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

Appeals court scrutinizes inflammatory testimony and social-media authentication in sex-assault appeal

January 05, 2026 | 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 scrutinizes inflammatory testimony and social-media authentication in sex-assault appeal
The appeals panel heard argument in Commonwealth v. Juan Almodovar on Jan. 5, where defense counsel contended the trial was infected by highly inflammatory uncharged sexual-assault testimony and by improperly authenticated social-media screenshots and messages.

Brad Benyon, for the appellant, said the verdict turned on the complainant's credibility and identified three appellate issues: (1) spontaneous, uncharged sexual-assault testimony that operated as propensity evidence and was not effectively removed by the trial court's limiting instruction; (2) failure to properly authenticate Facebook screenshots and messages admitted at trial; and (3) hospital (SANE) records that included statements by the victim's mother that, Benyon said, were hearsay and prejudicial if not redacted.

Benyon criticized the trial judge's curative instruction, which told jurors the testimony "will stand" but also instructed them "not to consider" it, calling that phrasing internally inconsistent and arguing jurors may not be able to disregard inflammatory material. He also urged caution about relying on screenshots because electronic accounts can be used by others and authentication should be shown by corroborating evidence.

Assistant District Attorney Jesse Crane replied that the trial court's instructions cured any prejudice and that Commonwealth v. Purdy makes hacking-and-authentication concerns matters of weight, not automatic inadmissibility. The Commonwealth said the messages were confirmatory and contained details that only the defendant and complaining witness would have known, which supported admissibility under the preponderance standard.

The panel also questioned whether SANE interview material or mother's statements in medical records were offered for treatment purposes (possible non-hearsay uses) or improperly admitted hearsay; counsel acknowledged uncertainty about whether certain statements had been redacted and recommended checking the record. The matter was submitted at the close of argument.

No decision was issued from the bench.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Massachusetts articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI