Commonwealth v. Watt, 493 Mass. 322

Background

Nyasani Watt was convicted in 2013 of first-degree murder and related charges for a fatal shooting.
Watt's initial trial counsel withdrew post-conviction, and over multiple appeals and motions, ineffective assistance of counsel was raised, but the claim that his trial counsel slept during trial was not pursued until after direct appeal.
The allegation that Watt's trial counsel slept during critical parts of the trial was only substantiated—and pursued—after a codefendant's counsel shared observations and multiple affidavits were gathered.
Affiants included both prosecution and defense attorneys, the codefendant, and Watt’s mother, all corroborating the claim of recurrent slumber by trial counsel.
The motion for a new trial was denied by a Superior Court judge who found the issue waived and not structural, but the matter was reserved for review by the full Supreme Judicial Court.

Issues

Issue	Watt's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s repeated sleeping during trial is a deprivation of the right to counsel under art. 12	Trial counsel was repeatedly asleep during critical or significant parts of trial, amounting to constructive denial of counsel	No structural error; slumber did not rise to level requiring reversal nor prejudice the case; claim was waived	Sleeping counsel during significant/important trial portions violates art. 12; structural error presumed; new trial ordered
Whether the claim of sleeping counsel is a "new and substantial" issue after plenary review under § 33E	The issue couldn't have been raised during plenary review because appellate counsel failed to pursue it, despite being notified	Defendant failed to raise issue earlier; should be waived under rules of finality and judicial economy	Issue was "new and substantial" because first appellate counsel's failure to act rendered it unavailable earlier
Whether a new trial is required where the deprivation of counsel is structural, even if error unpreserved	The error is so egregious it requires automatic reversal or, at minimum, satisfies the miscarriage of justice standard	Any error should be analyzed for prejudice and is waived by failure to raise at earliest opportunity	Deprivation of counsel at trial is inherently structural and creates substantial risk of miscarriage of justice, new trial required
Appropriateness of denying a hearing where affidavits uncontestedly show repeated counsel slumber	Affidavits from both sides corroborate the claim, requiring reversal and new trial	Judge only credited affidavits but found no critical error, denied hearing or new trial	Record was sufficient; evidentiary hearing unnecessary; new trial required because affidavits establish structural error

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (error found where counsel is present but prevented from assisting accused at critical stage—structural error)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (right to counsel requires more than nominal presence; deprivation can be constructive)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural errors affect trial framework, mandate reversal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance framework—used for contrast)
Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) (right to consult with counsel during trial is foundational)
Commonwealth v. Watt, 484 Mass. 742 (2020) (prior substantive appellate opinion in same case)
Commonwealth v. Dew, 492 Mass. 254 (2023) (constructive denial of counsel; actual conflict of interest)
Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (ineffective assistance of counsel standards in Massachusetts)
Commonwealth v. Valentin, 470 Mass. 186 (2014) (structural errors require automatic reversal)