Jurors question cap in YDC abuse verdict; emergency hearing requested
May 6—Jurors who awarded $38 million to David Meehan, a former resident of the Youth Development Center who alleged he was physically and sexually abused during the 1990s, say they were unaware of a potential cap on damages.
The state says Meehan can only receive $475,000 because the jury only listed one "incident" on its verdict form after deliberating on Friday.
"Being 'duped' isn't a pleasant feeling to have," the jury foreperson wrote to Meehan's lawyer, Rus Rilee.
Rilee and co-counsel David Vicinanzo requested an emergency hearing over the weekend after receiving emails from the jury foreperson and at least one other juror who said they were unaware of the cap. A hearing has yet to be scheduled.
"I'm absolutely devastated," the foreperson wrote. "We had no idea. Had we have known that the settlement amount was to be on a per incident basis, I assure you, our outcome would have reflected it."
On Friday, the jury found the state 100% liable for Meehan's injuries and awarded him $18 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in enhanced compensatory damages.
Over the course of the four-week trial, defense attorneys argued that the state shouldn't be held accountable for the rogue actions of employees.
According to the emergency request, Rilee received an email from the jury foreperson at 6:54 p.m. on Friday but did not see it until Saturday. Another email from the foreperson and juror number 16 came on Saturday.
"I also wanted to echo the thoughts of the foreperson and our verdict," juror 16 wrote. "We wrote on our verdict form that there was 1 incident/injury, being complex PTSD, from the result of upwards of 100+ injuries (sexual, physical, emotional abuse). We were never informed of a cap being placed per incident of abuse and that is wrong how the question was worded to us."
Rilee and Vicinanzo have been consulting with retired Supreme Court judge Gary Hicks, an expert in post-trial matters. Meehan's lawyers determined it was "imperative to immediately notify the court and opposing counsel that a juror had made contact." Rilee and Vicinanzo did not respond to any of the emails.
"The Verdict Form's finding of only one 'incident' is conclusively against the weight of the evidence and is logically inconsistent with the jury's award of $38 million in damages," the request reads.
The jury found the YDC's conduct to be wanton, malicious or oppressive, which led to $20 million in enhanced compensatory damages.
What's next is unknown
Judge Andrew Schulman and lawyers knew of the cap, but the jury had no written instructions regarding the number of incidents, said Chuck Douglas, a former New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice and U.S. congressman who now practices law in Concord.
"They never would have done that if they knew of the consequence," said Douglas, who has no connection to the case.
He said if he was behind the bench he would reconvene the jury to clarify its position.
"If they said, 'one incident and $400,000' or 'one incident and $475,000' that would be one thing," Douglas said. "They made it clear they wanted him to get $38 million."
Daniel Pi, an assistant professor at UNH's Franklin Pierce School of Law, said Schulman could order a new trial or could come up with his own damages, known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
"It is hard to predict what the judge is going to do," he said.
The jury foreperson, whose name was redacted from court documents, also emailed Vicinanzo.
"I was literally sickened and brought to tears in fear of the mistake we made," the person wrote on Friday. "I still am."
Meehan testified about being raped, beaten hundreds of times and held in solitary confinement for long periods of time between 1997 and 1998.
Meehan's lawsuit has sparked more than 1,000 similar lawsuits by former residents of the juvenile detention center. This is the first of the cases to go to trial, Vicinanzo said.
Juror number 16 says Meehan should be entitled to the $38 million.
"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. We have not been given the opportunity to explain our position on the verdict," the juror wrote.
