WBUR News16%

Mass. high court orders new trial for Brockton mother convicted of killing her sons 16%

By Ally Jarmanning11%

8/6/2026, 6:39:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and False Dilemma, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 18.8% saturation with 70 hits. Analysis detected 288 faulty-reasoning hits from 372 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.5% and a BS Rank of 16% (25,803 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.40% of the article peer group.

A Brockton mother convicted of killing her two sons should get a new trial because the jury did not have access to her entire troubling psychiatric history, the state's highest court ruled Thursday. 
Attorneys for Latarsha Sanders had argued a so-called insanity defense during her 2022 trial, claiming she lacked criminal responsibility because she was in the throes of a psychotic episode when she stabbed her children, 8-year-old Edson "Marlon" Brito and 5-year-old La'Son Brito. 
The jury disagreed and convicted her on two counts of first-degree murder, which carry a mandatory life sentences. 
The jury did not have access to thousands of pages of medical records collected over four years while Sanders was awaiting trial. 
Doctors found she suffered from paranoia and schizophrenia that was "undetected and untreated for decades." 
Trial Judge William F. 
Sullivan had ruled those records inadmissible, so the jury never saw them. 
But on Thursday, the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that was a key error warranting a new trial. 
"We hold that the exclusion of the defendant's relevant medical records relating to the diagnoses or treatment of mental illness constituted prejudicial error, and as a result, the defendant is entitled to a new trial," Justice Frank Gaziano wrote in Thursday's decision. 
Sanders did not have a documented history of mental illness before the murders. 
But family said she exhibited bizarre behavior leading up to the killings. 
Sanders had become obsessed with a secret society called "the Illuminati," that she feared was out to get her and her children. 
The Sanders case was prosecuted by the office of Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz, who is also pursuing first-degree murder charges against another mother accused of killing her children, Lindsay Clancy. 
That trial is currently underway. 
Clancy has admitted to killing her three children, but her attorney, Kevin Reddington, has argued she has experienced postpartum psychosis and is not criminally liable in their deaths. 
If convicted, she would not go free but rather be sent to a state psychiatric hospital until it's determined she can live safely in the community. 
Sullivan, the same judge who oversaw the Sanders trial, is presiding over Clancy's trial. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Ally Jarmanning: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 1.6%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 3.5%Ally Jarmanning: 0.9%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Ally Jarmanning: 4.7%Cognoscenti: 3.0%Framing Effect18.8%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Ally Jarmanning: 2.5%Cognoscenti: 3.9%Negativity Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Ally Jarmanning: 0.9%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.7%Ally Jarmanning: 4.4%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Appeal to Authority17.7%This article: 7.0%Ally Jarmanning: 1.7%Cognoscenti: 1.1%False Dilemma7.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Ally Jarmanning: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 2.7%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.5%Ally Jarmanning: 1.9%Cognoscenti: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.2%Ally Jarmanning: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 1.9%Anecdotal3.2%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 2.8%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 3.7%Cognoscenti: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ally Jarmanning: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

372 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech330writer words
Selected voice

Justice Frank Gaziano

0%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words100% of attributed speech74% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.