Appeals court hears arguments over defensive decision to call complainant’s brother in Robbins appeal

In a second oral argument, appellant counsel (Mister Lown) told the appeals court that calling the complainant’s brother, Anthony Medeiros, was "manifestly unreasonable" because trial counsel failed to interview him and thereby risked eliciting testimony that reinforced, rather than undercut, the complainant’s account. Lown said the brother’s testimony — which he described as cumulative and potentially damaging — was not properly limited and that cross‑examination by the Commonwealth allowed hearsay details to bolster the prosecution’s credibility.

A justice asked whether the brother had said he never saw abuse in the home and whether that was significant; counsel replied the allegation did not turn on a bystander witness and that the brother’s presence may have been less probative than prejudicial because the case depended on credibility of time‑specific allegations.

Chris Amaral for the Commonwealth responded that calling Medeiros was a reasonable strategic risk: his account (saying he hugged and consoled the complainant and placed himself in the room) created a potential factual discrepancy with the complainant’s prior versions and therefore could be used to challenge credibility. Amaral also addressed related issues raised by the defense about identity, height evidence and whether counsel’s cross‑examination inadvertently reinforced the Commonwealth’s case.

The court raised questions about what was included in the appellate record (an omitted complaint) and whether the lack of certain transcript excerpts affected review. After argument and follow‑up questions, the panel took Commonwealth v. Robbins under advisement.