122 N.E.3d 520
Mass.2019Background
- On July 11, 2012 Andrew Stanley was found shot dead in his Hyannis home; his hands and feet were bound. Four coventurers (including Eddie Mack) were implicated; three were apprehended near the scene.
- Physical evidence: a backpack nearby contained two firearms (a loaded .45 Colt matched to a spent casing), duct tape, zip ties, a stun gun, gloves, and a mask with Webster's DNA; duct tape at the scene bore a fingerprint later attributed to Mack.
- Mack was identified fleeing the scene; his cell phones and large amounts of cash and marijuana were recovered at a nearby location where he hid. Cell‑site and call/text records placed several coventurers in the area and in frequent contact before and on the day of the killing.
- A jury convicted Mack of first‑degree murder (felony‑murder and extreme atrocity/cruelty theories) and related counts; he was sentenced to life without parole. He appealed raising multiple claims including juror bias from publicity, evidentiary authentication, warrant legality and ineffective assistance, and prosecutorial remarks.
- The Appeals Court affirmed, rejecting claims of actual juror prejudice, improper authentication of the duct tape/fingerprint, unlawful cell‑phone searches, ineffective assistance, and that prosecutorial remarks created a miscarriage of justice. The court declined extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Mack's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial publicity / juror impartiality | No presumptive prejudice; judge took steps (instructions, voir dire for remaining jurors) so no actual prejudice shown | Seven jurors were seated without individual media‑exposure voir dire causing actual bias | No actual prejudice; record lacked evidence those jurors had prior exposure and safeguards were adequate; claim fails |
| Authentication of duct tape / fingerprint | Testimony tied the photographed duct tape (placard 15) to the item collected; chain of custody and authentication sufficient | Duct tape should have been authenticated only via the officer who initially found/stepped on it (Mellyn) | Admitted properly: testimony linking photograph, placard and collected item sufficed to authenticate; challenges went to weight, not admissibility |
| Admission of coventurer's cell‑phone records / phone‑number ownership | Prior decision in Webster established sufficient authentication; records admissible | Phone number not properly authenticated as Evans's | Declined to revisit Webster; records properly admitted |
| Search warrants for Mack’s and Evans’s cell phones / ineffective assistance | Affidavits established probable cause for Mack's phone; Evans's phone search lawful because not fruit of illegal search | Trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress warrants lacking probable cause; Evans's phone evidence tainted by Mack phone search | No ineffective assistance: Mack's phone search was supported by probable cause; Evans's phone not tainted because Mack search lawful |
| Prosecutor's closing remarks (linking "TR" to "Trigger" and interpreting "W.g.") | Arguments were permissible inferences from evidence; only "W.g." was speculative but harmless given overwhelming evidence of joint venture | Statements misstated/guaranteed facts not in evidence and improperly translated texts to prove joint venture | "TR"→"Trigger" inference allowed; stating "W.g." meant "We good" was error but harmless given overwhelming independent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Webster, 480 Mass. 161 (affirming related convictions; authentication and phone‑record rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Toolan, 460 Mass. 452 (Sixth Amendment/voir dire and pretrial publicity framework)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (federal standard on pretrial publicity and voir dire)
- Commonwealth v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395 (importance of voir dire and trial judge safeguards for publicity)
- Commonwealth v. Woollam, 478 Mass. 493 (authentication standard for physical evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Fulgiam, 477 Mass. 20 (probable cause standard for cell‑phone content searches)
- Commonwealth v. Dorelas, 473 Mass. 496 (four‑corners review of affidavit for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Holley, 478 Mass. 508 (inferences supporting cell‑phone searches)
- Commonwealth v. Morin, 478 Mass. 415 (fact‑intensive analysis for phone evidence probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Cruzado, 480 Mass. 275 (ineffective assistance standard re: suppression motions)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 481 Mass. 69 (standard for reviewing unpreserved prosecutorial argument claims)
- Commonwealth v. Roy, 464 Mass. 818 (prosecutor may suggest reasonable inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 476 Mass. 186 (contextual review of closing)
- Commonwealth v. Copeland, 481 Mass. 255 (harmless‑error standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201 (procedure for raising multiple trial errors on appeal)