlined portion above stipulates the monitoring process can be changed, but there is no language in the policy that allows for suspension of the policy for any reason. This policy is codified by the Supreme Court case it cites. A local court should not be able to ignore established Supreme Court precedent law for any reason, and the state is opening itself up to countless "violation of civil rights" lawsuits if this attitude persists. The moment an effective 1st Circuit Court appeal is granted on a case involving this unconstitutional blanket denial of speedy trial rights, the floodgates for civil lawsuits will open.