SJC hears dispute over 92a accommodations after trial judge found witness testimony flawed

The Supreme Judicial Court on appeal heard argument in Commonwealth v. Sammy D. Lozada over whether a trial judge’s finding of noncompliance with “92a paragraph 3” — and related concerns about the accuracy of a deaf, linguistically deprived witness’s testimony — requires a new trial or was waived by defense counsel.

The question matters because the witness, identified in the trial record as Maria Samat, communicates by visual gestural systems rather than full American Sign Language, and attorneys and experts who later reviewed the trial record told the court that ordinary sign-language interpreters and courtroom procedures may have been inadequate.

Travis Lynch, attorney for the Commonwealth, told the justices he wanted to “cut right to the prejudice issue” and quoted the trial judge’s written finding that “while unlikely it’s possible that if this statute had been complied with … the witness would have been forbidden from testifying.” Lynch argued the judge had credited an interpreter’s testimony that she was “99% competent” and that the record did not show that the trial interpretation was actually inaccurate.

Tony Fellows, an attorney who…