New Hampshire

Here’s why the verdict in New Hampshire’s landmark trial over youth center abuse is being disputed – The Boston Globe

Published

2 years ago

May 7, 2024

Press Room

Here’s why the verdict in New Hampshire’s landmark trial over youth center abuse is being disputed – The Boston Globe

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.

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: “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 an email to Meehan’s attorneys. “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.”

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. I pray that Mr. Meehan realizes this and is made as whole as he can possibly be within a proper amount of time.”

Source link

New Hampshire

Feds put ‘severely disruptive’ restrictions on applying for green cards

Published

3 hours ago

May 23, 2026

Press Room

Feds put ‘severely disruptive’ restrictions on applying for green cards

In a monumental shift in policy, the federal government plans to bar noncitizens from changing their immigration statuses except in extraordinary circumstances.

Local immigration attorneys say the move by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will impact thousands of people in the middle of the process and those planning to adjust their statuses in Massachusetts, and millions of foreign nationals nationwide. That includes students, temporary visa holders, and tourists, say attorneys.

Adjustment of status is when a noncitizen lawfully in the U.S. tries to switch to lawful permanent residence, known as a green card. It has been routine within the USCIS for decades. Adjustment of status has long allowed noncitizens to do so within the US without having to return to their country of origin.

“It’s extremely disruptive and is only going to further burden and complicate the system. It makes no sense,” said Robin Nice, a local immigration attorney.

Todd Pomerleau, a local attorney who has won cases before the Supreme Court, said that the USCIS “can’t eliminate statutory protections nor can it rewrite regulations while going through the proper channels. Otherwise, we’ll sue them in court.”

USCIS released a memo on Friday saying that the system has been abused. Specifically, the memo says the process that allows green card applicants to remain in the U.S. while applying was never intended to replace the system of applying for a visa from abroad. It instructs officers to treat adjustment of status applications as an exceptional, discretionary benefit, and that it is now “an extraordinary form of immigration relief.”

The agency says that even if applicants meet requirements for permanent residence when they’re about to apply in the US, they must leave the U.S. when their current visa ends, and wait for the State Department to process their case.

“It affects every person within the United States that is seeking adjustment of status. It affects students, it effects temporary protected status holders, it affects business visa holders,” said Annelise Araujo, a lawyer who runs an immigration practice in Boston.

Given the backlog of cases, attorneys say noncitizens will have to wait abroad for an indefinite period of time, and potentially be ineligible to return.

USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said the change is about “returning to the original intent of the law.”

“This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes. When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency,” he said in a statement. Kahler said nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose, and they must leave after.

Nice said the policy will drive immigrants “underground” and force them to pay thousands of extra dollars annually in renewing temporary statuses and work permits, since they won’t want to go abroad.

Araujo said the policy change will have a large impact on students. F-1 student visa holders can currently apply for green cards with limitations.

“They may change what their goals are, right? They may decide that they want to permanently stay after they’ve entered the United States and they may look for a job here. And that’s why adjustment of status exists,” she said.

Both Nice and Araujo said USCIS is wrong that this has previously been standard policy.

Araujo said the change will also impact people on work visas, like CEOs of multinational corporations, or on specialized visas, like an H-1B, a visa for foreign nationals with specialized knowledge in fields like technology, engineering, healthcare or finance.

“They can go from a non-immigrant intent, which was the intent they had at the time they applied to enter, to a immigrant intent after they’ve been in the United States,” she said. Noncitizens told they can’t have a path to a green card and work lawfully may start considering other countries.

Pomerleau recommended noncitizens thinking of adjusting their status or in the middle of it consult with an immigration attorney.

“This is just yet another sign of the government trying to make things difficult for people that are even able to follow the laws that Congress created,” said Pomerleau.

Source link

New Hampshire

Best New Hampshire schools for athletes? According to one study, these are top 25

Published

15 hours ago

May 23, 2026

Press Room

Best New Hampshire schools for athletes? According to one study, these are top 25

New Hampshire has long carried an athletic pedigree in the high school landscape.

Total number of sports: 35

1. Bedford High School

Total number of sports: 34

Source link

New Hampshire

New Hampshire police plan to charge

Published

1 day ago

May 22, 2026

Press Room

Following the arrest of more than 50 people after a “takeover” at Hampton Beach in New Hampshire during the hot weather on Tuesday, the police chief tells WBZ-TV his department is seeking to charge those who organized the event.

Flyers posted on various social media sites advertised a “Hampton Beach Takeover.” The result was that on Tuesday, thousands of kids, many of them high school seniors skipping school, congregated at Hampton Beach.

When the skies opened and it started rain around 4:30, the group of teens ran onto Ocean Boulevard, where police say that fights broke out. Fifty people were arrested for charges, including alcohol possession and disorderly conduct.

Beach takeovers like this are not uncommon. WBZ-TV has covered several similar situations on Revere Beach in Massachusetts.

Local Hampton business owner Kristen Statires said this has become an annual issue, happening on the first hot weather day of every season since the pandemic.

“And the police know about it, we know about it, so we were expecting it. Like we knew it was going to happen,” she said.

When the kids ran into the street, she closed her shop doors and shut down for the day.

In a phone call with WBZ, Hampton Police Chief Alex Reno said his department already knows the two groups of people behind organizing the beach takeover, and plans to file the appropriate charges.

“It would be an aggressive move on the police’s part, but it would certainly send a message,” said WBZ legal analyst Jennifer Roman.

Reno said his department was continuing to gather evidence and is working with law-enforcement partners across New England and even at the federal level to determine the appropriate charges before issuing arrest warrants. The hope is that charging the organizers creates a deterrent for any future similar behavior.

In:

Source link