The appeals panel considered whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain convictions in Commonwealth v. Malik D. Harrison. Attorney Megan Arreste, representing the appellant, argued the evidence on identity was circumstantial and required impermissible inferences: she said no witness identified Harrison in court and the surveillance photos were grainy, while a manager and a resident testified that a building key fob had been used but did not tie the specific fob serial number to Harrison.

Arreste told the court: "No witness identified mister Harrison as an assailant, nor did any witness at trial identify mister Harrison from the grainy photos that were allowed in." She argued the prosecution relied on Detective Berna's testimony about a rapid identify-by-third-party and a correctional-facility witness (Hajj Nazar) whose brief testimony was curtailed after defense objections, creating prejudicial impressions. The defense also alleged Brady and discovery problems because the surveillance videos from other dates (from which prosecutors took stills) were unavailable and had been retained for only 45 days by property management.

Assistant District Attorney Melissa Johnson countered that the Commonwealth built a circumstantial case: victims described clothing and build; surveillance showed a recurring individual matching that description on multiple dates at times when the disputed key fob was used; and the fob's serial number was tied to entries at the stairwell. Johnson described the investigation as "good old fashioned police work," and told the panel that the stills admissible at trial were taken by Sergeant Berna after identifying the relevant dates and times.

The Commonwealth argued the district court limited potentially prejudicial material (it excluded certain May footage and overly grainy images) and allowed cross-examination on missing video and evidentiary gaps. Counsel also insisted the forced entry and occupants' testimony supported a malicious-intent theory for the burglary-related charges, distinguishing the case law the defense cited about unoccupied property and unmanned ATMs.

Defense counsel emphasized the cumulative effect of the challenged evidence: the key-fob nexus was not linked to the particular fob given to Harrison; a third-party identification procedure was described by the detective but not fully proven in court; and the videos that would have given jurors better context were not retained. Counsel argued those omissions and the limited identification evidence meant the jury had to rely on conjecture.

The panel heard argument on sufficiency, identification procedures, hearsay implications of a detective's testimony about an out-of-court identification, the judge's decisions to exclude or limit testimony by a correctional-facility witness, and whether missing video created Brady implications. The court took the case under advisement after argument.