Published January 10, 2007

BURLINGTON — Efforts to collect millions of dollars in punitive damages from a wealthy former summer person and her son for the 2004 deaths of two local teenagers finally went to the courtroom just before Christmas.

When the arguments on a long list of pre-trial motions were over and the dust had settled, neither side was a clear winner.

Ruling from the bench, U.S. District Judge William Sessions III gave some comfort to Julie Jensen and her son, Charles Meyer, who was 14 when he drove his car into the ledges along Willoughby Lake, killing Norman Woolard, 16, and his 17-year-old friend, Philip Leno.

But the judge also made several rulings in favor of the dead boys’ families, who are seeking damages.

In sum, Judge Sessions’ rulings may have taken some of the passion out of what he termed an “incredibly emotional case.”  And that may make it easier for the two sides to reach a settlement without putting the case before a jury.

One key ruling that emerged from the December 22 hearing was that a jury cannot be asked to impose punitive damages against Ms. Jensen, the young driver’s mother.  However punitive damages against the driver himself are still a possibility.

In the community, the anger that followed close on the heels of the tragedy focused on why Ms. Jensen would buy a high-powered sports car for her 14-year-old son.  There was a published demand that she be criminally prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.  And in his first filing in the case, Duncan Kilmartin, attorney for the family of Philip Leno, termed her behavior “atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

Ms. Jensen’s legal team argued that the issue of punitive damages shouldn’t even get to a jury.  Citing recent decisions of the Vermont Supreme Court, they said such damages could only be justified if Ms. Jensen and her son showed malice toward the victims.

“Take their best case,” said Marc Heath, attorney for Ms. Jensen.  “Their pleadings talk about a ‘muscle car.’  But no matter how much they may soup the language up, there’s no allegation of evil intent.”

Judge Sessions didn’t entirely buy the argument that evil intent was required.  But he ruled that none of the claims against Ms. Jensen, even if they were ultimately proven, demonstrate the sort of gross negligence that could justify punitive damages.

In the case of Charles Meyer, however, the judge ruled, allegations that he was driving through Westmore Village at 100 miles an hour could, if proven, justify a finding of gross negligence.  “I will not dismiss punitive damages in regard to Charles Meyer,” Judge Sessions concluded.

Both sides also won and lost parts of the argument over Charles Meyer’s medical and psychological records.

Ms. Jensen had argued that her son’s personal background had no place in the trial, particularly since she had quickly conceded that her son was not competent to drive the car she had bought for him.

Indeed, her lawyers argued, the December 22 hearing should be closed to the public while they made their case for keeping the documents secret.

Judge Sessions rejected that idea as the hearing opened.

“I’m extraordinarily reluctant to seal anything from the public,” he said.  However, he told the six assembled lawyers —including Ms. Jensen herself — “I don’t think we need to go into details.”

The hearing remained open, with only general references to Charles Meyer’s medical history.

As for the records themselves, Judge Sessions said they must be available to Mr. Kilmartin and Vince Illuzzi, lawyer for the family of Norman Woolard, if they are to argue their case that Ms. Jensen was negligent when she entrusted a high-powered car to adolescent boys.

“The obvious claim is negligent entrustment,” the judge said to Marc Heath, lawyer for Ms. Jensen.  “Are you suggesting that the law is such that they could not pursue discovery:  What did Ms. Jensen know about the mental or emotional state of her son?”

But, Mr. Heath replied, “Ms. Jensen never alleged that Charles was competent to drive.”

“Their position is broader than that,” the judge replied.  Hypothetically, he said, the families’ lawyers might argue that, “because of his makeup, it would perhaps be negligent to even put him in that vehicle; or negligent that Ms. Jensen bought a vehicle of this sort for this young man; or gave the keys to Mr. Woolard in his presence.”

“We want the court to narrow this case,” Mr. Heath said.  “They are over-reaching.  Merely because they made this, perhaps creative, very broad claim,” he argued, that shouldn’t force a minor to reveal his entire personal history.

Without the records, Judge Sessions asked, “How could they ever prove their case?”

Mr. Kilmartin and Mr. Illuzzi will have access to the records, Judge Sessions ruled.

But he denied their demand that Charles Meyer submit to an examination by a psychiatrist of their choosing.  Mr. Heath objected to that as “an eight-hour inquisition by their forensic expert.”

Judge Sessions ruled against Ms. Jensen’s demand that her lawyers be permitted to question Keith Flynn, the Orleans County State’s Attorney.

In their argument for punitive damages, the families’ lawyers pointed to the fact that Mr. Flynn charged Mr. Meyer, as an adult, with two counts of manslaughter.  After the youth admitted responsibility for the accident and apologized to the dead boys’ families in court, the prosecutor moved his case to juvenile court.

Ms. Jensen’s lawyers said they wanted to quiz the state’s attorney about the pressures that led him to bring the “unprecedented” criminal charges.

Mr. Flynn had filed a motion to quash their subpoena, citing the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings.

Judge Sessions ruled that the issue is irrelevant because the adult criminal charges were dropped.

“What a state’s attorney decides regarding a crime is meaningless,” he said.  “What a person is convicted of is significant.  But when you look at the statement of the state’s attorney and the police, it is irrelevant and not admissible.  It has no significance for any purpose at all.”

But Mr. Heath argued that “the way the charges came about may be relevant.”  In an effort to convince Mr. Flynn to move the case to juvenile court, Charles Meyer’s defense lawyer faxed the prosecutor several pages of the youth’s psychiatric records.  Those found their way to Mr. Kilmartin and Mr. Illuzzi.

That disclosure, in turn, was one of the reasons Judge Sessions ruled that Charles Meyer had waived his right to keep his records secret.

“You said there was a waiver,” Mr. Heath argued.  “It was not a voluntary waiver — if it was a waiver.”

Mr. Heath also expanded on an earlier complaint that, in the criminal case, the State Police had not disclosed all their evidence to Charles Meyer’s lawyer.

A witness approached police at the accident scene to say that the car had driven past Willoughby Lake’s north beach at a dangerous speed, Mr. Heath said.

Asked if Charles Meyer had been driving, Mr. Heath said, the witness said no, and identified Norman Woolard as the driver.

“The police didn’t mention that,” Mr. Heath said.

But Judge Sessions was unmoved.  “My sense is this is a bit of a fishing expedition,” he told Mr. Heath.  “I’m going to grant the motion to quash, unless you specify exactly what you want.”

As he concluded the hearing after three hours of argument, Judge Sessions urged the lawyers on both sides “not to try this in the press.”

“The press should have an absolute right to review what goes on in this hearing,” he said.  “But I encourage the parties not to try and inflame the case.  The jury will come in part from this community.  Keep allegations against young people at a minimum, or people will suffer.”