Attorneys for David Meehan are asking the state Supreme Court to help settle a monthslong legal battle over whether a historic $38 million verdict for child abuse at the state’s juvenile jail will be capped at $475,000.
In a new legal filing Friday, Meehan’s attorneys ask the state Supreme Court to resolve questions of law that could open paths to undoing what they describe as “an unusual but obvious jury error.”
It is unclear whether the state Supreme Court will accept the appeal in the case, which Meehan’s lawyers say is “important not only to Mr. Meehan, but also to hundreds of other survivors who have come forward to allege child abuse that occurred while they were in the State’s custody.”
Meehan was the first of more than a thousand people who have sued the state since 2020, alleging they were physically, sexually, and psychologically abused at the former Youth Development Center, as well as other youth facilities run or contracted by the state.
Following a civil trial in May, a Rockingham County jury sided with Meehan, declaring the state legally responsible for the abuse he suffered and awarding him what his attorneys called the largest civil jury verdict in state history.
But when asked how many incidents of abuse Meehan had proven, jurors wrote “one” on the verdict form – despite Meehan’s testimony that he was beaten and raped by former state employees hundreds of times over a period of months.
A New Hampshire law caps the state’s civil liability to $475,000 per incident.
Jurors were not made aware of this cap before deliberating, despite a request from Meehan’s attorneys, who now say the question about the number of incidents “likely seemed inconsequential to the jurors at the time.”
Following the trial, multiple jurors, including the foreperson, contacted Meehan’s attorneys to express their dismay over learning from news reports that the damages could be capped. One juror wrote in an email: “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.”
Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman, who oversaw the trial, wrote after the verdict, “The cognitive dissonance between a $38 million verdict and the finding of a ‘single incident’ of actionable abuse cannot stand,” adding that the combination of the two findings was “conclusively against the weight of the evidence.”
Schulman signaled he would grant a motion by Meehan to retry the case entirely, but in Friday’s filing, Meehan’s attorneys say a full retrial would retraumatize Meehan, who would once again be forced to testify about the horrific abuse he says he experienced as a child in state custody.
Earlier this week, in a victory for the state, Schulman ruled “reluctantly” that the cap must be imposed, denying motions by Meehan to change the jury’s finding on the number of incidents or to order a new trial solely to determine the number of incidents.
A spokesperson for the state Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.
Attorneys for the state have previously argued that the jury’s verdict is not contradictory or against the weight of the evidence. In May, the state accused Judge Schulman of offering “unnecessary commentary” on the merits of the case, writing, “The court’s real dissatisfaction appears to be with the statutory damages cap and its effect on the case… Dissatisfaction with how the statutory cap applies is not grounds for a new trial.”
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Meehan’s lawyers ask the justices to weigh in on three questions of law:
- Whether the damages cap is constitutional in cases where the state’s conduct was found to be “wanton, malicious, or oppressive,” as happened in Meehan’s case.
- Whether the Superior Court (in this case, Judge Schulman) can change part of a jury’s verdict if it “stands against the conclusive weight of the evidence.”
- Whether the Superior Court has the power to order a partial retrial to determine the number of incidents.
In an attempt to keep their options open, Meehan’s attorneys have also filed a motion seeking a full retrial pending the results of this appeal to the state Supreme Court.
