A New Hampshire Superior Court judge has formally declared a mistrial in the criminal proceedings against Jeffrey Buskey, a former employee at the state’s Youth Development Center who stands accused of subjecting a resident to physical and sexual abuse during the late 1990s.
The abrupt termination of the trial occurred during its second day of testimony on Tuesday. The disruption followed statements made by the prosecution's central witness and alleged victim, David Meehan, who introduced references to broader allegations of abuse involving other staff members at the juvenile facility during his time on the witness stand.
The legal impasse unfolded rapidly inside the courtroom after Buskey’s defense counsel raised an objection and requested an immediate mistrial. Superior Court Judge Will Delker initially denied the defense's application, attempting to keep the proceedings moving forward. However, when Meehan made reference to allegations involving additional facility staff for a second time just minutes later, the judge determined that the trial could no longer proceed fairly.
Addressing the courtroom regarding the compromised state of the trial, Judge Delker announced that the repeated introduction of these uncharged allegations left the bench with no viable alternative other than to declare a mistrial. The decision halted what was anticipated to be a major examination of historical conduct inside the state institution.
The core criminal allegations against Buskey involve serious claims of physical and sexual abuse dating back to his employment as a youth counselor at the Manchester facility. Prosecutors allege that the former staff member targeted Meehan during a multi-year period when the resident was under the state's custody and supervision.
The jury selected to hear the evidence—composed of ten women and four men—had only just begun receiving formal evidence after listening to opening statements on Monday afternoon. The panel had been seated to weigh the specific charges leveled directly against Buskey.
Meehan, now 45, was the first witness called by the state to provide sworn testimony. Having previously spoken in public forums regarding his allegations concerning the youth facility, he took the stand to recount his time as a resident placed in the center's East Cottage between 1997 and 1998.
During his direct testimony, Meehan offered a stark summary of his period of institutionalization, characterizing the environment and his daily experiences at the Youth Development Center simply as "hell." He told the court that Buskey engaged in a deliberate process of grooming him before carrying out repeated acts of sexual abuse.
The prosecution’s theory of the case, presented to the jury by prosecutor Thomas Velardi, centered on the misuse of professional authority. Velardi told jurors that Buskey weaponized his position of power, influence, and oversight as a youth counselor to systematically and serially sexually abuse Meehan throughout his stay at the cottage.
Conversely, the defense launched a direct assault on the credibility and recollection of the state's primary accuser during its opening remarks. Buskey’s public defender, Delia McCarthy, portrayed Meehan as an unreliable narrator whose recollections could not withstand rigorous scrutiny.
Addressing the jury box, McCarthy described the witness as a deeply troubled storyteller whose version of events would unravel under the weight of historical documentation. She insisted that the state's claims would remain unsupported by independent proof as the evidentiary phase unfolded.
McCarthy explicitly argued to jurors that Meehan’s narrative would not only fail to receive corroboration, but that it would be directly contradicted by contemporaneous facility records and the accounts of other individuals who were present at the center during the late 1990s.
The courtroom dynamic deteriorated when Meehan's testimony stepped outside the boundaries of the specific criminal indictments pending against Buskey. In criminal trials, introducing allegations of misconduct involving individuals who are not on trial can severely prejudice a jury, making a fair assessment of the defendant's specific guilt or innocence difficult to achieve.
Following the initial mention of external abuse claims, the court attempted to preserve the proceedings. Yet the recurrence of the testimony shortly thereafter prompted the judge's final ruling, recognizing that the cumulative effect of the inadmissible remarks could not be cured through ordinary judicial instructions to the jury.
In the immediate aftermath of Judge Delker's ruling, legal representatives on both sides remained silent regarding the future trajectory of the prosecution. Neither Buskey's public defense team nor representatives from the Attorney General’s Office responded to formal requests for comment on Tuesday afternoon.
The mistrial abruptly resets the legal clock in the case against Buskey, nullifying the work of the impaneled jury and leaving the state’s allegations unresolved as the court evaluates the procedural aftermath of the halted proceeding.
(0)