Second juror in New Hampshire youth center abuse trial explains verdict, says state misinterpreted

CONCORD, N.H. – One of the jurors who awarded a New Hampshire guy $38 million in a landmark lawsuit over abuse on the state’s youth detention center says the state is misinterpreting the decision by means of capping the cost at $475,000.

Jurors on Friday awarded $18 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in enhanced damages to David Meehan, who alleged that the state’s negligence allowed him to be time and again raped, overwhelmed and held in solitary confinement as a young person on the Youth Development Center in Manchester. But the legal professional normal’s place of work stated the award could be decreased beneath a state legislation that permits claimants towards the state to get well a most of $475,000 in step with “incident.”

Jurors weren’t advised of the cap. When requested on a verdict shape what number of incidents they discovered Meehan had confirmed, they wrote “one.” The finished shape does now not point out whether or not they discovered a unmarried example of abuse or grouped all of Meehan’s allegations in combination, however one of the most jurors emailed Meehan’s legal professional on Sunday to give an explanation for their reasoning.

“We wrote on our verdict form that there was 1 incident/injury, being complex PTSD, from the result of 100+ injuries (Sexual, Physical, emotional abuse),” the juror wrote, in step with court docket paperwork filed Sunday by means of Meehan’s lawyers. “We were never informed of a cap being placed per incident of abuse and that is wrong how the question was worded to us.

“The state is making their own interpretation of the ruling that we made, and that is not right for them to assume our position,” the juror wrote. “David should be entitled to what we awarded him, which was $38 million.”

Meehan’s lawyers have requested the pass judgement on in the case to carry an emergency listening to at the subject Monday and feature introduced in former state Supreme Court Justice Gary Hicks to assist in making their case.

Attorneys for the state had now not replied to the request for a listening to by means of Sunday night, and Michael Garrity, spokesman for the legal professional normal’s place of work, declined to remark rather then pointing to Friday’s commentary concerning the cap.

In their movement, Meehan’s lawyers stated the juror’s e-mail commentary and others despatched by means of the jury foreperson ascertain that jurors misunderstood the decision shape. The lawyers stated that the discovering of just one confirmed “incident” is “conclusively against the weight of the evidence” and logically inconsistent with the damages awarded.

In such instances, the court docket “not only has broad discretion, but is in fact duty-bound to take corrective action,” they wrote. The lawyers cited previous instances in which judges wondered juries after which directed them to rethink their verdicts.

The jury foreperson emailed one in all Meehan’s lawyers Rus Rilee, inside of hours of the decision, announcing, “I’m absolutely devastated.” The subsequent morning, the foreperson despatched a message to legal professional David Vicinanzo announcing, “My guilt kept me awake for the better part of the night.”

“I was literally sickened and brought to tears in fear of the mistake we made. I still am,” the juror wrote.

Meehan, 42, went to police in 2017 and sued the state 3 years later. Since then, 11 former state staff have been arrested and greater than 1,100 other former residents of the Youth Development Center have filed proceedings alleging bodily, sexual and emotional abuse spanning six a long time.

Meehan’s lawsuit used to be the primary to visit trial. Over the route of 4 weeks, Meehan’s lawyers contended that the state inspired a tradition of abuse marked by means of pervasive brutality,corruption and a code of silence.

The state argued it used to be now not chargeable for the behavior of rogue workers and that Meehan waited too lengthy to sue. In cross-examining Meehan, lawyers for the state portrayed him as a violent kid who brought about bother on the youth center — and as a delusional grownup who exaggerates or lies to get cash.

The case highlighted an unusual dynamic in which the legal professional normal’s place of work is each protecting the state towards the civil proceedings and prosecuting suspected perpetrators in the felony instances.