Surveillance footage represents crucial evidence in many Massachusetts criminal trials, and at first glance, it might seem irrefutable. However, this footage may be less reliable than many realize. Putting aside the potential for pixelated and unclear film, one also has to consider the people who review the footage. Are these people even familiar with the defendant? What is the likelihood of mistaken identity? These questions were raised during a recent appeal for assault and battery in Massachusetts, and they proved effective.
Officers Lacked “Sufficient Relevant Familiarity” With the Defendant
In October of 2024, the Commonwealth reversed assault and battery convictions for a defendant based on a successful appeal. The defendant argued that the officers who reviewed crucial surveillance footage were insufficiently familiar with his identity, making them unqualified to place him at the scene of the crime.
This decision stems from a 2021 altercation at a Walmart. A video surveillance footage captured a man in a white shirt and another individual approaching three other men in an aisle. During this altercation, the man in white shoved one of these three individuals while holding a firearm. He then pointed his firearm at the two other individuals before retreating and leaving the store.
During the subsequent assault and battery trial, two officers from the Worcester police gang testified against the defendant. The Commonwealth notes that no one who actually witnessed the altercation testified at the trial. These officers claimed that they were familiar with the defendant, who prosecutors had previously identified as the man in the white shirt.
Specifically, one officer claimed that they had encountered the defendant four times over a five-year period. The other officer stated that they had encountered the defendant twice over a four-year period. Both stated that based on their review of the surveillance footage, they believed that the defendant was the man in the white shirt. The jury convicted the defendant on two counts of assault and battery with a deadly weapon.
This defendant subsequently appealed, arguing that the officers had not encountered him enough to accurately identify him in the footage. The Commonwealth noted that a police officer may only testify in this situation if they are in a “better position than the jury” to accurately identify a defendant.
The appellate court ultimately concluded that the prosecutors failed to establish that the officers had “sufficient relevant familiarity” with the defendant. They also stated that their previous encounters with the defendant were “infrequent and sporadic.” They noted previous cases where this “sufficient familiarity” threshold had been met, which often involved officers who knew defendants socially for a decade before testifying.
The Commonwealth concluded that this represented a “substantial miscarriage of justice” and that the two officers should have never been allowed to testify. They therefore reversed the convictions.
Speak With an Experienced Defense Attorney in Boston
If you face similar charges based solely on surveillance footage, it may be possible to use a similar defense strategy. To discuss this subject in more detail, schedule a consultation with Edward R. Molari – an experienced defense attorney in Boston.