An unusual emergency request to recall jurors hours after the conclusion of a major sexual abuse trial in Merrimack County Superior Court was denied on Wednesday.
The request was made by lawyers for Kristy Gesse, who was awarded $16 million in damages on Tuesday. Gesse testified she was repeatedly raped as a child in the 1990s by the owner of a Deerfield group home where she was placed by the state.
The motion was spurred by a voicemail the jury’s foreperson left for one of Gesse’s lawyers approximately four hours after the verdict was announced, according to a legal filing.
The foreperson, who has not been identified, told attorney Nathan Warecki that they “would just like to tell you what happened today so you have it for your future reference,” according to the filing.
Judge John Kissinger did not indicate in the order his rationale for denying the request. It came after a hastily-scheduled hearing.
The jury of eight women and four men deliberated for approximately six hours over the course of two days in the case, which was the second to go to trial out of more than 1,600 filed since 2020 that allege abuse in state-run or contracted facilities.
Gesse testified that she was raped more than 100 times in the early 1990s by the owner of a Deerfield group home where she had been placed by the state. The Monitor does not identify victims of sexual assault unless they have come forward publicly, as Gesse has done.
Warecki was one of the lead attorneys representing Gesse. His firm, Nixon Peabody, represents the majority of individuals who have filed lawsuits amid the state’s sprawling abuse scandal.
It is not clear what the foreperson wished to tell Warecki.
Under the state court’s rules, lawyers are prohibited from communicating about a case with jurors until 30 days after the end of the trial.
Warecki and his legal team filed an emergency motion asking that the judge in the case, John Kissinger, question the jurors regarding their deliberations and verdict.
Based on “the foreperson’s desire to share the substance of deliberations with counsel—such that the foreperson saw it fit to procure undersigned counsel’s contact information and make contact within hours after the verdict [was] rendered—there is reason to question the process by which the jury arrived at its verdict,” the lawyers wrote.
A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the request.
Were you a member of the jury in this case? You can contact reporter Jeremy Margolis at jmargolis@cmonitor.com, 603-369-3321, or via Signal at jmargolis.64.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to indicate that the request was denied.
