Massachusetts high court hears whether post-conviction testing statute covers cell-phone forensics

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the hearing record considered whether chapter 278A permits post-conviction forensic analysis of historic cell phones and device-level data in a homicide case. Attorney Darcy Jordan, for the Commonwealth, told the court that chapter 278A is "a narrow exception to a long standing principle of rule 30" and applies only to evidence "capable of biological testing" that can yield a direct connection to the perpetrator.

Merit Schnipper, counsel for the defendant, Javaine Watson, urged a broader reading. Schnipper argued the seized phones show extensive communications among relevant actors and that new forensic tools developed since trial can extract location timelines and other device data that may demonstrate a key witness's testimony was false. "If you get that phone and you figure out who knows those 10 people ... you've got me," Schnipper told the court, comparing a phone's social-network footprint to DNA as a uniquely identifying pattern.

Why the issue matters: Chapter 278A was enacted to let convicted persons obtain forensic analysis of evidence when modern techniques can produce more reliable results than were available at trial. The parties disputed whether the statute's text, which refers to "evidence or…