Selected Trial Verdicts and Decisions

• BHPK Wins Settlement for Victim of Gay Bashing

  BHPK represented a man beaten in a bar whose assailant had shouted anti-gay slurs while striking him in the face with a beer bottle. BHPK secured financial settlements from the assailant and a bar where the assailant had been drinking prior to the assault.
  
  

• BHPK Secures Settlement for Camper Abused by Counselor

  BHPK secured a substantial settlement for a young woman who had been molested by a counselor at camp when she was twelve and thirteen years old. The camp also agreed to revamp its policies regarding child abuse prevention.
  
  RESULT: Settlement for camper and child abuse prevention measures
  
  

• BHPK Wins Substantial Settlement for Student Raped in College Dorm

  BHPK represented a college student raped in her dorm room, and negotiated a large financial settlement for the student. In addition, the university agreed to make significant changes to security equipment and procedures, and established a hotline for rape victims.
  
  RESULT: Substantial award for student and crime prevention measures
  
  

• BHPK Wins $1.2 Million in Psychotherapy Malpractice Case

  BHPK represented a woman and her family in a lawsuit against a psychologist who engaged in non-therapeutic treatment methods.
  
  RESULT: $1.2 Million award by jury to the plaintiffs.
  

• BHPK Secures $75,000 - $875,000 for Clergy Sexual Abuse Victims

  BHPK has represented scores of individual victims who were sexually molested between 1966 and 1990 by clergy members, securing individual awards of between $75,000 and $875,000 for each victim.
  
  

• BHPK Secures $2.5 Million for Mentally Ill Teenager

  BHPK won a $2.5 million award for a mentally ill teenager whose counselor engaged in a sexual relationship with her and made her pregnant. The case received significant coverage in the media and was the subject of two Boston Globe columns.
  
  RESULT: $2.5 million jury verdict for the plaintiff.
  
  

• BHPK Wins $4.85 Million for Clients Harassed by Landlord

  An employee filed criminal charges against his employer, who was also his landlord. In retaliation, the employer orchestrated a terror campaign against the man, his wife and their two children. Represented by BHPK, the employee sued the employer. On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the jury’s verdict as the largest award of its kind in the country.
  
  RESULT: $4.85 million award for the plaintiffs
  
  

• BHPK Wins Settlement for Women Harassed for Their Sexual Orientation

  Two women were harassed on the job by a supervisor because of their sexual orientation. The harassment forced them to leave their jobs. BHPK represented the women in a suit against the employer and supervisor.
  
  RESULT: Six figure financial settlement for the plaintiffs.
  
  

• BHPK Secures $610,000 Against College for Negligent Security

  BHPK represented a college student raped in her college dorm room by an intruder who gained access through an inadequately secured window.
  
  RESULT: $610,000 award for plaintiff.
  
  

• BHPK Wins Settlement for Victim of Anti-Palestinian Discrimination

  BHPK represented a Palestinian national who sued his employer when he was demeaned, threatened and vilified at work by co-workers and the general manager because of his ethnicity.
  
  RESULT: Large settlement for plaintiff.
  

Massachusetts Victim Law and Policy News

Massachusetts Extends Filing Deadlines for Child Sexual Abuse

In 2006, Massachusetts passed a law that extends filing deadlines for the criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse indefinitely. Previously, the filing deadlines for child sexual abuse ranged from 6 to 15 years, depending on the specific crime, although the deadline was calculated from the victim’s 16th birthday if the crime occurred when the child was under 16. Historically, murder was the only crime with no filing deadline. In passing the new law, the legislature has acknowledged the devastating and long-term impact of child sexual abuse, and the delays in reporting that are common among child sexual abuse victims. Charges filed more than 27 years after the event must have independent corroboration, however.

Supreme Judicial Court Revamps Rules for Release of Privileged Records

To clarify the rules surrounding the release of privileged records for use in court, the Supreme Judicial Court recently issued a new protocol in Commonwealth v. Dwyer, 448 Mass. 122 (2006). The opinion specifically addresses criminal cases. To obtain confidential records, the defendant must file a motion and notify the prosecutor of the records they seek to obtain. The court will set a hearing to determine whether the records are relevant and whether they are protected by a privilege. The prosecutor will notify the provider and the victim of the date and time of the hearing. The provider and/or the victim may attend the hearing, but need not, because records that appear to be protected by a statutory privilege are presumed to be privileged. At the hearing, the provider and/or the victim can tell the court whether the records sought are relevant and affirm that they are statutorily privileged. If the court decides the records are relevant but privileged, it will issue a summons for the records. The provider should then deliver the records to the court in a sealed envelope with the name of the case and the word “Privileged”. The defendant’s attorney may review the records but cannot show them to his client or anyone else without seeking permission from the court.

Supreme Judicial Court Revisits Fresh Complaint Doctrine

The Supreme Judicial Court, in Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (2005) re-examined the long-standing rule in Massachusetts that a witness at trial may testify to the out-of-court (hearsay) statement of a victim about his or her disclosure of the rape. Massachusetts had been one of only two states in the country to permit a witness to testify about the victim’s disclosure of the details of the crime. The Court sought amicus briefs to help it determine whether it should limit the testimony to the fact of the complaint without details, or should eliminate the rule altogether as outdated and unnecessary in today’s society.

Representing Jane Doe, Inc., the Victim Rights Law Center and other victim advocacy organizations around the country, BHPK’s Djuna Perkins filed an amicus brief arguing that the rule should not only be kept, but should also be enhanced to further its original purpose to combat the risk that jurors will not believe the testimony of a rape victim who delayed reporting the crime. The court adopted Perkins’ suggestions to continue to allow witnesses to testify about the details of the victim’s complaint; to require judges to instruct juries that rape victims may delay reporting for legitimate reasons; and to eliminate the threshold requirement that the report of the crime be “reasonably prompt” to be admissible.

Back to Top