Connect with us

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

on

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

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

New Hampshire

Bill to outlaw using student IDs to vote clears NH Legislature

Published

9 hours ago

on

March 9, 2026

By

Bill to outlaw using student IDs to vote clears NH Legislature





Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

New Hampshire

NH cold case solved 40 years after police found man’s skull in woods

Published

21 hours ago

on

March 8, 2026

By

NH cold case solved 40 years after police found man’s skull in woods


Local News

Investigators partnered with a nonprofit genetic genealogy analysis organization to identify the man who the remains belonged to.

Warren Kuchinsky was born in 1952 and last known to be alive in the mid-1970s. New Hampshire Department of Justice

By Darin Zullo

Advertisement

2 minutes to read

After nearly four decades, a man whose skull was discovered in the New Hampshire woods has been identified.

Warren Kuchinsky was born in 1952 and was last known to be alive in the mid-1970s, New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and New Hampshire State Police Colonel Mark Hall said in a statement. In 1986, his skull was found in a wooded area in the town of Bristol.

Advertisement

At the time, investigators weren’t able to identify whose skull it was, according to officials. Last year, however, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner partnered with the DNA Doe Project, a nonprofit organization, to solve the case using forensic genetic genealogy techniques.

Kuchinsky’s identity was confirmed through DNA testing of a surviving family member, according to officials. There is no evidence that his death was caused by foul play, according to the statement.

Founded in 2017, the DNA Doe Project partners with law enforcement, medical examiners, and volunteer genealogists to apply investigative genealogy to John and Jane Doe cases. By analyzing DNA profiles and building family trees from publicly available genetic databases and historical records, the organization has helped solve more than 250 cases nationwide.

“We are honored to have partnered with the State of New Hampshire on this case,” DNA Doe Project Team Leader Lisa Ivany said in the statement. “Through the power of investigative genetic genealogy and the dedication of our volunteer genealogists, we were able to develop a critical lead in less than 24 hours. We truly hope that this identification brings long-awaited answers to Mr. Kuchinsky’s family.”

Initial DNA testing turned up only distant matches, so the DNA Doe Project selected the case to be worked on at a virtual retreat in May 2025, according to the organization’s case profile. Over the course of a weekend, more than 40 genealogists from the U.S., Canada, England, and Scotland collaborated virtually to work on the case.

Advertisement

Within hours, the team discovered that the unidentified man had roots in New Hampshire and Quebec, according to the profile. They later zeroed in on Kuchinsky, who had attended school in Plymouth, N.H., but had no official proof of life past 1970.

“This identification reflects the power of partnership and scientific advancement,” Formella said in the statement. “The dedication of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, the investigative support of the New Hampshire State Police, and the extraordinary work of the DNA Doe Project have restored a name to an individual who had been unidentified for nearly 40 years. We are grateful for their professionalism and commitment.”

Sign up for the Today newsletter

Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

New Hampshire

New Hampshire House Advances One of The Nation’s Most Extreme Transgender Bathroom Bans

Published

1 day ago

on

March 8, 2026

By

New Hampshire House Advances One of The Nation’s Most Extreme Transgender Bathroom Bans


The proposal would fine transgender people up to $5,000 for using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity.

Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

Advertisement

Bathroom bans targeting transgender people have been spreading rapidly across the United States. In previous years, adult bathroom bans in public buildings were limited to a handful of states with extreme laws. This year, they have become one of the primary vehicles for anti-trans legislation nationwide. Kansas was the first to act, passing a bathroom bounty hunter system and invalidating transgender people’s IDs. Idaho and Missouri began advancing their own bills. Now, the New Hampshire House of Representatives has passed its own version — one of the most extreme in the United States, which states that a trans person using the bathroom of their gender identity is a crime under the state civil rights act, violations of which carries hefty penalties. The bill passed 181-164 on Wednesday night, just weeks after Governor Kelly Ayotte vetoed a separate bathroom ban. Republicans are now sending her something far more aggressive — raising the question of whether they are trying to move the goalposts or simply daring her to veto again.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with the exception of RSA 21:3, RSA 21:54, and paragraph II below, all multi-user facilities, including bathrooms, restrooms, and locker rooms located in buildings owned, leased, or operated by any municipality shall be used based on the individual’s biological sex,” reads the new bill. This prohibition is expansive: it applies to parks, rest stops, airports, civic buildings, and more, and could leave transgender people struggling to find a public place to use the restroom across the state.

The bill contains a novel enforcement mechanism not seen in any other state. It declares that a transgender person “asserting” that their gender identity allows them to use the bathroom is against the law under the state civil rights act, turning civil rights protections that were meant to be protective of transgender people into a weapon against them. “It shall be unlawful for any person to assert that their gender identity is a sex other than that defined in RSA 21:3 for the purposes of accessing places or services restricted on the basis of sex,” reads the bill. Such violations could result in fines of up to $5,000 per incident and even jail time if a person violates a resulting court injunction by continuing to use the restroom.

The bill also contains provisions for private businesses. It permits any owner or operator of a “place of public accommodation” — a category that under New Hampshire law includes hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, bars, and concert venues — to restrict bathrooms by assigned sex at birth. The bill then immunizes those businesses from discrimination claims: “Adoption or enforcement of a policy pursuant to this section shall not be deemed discrimination under RSA 354-A or any other state law,” it reads.

A separate bill, HB 1217, also passed on Wednesday. That bill permits governmental buildings and businesses to classify bathrooms and locker rooms by assigned sex at birth — similar to the bathroom bans Ayotte has already vetoed. It passed by an even wider margin, 187-163. It contains no enforcement mechanism, but rather, states that bathroom bans and sports bans are not discriminatory towards transgender people under New Hampshire law.

Advertisement

The bills are part of a larger movement towards bathroom bans for transgender people. Just last month, Kansas passed a bathroom ban that allows every citizen in the state to become a bounty hunter, where reporting transgender people in bathrooms can net them $1,000 per trans person caught. This law also invalidated trans people’s drivers licenses in the state. Meanwhile, Idaho and Missouri are both advancing extreme anti-trans bathroom bans of their own, with Idaho’s ban even applying to private businesses, making it against the law for a private business to allow a trans person to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

The bills are substantially more extreme than the one vetoed by Governor Ayotte just weeks ago. In a veto statement of a bathroom ban last month, Ayotte stated, “I believe there are important and legitimate privacy and safety concerns raised by biological males using places such as female locker rooms and being placed in female correctional facilities… At the same time, I see that House Bill 148 is overly broad and impractical to enforce, potentially creating an exclusionary environment for some of our citizens.”

It remains unclear why Republicans are pushing an even more extreme version of a bill their own governor has already vetoed three times. The bill still needs to pass the New Hampshire Senate and be signed by Ayotte to become law. One possibility is that the more extreme HB 1442 is designed as cover for HB 1217 — making that bill appear moderate by comparison and improving its chances of earning a signature. Another is that Republicans believe they can pressure Ayotte into signing, or are simply laying the groundwork for an override attempt down the line. Regardless, HB 1442 is one of the most extreme bathroom bans moving through any state legislature in the country, and transgender people across New England will be watching closely as it advances to the Senate.

Media that fights fascism

Truthout is funded almost entirely by readers — that’s why we can speak truth to power and cut against the mainstream narrative. But independent journalists at Truthout face mounting political repression under Trump.

Advertisement

We rely on your support to survive McCarthyist censorship. Please make a tax-deductible one-time or monthly donation.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending