⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The First Circuit considers a murder conviction against a man who was not one of the shooters. A man was shot and killed inside a Boston apartment building. The petitioner entered shortly after armed companions and fled with the group. Prosecutors relied on surveillance video, witness accounts, gang associations and his movements around the shooting to argue that he acted as a lookout and stood ready to help. The defense says he was an unarmed bystander, not someone who knowingly joined in the shooting. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder. The state appeals court upheld the conviction, and a federal district court denied his request for habeas relief. He is now appealing that denial. This is not a fresh trial. Federal habeas review adds a layer of deference to both the jury and the state court: disagreement with their view of the evidence is not enough. The petitioner will argue that the case rests on unsupported inferences, especially that he knew the others had guns. The state will argue that the circumstances must be considered together and permitted a rational jury to find knowing participation. Listen for the boundary between mere presence and participation in a group crime, and whether the state court's decision was objectively unreasonable, not simply debatable.

Silva-Prentice v Kennedy (No. 25-2227) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.