New Hampshire Tosses Out Election Fraud Conviction Amid Key Evidence Exclusion

Richard Rosen, CEO of American Ag Energy based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was convicted in early 2024 for allegedly voting twice in the 2016 general election—once in Holderness, New Hampshire, and again in his hometown of Belmont, Massachusetts. But on Thursday, New Hampshire’s Attorney General John Formella and Solicitor General Anthony Galdieri reversed that conviction, citing serious errors in how the trial was conducted.

The Grafton County Superior Court had admitted evidence of Rosen’s voting history while excluding testimony that could have supported his innocence. Rosen maintained throughout that he only cast a ballot in Holderness, and that an acquaintance, William Botelho, had impersonated him by voting in his name in Massachusetts not only in 2016 but in six previous elections as well.

Crucially, Rosen’s legal team sought to introduce Botelho’s admission to this fraud during the trial. The court, however, barred this evidence and denied a request for a Richardson hearing—a special proceeding to examine whether discovery rules were violated by withholding such testimony. The Attorney General’s office agreed that this exclusion unfairly prejudiced the jury against Rosen.

In their ruling, Formella and Galdieri wrote, “Should Botelho on remand assert his Fifth Amendment rights, the trial court shall conduct a Richards hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

This case highlights the fraught nature of election fraud prosecutions, where the stakes are high and evidence can be selectively admitted or excluded, potentially undermining justice. The overturning of Rosen’s conviction serves as a warning against rushed or biased trials in politically sensitive cases that can damage public trust in the electoral system.

As states continue to grapple with claims of voter fraud, this ruling underscores the need for transparent, fair legal processes that respect defendants’ rights and ensure that all relevant evidence is considered. Otherwise, the pursuit of election integrity risks becoming a tool for political theater rather than genuine accountability.