Commonwealth v. Robertson, 105 N.E.3d 253

Background

On June 26, 2011 Aaron Wornum was shot and killed after stopping to meet someone; two eyewitnesses in the car (Hicks and Heard) observed the altercation and later identified the defendant in a photo array.
The victim’s phone records showed repeated calls with a number (ending 4076) shortly before the shooting; investigators linked that number to the defendant and obtained historical cell site location information (CSLI) by warrant.
The defendant (Anthony Robertson) was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder, armed robbery, and carrying a firearm without a license; he raised multiple trial errors on appeal.
The trial judge denied a motion to suppress the CSLI, admitted in‑court identifications over objection, declined the defendant’s requested voir dire question about racial bias, and declined to find a prima facie Batson‑Soares violation after two peremptory strikes against black men.
The Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court abused its discretion under Batson/Soares in declining to find a prima facie pattern of race/gender exclusion for black men; it vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial while addressing other issues likely to recur.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of historical CSLI	Warrant affidavit supplied probable cause linking number 4076 to the shooting and to the defendant	Affidavit relied on unsourced police information and overstated an eyewitness ID; thus warrant lacked probable cause	Warrant affidavit (even if redacted) provided probable cause; suppression denial affirmed
In‑court eyewitness identifications	Admitted as proper because witnesses had identified the defendant in photo array	Identifications were admitted despite being equivocal and thus should be excluded (relying on Collins)	Admission was evaluated under pre‑Collins law here; Collins applies prospectively; trial court’s rulability preserved for retrial
Voir dire question on racial bias	Not addressed for plaintiff	Defendant requested asking jurors whether race would affect impartiality; judge refused because both parties were Black	Judge did not abuse discretion; no categorical rule requires the question here, though courts should usually permit race‑bias questions on request
Batson/Soares challenge to Commonwealth’s peremptory strikes	Pattern of excluding black men (including striking the first black male juror) created a prima facie case; judge should have inquired into prosecutor’s reasons	Commonwealth argued struck jurors were not African‑American or offered race‑neutral reasons	Court held judge abused discretion in failing to find a prima facie pattern as to exclusion of black men; error was structural and required vacatur and retrial

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Augustine, 472 Mass. 448 (discusses CSLI as a search under art. 14 and probable cause framework)
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Supreme Court: multi‑day CSLI constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment)
Commonwealth v. Collins, 470 Mass. 255 (rule limiting admission of in‑court identifications; applied prospectively)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibition on race‑based peremptory challenges)
Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 (Massachusetts law limiting peremptory exclusions based on group membership)
Commonwealth v. Dorelas, 473 Mass. 496 (CSLI nexus to crime can support probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Mass. 307 (factors for assessing prima facie Batson/Soares claims)
Commonwealth v. Issa, 466 Mass. 1 (single strike of protected juror can suffice for prima facie showing)
Commonwealth v. Lopes, 478 Mass. 593 (trial judge’s discretion to seek explanations for peremptory strikes)