Why a Mother Convicted of Killing Her 2 Sons Is Getting a New Trial

On February 5, 2018, the bodies of Latarsha Sanders' two youngest children, 8-year-old Edson "Marlon" Brito and 5-year-old La'son Brito, were discovered in their apartment in Brockton, Mass. Each boy had suffered multiple stab wounds. Sanders, who has three other children, was arrested that day and charged with their murders.

At her trial in December 2022, her lawyers argued Sanders had stabbed her sons during a psychotic episode and therefore should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, though the jury convicted her. However, following an appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), on August 6, 2026, a unanimous decision vacated Sanders’ convictions and ordered a new trial for her.

"In this case, the error that the SJC found is that the trial judge precluded the defense from introducing post-incident medical and psychiatric records that were relevant to Sanders' lack of criminal responsibility," Chris Dearborn, a professor at Suffolk University Law School who runs the Suffolk Defenders Clinic, tells A&E Crime + Investigation.

In Massachusetts, when an insanity defense, also known as a lack of criminal responsibility defense, is raised, juries have to "consider whether, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."

According to family members, Sanders had been behaving oddly for years before she killed her sons, though they never thought her children were in danger. Illuminati conspiracies were one obsession. Interviewed by police the same day her sons were found, a barely coherent Sanders mentioned a ritual and wanting to please the Illuminati. At one point she said of Marlon and La'son, who'd been found wrapped in bedding, "I tried to fix them up and make sure they was still living." She also initially named other family members as her sons' killers, which resulted in a charge of witness intimidation for misleading the police.

Sanders had no documented psychiatric treatment prior to the homicides. Post-arrest she was diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder while incarcerated at Massachusetts Correctional Institution–Framingham (MCI–Framingham). In September 2019, she was involuntarily committed to Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital (WRCH), where she again received a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder and also other psychotic conditions.

During her trial, the defense asked to introduce Sanders' MCI–Framingham and WRCH treatment records. The prosecutor argued that these were hearsay, and the judge ultimately did not admit them.

Sanders was found guilty on December 27, 2022. The next day, she received a sentence of two life terms for two counts of first-degree murder, plus a concurrent nine to 10 years for witness intimidation.

Suffering from mental illness is not enough for an insanity defense to be successful. "What matters for this defense is mental state at the moment of the incident," Dearborn states.

Dr. Lindsey Davis, a psychology professor at William James College, tells A&E Crime + Investigation that in an insanity or criminal responsibility case, "The job of the evaluator is to try to reconstruct what was going on prior to and during the offense."

With Sanders, Davis says, "The evaluator didn't meet with her for over a year after the offense. So having records from the time period starting immediately after the offense becomes increasingly important. They provide information that's more proximal to the offense."

Dr. Thomas Deters, a clinical neuropsychologist, was able to review Sanders' medical records. He testified for the defense that she was psychotic during the murders and incapable of understanding the criminality of her actions. But because the psychiatric records weren't admitted into evidence, Davis explains that Deters couldn't "make specific reference to those records."

"That leaves out substantial portions of what an expert would typically explain to the jury when on the stand," Davis continues.

Without the medical records, clinical details about symptoms such as Sanders' delusions and auditory hallucinations weren't presented to the jury. Davis notes that in her experience, juries can become skeptical when an evaluator who's been retained by the defense can't offer sufficient support for their conclusions.

"The jury needs to have an understanding of why the person did what they did," she adds, noting that this is particularly important in cases with horrific violence. "Without the full context, they may come to oversimplified conclusions that are more about the person's character, and attribute qualities like being evil, as opposed to having any empathy for the defendant."

Following the SJC’s August 2026 decision, Robert F. Shaw Jr., who represented Sanders in her appeal, issued a statement saying, in part, "The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision is a testament to the safeguards built into our judicial system and to the fundamental principle that, no matter how grave the accusations, a conviction must be the product of a fair proceeding. We look forward to the opportunity for a new and fair trial."

The district attorney's office stated, "We are currently reviewing the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court and determining our next steps going forward."

Sanders faces retrial on two counts of first-degree murder and a count of witness intimidation for misleading police.

Another aspect of the SJC decision should affect any new trial. "The Supreme Judicial Court held that the prosecutor improperly argued that there was a connection between the children’s deaths and the television show Law & Order: SVU," Shaw tells A&E Crime + Investigation. "The Supreme Judicial Court held there was no basis in any evidence to connect a television program to the children’s deaths, nor evidence that Latarsha had ever watched the program."

If a second jury finds that Sanders, who is currently incarcerated at MCI–Framingham, wasn't criminally responsible for killing her sons, she won't immediately be set free.

"If someone is found not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility in Massachusetts, there's this mythology that they're going to hit the streets, and they could kill somebody tomorrow. That's not how it works," Dearborn explains. "She would be evaluated for a civil commitment and would most assuredly be civilly committed for at least some period of time and periodically reevaluated to [determine] whether she needed to remain civilly committed."