Commonwealth v. McWilliams, 45 N.E.3d 94

Background

On July 7, 2011, a Cambridge bank was robbed at gunpoint; surveillance video and teller testimony later identified the robber. Defendant McWilliams was shown on video leaving the garage minutes after the robbery.
On July 26, 2011, a bank employee (Grigoryants) recognized a man outside the same bank, photographed him, and alerted bank staff; officers arrested McWilliams nearby with a bag containing a pellet gun and disguise items.
At the station McWilliams volunteered a request to a detective to retrieve his eyeglasses from a bicycle in the garage; that led the detective to obtain the July 7 garage surveillance video linking McWilliams to the earlier robbery.
McWilliams was convicted of armed robbery (July 7) and attempted robbery (July 26). He sought: (a) a required finding of not guilty on attempt, (b) a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to suppress volunteered post-arrest statements, failure to suppress identifications, and bad advice about the right to testify), and (c) postconviction discovery of booking/detention records.
The SJC affirmed convictions, holding (inter alia) that volunteered, unsolicited statements made after Rosario’s six‑hour safe‑harbor do not automatically require suppression; counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to move to suppress them; identification evidence was admissible; and no postconviction discovery or new-trial hearing was required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (McWilliams)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted robbery (July 26)	Evidence showed defendant was prepared and proximate to complete a second robbery	Actions were preparatory and not close enough to constitute attempt	Guilty verdict for attempt upheld — proximity, intent, props, disguise and location sufficient
Suppression of volunteered post‑arrest statements after Rosario six‑hour rule	Rosario safe harbor protects against coercive delay; but applies to interrogation-related statements only	Statements made >6 hours after arrest should be suppressed, plus fruits (bicycle/video)	Volunteered, unsolicited statements after six hours need not be suppressed; counsel not ineffective for failing to move to suppress
Suppression of identification evidence (pretrial photo/showup and in‑court ID)	IDs were reliable given witness’s observation during the robbery and corroborating evidence	Pretrial identifications were especially suggestive and tainted the in‑court ID	IDs admissible; not especially suggestive, reliability adequate; counsel not ineffective
Right to testify / counsel advice about prior convictions	Commonwealth notes record showed defendant likely chose not to testify independently of counsel’s misadvice	Defense: counsel misadvised that five prior convictions were admissible for impeachment; defendant relied on advice and waived testimony	No relief — defendant failed to prove he would have testified but for counsel’s advice; judge properly denied evidentiary hearing

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Rosario, 422 Mass. 48 (announcing six‑hour safe harbor for statements prior to arraignment)
Commonwealth v. Fortunato, 466 Mass. 500 (left open question whether volunteered statements after six hours are suppressed)
Commonwealth v. Bell, 455 Mass. 408 (attempt law; proximity test)
Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267 (classic articulation of attempt categories)
Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 170 Mass. 18 (factors to assess preparatory acts vs. attempt)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 423 Mass. 99 (common‑law fairness standard for especially suggestive, non‑police identifications)
Commonwealth v. Comita, 441 Mass. 86 (ineffective‑assistance standard re counsel omissions)
Commonwealth v. Morganti, 455 Mass. 388 (application/spirit of Rosario in cross‑jurisdiction context)
Commonwealth v. Powell, 468 Mass. 272 (discussion of Rosario, presentment rules, and exceptions)
Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352 (eyewitness identification jury instruction developments)