Appeals court hears challenge to conviction where defense raised lack-of-responsibility in Manuel Brunette Silvera case

The appeals court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Manuel Brunette Silvera on whether the trial judge improperly disregarded expert testimony and whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to rebut a defense of lack of criminal responsibility.

Attorney Megan Araste told the panel the Commonwealth did not offer evidence to rebut a seasoned forensic psychologist's testimony that Silvera suffered schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and that the expert concluded Silvera lacked the capacity to appreciate wrongfulness and to conform his conduct to the law. "The Commonwealth did not do that in this case," Araste said, adding that the judge's summary treatment of the defense evidence failed to reflect the statutory and case-law burden the Commonwealth bears when the defense is raised.

Araste pressed the court that Lattimore-related standards and related case law obligate a factfinder to account for the defense and that a bench judge's failure to articulate an analysis of the two statutory prongs undermines confidence in the verdict.

Assistant District Attorney Meghan Keane responded that the judge properly rejected the expert where the expert himself acknowledged limits to his opinions and that the Commonwealth's evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, permitted the judge to find Silvera possessed sufficient appreciation and capacity to conform his conduct. Keane pointed to officer testimony and behavior at the scene and during booking as consistent with rational acts that could support a finding of criminal responsibility.

The panel questioned whether the judge needed to recite a step-by-step analysis on the record or whether the standard of review on appeal and deference to factfinders required affirmance. The court took the case under advisement.

Provenance: Defense opening argument at 00:28:51 and Commonwealth rebuttal beginning at 00:45:21.