The Supreme Court has sought intervention in the NH youth center abuse case

Now Meehan’s lawyers are pursuing a different solution. instead, the New Hampshire Supreme Court is asking to intervene in the case. Barring that outcome, they have requested a new trial, according to court records.

“I think it’s probably going to go to the Supreme Court anyway because it’s such an important issue,” David A. Vicinanzo, an attorney at Nixon Peabody who represents Meehan, said in an interview. “They’re going to have to see it at some point, so why not now?”

Meehan was the first person to come forward about alleged abuse at the Youth Development Center in Manchester, prompting more than 1,000 other former residents to report the abuse they say they suffered while held there as children. His accusations led to a wide-ranging criminal investigation arrest of 11 former state workers.

Vicinanzo said the main issue he wants the Supreme Court to address is whether the $475,000 cap is constitutional. He claims that is not the case, although that argument has not convinced Schulman, the judge presiding over the case.

Vicinanzo said he believes jurors were confused about the incidents referred to, and in any case three out of twelve Jurors reached out after handing down their verdicts, court documents show. One said they had discovered one “incident/injury” of post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of more than 100 injuries of sexual, physical and emotional abuse.

“I think they interpreted incidents as injuries and they said severe PTSD, and that was a mistake, a misinterpretation,” Vicinanzo said.

The cap stems from a state law that limits claims against the state, but Vicinanzo argues the law is intended to protect state employees acting in good faith, and not when there is malicious conduct, as he claims in this case was the case.

“You don’t immunize the state when they deliberately do things wrong,” Vicinanzo said. “The government should no longer be given the special benefit because it has engaged in willful misconduct.”

A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the case.

There is no deadline for Schulman to decide whether the case should be taken to the Supreme Court. Vicinanzo said a decision could be reversed within weeks, but it could also take several months.

Typically, cases are referred to the Supreme Court after a final decision has been made, but in this case Meehan’s lawyers argue that the Supreme Court should intervene sooner as this could end the lawsuit or lead to a partial retrial instead of a completely new process. They say a new trial would be both expensive and traumatizing for Meehan.

Michael S. Lewis, an attorney at Rath, Young & Pignatelli who works on related issues, said the maneuver, called summary judgment, is not common, and he was unsure of its chances of success.

Neither the Superior Court nor the Supreme Court are required to accept the appeal.

Meehan’s attorneys have pushed for a partial retrial, in which jurors would only be asked to assess how many instances of abuse there were, a proposal Schulman has not accepted.

“I understand why they don’t want to start a new trial,” Lewis said of Meehan’s lawyers, noting that another trial would require Meehan to relive the trauma of the abuse and review the historical findings of the first trial on the corruption and endanger corruption. state cover-up at the Youth Development Center.

“The idea that you walk away from that finding, given what your client had to go through … and erase it and go through a completely different process again, that’s not something you can just decide,” he said.

But Schulman’s preliminary injunction in November left only two options moving forward: a new trial or the $475,000 limit, even though he wrote that the latter would be “a miscarriage of justice.” For now, Meehan’s lawyers are still hoping a third option will be granted.

Amanda Gokee can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her @amanda_gokee.