Appeals court hears dispute over video identifications in Commonwealth v. Bruno Lopes

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 filmed from a driveway beside a house identified in filings as “17.” She told the court the crucial identification involved a dark, grainy sequence in which the officer admitted he could not see facial features and instead relied on gait and body type. “I think in this case, it was extremely prejudicial,” Essington said, adding there were no DNA or fingerprint links tied to the footage.

The defense also pressed that a short “shirt change” clip (discussed in argument as Exhibit 5) and other clips lacked distinguishing features. Essington disputed the prosecutor’s suggestion that a missing Nike “swoosh” on shorts could be explained by the shorts being turned inside out, calling the explanation unsupported by evidence in the record.

The Commonwealth responded that time stamps and witness identifications tended to corroborate the officer’s testimony. David Mark said there was a roughly two‑minute gap between one street camera clip and the shooting, and that another witness, Rose Andrade, later identified Lopes moving in the direction of Transit Street. “I think the case is very strong, and . . . Judge DuPuy was well within her discretion,” Mark said, arguing the contested video footage fell into a zone where admission was within the trial court’s discretion.

Counsel and the panel discussed technical issues the videos presented: varying clip timestamps, the camera’s momentary aperture adjustment after motion activation that can change apparent color, and whether any of the cameras might be using infrared rendering. Mark told the panel he inferred the light/ghostly early images were consistent with an infrared or low‑light activation, though he acknowledged there was no direct testimony in the record identifying a camera as infrared.

The parties disputed how to treat each clip. The court emphasized the need to assess the exhibits individually rather than in a single blanket ruling, noting some clips contained audible voice identifications (for example, a voice saying “Louie” or “Aziza”) that the defense said were less contested than the distant visual identifications.

Both sides acknowledged that some clips provided clearer corroboration (voice identifications and closer shots) while others were more remote and potentially ambiguous. The defense urged the panel to find several of the visual identifications should not have been admitted; the Commonwealth urged deference to the trial court’s judgment on admissibility.

After argument the panel took the case under submission and recessed.