Commonwealth v. Watson

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court held that G. L. c. 278A, the postconviction forensic and scientific analysis act, permits digital forensic analysis of cell phones: such analysis applies a 'forensic or scientific technique' to 'evidence,' a term the act does not confine to biological material, tangible laboratory specimens, or laboratory settings. The court further held that the defendant showed by a preponderance of the evidence that a reasonably effective attorney would have sought analysis of his codefendant's five cell phones under § 3 (b) (5) (iv), which is not limited to denials based on inadmissibility, and that the anticipated analysis satisfies § 7 (b) (4) because it could prove the key witness's perjury and undermine her testimony linking the defendant to the planning of the murder. The court affirmed the allowance of the defendant's c. 278A motions.