Ted Lothstein’s cases in the appeals area of New Hampshire law have established important, groundbreaking law, in the areas of:
10/12/2018: In our most recent and perhaps our greatest victory, we won an appeal granting a new trial to a beloved and esteemed therapist wrongfully accused of sexual assault by a client. On October 12, 2018, the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld a critical victory we had already won in the Superior Court - a victory that freed a therapist from prison who had been wrongfully accused of sexual assault by a client, and cleared his name. The Court held that the Superior Court was right to vacate the jury verdicts and sentences, and grant a new trial, for the therapist because juror bias infected the proceedings, resulting in an unfair trial.
On October 17, 2018, the Merrimack County Attorney's Office issued a press release, announcing the State would not bring the case to trial again. Instead, the State dismissed the charges. Read More about Dr. Afshar's Case
In State v. Morrill, 154 N.H. 547, 914 A.2d 1206 (2006),
the Court reformed the “opening-the-door” doctrine, which had been much abused by trial courts. The purpose of this doctrine is to ensure that both sides get a fair trial and neither exploits the rules to mislead the jury. However, in this case as in many others, the trial judge used the doctrine to inject prejudice into the trial rather than alleviating prejudice. Based on Ted Lothstein’s arguments on appeal, the Court took what had little more than a label or mantra — “opening the door” — and transformed it into a carefully defined and limited doctrine. As a result, the Court reversed Mr. Morrill’s conviction for aggravated felonious sexual assault, and granted him a new trial.
In State v. Ernest Solomon, 156 N.H. _, 943 A.2d 819 (2008)
, for the first time in any American court, the NH Supreme Court held that the accused’s right to be free of double jeopardy was violated when, in the middle of his trial, his trial judge departed for military duty overseas and another judge declared a mistrial with intention to begin the trial anew.
Appeals case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.