NORTHAMPTON — A week after a judge denied her request to have an independent forensics expert examine his cellphone, the attorney for Jeffrey MacDonald, the UMass chef accused of beating his wife to death, returned to court Wednesday asking instead that the expert be allowed to watch police unlock and search the phone.
MacDonald, the Wilbraham man accused of murdering his wife Emma at Hotel UMass in April, appeared in Hampshire Superior Court Wednesday alongside his attorney Mary Saldarelli for a motion hearing before Judge Jeffrey Trapani. He is charged with murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery on a family or household member (two counts), assault with a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery on a police officer.
As prosecutors assigned to the Northwestern District Attorney’s Office are attempting to extract data from MacDonald’s cellphone in the weeks and months leading up to the alleged murder, Saldarelli argued last week that the defense should be allowed to hire a forensic expert to independently examine the cellphone, allowing both the defense and prosecution to view the extracted data only at the court’s approval. This request was denied by Superior Court Judge Charles W. Groce III, who said it lacked legal precedent.
On Wednesday, Saldarelli argued that should her client be legally compelled to unlock his phone, an independent expert should be allowed to silently watch the search and data extraction to ensure it’s complete and accurate. She clarified that her goal is “not to obstruct” the commonwealth’s investigation.
“I am asking just for my expert to be present … these are circumstances where an individual [would be] sitting in a room, observing and not interfering, to be able to provide defense with information about how the testing was conducted and any inadequacies of that testing,” Saldarelli argued in court Wednesday. “That’s something within the defendant’s right … there is no damage to the commonwealth’s evidence; there is no interference with their experts or representatives while we are testing. That’s not our goal.”
Assistant District Attorney Aidan Lanciani, who is prosecuting the case, objected to the defense’s motion and argued that since no phone evidence will be destroyed as the DA’s office executes its search warrant, the defense can easily inspect the device afterward.
Lanciani said it was unnecessary to have an independent expert “looking over [the commonwealth’s] shoulder” during the data extraction.
“This isn’t a situation where the evidence can only be tested once — it’s digital evidence downloaded by the commonwealth first, and then we provide our copy to defense and they can do their own examination if they want at that point,” Lanciani said. “Our position is to object.”
Arguing that the state has sufficient evidence proving the iPhone they have begun to search belongs to MacDonald, and that the defendant knows his phone’s password, Lanciani also argued in favor of the state’s motion to compel him to unlock his phone.
Saldarelli also maintained her objection to the commonwealth’s motion to compel MacDonald to unlock his phone, arguing that evidence demonstrating that the phone belongs to MacDonald was only successfully gathered during State Police’s partial data extraction from the device.
“During the partial download, [police] identified the phone as belonging to my client on such things as a make model of the phone, the phone number, and the IMEI number, which is basically the fingerprint number for the phone,” Saldarelli argued. “I would argue, even if the commonwealth is not fully relying upon that information to meet their burden, the defense still objects to the commonwealth’s motion based upon the grounds that the trooper relied on his partial extraction in order to provide evidence that or argument that this particular phone belongs to Jeffrey MacDonald.”
Trapani took both matters under advisement and said he expects to make a decision “very shortly.” MacDonald is expected back in court on Oct. 27.
