Commonwealth v. Collins
470 Mass. 255
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant Michael Collins was convicted of second-degree murder (death of Myles Lawton), armed assault with intent to murder (wounding of Pierre Laguerre), and possession of an unlicensed firearm; he moved for a new trial and appealed the convictions and denial of the motion.
- Key eyewitnesses: Teresa Jones (heard/peeked during shooting), Pierre Laguerre (victim/witness who had prior dealings with defendant "Goodie"), and downstairs neighbor Desmond Sheets (saw a man in a Mets jacket leave the apartment with a gun).
- Jones viewed a sequential photographic array pretrial and did not make an unequivocal identification (pointed to photos 4 and 8); at trial she later made an in-court identification and pointed to Collins on redirect without defense objection.
- Commonwealth introduced Sprint call-detail records obtained under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) showing repoll (switching-center) numbers indicating the phone was in the Washington, D.C. area after Dec. 7, 2006; Commonwealth urged this supported flight/consciousness of guilt.
- Defense alleged (a) ineffective assistance for failing to object to Jones’s in-court ID and to admission of phone records, (b) prosecutorial nondisclosure of a deal with Laguerre, (c) improper courtroom closure/sequestration during jury selection, and (d) insufficient proof for unlicensed-firearm conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Jones’s in-court identification | Prosecution: in-court ID permissible; eyewitness had some pretrial contact with photos | Collins: counsel ineffective for failing to object to an impermissibly suggestive in-court showup after ambiguous pretrial array | Court: admission conformed to then-prevailing law; but adopts new prospective rule limiting in-court showups where pretrial ID was less than unequivocal — must be shown to have "good reason"; counsel not ineffective here because objection would have been futile |
| Nondisclosure / prosecutorial misconduct re: Laguerre | Collins: prosecutor withheld a deal (or delayed resolution) in exchange for testimony | Commonwealth: no deal was made; potential disposition was disclosed; prosecutor credited | Court: judge’s factual finding that no deal was made not clearly erroneous; no Brady violation; new-trial motion denied |
| Admissibility of cellular telephone repoll records obtained under §2703(d) | Collins: repoll data is location information and required a warrant (CSLI analysis) | Commonwealth: repoll numbers show only broad switching-center area, not CSLI; §2703(d) court order sufficient | Court: repoll numbers differ from CSLI; no warrant required; §2703(d) order sufficient; admission proper; counsel not ineffective for not objecting |
| Sequestration of potential witnesses during jury empanelment / public-trial claim | Collins: exclusion of family/witnesses during jury selection violated Sixth Amendment public-trial right; counsel ineffective for permitting it | Commonwealth: sequestration aimed to prevent witness contact with jurors; rule allows exclusion before/during witness exams; sequestration is not a closure requiring findings | Court: sequestration of potential witnesses during empanelment is not a "partial courtroom closure" and judge acted within discretion; no constitutional violation; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Conceicao, 388 Mass. 255 (ineffective assistance standard; futility of motions with minimal chance)
- Commonwealth v. Gilday, 382 Mass. 166 (prosecutor-witness agreements are Brady material)
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (CSLI constitutes a search requiring a warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572 (upholding unlicensed-firearm convictions absent Second Amendment defense)
- Commonwealth v. Paszko, 391 Mass. 164 (admissibility of in-court ID with greater certitude than pretrial ID)
- Commonwealth v. Correia, 381 Mass. 65 (cross-examination can be used to expose pretrial ID reservations)
- Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (photographic array protocols and eliciting witness certainty)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 432 Mass. 704 (scope of Commonwealth's duty to disclose impeachment/exculpatory evidence)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (public-trial right and standards for closure)