⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The First Circuit hears Frederick Henderson's challenge to his Massachusetts murder conviction. In 2011, a man was shot and killed on a Boston porch. Prosecutors said the attack was retaliation for his earlier cooperation with law enforcement. Henderson maintained he was elsewhere, but a jury convicted him. Massachusetts' highest court upheld the conviction and rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He now challenges two alleged failures by his trial lawyer: not emphasizing an eyewitness's disputed description of the shooter's height, and not seeking an instruction limiting evidence about his co-defendant's possible motive. That instruction would have told jurors not to use evidence of the co-defendant's motive against Henderson. Henderson's lawyer will argue that these omissions weakened his defense. The state will defend the lawyer's strategic choices and the state court's ruling. For this ineffective-assistance claim, Henderson must show that his lawyer's performance was objectively unreasonable and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different without the errors.

Frederick Henderson v. Sheila A. Kelly (No. 23-1777) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 7, 2026.