Recent court cases have been heavily influenced by issues within the justice system, underscoring the need for systemic reforms.
One prominent example is Williams v. Washington, where systemic errors have raised concerns about fair representation and court access. Issues such as racial bias in jury selection and the exclusion of critical evidence highlight the urgent need for change. Additionally, Garland v. VanDerStok focuses on the inconsistencies in firearm regulations and the legal arguments surrounding constitutional rights. These cases show that, without comprehensive legal reforms, disparities continue to impact marginalized communities.
In some instances, cases involving First Amendment rights also reveal the challenges of modern governance and technology. Murthy v. Missouri deals with government influence over social media platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court decision emphasized the importance of establishing concrete evidence of harm and the standing of plaintiffs, thus setting a precedent for future cases related to free speech and government intervention online.
The legal system's structure, which often limits access to affordable legal representation, plays a significant role in these cases. As highlighted by ongoing discussions on the "access to justice" crisis, many are left to represent themselves or seek costly legal help, further entrenching inequality. Reform efforts, such as opening legal practice to non-lawyer providers or increasing the use of AI-driven models, aim to close this gap, but resistance from established legal bodies remains a challenge.
Together, these cases demonstrate the widespread impact of a rigid, costly, and sometimes biased justice system in dire need of reform to ensure equal access to justice for all citizens.
YDC Abuse Survivor Walks Out During Combative Cross-Examination at Trial
By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org (InDepthNH.org) November 20, 2024
By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org
MANCHESTER — The man accusing former Sununu Youth Services Center house leader Bradley Asbury of being an accomplice to rape at what was then called YDC when he was 14, Michael Gilpatrick, snapped during Wednesday’s cross-examination after hours of badgering by the defense.
“You’re a sick man, get away from me,” Gilpatrick told Asbury’s defense attorney David Rothstein.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Emotionally wrung out, Gilpatrick stood up and walked off the witness stand and out of the courtroom, forcing a break in the day’s proceedings.
Rothstein seemed to have unchecked ability to hammer Gilpatrick for hours during his cross-examination, trying to trip up Gilpatrick on details he says he no longer remembers surrounding the day of the alleged rape, his personal finances, and his troubled childhood. Throughout, prosecutors with the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, Audriana Mekula and Adam Woods, impassively sat and watched their witness fend off question after question, offering few objections to the proceedings.
The breaking moment for Gilpatrick came as he conceded to Rothstein his prior inconsistencies and memory lapses about certain dates and events before and after the rape.
“That’s got nothing to do with four men raping me on a stairwell, you can’t change that no matter what you try to make people think I forgot,” Gilpatrick said. “Your client held me down while two other men raped me.”
Even though Gilpatrick was clearly upset by this point, no one from the state tried to intervene. That’s when Rothstein began a rhetorical loop with Gilpatrick that spiraled out of control.
“Say that again,” Rothstein said.
When Gilpatrick repeated his accusation, Rothstein again responded, “Say that again,” and Gilpatrick said it again, becoming more upset with each cycle. At the third or fourth “Say that again” from Rothstein, Gilpatrick had enough and told him, “You’re a sick man, get away from me.”
Gilpatrick was 14 in 1998 when he claims Asbury and James Woodlock held him down in a stairwell inside East Cottage so that Jeffrey Buskey and Stephen Murphy could rape him. Asbury is the first of the four men accused of raping Gilpatrick to go to trial on criminal charges.
Gilpatrick’s memory of events before and after the rape have proved inconsistent. He has given different times for the assault, slightly different days, and different details about his attempt to run away from a YDC furlough that preceded the rape. But since he began telling his story to police, prosecutors, and private attorneys, Gilpatrick’s account of the rape itself have been consistent.
“What happened to me, I will never ever forget that,” Gilpatrick said.
The trial is being held at the Hillsborough Superior Court — North in Manchester before Judge Will Delker. The state’s case could wrap up as soon as Thursday. It’s possible for closing arguments to take place Thursday and for the case to go to the jury for deliberations.
Legal sources watching the trial have told InDepthNH.org the state is presenting a weak case to the jury. Mekula’s opening arguments were oddly brief and lacking. There are few corroborating witnesses being called, though they do exist. And the prosecution team, in charitable terms, appear mutely glued to their seats during the proceedings.
The state has so far called few witnesses in the case. Former YDC staffer Gene Murray kicked off the trial by essentially testifying that he worked with Asbury in the 1990s and that Asbury had a lot of power over staff and children as the house leader.
Left out of the trial is the fact Asbury was fired from YDC in 1994 for alleged physical and emotional abuse and inappropriate punishments. Asbury appealed and got his job back. Also left out of the criminal trial are the witnesses and evidence that other staffers feared Asbury, that the whole YDC system was rife with abuse, and that YDC administrators covered for staffers like Asbury when complaints were brought. In May, a civil jury presented with this evidence found the state liable for wanton and oppressive behavior.
The specter of the civil lawsuits brought by adult survivors like Gilpatrick, more than 1,000, adds troubling context for the case presented by the state against Asbury. The first civil trial ended with the jury awarding $38 million to survivor David Meehan, though the state is trying to force a $475,000 cap on the damages.
Gilpatrick was a witnesses at Meehan’s trial, and his own civil lawsuit alleges many more instances of beatings and rapes he suffered at YDC. Presumably, a guilty verdict would be helpful for Gilpatrick’s civil case and a not guilty verdict, or a hung jury, would help the civil defendant, the State of New Hampshire.
The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office is ignoring the apparent conflict of interest involved by prosecuting alleged YDC abusers in the criminal cases and attacking the YDC survivors in the civil cases.
Despite his emotional break during the testimony, Gilpatrick mostly displayed a sense of humor pushing back on Rothstein’s questions. But asked about the civil lawsuit and the $140,000 he borrowed against his anticipated win in court, Gilpatrick became serious. He said he does not care about the money, but only wants to see Asbury brought to justice.
“This is what matters, (the civil case) don’t matter to me at all. I would give that all up in a second to see him go away,” Gilpatrick said.