Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Defense urges reversal over jury instructions as high court reviews highway-shooting convictions
Loading...
Summary
At oral argument before the Supreme Judicial Court, defense lawyers for three men convicted in a highway shooting urged reversal or reduced sentences, challenging jury instructions and the sufficiency of evidence for premeditation and "extreme atrocity." The Commonwealth defended the convictions, citing video, DNA and roughly 20 rounds fired into the victim's truck.
The Supreme Judicial Court heard competing arguments on appeals from three convictions arising from a November 2019 highway shooting, where a Honda Accord approached a Ford F-150 and occupants of the Accord fired multiple rounds into the truck.
Attorney Dana Kerhan, arguing for Isaiah Fratascelli, told the court, "There were 3 guns in the car, and there were 4 people in the car," and urged the justices not to infer his client was a shooter when the record ties two recovered firearms to other occupants and offers no direct evidence Fratascelli possessed a gun. Kerhan argued the configuration of the vehicle and the ballistic pattern left material doubt that Fratascelli knowingly participated in the shooting.
The defense focused heavily on jury-instruction and sufficiency issues. Attorney Suzanne Renaud, representing Keith Cotto, centered her argument on what she described as an erroneous intent instruction that "never really give[s] any clarification" and that conflated "intent to kill" with "knowingly participate," potentially lowering the Commonwealth's burden. Renaud said the instruction confusion, combined with gaps in motive and other evidence, justified reversal for Keith Cotto, who was tried as a joint venturer.
Joseph Camille, arguing for Louis Cotto, urged the court to apply its 33E totality review and asked justices to consider proportionality and whether the record supports deliberate premeditation or only an instantaneous eruption of violence. Camille emphasized there were three guns, DNA on two, and that Louis Cotto was a back-seat passenger; he argued the factual gaps could merit relief under the court's 33E standard.
The Commonwealth, represented on appeal by Special Assistant District Attorney Joseph Cola Flores, acknowledged a line in the jury instruction was confusing but contended the instructions taken as a whole preserved the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. The prosecutor summarized the factual record: the defendants followed the truck onto I-91, fired from a Honda Accord driven by Keith Cotto, and the victims were struck. "Twenty plus shots to that vehicle at highway speed is an extremely atrocious way to commit a murder," the prosecutor told the court, emphasizing the number, angles and placements of rounds and the totality of the video and forensic record.
Justices extensively questioned counsel about three recurring issues: (1) whether the physical layout, dashcam/video and the sequence of movements on the road support a finding that the driver shared a lethal intent with passengers; (2) whether the jury instructions impermissibly blurred the intent element and thereby reduced the Commonwealth's burden when there was no contemporaneous objection at trial; and (3) whether the volume of gunfire and the circumstances of the highway shooting satisfy Castillo's factors for extreme atrocity and cruelty, which affect sentencing and parole consequences under the post‑Mattis framework.
Counsel on both sides pointed the court to record evidence: video compilations of the vehicles' movements, a recovered firearm with Keith Cotto's DNA, a separate firearm with Victor Espinosa's DNA, eyewitness testimony and audio/timing evidence of the shots. Defense counsel underscored gaps such as the unrecovered third firearm, timing and sequencing of shots, and the absence of an established motive or explicit planning language in the record. The prosecution stressed coordination (following, circling, positioning) and the number and placement of rounds as indicia of premeditation and atrocity.
The justices also probed post‑shooting conduct — a crash, the presence of a firearm in nearby brush, and subsequent custody and hospital records — to test inferences about consciousness of guilt and whether handling of the firearms could be explained by post‑incident movements.
The court heard argument on legal precedents (including references in argument to Mattis, Castillo and Tavares) about when multiple shots and the chosen method of killing cross the threshold into extreme atrocity. Counsel agreed some instructional language was poor; their dispute was whether the error, unobjected to at trial, combined with other record gaps to create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
The cases were argued and the court reserved decision. No ruling was issued from the bench at the conclusion of argument.
