In a significant development in the case of David Meehan's abuse trial against the Youth Development Center, Judge Andrew Schulman issued a preliminary ruling to drastically reduce the jury's $38 million award. The ruling, which comes as a response to the state's appeal, cuts the payout to a state-imposed cap of $475,000. Schulman acknowledged the state's motion and said he was "reluctantly granting" it, showing some sympathy for Meehan’s situation but adhering to legal limitations.
Back in May, a jury had awarded Meehan a substantial $38 million after determining that he was the victim of abuse at the Youth Development Center. However, the jury's verdict form only included one incident of abuse. The state swiftly argued that according to state law, damages for a single incident of abuse could not exceed the cap of $475,000, setting the stage for this legal battle over the size of the award.
A Legal Tangle: Jury Intent vs. Legal Limits
The state’s position is based on the argument that the law restricts the payout for any single instance of abuse, which is where the real complication lies. Meehan’s attorneys, on the other hand, contend that the jurors had misunderstood the verdict form, potentially leading them to only mark one incident of abuse despite multiple occurrences. This misinterpretation, they argue, undermines the full intent of the jury, who believed Meehan was entitled to a much larger sum.
Judge Schulman, in his preliminary order, emphasized the fact that unless Meehan formally requests a new trial, the court would be bound to enter a judgment in his favor for the reduced amount of $475,000, ten days after the clerk’s notice. Schulman’s ruling reflects the tension between judicial discretion and the rigid application of state law, but he also seemed to hint that the legal process might not be over yet.
Patricia LaFrance, an attorney from Black, LaFrance & Bollinger, pointed out that Schulman’s ruling essentially signals that Meehan would likely need to pursue a motion for a new trial in order to obtain a fairer outcome. LaFrance noted that the judge’s wording in the order “gives every hint” that Meehan’s legal team will have to take further action to ensure the original jury’s intent is respected.
A Stain on New Hampshire's Reputation
Meehan's legal team remains firm in their stance. In response to the judge's decision, Meehan’s attorney expressed disappointment but remained determined. "We have new motions to file this week, and more trials coming up next year," they said. "This stain on the reputation of New Hampshire will remain until the state resolves these cases fairly and apologizes, like any other decent institution that harms children." The statement reflects the deep emotional weight of the case and the firm belief that New Hampshire’s handling of this issue has left a mark on the state's moral standing.
Meehan’s legal team has made it clear that they intend to keep pushing for justice, and their fight may not be over anytime soon. The battle over the damages payout is just one chapter in what seems to be a prolonged legal saga that could last well into the next year. With additional trials scheduled, the case remains a point of contention, not just for the legal system but for the larger conversation about how institutions should be held accountable for their treatment of vulnerable individuals.
What’s Next for the Case?
The legal wrangling is far from finished. A final ruling on the matter is expected to come this Friday, though it’s still unclear whether any last-minute objections will delay or alter the outcome. The anticipation around the final ruling only heightens the stakes for both Meehan’s legal team and the state of New Hampshire, as the case continues to attract significant attention.
Will Meehan’s team be successful in obtaining a new trial? Can they persuade the court to honor the jury's original verdict, or will the state’s cap on damages ultimately prevail? These are questions that remain unanswered, and the legal community is watching closely for any new developments.
In the meantime, Judge Schulman’s preliminary order has set a critical precedent. The ruling has drawn attention to the limitations of state law in cases involving significant damages and the power of the courts to balance fairness with legal constraints. It also raises questions about how jurors interpret and apply legal forms, and whether a misunderstanding on their part could jeopardize the outcome of an entire case.
This case has sparked debates about the legal system’s ability to fairly compensate victims of abuse while also ensuring that the legal process operates within established boundaries. The challenge lies in finding a way to respect the jury’s intentions while adhering to the laws that govern such claims.
As the legal battle continues, the public’s focus remains on whether New Hampshire will take steps to make amends for past wrongs. Will the state offer a meaningful apology and take responsibility for the harm done? Or will it continue to fight legal battles, further complicating the issue of justice for Meehan and others who may have suffered similar experiences?
Why This Case Matters
This case highlights critical issues at the intersection of law, justice, and accountability. The story is more than just about numbers on a legal form—it speaks to the broader societal need for institutions to take responsibility for their actions, particularly when vulnerable individuals are involved. While the legal process continues, it also serves as a reminder that justice is not always a straightforward path and that the fight for what’s right can sometimes be long and complicated.
The decision is a turning point in how the state of New Hampshire might be perceived by its citizens and the rest of the nation. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future cases of abuse and institutional accountability, especially in cases involving minors or vulnerable populations.
Ultimately, this case will likely leave a lasting impact on how abuse claims are handled and how the legal system navigates the balance between individual rights, state law, and public accountability. For now, all eyes are on New Hampshire as it faces the complex challenge of reconciling the scales of justice.
Login