SJC oral argument tests whether unlawfully obtained juvenile DNA bars later compelled swab

At oral argument before the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Adonis Carbajal on Oct. 12, 2025, Attorney Jalen Hahn Nocum for the juvenile appellant argued the trial court erred by granting the Commonwealth's motion to compel a second buccal swab without evidence about the officers who took the first, allegedly unlawful, sample.

"The Commonwealth here conceded that the police unlawfully took the juvenile's DNA at booking," Nocum told the justices, saying the motion judge nevertheless found the Commonwealth met the Maxwell standard and ruled officers did not act in bad faith despite no testimony from the officers who performed the booking swab.

Nocum asked the court to remand for a more robust inquiry into the character of the officers' conduct at booking, arguing that without that inquiry the Commonwealth could obtain the same evidence "without look[ing] into the character of the police conduct at the initial unlawful taking." He framed the issue around exceptions to the exclusionary rule — independent source, attenuation and inevitable discovery — and urged the court not to allow the government a "second bite at the apple" without examining the initial constitutional violation.

A justice pressed whether Nocum sought a new rule: "Are you asking us to create a new rule?" Nocum answered that a remand for a fuller hearing would close what he described as a gap between an unlawful taking and a subsequent process that could circumvent the Fourth Amendment.

Attorney Katherine Jansen, arguing for the Commonwealth, said reversal is unnecessary because any admission of DNA evidence would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. "Regardless of where the court comes down on whether or not any exceptions to the exclusionary rule apply, reversal is not required in this case based on the admission of the DNA evidence," Jansen said, adding that the Commonwealth had other strong evidence tying the defendant to the offense and that attenuation or independent source could apply.

Counsel and the justices discussed whether established doctrines require a judge to probe police motive or character when a later, constitutionally obtained sample is sought after an earlier unlawful taking. Nocum told the court he had not found precedent requiring the independent-source inquiry he sought; Jansen pointed to cases she said were analogous and emphasized intervening events such as indictment, arraignment, appointment of counsel and a multi-year interval as factors supporting attenuation.

No decision was announced at argument. The court took the case under advisement and will issue a written opinion addressing whether the trial court's order to compel a second swab was proper and what, if any, remand or new-factfinding is required.