BBA Welcomes SJC Ruling Confirming Broad Reach Of Forensic-testing Statute
BOSTON, MA – In a unanimous decision issued yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that Chapter 278A of the General Laws, which provides a process for seeking post-conviction forensic testing of evidence, extends beyond biological evidence to include forensic analysis of digital evidence, such as cell phone data. The Boston Bar Association (BBA) joined five other groups in filing an amicus brief urging the Court to reach this outcome.
“This decision recognizes that our justice system should not deny someone access to potentially exculpatory evidence simply because technology has evolved,” said Suma V. Nair, President of the BBA. “Digital evidence, like DNA evidence, can play a critical role in uncovering the truth. The Court rightly recognized that Chapter 278A was intended to ensure meaningful access to evolving forensic tools in the pursuit of justice.”
In Commonwealth v. Watson, the defendant sought forensic analysis of cell phones that he argued could contain data supporting his claim that a key prosecution witness had committed perjury at trial. The Commonwealth countered that Chapter 278A applies only to evidence capable of biological testing, such as DNA. In their brief, the BBA and other amici argued that such a narrow interpretation was inconsistent with both the statute’s plain language and its remedial purpose. The SJC agreed. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Dalila Wendlandt stated, “To the extent the Commonwealth’s position is that the act is limited to testing for DNA or similar biological evidence, we disagree.” Rather, the definitions of “evidence” and “analysis” in the statute—which the BBA helped enact—extend to the cell-phone data sought by the defendant.
On four previous occasions, the BBA argued as amicus in support of a broad interpretation of Chapter 278A, arguing that the Legislature intended the statute to set a low bar for post-conviction forensic testing. In yesterday’s decision, the Court reaffirmed that understanding, describing Chapter 278A as carrying a “broad, remedial mandate”.
The BBA thanks Kevin Prussia, James Lyons, and Kerry Matlack of WilmerHale for drafting the brief on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The brief was also joined by the New England Innocence Project, the Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard Law School, the Innocence Project, and the Innocence Network.
“Amicus Curiae” means, literally, “friend of the court.” Since 1975, the BBA has filed amicus briefs on matters related to the practice of law or the administration of justice. The 2025-2026 BBA Amicus Committee is co-chaired by Ian Roffman of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP and Emily Schulman of Harvard Law School.
