Latest news with #NewHampshireSupremeCourt
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
NH Supreme Court rejects Dover and Rochester's 2020 redistricting complaint
Dover, Rochester, and 10 residents filed a lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire and Secretary of State David Scanlan alleging that the state's maps violated the New Hampshire Constitution. (Photo by Dave Cummings/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the House district maps created by the Republican-controlled state Legislature in 2020 are not illegal, despite allegations made by the cities of Dover and Rochester and a number of residents from throughout New Hampshire. In 2022, Dover, Rochester, and 10 residents filed a lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire and Secretary of State David Scanlan alleging that the state's maps violated the New Hampshire Constitution. They argued that the constitution requires Dover Ward 4, Rochester Ward 5, New Ipswich, Wilton, Hooksett, Lee, Barrington, and several other towns to have their own state House districts because their populations are large enough to warrant them. The maps currently in use do not give those wards and towns their own districts. They also alleged the map's population configuration deviates more than 10%, which is a violation of the 14th Amendment's one-person-one-vote requirement. They ask the court to forbid the state from using the maps and to ostensibly fix them. They provided a map they deemed to be more legal. In 2024, a trial court in Strafford County ruled against Dover and Rochester, agreeing with the state and Scanlan that creating maps where every city, town, or ward with the necessary population had their own districts would be impossible to accomplish. It also ruled previous case law determined that presumptive violations of the one-person-one-vote requirement may be justified by efforts to make districts compact, respect municipal boundaries, preserve the cores of prior districts, and avoid contests between incumbent representatives. Citing a previous court decision, the court declared that 'a legislatively enacted redistricting plan 'is not unconstitutional simply because some 'resourceful mind' has come up with a better one.'' Dover, Rochester, and the rest of the plaintiffs promptly appealed the ruling and the state Supreme Court considered the case. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that because they did not sufficiently show that the Legislature had 'no rational or legitimate basis' to enact the map, they denied the appeal. 'We are pleased that the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state's redistricting plan for the State House of Representatives,' Attorney General John Formella, who represented the state, said in a statement Wednesday. 'Today's decision reaffirms the Court's prior precedent recognizing the Legislature's broad discretion in the area of redistricting and recognizes that the Legislature must balance complex constitutional requirements when determining the most appropriate map. We are delighted that the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority, and I thank our litigation and appeals teams for their excellent work in achieving this important outcome.' Jennifer Perez, Dover's deputy city attorney wrote in an email to the Bulletin, 'We are disappointed in the result but respect the Court's determination.' Officials from Rochester did not immediately respond to the Bulletin's requests for comment.
Boston Globe
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
David Souter remembered in New Hampshire as ‘brilliant, thoughtful, kind'
'David was a private person, but he wasn't reclusive at all,' said Advertisement A Republican former state attorney general before becoming a New Hampshire Superior Court judge in the state where he grew up, Souter drew admiration throughout his home state's legal profession, which mourned his death. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The New Hampshire Supreme Court conducts its business in the Souter Conference Room in Concord,' New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald said in a statement. 'There, we are reminded daily of Justice Souter's deep intellect, his reverence for the law, his love for our state, and perhaps most of all, his humility,' MacDonald said. Paul J. Twomey, a defense attorney in New Hampshire, called Souter 'one of only three human beings I've ever considered a hero in my life. I admire him immensely.' Advertisement Though Souter came to be considered part of the Supreme Court's liberal faction, he was appointed in 1990 by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush. And many of Souter's New Hampshire friends thought he didn't stray from his Republican roots. 'David was a judicial conservative,' Glahn said, adding that the change in public perception had more to do with the entire Supreme Court's ideological shift, rather than with Souter himself. 'David always thought of himself as a moderate,' Glahn said, 'and as the court moved further and further right, that middle position began to seem more liberal.' Twomey recalled that as a state Superior Court associate justice, Souter had a reputation for being extremely conservative and hard in his sentencing — but at the same time he was 'just the fairest person you could ever meet.' Twomey said Souter's US Supreme Court work, including building a coalition of justices that reaffirmed abortion rights in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, 'is just of incredible importance.' Twomey said he and Souter had discussed abortion. 'I knew that he personally did not believe in abortion, but he was the deciding vote,' Twomey said of the 5-to-4 Casey ruling. Twomey said Souter worked to keep in place the abortion rights the court had established in Roe v. Wade 'because he felt it was compelled by the law, even though it was against his personal beliefs. You don't find people that do that very often.' Advertisement Kuster's father, Malcolm McLane, was on the Rhodes Scholarship selection committee when Souter was selected from New Hampshire. He subsequently studied in Oxford, England. After returning home and graduating from Harvard Law School, Souter began his career at Orr & Reno, the same law firm as Kuster's father, and served alongside her mother on the Concord Hospital Board of Trustees. Over the years, Kuster said, Souter maintained a close and personal friendship with her family. 'My parents just became very, very fond of him,' she said, adding that her mother, in particular, became his confidant. Glahn, who worked for Souter in the attorney general's office decades ago, described him as a brilliant man with an 'encyclopedic' mind — a generous boss and warm friend who had a dry sense of humor and a deep love of books and reading. He spoke about hiking up some of New Hampshire's 4,000-plus foot peaks with Souter and inviting him over for dinner with his wife and children. Glahn also recalled that he and colleagues would seek book recommendations from Souter, an avid reader. The two remained close until the end, and Glahn last saw Souter earlier this week. They were beginning to discuss alternative living arrangements for Souter, who was still living alone. 'It's going to leave a big hole in my life. David was a brother to me,' Glahn said. 'You couldn't have a better friend.' Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NH Supreme Court backs victims mental health records in landmark decision
For the first time, the state's highest court applied the right of privacy to a criminal case to restrict the defendant's access to the alleged victim's confidential counseling and mental health records. The opinion by the New Hampshire Supreme Court stems from a rape case in Belknap County involving a minor. Even with protections in place previously, criminal defendants have used such records to 'intimidate and embarrass victims — and to deter them from disclosing abuse, reporting crimes and seeking justice,' according to the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. An individual's 'right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent,' was added to the New Hampshire Constitution in 2018. The Supreme Court's opinion, issued Thursday, is being called groundbreaking by the coalition and members of the legal community. Now, an alleged victim must be given notice and an opportunity to object when the defense requests access to confidential records. The opinion is part the case against Gene Zarella of Tilton, who was indicted on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault of a minor. A Superior Court judge denied a request by the alleged victim to quash the defense's access to her counseling and mental health records. According to the indictments, two of the assaults happened between March 2006 and July 2007 when the girl was under 13 and the other two occurred between March 2014 and July 2014 when she was between ages 13 and 16. The alleged victim was not given notice or an opportunity to object to the defense's request for her records, according to the coalition. Zarella's attorney, William Christie, did not return an email from the Union Leader seeking comment. The justices used the 2018 constitutional amendment to overturn its prior case law, according to the coalition. 'Now, courts are required to engage in a specific process that involves the victim/patient before making any decision about reviewing or disclosing those records,' the coalition said. David Vicinanzo, attorney for the victim and partner at Nixon Peabody law firm, called it a landmark decision which removed a 'major obstacle to justice' for victims. He said mental health records will now be treated as first-class privileges, much like attorney-client privileges. The decision Thursday eliminates case law dating back 33 years when views on mental health were much different, he said. 'I think it brings us toward eliminating the stigma associated with mental health,' Vicinanzo said in an interview. Vicinanzo said his client is glad her privileges won't be violated as part of the prosecution. 'Criminal defendants will no longer have easy access to rummage through the privileged medical and mental health records of their victims, almost all of whom were women or children in sexual or domestic crimes,' he said in a statement. Coalition Executive Director Lyn Schollett said assault victims can now slowly rebuild their lives with the privacy they deserve. 'The outrageous practice of accessing victims' irrelevant, personal information ends today,' she said in a statement. 'Granite Staters who have experienced violent crimes and heinous losses can walk into the office of a crisis center or a therapist without fear that their conversations will become public.' jphelps@
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Yahoo
Supreme Court won't opine in Dartmouth murders resentencing
The state's highest court declined to weigh in on constitutional questions surrounding the resentencing of a man who is serving two life sentences without the possibility of parole for killing two Dartmouth College professors when he was a teenager. Robert Tulloch pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder in the 2001 slayings of Dartmouth College professors Half and Susanne Zantop inside their Hanover home. He was 17 at the time. Tulloch's lawyers said the life sentence without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court declared such mandatory sentences for juvenile murderers unconstitutional in 2012. Judge Lawrence MacLeod ordered the transfer of disputed questions to the high court after concluding that the 'constitutional issues in this case are significant and complex and have not yet been addressed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court.' The two sides disagree over whether the state allows life sentences without parole for minors, according to MacLeod's order. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case prior to resentencing. 'Prior to resentencing, the trial court shall rule upon the defendant's 2018 motion to declare life sentences without the possibility of parole unconstitutional for juvenile offenders,' the order reads. In 2001, Tulloch, alongside James Parker, who was then 16, planned to rob and kill someone that day to get money to travel overseas. Tulloch was the mastermind behind the scheme. Parker, who was sentenced to 25 years, has since been paroled. Tulloch's lawyers, Richard Guerriero and Oliver Bloom, called keeping the sentence of life without parole cruel and unusual punishment for a man who was a juvenile at the time of the crime. At a hearing on Sept. 25, both sides agreed that if the state Constitution allows a sentence of life without the possibility for parole for minors, a court must find the child is incapable of change before imposing such a sentence. No further court hearings have been scheduled as of Tuesday afternoon. jphelps@
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines resentencing case for Dartmouth murders
The state's highest court declined to weigh in on constitutional questions surrounding the resentencing of a man who is serving two life sentences without the possibility of parole for killing two Dartmouth College professors when he was a teenager. Robert Tulloch pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder in the 2001 slayings of Dartmouth College professors Half and Susanne Zantop inside their Hanover home. He was 17 at the time. Tulloch's lawyers said the life sentence without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court declared such mandatory sentences for juvenile murderers unconstitutional in 2012. Judge Lawrence MacLeod ordered the transfer of disputed questions to the high court after concluding that the 'constitutional issues in this case are significant and complex and have not yet been addressed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court.' The two sides disagree over whether the state allows life sentences without parole for minors, according to MacLeod's order. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case prior to resentencing. 'Prior to resentencing, the trial court shall rule upon the defendant's 2018 motion to declare life sentences without the possibility of parole unconstitutional for juvenile offenders,' the order reads. In 2001, Tulloch, alongside James Parker, who was then 16, planned to rob and kill someone that day to get money to travel overseas. Tulloch was the mastermind behind the scheme. Parker, who was sentenced to 25 years, has since been paroled. Tulloch's lawyers, Richard Guerriero and Oliver Bloom, called keeping the sentence of life without parole cruel and unusual punishment for a man who was a juvenile at the time of the crime. At a hearing on Sept. 25, both sides agreed that if the state Constitution allows a sentence of life without the possibility for parole for minors, a court must find the child is incapable of change before imposing such a sentence. No further court hearings have been scheduled as of Tuesday afternoon. jphelps@
