The Appeals Court heard extensive argument on whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at a 2019 ACCA proceeding to treat three prior convictions as violent predicates in Commonwealth v. Ally Jerome Mallory (2020‑11333 and related docket entries).

Defense counsel Matt Spurlock argued that the Commonwealth failed its burden: for the 1998 plea (assault and battery with a dangerous weapon), the government offered no plea colloquy or Shepard documents to show the defendant admitted an intentional violent act; for the 2003 jury conviction (assault and battery), testimony introduced at the 2019 ACCA trial was not probative of what the 2003 jury was instructed to find; and for the 2007 jury conviction the record lacked jury instructions and therefore the ACCA factfinder could not reliably determine whether the earlier jury convicted on a violent (intentional/harmful) theory rather than an offensive or reckless theory.

The Commonwealth, through Arna Hansen, urged the court to consider evidence admissible at the original trial and to weigh witness testimony, certified convictions, and other admissible materials under the Ashford line of cases. Hansen argued certain fact patterns — e.g., striking at officers with a vehicle or repeated deliberate acts — were inescapably intentional and supported predicate status.

The panel debated whether an ACCA proceeding can include live witnesses who did not testify at the original trial, whether such a hearing amounts to a de facto retrial on underlying conduct, and how the modified categorical approach and the Court's precedents (Perez, Ashford, Eberhardt) interact with the ACCA fact‑finder’s burden. The court asked follow‑up questions about unanimity, jury instructions, and whether the ACCA jury could properly infer a violent predicate from later testimony. The matter was taken under advisement.