Appeals Court hears Thayer's case challenging trial evidence and jury verdict

In a recent oral argument session held on May 12, 2025, in Massachusetts, the court addressed the appeal of Alexander Thayer, who is contesting a jury verdict that he claims was influenced by prejudicial evidence and the exclusion of relevant testimony. Thayer's attorney, Richard Latimer, argued that the trial judge made significant errors by allowing certain evidence against Thayer while excluding critical evidence that could have supported his case.

Latimer contended that the admission of Thayer's probation revocation details was not only irrelevant but also damaging to his credibility. He emphasized that the jury was misled by focusing on Thayer's past, particularly a domestic violence charge, which he argued was unrelated to the case at hand. Latimer maintained that the jury's decision was swayed by this prejudicial information, overshadowing the objective evidence that supported Thayer's claims of mistreatment.

The defense, represented by Michael Donovan, countered that the trial was fair and that the jury acted appropriately based on the evidence presented. Donovan argued that Thayer himself opened the door to the discussion of his probation status by portraying himself as a victim during his testimony. He asserted that the jury's verdict should stand, as it was based on their assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence.

Key points of contention included the admissibility of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report, which Latimer claimed contained statements that could have bolstered Thayer's case. However, Donovan argued that the judge had allowed relevant statements from the defendants while excluding opinions that could mislead the jury.

The justices presiding over the case, including Judges Singh, D'Angelo, and Hodgens, engaged in a thorough examination of the arguments, questioning both sides about the implications of the evidence and the fairness of the trial process. The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for Thayer, who is seeking a new trial based on claims of an unfair legal process.

As the court deliberates, the case highlights ongoing concerns about the balance between a fair trial and the admissibility of evidence that may influence jury perceptions, particularly in cases involving sensitive personal histories. The decision will not only affect Thayer's future but also set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the Massachusetts judicial system.