An Appeals Court panel heard oral argument over docket 24P1327, Tommaso v. Commonwealth, where attorney Frederick Bartman for the appellant urged reversal of a civil-commitment finding on the ground that qualified examiners improperly relied on two police reports tied to dismissed criminal charges.

"May it please the court, I'm Frederick Bartman, and I represent appellant in this matter," Bartman told the panel, arguing that neither the Hopedale nor the Rhode Island police report provided a reliable, independent basis to support examiners' opinions. He said the reports—which reflected allegations later dismissed for credibility issues—were the primary support for a serious mental abnormality diagnosis and that, without them, the diagnosis and resulting finding of continuing dangerousness would likely not have been reached.

The panel pressed counsel on whether qualified examiners may consider dismissed charges. Bartman acknowledged they can do so only if there is an independent basis for admissibility and emphasized that no voir dire of the examiners was held to establish such a basis in Tommaso.

The Commonwealth, represented by Brian Mansfield, countered that the experts relied on a broader evidentiary record, including disciplinary reports, the defendant's behavior at a treatment center and his own testimony, and that the statutory and case-law framework (including Masarino and juvenile analogies cited by counsel) permits experts to rely on independently admissible materials. Mansfield said the personality-disorder evidence alone could support a finding of dangerousness even if the challenged diagnosis were excluded.

The panel repeatedly questioned how the judge's evidentiary rulings affected prejudice and whether a clarification through voir dire would have changed the record. Both sides rested their arguments and the matter was submitted.

The court did not rule from the bench at the hearing; the appeal remains under advisement.