$425K cap in YDC abuse case where jury awarded $38M heads to NH Supreme Court
Mar. 24—The state's highest court will hear arguments surrounding David Meehan's historic $38 million jury award after a civil trial on the abuse he endured at the Youth Development Center in the 1990s.
Meehan was the first of nearly 1,300 to have his case heard by a jury on alleged abuse at the youth correctional facility over the course of decades.
A jury in May found the state 100% liable for Meehan's injuries and awarded him $18 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in enhanced compensatory damages. The jury, however, only listed one "incident" on its verdict form, which has sparked debate on how much Meehan is owed. New Hampshire statutes cap the damages for a single incident at $475,000.
The Supreme Court accepted Meehan's interlocutory appeal earlier this month. The case is also eligible for mediation, according to the order.
Over the course of the four-week trial, Meehan's lawyers said their client was beaten and raped hundreds of times at the YDC. Attorneys for the state argued that the state shouldn't be held accountable for the rogue actions of employees.
Meehan's lawyers filed the appeal after the Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman "reluctantly" dropped the award to $475,000 because of a state limit last November. But he wrote he believes the statutory damages cap amounts to be a miscarriage of justice.
In the appeal, the lawyers said the judgment became complicated "by an unusual but obvious jury error with respect to a question on the special-verdict form."
The Supreme Court is set to consider the following:
1. Is the $475,000 cap unconstitutional when the jury found the state's conduct toward Meehan to be wanton, malicious or oppressive?
2. Does the superior court have the authority to enter a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict striking question 10 from the verdict form?
3. Does the superior court have the authority to order a partial retrial on the number of "incident(s)?"
Meehan's lawyers say the Supreme Court has never addressed the questions being presented, which has caused the difference of opinion.
"Granting the State immunity in these circumstances violates the New Hampshire Constitution's guarantee of an 'orderly, lawful, and accountable government,'" the appeal reads.
"Each of these issues has implications outside Mr. Meehan's case. If the Supreme Court holds that the damages cap is unconstitutional as applied where a jury has found that the State's conduct toward Mr. Meehan was wanton, malicious, or oppressive, that holding could be important in any other YDC/YDSU case that proceeds to trial," the appeal reads.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
28 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
With Trump as ally, El Salvador's President ramps up crackdown on dissent
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (AP) — Days before his arrest outside his daughter's house in the outskirts of San Salvador, constitutional lawyer Enrique Anaya called Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele a 'dictator' and a 'despot' on live TV. This week, lawyer Jaime Quintanilla stood outside a detention facility in El Salvador's capital with a box of food and clothes for his client, unsure if Anaya would ever be released. The Saturday arrest of Anaya, a fierce critic of Bukele, marks the latest move in what watchdogs describe as a wave of crackdown on dissent by the Central American leader. They say Bukele is emboldened by his alliance with U.S. President Donald Trump , who has not only praised him but avoided criticizing actions human rights defenders, international authorities and legal experts deem authoritarian. Authorities in El Salvador have targeted outspoken lawyers like Anaya, journalists investigating Bukele's alleged deals with gangs and human rights defenders calling for the end of a three-year state of emergency , which has suspended fundamental civil rights. Some say they have been forced to flee the country. 'They're trying to silence anyone who voices an opinion — professionals, ideologues, anyone who is critical — now they're jailed.' Quintanilla said. 'It's a vendetta.' Bukele's office did not respond to a request for comment. 'I don't care if you call me a dictator' Observers see a worrisome escalation by the popular president, who enjoys extremely high approval ratings due to his crackdown on the country's gangs . By suspending fundamental rights, Bukele has severely weakened gangs but also locked up 87,000 people for alleged gang ties, often with little evidence or due process. A number of those detained were also critics. Bukele and his New Ideas party have taken control of all three branches of government, stacking the country's Supreme Court with loyalists. Last year, in a move considered unconstitutional , he ran for reelection, securing a resounding victory. 'I don't care if you call me a dictator,' Bukele said earlier this month in a speech. 'Better that than seeing Salvadorans killed on the streets.' In recent weeks, those who have long acted as a thorn in Bukele's side say looming threats have reached an inflection point. The crackdown comes as Bukele has garnered global attention for keeping some 200 Venezuelan deportees detained in a mega-prison built for gangs as part of an agreement with the Trump administration. 'Of course I'm scared' Anaya was detained by authorities on unproven accusations of money laundering. Prosecutors said he would be sent to 'relevant courts' in the coming days. Quintanilla, his lawyer, rejects the allegations, saying his arrest stems from years of vocally questioning Bukele. Quintanilla, a longtime colleague of Anaya, said he decided to represent his friend in part because many other lawyers in the country were now too afraid to show their faces. On Tuesday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed 'deep concern' over Anaya's arrest. Anaya, 61, is a respected lawyer and commentator in El Salvador with a doctorate in constitutional law. He has criticized Bukele's crackdown on the gangs and Bukele stacking of El Salvador's high court. Last year, he was among those who unsuccessfully petitioned the country's top electoral authority to reject Bukele's re-election bid, saying it violated the constitution . Days before his arrest, Anaya railed on television against the detention of human rights lawyer Ruth López , who last week shouted, 'They're not going to silence me, I want a public trial,' as police escorted her shackled to court. 'Of course I'm scared,' Anaya told the broadcast anchor. 'I think that anyone here who dares to speak out, speaks in fear.' While some of Bukele's most vocal critics, like Anaya and López, have been publicly detained, other human rights defenders have quietly slipped out of the country, hoping to seek asylum elsewhere in the region. They declined to comment or be identified out of fear that they would be targeted even outside El Salvador. Fear and an ally in Trump Last month, a protest outside of Bukele's house was violently quashed by police and some of the protesters arrested. He also ordered the arrest of the heads of local bus companies for defying his order to offer free transport while a major highway was blocked. In late May, El Salvador's Congress passed a 'foreign agents' law , championed by the populist president. It resembles legislation implemented by governments in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus and China to silence and criminalize dissent by exerting pressure on organizations that rely on overseas funding. Verónica Reyna, a human rights coordinator for the Salvadoran nonprofit Servicio Social Pasionista, said police cars now regularly wait outside her group's offices as a lingering threat. 'It's been little-by-little,' Reyna said. 'Since Trump came to power, we've seen (Bukele) feel like there's no government that's going to strongly criticize him or try to stop him.' Trump's influence extends beyond his vocal backing of Bukele , with his administration pushing legal boundaries to push his agenda, Reyna, other human rights defenders and journalists said. The U.S. Embassy in El Salvador, which once regularly denounced the government's actions, has remained silent throughout the arrests and lingering threats. It did not respond to a request for comment. In its final year, the Biden administration, too, dialed back its criticism of the Bukele government as El Salvador's government helped slow migration north in the lead up to the 2024 election. On Tuesday, Quintanilla visited Anaya in detention for the first time since his arrest while being watched by police officers. Despite the detention, neither Anaya nor Quintanilla have been officially informed of the charges. Quintanilla worries that authorities will use wide ranging powers granted to Bukele by the 'state of emergency' to keep him imprisoned indefinitely. Journalists stranded Óscar Martínez, editor-in-chief of news site El Faro, and four other journalists have left the country and are unable to return safely, as they face the prospect of arrest stemming from their reporting. At a time when many other reporters have fallen silent out of fear, Martínez's news site has investigated Bukele more rigorously than perhaps any other, exposing hidden corruption and human rights abuses under his crackdown on gangs. In May, El Faro published a three-part interview with a former gang leader who claimed he negotiated with Bukele's administration. Soon after, Martínez said the organization received news that authorities were preparing an arrest order for a half-dozen of their journalists. This has kept at least five El Faro journalists, including Martínez, stranded outside their country for over a month. On Saturday, when the reporters tried to return home on a flight, a diplomatic source and a government official informed them that police had been sent to the airport to wait for them and likely arrest them. The journalists later discovered that their names, along with other civil society leaders, appeared on a list of 'priority objectives' held by airport authorities. Martínez said Anaya's name was also on the list. Now in a nearby Central American nation, Martínez said he doesn't know when he will be able to board another flight home. And if he does, he doesn't know what will happen when he steps off. 'We fear that, if we return — because some of us surely will try — we'll be imprisoned,' he said. 'I am positive that if El Faro journalists are thrown in prison, we'll be tortured and, possibly, even killed.' ____ Janetsky reported from Mexico City. ____ Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brazil court majority favors tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies like X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet -- a law in effect since 2014 that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without judicial intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and four have yet to express an opinion. "We must, as a court, move in the direction of freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom," Judge Flavio Dino said during Wednesday's session, broadcast online. Not doing so would be like "trying to open an airline without regulation in the name of the right of free movement," he added. Google, for its part, said in a statement that changing the rules "will not contribute to ending the circulation of unwanted content on the internet." - Coup plot - Alexandre de Moraes, one of the court's judges, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in the tightly-fought 2022 election against Bolsonaro, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des/nl
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million-dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws in giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million-dollar checks to those who signed the petition. The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million-dollar checks to two people, both of whom the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk over his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million-dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mandell, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mandell said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or, 'He can't possibly get away with this,'' Mandell said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and I think people across the political spectrum's intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.' This article was originally published on
