A commercial truck driver who was acquitted of causing the deaths of seven motorcyclists in New Hampshire testified at a hearing Wednesday on his request to reinstate his suspended license, while a lawyer for the state said he still played a role in the 2019 crash.

A jury in 2022 found Volodymyr Zhukovskyy not guilty of multiple manslaughter and negligent homicide counts stemming from the collision in Randolph that killed seven members of the Jarheads Motorcycle Club, an organization of Marine Corps veterans and their spouses in New England.

Zhukovskyy, who came to the U.S. as a child from Ukraine and had permanent residency status, had his Massachusetts license automatically suspended in New Hampshire after his arrest following the June 21, 2019, crash.

MASSACHUSETTS TRUCK DRIVER INVOLVED IN FATAL CRASH THAT KILLED 7 WANTS LICENSE BACK

Based on his interviews with police at the time, “I thought I was the one that caused the accident,” Zhukovskyy, 28, testified at a four-hour administrative hearing in Concord in which he appeared via video. “I was like in a bubble with all the pressure.”

Prosecutors argued that Zhukovskyy — who had taken heroin, fentanyl and cocaine the day of the crash — repeatedly swerved back and forth before the collision and told police he caused it. But a judge dismissed eight impairment charges and his attorneys said the lead biker was drunk and not looking where he was going when he lost control of his motorcycle and slid in front of Zhukovskyy’s truck, which was pulling an empty flatbed trailer.

Zhukovskyy’s trial lawyers also said there was no evidence he was impaired at the time of the crash and that police did not make any observations in the hours afterward suggesting he was.

Restoration of Zhukovskky’s license would depend on whether hearings officer Ryan McFarland decides Zhukovskyy drove “in an unlawful and reckless manner” that “materially contributed” to the accident, according to state law. McFarland took the case under advisement after the hearing. If he finds in favor of the state, Zhukovskyy’s license could remain suspended for up to seven years.

One former Jarheads member injured in the crash spoke out against restoring the license.

“You’re all in jeopardy of this guy driving again,” said Manny Ribeiro, speaking with reporters after Wednesday’s hearing. “I know what happened that day. I was there.”

The manslaughter acquittal at the time drew strong comments from Gov. Chris Sununu, who said the seven bikers “did not receive justice,” and from Attorney General John Formella, who said he believed the state proved its case.

Zhukovskyy said at Wednesday’s hearing he was driving around a crest on an east-west highway, saw a motorcycle coming in his direction, and applied his brakes.

“He responded in seconds,” his attorney Earle Wingate III, said. “He did not cause the crash.”

But David Hilts, an attorney for the state Department of Safety, challenged that account, based on expert reports. He said descriptions of where the tires were at the time showed Zhukovskyy didn’t see the motorcycle in advance.

“The impact happened. He jams on his breaks,” Hilts said.

Hilts questioned Zhukovskyy extensively about his drug use based on the police interviews. The attorney said in his closing statement that Zhukovskyy did everything possible to not answer his questions about drug use and impairment.

Hilts also brought up prior accidents Zhukovskyy was involved in, including one 18 days before the Randolph crash. He said both Zhukovskyy and the lead biker, Albert “Woody” Mazza Jr., materially contributed to the crash. Mazza, one of the seven who died, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.135%, well above the legal limit of 0.08%, according to his autopsy report.

At the time, Zhukovskyy’s license should have been revoked because he had been arrested in Connecticut on a drunken driving charge in May 2019. Connecticut officials alerted the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, but Zhukovskyy’s license wasn’t suspended due to a backlog of out-of-state notifications about driving offenses. The Connecticut case is pending.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Zhukovskyy after the 2022 verdict, citing previous convictions of drug possession, driving with a suspended license, furnishing false information and larceny. Zhukovskyy was taken from a New Hampshire county jail to a federal detention facility.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Zhukovskyy’s immigration attorney requested asylum for his client. In February 2023, a judge ordered Zhukovskyy’s deportation. But it’s unclear under how he could be sent to a country at war with Russia. The U.S. has paused repatriation flights to Ukraine and authorized Temporary Protected Status for qualified Ukrainians.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – More than $30 million in federal funding is coming to New Hampshire from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help address the state’s housing affordability crisis.

New Hampshire will receive $21,547,769 in grant funding toward affordable housing, community development and homeless assistance and $9,971,896 in Public Housing Repair grant funding to improve and modernize public housing stock in the Granite State.

New Hampshire’s Congressional delegation on Thursday provided statements detailing the significance of the funding when it comes to improving the lives of many of the state’s most vulnerable.

“Access to affordable housing is critical for the well-being of Granite State families, the workforce and our economy,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. “New Hampshire faces a severe housing shortage, needing more than 60,000 additional units by 2030, and the lack of necessary housing is the primary cause of increasing costs. This federal funding will provide communities across New Hampshire with the resources they need to take steps to address housing affordability, invest in new construction and make improvements for Granite Staters living in public housing.”

“New Hampshire’s housing shortage is hurting families who are trying to buy a house or rent an apartment, and it is hurting businesses by preventing them from recruiting the workers that they need,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan. “This federal funding will lower rental costs, support new housing construction projects, and help address homelessness – all of which will help more Granite State communities thrive.”

Advertisement

“It’s no secret New Hampshire is experiencing a housing shortage—we need 90,000 new units by 2040 to meet expected demand,” said Congresswoman Annie Kuster. “I’m pleased to see these resources heading to the Granite State to help expand our affordable housing stock, ensure more Granite Staters have a safe place to call home, and support our communities and economy.”

“Stable housing is essential for an individual’s health, wellbeing, and safety,” said Congressman Chris Pappas. “As New Hampshire continues to face an extreme housing shortage, these funds will provide resources for public housing development and modernization, support for low-income renters and homeowners, help to individuals experiencing homelessness, and increase our affordable housing supply. I’ll continue working to support efforts to help Granite Staters find safe and affordable housing and address the root causes of the housing crisis.”

The New Hampshire Congressional delegation works at the federal level to help tackle the state’s housing affordability crisis. The delegation recently also promoted the $12 million in federal grants awarded for New Hampshire organizations that provide housing assistance and supportive services for people experiencing homelessness through HUD’s Continuum of Care (CoC) Program.

These funding streams can be used to establish innovative projects such as the Cottages at Back River Road in Dover, an energy-efficient workforce housing project.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Attorneys for a man who prevailed in a landmark lawsuit over abuse at New Hampshire’s youth detention center asked a judge Tuesday to reconvene and question jurors, some of whom have expressed dismay that the $38 million award could be slashed by nearly 99%.

A jury on Friday awarded $38 million to David Meehan, who alleged that the state’s negligence allowed him to be repeatedly raped, beaten and held in solitary confinement as a teenager at the Youth Development Center. But the attorney general’s office is seeking to reduce the award under a state law that allows claimants against the state to recover a maximum of $475,000 per “incident.”

Three distraught jurors have since contacted Meehan’s attorneys, including the jury foreperson, who described feeling “devastated” and “duped,” and another who said the state is misinterpreting the verdict.

No hearing has been scheduled, but here are some things to know about how the dispute unfolded.

The trial

Meehan, 42, went to police in 2017 and sued the state three years later. Since then, 11 former state workers have been arrested and more than 1,100 other former residents of what is now called the Sununu Youth Services Center have filed lawsuits alleging physical, sexual and emotional abuse spanning six decades. Charges against one former worker, Frank Davis, were dropped Tuesday after the 82-year-old was found incompetent to stand trial.

Meehan’s lawsuit was the first to go to trial. Over four weeks, his attorneys contended that the state encouraged a culture of abuse marked by pervasive brutality, corruption and a code of silence.

The state portrayed Meehan as a violent child, troublemaking teenager and delusional adult lying to get money. Defense attorneys also said the state was not liable for the conduct of rogue employees and that Meehan waited too long to sue.

The verdict

Jurors unanimously agreed that Meehan filed his lawsuit in a timely fashion, that he was injured at the facility and that the state’s negligence caused his injuries. They awarded him $18 million in compensatory damages and an additional $20 million in enhanced damages after finding the state acted with reckless indifference or abused its power.

Jurors were unaware of the state law that caps damages at $475,000 per incident. When asked on the verdict form how many incidents they found Meehan had proven, they wrote “one.”

What counts as an incident?

That’s where it gets tricky.

In pre-verdict discussions without the jury present, lawyers for the state argued that all of Meehan’s claims arose out of a single incident of alleged negligence. Meehan’s lawyers insisted that each act of physical or sexual abuse be counted as a separate incident, even those that happened simultaneously.

“Merely raping a kid is bad enough, but it’s even worse, and a separate incident, if it also involves hitting him in the head or kicking him in the ribs or other things to get him to comply,” Meehan’s attorney David Vicinanzo said.

At one point, the judge considered including a list of the type of abuse alleged on each date on the verdict form and asking jurors to determine whether an injury occurred and whether the state was liable. But the state argued that providing such a list would be prejudicial to Meehan’s side.

Judge Andrew Schulman said he disagreed with both parties and if forced to define “incident,” he would consider all the acts that happened in a given “episode” to be one incident. That put him closer to the plaintiff’s view, but in the end, he said he would leave it up to the state Supreme Court to settle.

“Why go out and define something that there’s a 50% chance of being wrong if it doesn’t need to be defined in the first place?” he said. “They can deal with it, but I don’t think I have to.”

Attorney Martha Gaythwaite, representing the state, did not address the issue in her closing statement to jurors. Vicinanzo told the jury that Meehan was raped an estimated 200 times, beaten 200 times and held in unjustified solitary confinement for roughly 100 days.

“I want to emphasize to you that the numbers are very important,” he said.

In his verbal instructions to the jury, Schulman said that rather than asking jurors to list “incident by incident” decisions, he asked for “just the number of incidents for which you find liability based on timely claims.” The verdict form itself defined incident as a “(a) single episode during which the plaintiff was injured; (b) for which injuries the jury has found DHHS liable in response to previous questions; (c) on claims the jury found to be timely claims in response to question 1.”

In response to that question, the jury wrote “one.”

But what did they mean?

One juror explained it like this:

“I can not state strongly enough that we the jury were in unanimous agreement that David suffers from ‘one’ incident/case of complex PTSD, as the result of 100+ episodes of abuse (physical, sexual, and emotional) that he sustained at the hands of the State’s neglect and abuse of their own power,” the juror wrote to Meehan’s attorneys on Sunday. “We wrote one incident, because the PTSD will last with David forever and could never be clearly defined by a date or a single episode.”

In an earlier message, the juror said the question’s wording was “wrong” and criticized the state for its interpretation of the answer. In separate emails to the attorneys, the jury foreperson described a sleepless night of crying after learning about the cap.

“We had no idea,” the jury foreperson wrote. “Had we known that the settlement amount was to be on a per incident basis, I assure you, our outcome would have reflected it.”

What happens next?

The state has not yet responded to the motion to reconvene the jury. But earlier Tuesday, it filed an objection to Meehan’s initial request for a hearing, saying there was no legal basis for relief with respect to the jury’s “unambiguous” finding of one incident. As for not being told of the cap, Assistant Attorney General Brandon Chase noted that the judge expressly ruled that the jury would not be informed of it, in keeping with judicial precedents. In criminal trials, for example, juries generally are not told of the penalties a defendant will face if convicted to avoid affecting the outcome, he noted.

Meehan’s attorneys, however, insist the judge is obligated to poll the jury when it appears a jury has misconceived its duty.

“This is not a case in which the moving party is speculating about jury error in some way grasping at straws,” the wrote. “It is a case in which three of twelve jurors have taken their duty seriously enough to come forward and attempt to correct what they perceive to be a miscarriage of justice.