Defense counsel told the court the surveillance video admitted at trial may only illustrate an immunized witness's testimony and lacks independent authentication (source chain such as Ring camera origin), challenging whether the footage can corroborate perjury.

At the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, defense counsel argued a Brockton District Court docket printout lacked the required written attestation and so was inadmissible; the Commonwealth said the clerk magistrate’s signature and the court’s raised seal satisfied Rule 40 and that the defendant showed no prejudice.