Commonwealth v. Watson: Postconviction Digital Forensic Analysis of Cell Phones Under G. L. c. 278A

On July 9, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Watson, SJC-13850 (July 9, 2026), and held that G. L. c. 278A, the postconviction forensic and scientific analysis statute, permits digital forensic analysis of cell phones. The Commonwealth had argued that the statute covers only scientific testing of physical evidence for biological material. The court disagreed. A person convicted of a crime in Massachusetts may seek postconviction digital forensic analysis of a cell phone in the Commonwealth’s possession, including a phone seized from a codefendant, under the same procedure that has governed DNA testing since 2012.

The Statute

Chapter 278A was inserted by St. 2012, c. 38, “An Act providing access to forensic and scientific analysis.” It establishes a process, separate from the trial and from any later challenge to the conviction, that permits forensic and scientific analysis of evidence, the results of which could support a motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Clark, 472 Mass. 120, 121-122 (2015). The Legislature enacted it to remedy the injustice of wrongful convictions, and the Supreme Judicial Court reads it to make postconviction testing easier and faster than testing sought through a motion for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30. Commonwealth v. Wade, 467 Mass. 496, 504 (2014); Commonwealth v. Moffat, 478 Mass. 292, 301 (2017).

The statute permits a party to seek “forensic or scientific analysis” of “evidence or biological material,” G. L. c. 278A, §§ 3, 7, and it defines “analysis” as a “process by which a forensic or scientific technique is applied to evidence or biological material.” G. L. c. 278A, § 1. The court had already applied the statute beyond DNA: to ballistics evidence in Commonwealth v. Jenks, 487 Mass. 1032, 1034-1036 (2021), and to gunshot residue and fingerprint testing in Commonwealth v. Williams, 481 Mass. 799, 803, 809 (2019). Watson extends the same reasoning to the contents of a cell phone.

The Watson Case

The defendant, Javaine Watson, was convicted of murder in the first degree for a 2013 shooting outside a Boston nightclub. Surveillance video captured the shooting and placed three codefendants at the scene, but the face of the getaway driver never appeared on the footage. The Commonwealth’s theory was that Watson drove the getaway vehicle, a rented Lincoln MKX. Its proof of identity rested in large part on one witness, who testified that she had been dating Watson, that she lent him the Lincoln, and that he admitted abandoning it after the shooting. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Watson, 487 Mass. 156 (2021).

The defense theory at trial was that the witness was in a relationship with the codefendant who fired the first shots, not with Watson, and that her testimony was fabricated to protect that codefendant. The call records supported the theory. A phone number registered to that codefendant’s former girlfriend had 312 contacts with the witness in the month before the murder, and 73, 276, and 224 contacts with three other women known to have dated the codefendant, while the witness’s phone had one contact with the number Watson used. The witness nonetheless testified that she used both numbers to reach Watson and that she did not know the codefendant at all.

In 2023, Watson moved under G. L. c. 278A, § 3, for digital forensic analysis of five cell phones that police had seized from the codefendant in two unrelated cases. His pretrial requests for the same phones had been denied. At the evidentiary hearing, a digital forensics expert testified that analysis of a cell phone is a multistep scientific process: proper handling of the device, decryption of password-protected content, and extraction of data, including deleted content, call logs, text message logs, GPS coordinates, and encrypted application data. The Commonwealth conceded that digital forensics is a forensic science, but it argued that data extraction is routine work that falls outside the “forensic analysis” the statute contemplates, relying on Commonwealth v. Cronin, 495 Mass. 170, 178-181 (2025), and that the phones were not “evidence” within the meaning of the act because they had never been tested in the underlying case. The Superior Court judge allowed the motions, and a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court permitted the Commonwealth to appeal under the gatekeeper provision of G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

The Holding

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. Writing for the court, Justice Wendlandt held that the statute is not limited to scientific testing for biological material. The Legislature acted in the wake of a national recognition of the power of DNA testing to exonerate the wrongly convicted, but the text it enacted is broader: the statute permits forensic or scientific analysis of evidence, and digital forensic analysis of a cell phone is such an analysis. The court further concluded that Watson showed by a preponderance of the evidence that a reasonably effective attorney would have sought the requested discovery and that the anticipated analysis has the potential to unearth evidence material to his identification as the perpetrator.

The Materiality Standard

The decision restates how the statute sets the bar for access. The moving party need only show that the requested analysis could be material to the question of identity, not that it would change the outcome. Commonwealth v. Steadman, 489 Mass. 372, 389 (2022). The requirements are, by design, less stringent than those governing a motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Linton, 483 Mass. 227, 242 (2019). Evidence may be material under the statute even where the evidence of guilt at the underlying trial was overwhelming. Clark, 472 Mass. at 136. In Watson, the Commonwealth pointed to fingerprints, personal belongings, and call logs connecting the defendant to the crime. The court answered that this other evidence may matter later, on a motion for a new trial, but it does not govern access to discovery under the statute. The two proceedings remain distinct: if the analysis proves fruitful, the defendant must still satisfy Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 to obtain a new trial.

What the Decision Means for a Closed Case

Watson matters for any Massachusetts conviction that turned on who was using a phone. Juries decide identity in many trials on attribution evidence, call detail records, and text threads, and the full contents of a seized device are rarely extracted and examined. After Watson, a convicted defendant may seek digital forensic analysis of devices in the Commonwealth’s possession, including devices seized from other people in other investigations, where the statutory requirements are met. Deleted content, location data, and encrypted application data that no analyst examined at trial are within the scope of the statute. The procedure is a discovery tool, not a new trial by itself, and favorable results become the foundation for a motion for a new trial.

Attorney Serpa reviews closed cases for unexamined digital evidence. If a conviction in your case or a family member’s case rested on cell phone attribution, contact Attorney Serpa at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation.

Related Serpa Law Office resources

The rules governing searches of phones and computers before trial are explained in Massachusetts Phone, Computer, and Digital Searches. The way attribution evidence is tested in front of a jury is described on the cross-examination page, and the separate rules for recorded communications appear on the Massachusetts wiretap and secret recording page. The stages of a Massachusetts prosecution, from complaint through trial, are set out in the criminal process guide. The motion for a new trial that a favorable analysis can support is treated on the Padilla motion for a new trial page, and the rules that govern searches and extractions of digital devices are collected in the Massachusetts digital search FAQs.