Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Appeals court hears debate over use of civil contempt and Snapchat evidence

December 02, 2025 | Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Appeals court hears debate over use of civil contempt and Snapchat evidence
The appeals panel on Dec. 2 heard competing arguments over the proper procedural vehicle for punishing noncompliance and whether a Snapchat video and on-screen banners could be admitted as an excited utterance.

Counsel for the defendant argued the sentencing judge improperly invoked civil coercive contempt in a criminal proceeding to hold open three months of potential credit, contending that criminal defendants have specific procedural protections and that civil contempt cannot be used to toll or 'bank' jail credit. "You can't just switch...from criminal procedure to civil procedure just to keep it open ended," defense counsel argued, asking the court to require adherence to the criminal-rules remedies (fine, imprisonment, or indictment).

The panel probed whether the record and briefing put the parties on notice that civil contempt was being pursued; the Commonwealth replied that the papers and hearings made clear the contempt finding was civil and that prior appeals-court decisions had upheld civil-coercive contempt in comparable facts (citing Ray). Mallory Skrull, arguing for the Commonwealth, told the panel the court and parties had been on notice and that allowing a defendant to "bank" time would undercut coercive remedies.

The argument then moved to a Snapchat video the trial court admitted. Defense counsel questioned whether banner text added after recording was properly admissible as an excited utterance because posting to social media involves multiple deliberate steps. "There are so many steps…that it allows the brain...to formulate a falsehood," defense counsel said. The Commonwealth argued the declarant was still under the influence of a startling event, the video was recorded at the scene and in close temporal proximity to the assault, and credibility disputes belong to the jury.

The panel asked follow-up questions about case law, timely inclusion of motions in the appendix, and how courts should draw lines for social-media evidence. The case was submitted for decision following argument and briefing.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Massachusetts articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI