Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears dispute over video identifications in Commonwealth v. Bruno Lopes
Summary
At oral argument Monday in Commonwealth v. Bruno Lopes (23 P 113), defense counsel argued several surveillance clips admitted at trial were “hopelessly obscure” and prejudicial; the Commonwealth said timestamps, a witness identification and other evidence supported the trial court’s decision to admit the videos.
Catherine Essington, defense counsel for Bruno Lopes, told the appeals panel Monday that several surveillance clips admitted at trial were “hopelessly obscure” and that their admission was “extremely prejudicial.”
The argument concerned whether an identifying police officer and several witnesses were properly allowed to identify Lopes from a set of grainy, distant and intermittently illuminated videos entered at trial in Commonwealth v. Bruno Lopes, No. 23 P 113. David Mark, counsel for the Commonwealth, defended the trial court’s rulings and said the record, including timestamps and witness testimony, supported admitting the evidence.
In her presentation, Essington singled out multiple clips the officer testified about, describing some as long, distant shots (referred to in argument as the Montés Park sequence) and others…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
