[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6078977,"mediaKeyId","2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7","parentId",2956945,"title","Appeals court examines municipal immunity after school shooting in Dorsey v. City of Boston","audioSeconds",1730,"startMs",6189000,"endMs",7919000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7&start=6189&end=7919","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7/thumbnail_6189000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6078977/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-examines-municipal-immunity-after-school-shooting-in-Dorsey-v-City-of-Boston","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078977-7fc7ba6fef66952cc686b3b64731ed4f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440163&Signature=R1qUnSfXBR769Xco3o9rXZOMVDvRCTbwreSjNg~JGEZh5ea~1xIwj~9BPcx4RxhqhjMWWxt864-WgOKVfM7A1ZsmD3jnCGa--h6fax28SyhWsm2GnXJpgxSEvvsTnESQcUbqyY4u1JxlkkIQqaLP3Q4QxxXKBxYH9-fUt6DmZ~ihRUlLIPy1-PpyYg3SHgJxQy5wcdLNMRC4UtkvKj2f-IKSC-vFURAob52A7OqcZydo5tJgNy5uxmvd2h3zXnmuSMhchIVRB9fCzHq5zG~ai6H5d9ulqX0Udc02OS8Nth3y8stbE8udns1quN4UnqTTBIYtmtF90jVdUuf2-rPwDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-11T05:23:41.807Z","article","The Massachusetts Appeals Court on April 10 heard argument in Dorsey v. City of Boston over whether the city is immune from suit under the statutory exceptions in G.L. c. 258, §§10(b) and 10(j) after a student, Marquis (spelled in filings), was shot near the Jeremiah E. Burke High School.

Matthew Fogelman, representing the Dorsey family, argued the city took affirmative steps (installing metal detectors but then disabling or failing to staff them at a specific time) that materially contributed to the harm and therefore fall outside the immunity bars. Fogelman emphasized an allegation — in the complaint and counsel’s investigation — that metal detectors ceased to be used after about 8:30 a.m., leaving a window when the assailant brought a weapon into the building.

Mauricio Vaca, representing the City of Boston, argued the claims fit within classic discretionary, resource-allocation decisions and prior SJC guidance cautioning courts against converting policy-allocation disputes into tort liability. Vaca and the city urged dismissal under the statutory immunities, saying the complaint’s allegations are conclusory and lack the detailed factual pleading required to overcome immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The panel questioned both sides about what discovery could show — whether the school had on-duty guards, how the detectors were staffed, whether the detectors were deliberately turned off or simply not manned after peak arrival periods — and whether those facts, if proved, would constitute an affirmative act under 10(j) or an implementation-level policy choice insulated under 10(b). Counsel on both sides cited Wheel er, Brum, Lawrence, Shapiro and other precedents; justices focused on whether the complaint pleads factual predicates that warrant discovery rather than dismissal.

The court took the matter under submission after argument. No ruling was announced at the hearing; the parties disputed whether immediate dismissal is appropriate or whether limited discovery should proceed to develop the factual record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, April 10, 2025, Hand, Grant, Wood, JJ., presiding.","oneSentenceSummary","The Appeals Court on April 10 heard arguments in Dorsey v. City of Boston over whether statutory governmental immunities shield the city from a suit by a student shot outside Jeremiah E. Burke High School, focusing on allegations the school’s metal detectors were inoperative or unmanned at a critical time.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6078981,"Appeals court hears sufficiency and authentication challenges in Commonwealth v. Sanchez gun case",1644,3369000,5013000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7&start=3369&end=5013","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7/thumbnail_3369000.jpg","/articles/6078981/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-sufficiency-and-authentication-challenges-in-Commonwealth-v-Sanchez-gun-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078981-6a905c143204677987b6641f4441c2c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440163&Signature=VWHqTO60UAiLxVlg1S3D84QnO6IYoZWMsAynkqiADw6lZeTMR9ifmWt~Ae21Zywme6xddrfUu4jYhAW6aSxkjaO0paPUTL-EDrUE0o8tPOtiMJLMKBxQIvEgNDam56T38L3xwcphGwzCDoAIne5f5LkZgVVZuDFzlAkUCEaNRP-844EZAN0pR3-~zvqrg8y09xmuVfyJibsa2xelxyDFUGzAbifM3dfE1xAzWuPQz4Si09Ss9lW-J~Ni0-GIGGoZAmfjvwAhStcjHRo-JTvDXZVEEIY8s~oNkl6XtRWvIRZN~nvY-FxOWtSllFRE4OMTdmkrk5lqUTofJWXVaM1ePg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard April 10 argument in Commonwealth v. Jeremy N. Sanchez about whether the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to support convictions tied to a shooting and whether certain investigative steps were properly authenticated.

Appellate counsel Joseph Assone argued for Sanchez that identification and evidentiary links were insufficient: the weapon was never recovered, the blurry surveillance “blob” seen in the initial video was not clearly a handgun rather than a rifle, shell casings at the scene could have been chambered in different firearms, and a magazine with similar cartridges found in a safe in another apartment did not prove Sanchez’s access or possession of the gun. Assone also raised a Confrontation/ hearsay concern about a CJIS (criminal justice information) inquiry and whether a non-testifying employee’s report had been improperly used.

Deputy District Attorney Matthew Petalano and other Commonwealth counsel defended the evidence as reasonable inferences the jury could make: they stressed that subsequent camera angles showed the same vehicle and that unique identifiers and timing tied the defendant’s vehicle and passenger to the scene; they said the CJIS inquiry actually produced an identical spelling and date-of-birth result and that the fingerprint and magazine evidence supported a chain of connection sufficient for the jury.

Judges questioned the parties about timing gaps in video feeds, the limits of slow-motion analysis, and whether the lapse between camera views allowed a stop and transfer of an item. Petalano acknowledged the video was a close call but argued jurors could compare object size to nearby, visible reference points and that seconds later the object was no longer visible, supporting an inference it was small and concealable. Defense counsel countered that the record contained only circumstantial evidence and that the missing weapon prevented a definitive forensic link between cartridges and magazine.

After extended questioning the panel took the case under submission; the court did not issue a decision at the argument session.","At the April 10 sitting the Appeals Court heard dueling arguments over whether surveillance video, a CJIS inquiry, shell casings and a magazine in a safe provided sufficient and properly authenticated evidence to support gun-related convictions in Commonwealth v. Jeremy N. Sanchez.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6078984,"Appeals court hears argument over scope of warrant in Commonwealth v. Hansen",1916,1472000,3388000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7&start=1472&end=3388","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7/thumbnail_1472000.jpg","/articles/6078984/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-argument-over-scope-of-warrant-in-Commonwealth-v-Hansen","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078984-7d21dbc5c19074dc4f216a17bb2ebd45/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440163&Signature=E0Wojf74tGBn-HhtIlOa0sDC--DUI7KckChNoBuntvVNAMsv7LRoDwLUQg9wCsihBYh536quLw5HP8-4lWT9ESMoX3Fn9EVPyTwljeR9MBaG18ij3zDhXv2D26SjtzjIo7Et8eoNUXbErmlc7k5GAH8qvATgLqnqRaDmozZeWtiCGIuDMORhML8Ut9lxouyvupAqfyDYGOeQDlSIRD3Q8Ikk3Iq61ovactA8XOy7Y7Jao7f8jXg-fX-kAhnyV3wXhex0SW4z8TKDMNg5tE1FkLlGGVs9IMKO1Rkw-ImCYTMPuBTee~aYwlL~97ff8outbQDtD06v7AQAFR7i0MmJEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard April 10 argument in Commonwealth v. Barry A. Hansen over whether a search warrant for a first-floor apartment permitted police to search an upstairs second-floor apartment.

Anne Kennedy, arguing for the Commonwealth, told the panel the evidence the officers saw when they entered — a back hall treated as continuous living space and statements from occupants that the two units were rented and used as one — supported searching the upstairs area as part and parcel of the first-floor unit. Kennedy said officers also observed a video thumbnail and evidence they relied on to authenticate emails and other materials in the record.

Charles McGinty, arguing for Hansen, urged the court to affirm suppression, stressing that the warrant was particularized and identified the First Floor apartment; he relied on Massachusetts precedent including Hall, Kensington (Cannington), and Scala (record cites) to argue courts have rejected treating a distinct apartment as within a warrant for another apartment because evidence discovered during a search does not expand probable cause or the warrant’s boundary.

The panel queried both sides about factual details the record contains: whether there were separate front entrances and staircases, whether an exterior back door was blocked or locked, whether a padlock was opened with a key, whether the owner had access to other floors for renovation, and why police did not seek a second warrant before using keys to unlock the second-floor entry. Counsel differed on how photographs and transcript findings support each side’s factual account.

Both sides cited Hall and related authority at length; Kennedy argued the facts here more closely resemble cases in which courts allowed searches of contiguous or functionally continuous living space, while McGinty emphasized cases that hold that an officer’s observations during a search do not legally expand a warrant’s scope.

After argument the panel took the matter under submission. No decision was announced from the bench.","The panel considered whether police exceeded a search warrant when they entered and searched a second-floor apartment alleged to be a separate unit; advocates disputed whether the apartments were distinct or treated as a single dwelling and whether information developed during a search can expand a warrant’s boundary.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6078989,"Appeals court hears free-speech, mens rea arguments in Commonwealth v. Ecker",1394,134000,1528000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7&start=134&end=1528","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7/thumbnail_134000.jpg","/articles/6078989/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-free-speech-mens-rea-arguments-in-Commonwealth-v-Ecker","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078989-f43f16efa3a653b0e727278b69cf8e84/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440163&Signature=YuNDSAtlLDTQhgv6v9kIzbD0fn3L36MofyglfCQ1MHLz8wSYvYXH5eaLMWedurfuSaR6eklIxN6VaHGGgQRN9YEuDAtrtEl~KDFInjF3PeIKdceEGiS4bsBIHPYLnE0wrCmQeYAWi3ZVfKY6OBNLFYDHx0yZYhSdt7f5P6979QwKOeMG8uJidyMtQo1yT42VJFQd3btfX2nyyYkN66-i3oNRQDFddWPWmalcmtajMrQLgVveVY~HkfgP8MnBs4nken5x2j51eP1qB7WoAXkNypiAga5R9ajXn4utg28kjhB7Rj2eI2py5-~wK461G8jv9ShGAbvnQWi-z0-iiYurQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard arguments April 10 in Commonwealth v. John Ecker over whether recent First Amendment case law requires the Commonwealth to prove a subjective mens rea before criminal harassment can support a probation revocation.

The issue matters because the defendant, John Ecker, sent repeated emails that a judge below found caused objective alarm and revoked his probation; defense counsel argued that after Counterman and Cruz, the Commonwealth must also prove that Ecker subjectively understood his communications’ threatening character.

The three-justice panel — presiding judge Catherine Hand and Justices Marguerite Grama and Chauncey Wood — questioned counsel closely about waiver and the record. Kevin D’Mello, arguing for Ecker, told the court the defense did not make the Counterman-based subjective-intent argument in the initial brief because Cruz was decided after filing; he said the challenge is “that the Commonwealth has to prove…subjectively, [the defendant] had to have intended or had to have at least had a reckless intent, a conscious disregard for a known risk.” Assistant District Attorney Sean Buxton countered that Counterman’s recklessness requirement applies to true threats but that the criminal harassment statute contains a separate malice standard with a higher mens rea, citing O’Neil and arguing the judge below credited the victim’s testimony and found the requisite intent.

The panel repeatedly pressed both sides on what evidence was in the record. Grama observed that an earlier hearing — a Zoom probation hearing about 11 days before the contested conduct — made the case difficult for the defense to explain, saying the proximity of prior testimony made it “very, very difficult to understand how anybody…wouldn’t” perceive the conduct as knowingly threatening. D’Mello pointed to Ecker’s background, including prior competency proceedings and a long institutionalization, as context he contends bears on subjective understanding; the panel noted the defense did not press a competency claim at trial.

The court also considered evidentiary and authentication issues the Commonwealth raised, including email content and a YouTube video the probation officer identified, but the argument focused primarily on whether the law now requires a subjective intent element for criminal harassment convictions when Counterman and related decisions are read together.

After oral argument the panel took the case under submission. No decision was announced from the bench.

The arguments centered on legal interpretation and on what evidence was in the trial record; the justices asked whether the trial judge instructed properly under Counterman and whether remand would be appropriate if the record lacked evidence of subjective intent.

The court session proceeded under the Appeals Court’s usual oral-argument rules: 15 minutes per side and no rebuttal.","At the Massachusetts Appeals Court on April 10, defense and the Commonwealth argued whether Counterman/Cruz require a subjective mens rea to sustain a criminal harassment-based probation revocation for defendant John Ecker; the panel heard conflicting views and took the case under submission.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6078972,"Appeals court considers interpreter and procedural claims in Reynoso v. Rathore",1693,7679000,9372000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7&start=7679&end=9372","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956945-6b95911b072db7dbe774b0a202e55bb7/thumbnail_7679000.jpg","/articles/6078972/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-considers-interpreter-and-procedural-claims-in-Reynoso-v-Rathore","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078972-62ac535e88dfbd4093d1a95d5f41fa87/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440163&Signature=HRaiIYLa3OOVSncYrFSaS24Gto9jIcTn071XVzk886JQG8dZv2fiZfLA3ndNuunPpGoQIr3OekEMk0jdXWdFH5ubkr3eoCbaylQiH5u-dIljTuDec3ALT5CROBwdTsZTIFZRLIMZpgHYiHPqknE-Do1nPbnzV7USxsL-gTYh8FSMhd0JnRvy~yBdyMbAhtqMSBtG8NBLpYEThj6q~i~ezFAqluKhp4mfgTFqmAYccAGHcQqnO4D5xdtm1WUBQIhmNpw79Q0rdP-kbBqE3jseMghPfvnzzNgPkHV9-n7u0DIZ7Gc57hCDpXPr5Zaurv7v42RIlMV5uQJGWdOV56bQiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard April 10 argument in Reynoso v. Rathore, a civil appeal in which the appellant contends trial procedures deprived him of a fair proceeding because the trial judge did not provide a Spanish-language interpreter and the jury voir dire and instructions were improper.

Elizabeth Clegg, for the plaintiff-appellant, argued the trial record shows the appellant struggled with English and that Massachusetts law requires courts to offer interpreter services where a party “has difficulty in speaking or understanding the English language.” She pointed to multiple places in the record and an affidavit asserting the appellant’s difficulty with written and spoken English; she argued the trial judge’s alleged failure to offer an interpreter, coupled with contested jury instructions and peremptory-challenge conduct, deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

Mark Hamer, counsel for the Rathores, told the court the trial judge was in the best position to evaluate comprehension and that the record shows the appellant participated in pretrial conferences, used English in depositions (the transcript appendix includes a deposition), handled filings and affirmed understanding of procedural instructions. Hamer said the appellees also testified in heavy accents and that no timely objections were raised at trial to jury strikes or instructions, which typically must be preserved for appeal.

The panel pressed both sides on where, specifically in the trial record, the appellant told the judge he could not understand English, and whether counsel for appellees had arranged for an interpreter at deposition. The court also asked about waiver and the limited record on appeal: Hamer noted a deposition transcript was included in the supplemental appendix; Clegg pointed to record cites and witness notations she says show the appellant had trouble following proceedings.

After extended questioning the panel took the case under submission; no decision was announced at the hearing.","Reynoso appealed a civil judgment raising claims that the trial court should have offered a Spanish interpreter and that jury selection and instructions contained errors; appellees argued the record shows the plaintiff proceeded in English and waived objections. The panel heard extended argument and took the case under submission.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court examines municipal immunity after school shooting in Dorsey v. City of Boston

Appeals court hears sufficiency and authentication challenges in Commonwealth v. Sanchez gun case

Appeals court hears argument over scope of warrant in Commonwealth v. Hansen

Appeals court hears free-speech, mens rea arguments in Commonwealth v. Ecker

Appeals court considers interpreter and procedural claims in Reynoso v. Rathore