NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-11513

COMMONWEALTH vs. NELSON MELO.

Bristol. February 6, 2015. - July 23, 2015.

Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Hines, JJ.

Homicide. Felony-Murder Rule. Evidence, Admissions and 

confessions, Voluntariness of statement. Practice, 

Criminal, Capital case, Admissions and confessions, 

Voluntariness of statement, Assistance of counsel, Waiver.

Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Waiver of 

constitutional rights, Arrest, Probable cause, Assistance 

of counsel. Arrest. Telephone. Search and Seizure, 

Arrest, Probable cause, Fruits of illegal arrest. Probable 

Cause. Attorney at Law, Withdrawal.

Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court 

Department on February 9, 2010.

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by E. 

Susan Garsh, J., and the case was tried before Robert J. Kane, 

J.

Jeanne M. Kempthorne for the defendant.

Mary O'Neil, Assistant District Attorney, for the 

Commonwealth.

HINES, J. On November 3, 2009, Chad Fleming (victim) was 

killed during a robbery (or attempted robbery) of drugs that he 
2

had planned to sell to the defendant, Nelson Melo. The 

defendant and Aaron Morin were charged with murder in the first 

degree in the death of the victim. The Commonwealth contended 

that the defendant acted as a joint venturer with Morin, who was 

tried separately. In November, 2012, a jury convicted the 

defendant of murder in the first degree on the theory of felonymurder.1,2 Represented by new counsel on appeal, the defendant 

argues (1) error in the partial denial of his motion to suppress 

statements he made to police; (2) error in the denial of defense 

counsel's motion to withdraw from the case two days before 

trial; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We 

conclude that the defendant's motion to suppress statements made 

after being taken involuntarily to the police station should 

have been allowed in its entirety because these statements were 

the inadmissible fruits of an unlawful arrest. Because the 

defendant did not seek suppression on this ground, however, we 

review to determine if the error created a substantial 

likelihood of a miscarriage of justice, and conclude that it did 

 

1 The jury did not indicate the predicate felony on which 

the verdict was based. The possible predicate felonies were 

armed or unarmed robbery, or the attempt to commit armed or 

unarmed robbery.

2 The Commonwealth argued also that the murder was 

deliberately premeditated and committed with extreme atrocity or 

cruelty, but the jury did not find the defendant guilty under 

these theories.
3

not. We reject as well the other claims of error and, 

therefore, affirm the order denying defense counsel's motion to 

withdraw and affirm the defendant's conviction.

Background. We recite the facts the jury could have found. 

The victim, who was twenty-five years of age, lived in Florida 

and regularly supplied the defendant with Percocet for the 

defendant's drug dealing business. On November 3, 2009, the 

victim flew to Providence, Rhode Island, rented an automobile, 

and drove to Massachusetts to meet with the defendant to supply 

him with Percocet. He telephoned his girl friend to let her 

know that he had safely landed. She never heard from him again.

The defendant and his wife3 were both involved in the sale 

of Percocet and both developed a dependency on the drug. The 

defendant supplied pills to his friend Morin, and also to 

Michael Stenstream4 and Stenstream's friend Brandon George.5

About one week prior to the murder on November 3, the 

defendant's wife and George drove to Florida to purchase pills 

from the victim. The defendant's wife gave the victim $42,000 

in cash. The victim telephoned the defendant because the amount 

 

3 The defendant's wife testified pursuant to a grant of 

immunity.

4 Michael Stenstream testified pursuant to a grant of 

immunity.

5 Brandon George testified pursuant to a grant of immunity.
4

was short of what he had expected. Nevertheless, the victim 

supplied the defendant's wife with about 4,000 Percocet pills 

that she brought home to the defendant.

Before this trip to Florida, Morin told the defendant that 

the victim was dealing to other people in Massachusetts. The 

defendant expressed disbelief, so Morin, in the defendant's 

presence, telephoned a man and put him on speakerphone. The man 

confirmed what Morin had stated.

On the morning of November 2, the day before the murder, 

Morin visited the defendant at the defendant's wife's home, 

where they were then living. The defendant's wife had been 

sleeping. She woke up and heard Morin whisper something about 

"hitting" someone and something about a black hat. She also 

overheard Morin say, "I'll take care of the other two" or "They 

will take care of the other two."

During the late afternoon of November 2, Morin met with his 

friend Michael Matteson. Matteson owed Morin money, and Morin 

offered him an opportunity to repay the debt. Morin told 

Matteson that he was going "to rob his connect's connect and 

make some money." Morin's "connect," or drug supplier, was the 

defendant. Morin explained that the defendant's "connect" would 

be arriving to sell Percocet and they were going to rob him; 

"they" included Morin, a person named Walter Babcock, and the 

defendant. Morin explained further that the defendant's 
5

"connect" would be at an apartment owned by the defendant,

6 and 

Morin would receive a telephone call when he arrived. The 

"robbers" would go through the back door, Matteson would take 

the money and drugs, Babcock would grab the defendant's 

"connect," and Morin would make it look like he was holding down 

the defendant. Matteson said he would think about it, but 

ultimately decided not to participate.

On November 3, the defendant and his wife expected the 

victim to visit them at their apartment. The defendant had his 

wife help package between $42,000 and $58,000 in cash. The 

defendant's wife heard him ask someone over the telephone 

whether he was "going to get it back." Shortly after 8 P.M., 

the defendant left the apartment wearing a black hat.7 He took 

the money with him. Approximately thirty minutes later, the 

defendant's wife was speaking with the defendant on the house 

telephone when the victim telephoned her on her cellular 

telephone. After communicating with her husband, the 

 

6 The defendant became a part owner of his parents' twofamily home on Bay Street in Taunton. The defendant's sister, 

Lucia Rodriguez, and her husband, Gabriel Rodriguez, lived in 

the first-floor apartment of the home. The defendant, in 

October, 2009, rented the second-floor apartment to Stenstream.

7 Stenstream had seen the defendant earlier outside his 

(Stenstream's) apartment, between 6:30 and 7 P.M. Stenstream 

told the defendant that he had dinner plans later with his girl 

friend. The defendant remarked, "You should go out to dinner." 

Stenstream and his girl friend left for dinner sometime between 

8:30 and 8:45 P.M.
6

defendant's wife told the victim that the defendant wanted him 

to go to Stenstream's apartment. See note 6, supra.

At the Bay Street residence, the defendant's sister, Lucia 

Rodriguez, and her husband, Gabriel Rodriguez,

8 were in the 

living room of the first-floor apartment. See note 6, supra. 

After Gabriel had settled in to watch a television program that 

commenced at 9 P.M., the defendant came into the apartment and 

spoke with Lucia. The defendant told her that he was going 

upstairs to speak with the victim.

Soon thereafter Lucia heard the footsteps of multiple 

people heading upstairs. Gabriel heard more than one set of 

footsteps coming from above. The defendant came down from the 

second-floor apartment and went into the kitchen with Lucia. He 

told her to stay downstairs then "bolted" back upstairs. While 

the defendant was speaking to her, Lucia heard a "big rumbling."

Gabriel then heard what sounded like multiple people 

running down the back stairs of the second-floor apartment. 

Looking outside a window, he saw an automobile leave his home

quickly. Lucia heard people run out and saw a gray automobile 

departing with two people in the front and one person in the 

back. She heard the voice of another person that she did not 

recognize upstairs with her brother.

 

8 Because the defendant's sister and her husband share the 

same last name, we shall refer to them by their first names.
7

The defendant came downstairs, took some ice packs from the 

refrigerator, told Lucia he would be "right back," and returned 

upstairs. After a few minutes the defendant asked Lucia to 

check on the victim because he was not responding. From the 

kitchen, Gabriel heard something about a fight and heard the 

defendant say, "I think he got hurt."

Upstairs, Lucia discovered the victim lying on his back on 

a bed in the spare bedroom. There were ice packs on his neck. 

She tried to see whether he was breathing. The victim was not 

moving, and she told the defendant to telephone 911. The 

defendant insisted that he wanted his wife.

At about 8:45 or 9 P.M., Morin, out of breath, telephoned 

the defendant's wife, asking for the defendant. Morin asked 

her, "Do you know what happened?" He added, "Man, that kid was

tough." The defendant's wife told Morin that the defendant was 

not there. The defendant's wife asked, "What's going on?" and

Morin replied, "I've got to call [Lucia]." The defendant's wife 

then telephoned Lucia, who stated that she did not know where 

the defendant was. Soon thereafter Lucia arrived and insisted 

that the defendant's wife and their daughter accompany Lucia 

back to the Bay Street apartment. The defendant's wife agreed.

Stenstream and his girl friend returned to his apartment at 

approximately 9:45 P.M. He sent a text message to the defendant 

to confirm whether the defendant was still there. The defendant 
8

did not respond. There was an unfamiliar automobile in the 

driveway (the victim's rental vehicle). Stenstream's girl 

friend waited in his automobile. He then went up to his 

apartment and shortly thereafter returned to the automobile. 

Stenstream brought his girl friend upstairs to his apartment and 

instructed her to go straight to his bedroom, to keep her head 

down, and not to look around. As she made her way through the 

apartment, she observed blood on the floor and on the couch.

Stenstream found the defendant and the victim in a spare 

bedroom. The victim was lying on his back, his eyes and mouth 

were open, and he was not moving. The defendant was holding a 

package of peas or ice to the victim's head and was telling the 

victim to "wake up." Stenstream asked what was going on. The 

defendant replied, "Don't worry about it. Close the door." 

Stenstream left, but returned shortly thereafter suggesting that 

the defendant telephone an ambulance.9 Stenstream asked again 

what was going on. The defendant said, "Fucking Ace."10 

Stenstream again asked the defendant to arrange for an 

 

9 Stenstream noticed blood on the sofa and carpet in the 

living room. He also picked up some zip ties on the living room

floor, one of which appeared to have blood on it, and threw them 

in the garbage. He disposed of some clothing in a dumpster 

outside. He attempted to use "cleaning solution" to clean the 

apartment.

10 "Ace" was Aaron Morin's nickname.
9

ambulance. The defendant said, "I'll take care of it. We 

should get him to the hospital."

The defendant lifted the victim and started carrying him 

down the stairs. The defendant was struggling and asked 

Stenstream for help. Stenstream was reluctant, but agreed. 

Gabriel came out of his apartment. He could not find a pulse 

and noted that the victim was not moving. Stenstream observed 

that the victim's chest was blue and his legs were stiff. 

Gabriel opened the door to the back seat of the victim's rental 

vehicle, and the defendant and Stenstream put the victim inside.

The defendant went to Lucia's apartment, where he spoke 

with his wife, who by then had arrived. After inquiring about 

the victim, the defendant's wife went out to the victim's rented 

automobile where she saw him in the back seat. She observed 

that the victim's eyes were open and he was not moving; his 

wrist was by his forehead in a fixed position. She started 

crying and screaming, and yelled at the defendant, "He's dead!" 

The defendant drove off with the victim.11

The defendant's wife went inside Stenstream's apartment,

and he gave her the victim's jacket, shoes, and wallet. She saw 

blood "everywhere" in the living room, including on the walls 

 

11 Stenstream testified that after they moved the victim to 

the automobile, the defendant waited twenty to twenty-five 

minutes before leaving.
10

and on the floor. After about five to ten minutes, she went to 

Morton Hospital in Taunton, where the defendant had taken the 

victim.

While in the entrance area to the emergency room, the 

defendant attempted to perform chest compressions on the victim. 

Medical personnel took over and brought the victim into an 

examination room. It became immediately clear to the staff that 

the victim was in a state of rigor mortis and was dead. A 

physician pronounced the victim dead at 11:05 P.M. The

physician then spoke with the defendant, who provided the 

victim's name and stated that he was his friend from Florida. 

The defendant also told the doctor that the victim had gone out 

for a cigarette and that, when he did not return about fifteen 

minutes later, the defendant went to check on him, finding him 

outside on the ground. In response to questions posed by the 

doctor, the defendant stated that he did not think that the 

victim had ingested any drugs. The defendant was visibly upset.

Police arrived shortly thereafter and, after speaking with 

the emergency room physician, talked with the defendant in the 

family room.12 In summary, the defendant gave two different 

accounts of how the victim came to be injured. In his original 

 

12 The details of the defendant's statements to police at 

the hospital and subsequently at the police station are set 

forth later in this opinion in the discussion of the motion to 

suppress.
11

version of events, the defendant stated that the victim had 

taken a handful of pills and then went outside to make some 

telephone calls. The defendant stated that, when the victim had 

not returned thirty minutes later, he went to check on the 

victim and found him outside, lying on the ground and bleeding 

from the head. The defendant carried the victim upstairs; tried 

to revive him with ice cubes; and when that did not work, 

decided about ninety minutes later to bring him to the hospital. 

In the subsequent version of events, the defendant stated that 

he and the victim were visiting in Stenstream's apartment when 

three males arrived to make a drug deal. The men pulled out 

guns. The defendant escaped downstairs. After the men left, 

the defendant returned upstairs and found the victim with zip 

ties around his legs. The victim was alive and stated that he 

did not want to go to the hospital, but the defendant brought 

him anyway.

Police transported the defendant from the hospital to the 

police station, where he was interviewed after being given 

Miranda warnings. In keeping with the motion judge's ruling on 

the defendant's motion to suppress, a redacted version of the 

recorded interview was admitted in evidence and played for the 

jury. During that portion of the interview, the defendant did 
12

not admit to killing the victim himself or to being involved in 

the killing, or robbing (or attempting to rob) the victim.13

The medical examiner who conducted the victim's autopsy 

opined that he died as a result of asphyxia by strangulation. 

She testified that he suffered multiple blunt force injuries to 

his head, neck, and extremities. He had a gaping laceration to 

his scalp hidden in his hairline and rib fractures that 

perforated his lungs. Toxicology screen results revealed that 

the victim did not have any drugs or alcohol in his system.

On November 4, the defendant's wife went to Morin's home. 

Morin told her that he owed the defendant money and gave her 

$5,000. Morin also said he had done a lot for the defendant. 

On November 5, Morin asked Matteson to meet him. Morin told him 

that he should say "nothing to anybody."

After speaking to the defendant, the police secured 

Stenstream's apartment, where they recovered zip ties from the 

kitchen trash and various items in a dumpster in the rear of the 

building. They took samples of various red-brown stains from 

within the apartment, including in the living room and back 

stairwell, which tested positive for human blood. 

 

13 The defendant did admit that there was a "drug 

transaction" going on in Stenstream's apartment and that the 

victim had given the defendant $1,000 for "using the spot." He 

stated that the victim was alive, talking and mumbling, after 

the three men had departed.
13

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing revealed that the victim's 

DNA was present on one of the zip ties recovered. Further, 

testing showed that the victim's DNA was recovered from a stain 

on the defendant's shirt and a stain on the upper right arm of 

the defendant.14

Telephone records admitted in evidence at trial established 

that, on the afternoon of November 3, the telephones of the 

defendant and the victim were in communication with each other. 

In addition, between noon and midnight on that day, there were 

thirty-six contacts between the telephones of the defendant and 

Morin, including several calls made between 8:45 and 11:30 P.M.

The defendant did not testify. His trial counsel argued 

that the Commonwealth's witnesses were not to be believed for 

various reasons, including the fact that most had entered into 

agreements with the Commonwealth providing for their immunity. 

Defense counsel also argued that the defendant's statements were 

not voluntarily made and that the police investigation had been 

inadequate. Defense counsel argued that the defendant had not 

been involved and did not share Morin's intent to rob or to kill 

the victim.

 

14 The statistical significance of the deoxyribonucleic acid 

(DNA) testing was presented to the jury. See Commonwealth v. 

Ortiz, 463 Mass. 402, 408 & n.10 (2012); Commonwealth v. 

Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 20 (1994).
14

Discussion. 1. Motion to suppress statements. a. 

Background. The defendant filed a motion to suppress statements 

he made on November 3 and 4 at the hospital and at the police 

station, claiming, on State and Federal constitutional grounds, 

that his statements should be suppressed because they were not 

preceded by an adequate recitation of the Miranda warnings. He 

also argued that he did not make a knowing, intelligent, and 

voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights and that his statements 

were not voluntary because of his state of exhaustion, drug 

ingestion, and drug withdrawal. Last, the defendant asserted 

that police failed to honor his invocation of his right to 

counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge, who 

was not the trial judge, made the following relevant findings of 

fact, which we supplement where necessary with evidence in the 

record that is uncontroverted and that was implicitly credited 

by the motion judge, see Commonwealth v. Isaiah I., 448 Mass. 

334, 337 (2007), S.C., 450 Mass 818 (2008), and with the video 

recording of the interview of the defendant, which was admitted 

in evidence at the motion hearing.15

 

15 When a defendant's interview is video recorded, we are 

"in the same position as the motion judge in viewing the 

videotape," Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 461 Mass. 143, 148-149 (2011), 

quoting Commonwealth v. Prater, 420 Mass. 569, 578 n.7 (1995), 

to determine what occurred therein and therefore independently 

make that determination. We have reviewed the video recording 

that forms the basis of this appeal.
15

In the late evening of November 3, 2009, Dr. Peter Bosco, 

an emergency room physician at Morton Hospital, encountered the 

defendant and the victim, who was slumped over in a wheelchair. 

The defendant was attempting to perform chest compressions on 

the victim. The defendant told Dr. Bosco that he had been at 

the same residence with the victim; that the victim went outside 

to smoke; and that, when the victim had not returned after 

fifteen minutes, the defendant went to check on him, finding him 

there. The defendant did not tell the doctor that he had 

brought the victim upstairs after finding him. The defendant 

was agitated and upset, which the doctor construed as 

appropriate for someone who cared about another.

After examining the victim, Dr. Bosco spoke with the 

defendant in the family room. He informed the defendant that 

his friend was dead and that something did not "add up" because 

rigor mortis already had set in, suggesting that the victim had 

been dead for several hours. The defendant appeared to be in 

disbelief; he was distraught and upset. His speech was clear, 

but he was agitated. As the defendant spoke with Dr. Bosco, he 

recovered his composure and pleaded with the doctor to do 

something to resuscitate the victim. Dr. Bosco brought the 

defendant into the examination room to see the victim. Around 

this time, shortly after 11 P.M., Taunton police Officer Ralph 

Schlageter and Detective Robert Schwartz separately arrived in 
16

uniform at the examination room in response to a dispatch of a 

report that someone had brought a deceased person to the 

hospital's emergency room.

Dr. Bosco escorted the defendant to the family room. He 

explained to the defendant that, because the victim's death was 

suspicious, it would need to be investigated by the police and a 

medical examiner would take over custody of the body. He asked 

the defendant to stay so police could speak with him. The 

defendant was agreeable. No police officers were in the family 

room at this time. Dr. Bosco had not been asked by police to 

speak to the defendant.

Dr. Bosco left the family room and informed Schlageter that 

the victim had a head wound and was in state of rigor mortis 

when he arrived, and that the defendant was the person who had 

brought the victim to the hospital. Dr. Bosco did not suspect 

the defendant of any involvement in the death and did not 

communicate any such suspicion to Schlageter or to any other 

officer.

Schlageter then spoke with the defendant in the family 

room. No one else was present. The defendant was disheveled 

and visibly upset. He was crying, was almost hysterical, and 

put his head in his hands. When Schlageter spoke with the 

defendant, Schlageter viewed him as a concerned friend, not as 

someone who had been involved in the victim's death. The 
17

defendant did not appear to have been drinking, but seemed to be 

"on something."

After a couple of minutes, the defendant calmed down so 

that Schlageter could understand him. They spoke for 

approximately five minutes. The defendant was coherent and 

clear. He identified himself and provided his date of birth as 

well as the victim's full name. The defendant gave Schlageter 

the following account. Around 9:30 P.M., the victim had visited 

the defendant in Stenstream's apartment. Sometime later, the 

victim announced that he wanted to go outside to smoke and to 

make telephone calls. About twenty to thirty minutes later, the 

defendant went downstairs to check on the victim and found him 

on the ground beaten up. The defendant carried the victim 

upstairs back to the apartment. Because the defendant knew that 

the victim had a history of drug use, the defendant thought that 

he may be overdosing, so he laid him on a bed and tried to 

revive him with ice. The defendant became concerned when he saw 

the victim's skin turn blue. Schlageter did not question the 

defendant further. Schlageter left the room, leaving the 

defendant alone inside. Schlageter did not give any Miranda 

warnings to the defendant before or during their conversation.

Taunton police Detectives Susan Dykas and Shawn Mulhern 

arrived at the hospital. They were not in uniform. They viewed 

the victim, observing the large cut on his head, and learned 
18

that he had been dead for a significant period of time. 

Schlageter informed the detectives that the defendant had 

brought the victim's dead body to the hospital and was in the 

family room. Schlageter also told the detectives the substance 

of his conversation with the defendant.

The detectives entered the family room, where they found 

the defendant alone and crying. The detectives did not give any 

Miranda warnings to the defendant before speaking with him, or

at any time while they spoke with him at the hospital.

Mulhern recognized the defendant from the defendant's 

previous employment as a bouncer at a nightclub and asked what 

was going on. The defendant gave the following account of what 

had occurred earlier that day. The defendant had been 

"chilling" at a second-floor apartment with the victim, who was 

a friend visiting from Florida. The victim went downstairs to 

make a telephone call, and when he did not return, the defendant 

went downstairs and found him unconscious and bleeding from the 

head. The defendant dragged the victim back upstairs and tried 

to revive him with ice packs. The defendant took the victim to 

the hospital when he was not doing well.

Mulhern was the primary questioner and expressed disbelief 

that the defendant had dragged the victim upstairs. The 

defendant then gave a different account of what had occurred. 

In this version, the defendant stated that the victim came from 
19

Florida to use the apartment for a drug deal. Two white males 

and one black male entered the apartment and argued with the 

victim and brandished guns, at which point the defendant went 

downstairs to his sister's apartment. When the commotion was 

over, the defendant returned upstairs, where he discovered that 

the victim had been beaten up, his legs bound with zip ties, and 

his mouth gagged. The victim initially was conscious, but when 

he lost consciousness, the defendant carried him downstairs with 

the help of the defendant's sister and brother-in-law, and drove 

him to the hospital. The defendant did not make any statements 

that suggested in any way that he was responsible for the 

victim's death.

The detectives were aware of the defendant's and the 

victim's prior involvement with drugs, and suspected that the 

defendant had more information, but not that he was responsible 

for causing the victim's death. With the defendant's 

permission, they searched his cellular telephone and noticed 

numerous calls to a single number (Morin's).

The detectives spent thirty to forty minutes with the 

defendant in the family room. During this time, he squirmed 

quite a bit and appeared visibly nervous and upset. He 

alternated between calmness and lucidity, and incoherency. The 

defendant's eyes were somewhat bloodshot, and he appeared to be

under the influence of drugs.
20

After they finished speaking with the defendant, Mulhern 

told the defendant, "We're going to go back to [the] police 

station and finish this interview because we have to sort 

through this." Mulhern directed Schlageter to drive the 

defendant to the police station. Schlageter escorted the 

defendant to the back seat of a marked police cruiser, which 

locked and could not be opened from the inside. He did not 

handcuff the defendant. He did not give Miranda warnings prior 

to or during the transport to the station, he did not ask the 

defendant any questions on the way there, and the defendant did 

not make any statements along the way or on his arrival at the

police station.

On arrival, at about 12:45 A.M., Schlageter brought the 

defendant into the station through the front lobby and to an 

interview room. There, Mulhern and State police Trooper Anthony 

Spencer spoke with him. The interview was audio and video 

recorded, and the defendant was aware that the interview was 

being recorded. The interview lasted about two hours and fortyfive minutes, excluding a one-hour break after two and one-half 

hours into the interview.

At the beginning of the interview Mulhern read the 

defendant the Miranda warnings from a preprinted form. The 

defendant nodded that he understood. After, at 12:55 A.M., the 

defendant signed a waiver of rights from a notification of 
21

rights form, which he did not read. Under the signature line on 

the form, the form stated: "Person in Custody."

After signing the form, the following exchange between the 

defendant and Mulhern occurred.

Defendant: "I would feel more comfortable if I had a 

lawyer right now talking, but if you want to 

show me pictures and names, I'll give it to 

you. Because, honestly, like obviously I do 

not want to get more in a jam than this. I 

will show you who did it and everything. I 

just want out."

Mulhern: "Okay. So, why do you -- you feel like you 

want to -- if you don't want to talk, that's 

your right --"

Defendant: "The thing is I don't know."

Mulhern: "-- but if you feel like you need a lawyer, 

you know --"

Defendant: "I don't know what to do. Like, honestly, 

I'll help you but it seems like what do I 

say."

Mulhern: "Okay. Why don't we ask you questions --"

Defendant: "Alright."

Mulhern: "-- and we can go from there. We can find 

out the story first."

Defendant: "Alright."

For the first hour of the interview, the defendant did not 

appear to be particularly tired, but he was experiencing some 

pain in his groin. He told the officers that he had stopped 

dealing drugs and went "cold turkey" two or three months earlier 

because his marriage and job were being affected. He admitted 
22

that if he could "make a quick buck here and there," he would 

sell drugs, but that he did not "touch anything."

After about one hour of questioning, the defendant appeared 

nervous and jumpy. As Mulhern began to convey a high degree of 

skepticism of the defendant's statements, the defendant 

increasingly slouched. The defendant remained alert and 

consistently resisted suggestions from the officers and 

confrontational harangues from Mulhern. He insisted that he was 

not part of the drug deal and that he did not personally 

struggle with the victim.

Around this time, the tenor of the interview changed. 

Mulhern frequently interrupted the defendant and, for a period 

of about twenty minutes, screamed at him in an accusatory tone. 

The defendant hung his head, but did not buckle. At this point, 

now about ninety minutes into the interview, the defendant 

appeared to be tired and started answering some questions with 

his head down. He adamantly insisted that he did not push or 

"tussle" with the victim or put his hands on him accidentally or 

during an argument. The defendant was not easily led by the 

officers and spontaneously clarified several matters.

At one point the officers left the defendant alone for 

several minutes, during which time he sniffled and his legs were 

shaking. The defendant rubbed his eyes and looked exhausted. 

When the officers returned, the defendant continued to give 
23

coherent, exculpatory responses although visibly tired. For 

example, when confronted with the fact that bedding (from the 

apartment) had been stripped and left in a dumpster, the 

defendant denied having done that. He stated that he had not 

touched the bedding and that cameras at the location would show 

that he "didn't do shit." He also did not let himself be 

trapped by Mulhern's mischaracterizations of what he had said. 

After about one hour and fifty minutes of questioning had 

elapsed, the defendant reiterated his statement that he had 

bolted from the apartment. Although his legs were shaking and 

he was tired, the defendant was sufficiently alert after two 

hours of interrogation to divulge the password on his cellular 

telephone and to go through photographs shown to him by police, 

indicating what persons he did and did not recognize. He was 

also careful to identify one person as "looking like" one of the 

men who had been in the apartment fighting with the victim.

The defendant had self-protective explanations for, among 

other things, the pain in his groin, the money found in his 

pocket ($1,600), the injury to his upper lip, a fresh scratch, 

the blood on his clothes, the time discrepancies in his 

statements, and his delay in taking the victim to the hospital. 

From the defendant's responses, it was clear that he understood 

what the officers were asking him and saying to him. He showed 

himself to be quick-witted and consistently self-protective. 
24

While he added details as the interview proceeded, the defendant 

did not at any point admit any involvement in the victim's 

death.

After viewing the photographs, the defendant's exhaustion 

began to overcome his ability to speak in a fashion such that 

his statements could be considered the product of a rational 

intellect and free will. The defendant's physical state, 

compounded by Mulhern's shouting, made it unlikely that the 

defendant's statements from this point onward were the result of 

his free and willing act.16 When left alone for two minutes, the 

defendant moaned and mumbled. His legs shook badly, and his 

head lolled back and forth. When the officers returned, about 

two and one-half hours into the interview, the defendant 

continued speaking, but his head was usually facing down and 

leaning to the side. His legs were constantly shaking. He did 

not make much eye contact with the officers, and his responses 

were often too inaudible to be coherent. His demeanor was so 

indicative of someone who had lost his ability to focus that 

Mulhern commented, "I mean you're falling apart . . . doing 

drugs and dealing drugs . . . ." The defendant was half-asleep,

and he rubbed his eyes often, yawned, and barely was able to 

 

16 The judge specified the page of the transcript of the 

video recording, which had been admitted in two parts at the 

evidentiary hearing, and would have been approximately two hours 

and six minutes into the first recording.
25

keep his eyes open. The questioning, however, did not stop. 

When a few minutes later the defendant asked if they could 

finish the interview the next day, he was rebuffed. As the 

defendant continued to insist that he was "exhausted out of 

[his] mind," Mulhern started to scream at him again.

After about two hours and thirty-six minutes of 

questioning, the defendant twice asked for a lawyer, which 

Mulhern and Spencer simply ignored. Spencer finally ended the 

interview, at which point the defendant was arrested for 

misleading a police officer under the witness intimidation 

statute. He later was charged with murder in the first degree.

The motion judge concluded that the defendant had not been

in "custody" for purposes of the requirements of Miranda v. 

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), until Mulhern instructed that 

the interview at the hospital would continue at the police 

station and directed a uniformed officer to take the defendant 

there.17 The judge further determined that the defendant was in 

custody at the station when he was given Miranda warnings. The 

judge concluded that after the defendant was given the Miranda 

warnings, he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived 

 

17 Although the defendant did not receive Miranda warnings 

before being escorted to the police cruiser, the judge noted 

that he was not asked any questions and did not make any 

statements during the ride or before the Miranda warnings were 

given to him at the police station.
26

them. She did not consider his initial statement that he would 

"feel more comfortable" with a lawyer as an unambiguous 

invocation of the right to counsel.

Noting that the defendant's initial waiver of the Miranda 

rights does not irretrievably bind him, the judge pointed out 

that the Commonwealth conceded that the defendant unambiguously 

invoked his right to counsel when he stated after two hours and 

thirty-six minutes of questioning that he needed a lawyer. 

While the judge agreed that the defendant had invoked his right 

to counsel at this point, she determined that somewhat earlier 

in the interrogation (see note 16, supra), the defendant's 

statements were no longer voluntary. The judge based her 

conclusion on the circumstances of Mulhern's shouting at the 

defendant, the defendant's state of exhaustion, and the aftereffects of whatever substance the defendant had ingested during 

the day. Suppression of the defendant's statements from that 

point of the interview and onward therefore was necessary. 

Based on these findings, the motion judge denied in part and 

allowed in part the defendant's motion to suppress.

b. Standard of review. "We review de novo any findings of 

the motion judge that were based entirely on the documentary 

evidence, i.e., the recorded interviews of the defendant." 

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 469 Mass. 531, 539 (2014). "We accept 

other findings that were based on testimony at the evidentiary 
27

hearing and do not disturb them where they are not clearly 

erroneous." Id. "However, we 'make an independent 

determination as to the correctness of the judge's application 

of constitutional principles to the facts as found.'" Id., 

quoting Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 460 Mass. 199, 205 (2011).

c. Validity of waiver of Miranda rights. The defendant 

argues that his waiver of Miranda rights was invalid because it 

was not knowingly and voluntarily made. Because the defendant

was advised of, and waived, the Miranda rights, the issue 

becomes whether the Commonwealth has proved "the validity of a 

Miranda waiver beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. 

Edwards, 420 Mass. 666, 669 (1995). See Commonwealth v. LeBeau, 

451 Mass. 244, 254-255 (2008). "To be valid the waiver must be 

made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." Edwards, supra

at 670. "In determining whether a waiver was made voluntarily, 

the court must examine the totality of the circumstances 

surrounding the making of the waiver." Id. "Relevant factors 

to consider include, but are not limited to, 'promises or other 

inducements, conduct of the defendant, the defendant's age, 

education, intelligence, and emotional stability, experience 

with and in the criminal justice system, physical and mental 

condition, the initiator of a deal or leniency (whether the 

defendant or police), and the details of the interrogation, 

including the recitation of Miranda warnings.'" Commonwealth v. 
28

Jackson, 432 Mass. 82, 86 (2000), quoting Commonwealth v. 

Mandile, 397 Mass. 410, 413 (1986).

The defendant challenges the judge's conclusion that his 

waiver was valid for several factual reasons, including that he 

had not been asked whether he wished to waive his rights; he had 

not been asked whether he wished to speak with police; and the 

fact that his signature on the notification of rights form 

indicated only that he was advised of the Miranda warnings, not 

that he had waived them. The defendant also argues that he 

"obviously" was undergoing drug withdrawal. We conclude that 

the judge's findings and conclusions are supported by the 

evidence.

The defendant signed the notification of rights form, which 

expressly indicates that the person signing understands the 

Miranda rights and "knowingly waive[s]" those rights; heard the 

recitation of the Miranda warnings; and nodded, which reasonably 

could be inferred as indicating that he understood them. 

Thereafter, he engaged in discussion with the officers. "This 

conduct hardly expressed an unwillingness to continue speaking 

with police that could be 'considered tantamount to the exercise 

of the right to remain silent.'" Commonwealth v. Garcia, 443 

Mass. 824, 833 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Selby, 420 Mass. 

656, 662 (1995). Further, during the admitted portion of the 

interview, the defendant appeared alert, coherent, calm for the 
29

most part, and appropriately responsive, and appeared to 

understand the situation and what was asked of him. He was 

drinking a beverage, and the interview was conducted in an 

interview room as opposed to a cell. Although the defendant 

very well may have been under the influence of drugs, there was 

no evidence that the defendant's resulting physical condition 

was so disabling as to render his waiver invalid. The judge 

thoroughly considered the evidence concerning the defendant's 

likely drug use, which does not compel a conclusion that his 

Miranda waiver was invalid. See Commonwealth v. Howard, 469 

Mass. 721, 728 n.7 (2014), and cases cited; Commonwealth v. 

Walker, 466 Mass. 268, 274-275 (2013). See also Commonwealth v. 

Brown, 462 Mass. 620, 625-627 (2012). The evidence supports the 

judge's conclusion that the defendant's Miranda waiver was 

valid.18

d. Invocation of right to counsel. The defendant contends 

that the motion judge erred in concluding that his statement, 

made after he was given the Miranda warnings, "I would feel more 

comfortable if I had a lawyer right now talking, but if you want 

 

18 Based on our independent review of the video recording of 

the interview, the judge was warranted in concluding beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the defendant's statements, made up until 

the point where she suppressed them, were made voluntarily. See 

Commonwealth v. Medeiros, 395 Mass. 336, 343 (1985) (although 

voluntariness and Miranda waiver and voluntariness of statement 

are distinct inquiries, totality of circumstances test under 

each analysis is same).
30

to show me pictures and names, I'll give it to you," was an 

ambiguous and therefore ineffective invocation of the right to 

counsel. We reject the defendant's contention.

During a custodial interrogation, "[i]f the accused 

indicates that he wishes to remain silent, 'the interrogation 

must cease.' If he requests counsel, the interrogation must 

cease until an attorney is present." Commonwealth v. Santos, 

463 Mass. 273, 285 (2012), quoting Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 

477, 481 (1981). The request or invocation of counsel must be 

"a sufficiently clear statement such 'that a reasonable police 

officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to 

be a request for an attorney.'" Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 461 Mass. 

143, 150 (2011), quoting Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 

459 (1994).

Here, the defendant's statement, when viewed in context, 

was not an unambiguous request for counsel and reflected a 

desire ultimately to go forward with questioning without an 

attorney. "When a suspect's statement . . . simply reflects his 

musing about the possibility of stopping the questioning until 

he has spoken with an attorney, we have consistently found the 

statement to be too ambiguous to constitute an unequivocal 

invocation of the right to counsel." Commonwealth v. Morganti, 

455 Mass. 388, 398 (2009), S.C., 467 Mass. 96, cert. denied, 135 
31

S. Ct. 356 (2014). We conclude that the defendant's statement 

falls into this category.

The defendant further argues that, even if his invocation 

of the right to counsel had been ambiguous, the police were 

required under art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of 

Rights to clarify the defendant's intent before proceeding with 

questioning. In support of this contention, he cites to 

Commonwealth v. Clarke, 461 Mass. 336, 349 (2012), and Santos, 

463 Mass. at 286. Those cases, however, do not support the 

defendant's argument that such a clarification was required 

here. In Santos, supra at 285-286, we suggested clarification 

as the better practice because the defendant initially had 

unequivocally invoked his right to counsel but then continued, 

without any intervening comment or question by police, to speak. 

We concluded that, in those circumstances, the police could have 

been uncertain concerning the nature and scope of the 

defendant's invocation, and before recommencing questioning 

would be "entitled to ask a question to clarify the defendant's 

intent." Id. at 286. In Clarke, supra at 343, we dealt with a 

defendant's unequivocal invocation of his right to remain 

silent, not an invocation of a right to counsel. No 

clarification is required where, as the judge found here, the 

defendant equivocated, stating only that he would "feel more 

comfortable with an attorney."
32

e. Statutory right to a telephone call. We reject the 

defendant's argument that his statements during the interview 

should be suppressed because the police did not afford him his 

statutory right under G. L. c. 276, § 33A, to use the telephone 

when he arrived at the police station or after questioning had 

exceeded one hour. This right "did not accrue until he was 

formally arrested." Commonwealth v. Hampton, 457 Mass. 152, 159 

(2010). See Commonwealth v. Dagley, 442 Mass. 713, 719 (2004), 

cert. denied, 544 U.S. 930 (2005); Commonwealth v. Rivera, 441 

Mass. 358, 374-375 (2004).

f. Detention of the defendant. For the first time on 

appeal the defendant argues that his involuntary transport to 

the police station for questioning amounted to an unlawful 

arrest under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration 

of Rights because it was not supported by probable cause.19 He 

asserts that the entirety of his interview with police therefore 

should be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal arrest. Last, 

the recitation of the Miranda warnings, he contends, did not 

purge the taint of the illegal arrest. Because the defendant 

did not raise this claim below, we review for error and, if so, 

 

19 The defendant does not argue that art. 14 of the 

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights affords him any greater 

protection than that afforded by the Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution.
33

whether the error caused a substantial likelihood of a 

miscarriage of justice. See Commonwealth v. Tu Trinh, 458 Mass.

776, 782-783 (2011).

Generally speaking, there are three categories of policecitizen encounters: "(1) consensual encounters which do not 

implicate the Fourth Amendment;[20] (2) investigative detentions

which are Fourth Amendment seizures of limited scope and 

duration which must be supported by a reasonable suspicion of 

criminal activity[,21 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968);] and (3) 

arrests, the most intrusive of Fourth Amendment seizures and 

reasonable only if supported by probable cause." United States

v. Madden, 682 F.3d 920, 925 (10th Cir. 2012). Here, the 

judge's decision did not address the issue (because the 

 

20 Submission to a claim of authority is not synonymous with 

voluntary consent. See Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 631 

(2003); United States v. Perez-Montanez, 202 F.3d 434, 438 (1st 

Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 886 (2000). There was no evidence 

that the officers told the defendant that he was free not to 

enter the cruiser to go to the police station.

21 The parameter of an investigatory stop is exceeded if it 

"continues indefinitely[;] at some point it can no longer be 

justified as an investigative stop." United States v. Sharpe, 

470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985). While "the brevity of the invasion of 

the individual's Fourth Amendment interests is an important 

factor in determining whether the seizure is so minimally 

intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion," United 

States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983), the Supreme Court has 

emphasized "the need to consider the law enforcement purposes to 

be served by the stop as well as the time reasonably needed to 

effectuate those purposes," Sharpe, supra.
34

defendant did not make the argument below), but her findings 

instruct our conclusion.

The judge found that once Mulhern determined that further 

questioning would continue at the police station and directed an 

officer to transport the defendant there, the defendant was in 

custody, albeit for purposes of Miranda. She further found, 

based on the notification of rights form designating the 

defendant as a "person in custody," and statements made by the 

interviewing officers, that a reasonable person in the 

defendant's position would not have felt free to leave. We 

agree with the defendant that, in these circumstances, his 

involuntary transport and detention for interrogation purposes 

amounted to a "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes and became 

the functional equivalent of an arrest.22

In Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 629 (2003), the United 

States Supreme Court stated the settled rule that "involuntary 

 

22 The judge expressly discredited Taunton police Detective 

Shawn Mulhern's testimony that the defendant acquiesced or 

actually agreed to go to the police station for questioning. 

Cf. Commonwealth v. Cruz, 373 Mass. 676, 683 (1977) (no illegal 

detention of defendant where defendant consented to enter police 

cruiser and go to station for questioning). We add that there 

was no evidence that Mulhern sought to relocate the defendant to 

the police station for safety or security issues. Cf. Florida

v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 504-505 (1983) ("there are undoubtedly 

reasons of safety and security that would justify moving a 

suspect from one location to another during an investigatory 

detention, such as from an airport concourse to a more private 

area").
35

transport to a police station for questioning is 'sufficiently 

like arres[t] to invoke the traditional rule that arrests may 

constitutionally be made only on probable cause.'" Id. at 630, 

quoting Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985). See Florida

v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 503 (1983) (concluding that airport 

detention exceeded limits of investigatory stop and amounted to 

de facto arrest); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212 (1979) 

(concluding that where petitioner was taken from neighbor's home 

to police vehicle, transported to police station, and placed in 

interrogation room, detention was "indistinguishable" from 

traditional arrest and required probable cause or judicial 

authorization); United States v. Ryan, 729 F. Supp. 2d 479, 487 

(D. Mass. 2010) (stating that limitation on valid investigatory 

stop is that suspect may not be removed to police station 

without his or her consent). Indeed, "the line is crossed when 

the police, without probable cause or a warrant, forcibly remove 

a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to 

be and transport him to the police station, where he is 

detained, although briefly, for investigative purposes." Hayes, 

supra. "In the name of investigating a person who is no more 

than suspected of criminal activity, the police may not . . . 

seek to verify their suspicions by means that approach the 

conditions of an arrest." Royer, 460 U.S. at 499. "Nothing is 

more clear than that the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent 
36

wholesale intrusions upon the personal security of our 

citizenry, whether these intrusions be termed 'arrests' or 

'investigatory detentions.'" Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 

721, 726-727 (1969). See 2 W.E. Ringel, Searches and Seizures, 

Arrests and Confessions § 23:5, at 23-18 (2d ed. 2014) (Supreme 

Court has held that when police take suspect involuntarily for 

station house questioning, such custodial detention requires 

probable cause as it is equivalent to formal arrest; 

investigatory detentions not requiring probable cause must be 

brief in duration and not lengthy investigation to develop 

probable cause). Many United Stated Circuit Courts of Appeals 

have followed this precedent.23

 

23 See, e.g., Centanni v. Eight Unknown Officers, 15 F.3d 

587, 591 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994) (removal 

of suspect from scene of stop generally marks point at which 

Fourth Amendment demands probable cause; "there is no such thing 

as a Terry 'transportation'"); United States v. Parr, 843 F.2d 

1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 1988) (line between investigatory stops and 

arrests may be drawn on point of transporting defendant to 

police station); United States v. Hernandez, 825 F.2d 846, 851 

(5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1068 (1988) (removal of 

suspect from scene of stop to police headquarters usually marks 

point when investigative stop becomes de facto arrest); United 

States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 1987) (transporting 

suspect to police station exceeds limits of Terry-type stop and 

becomes unlawful arrest); United States v. Gonzalez, 763 F.2d 

1127, 1133 (10th Cir. 1985) (forcing suspect to go to police 

station crosses line into de facto arrest).
37

Because there was no probable cause to arrest the 

defendant24 or judicial authorization to do so, "well-established 

precedent requires suppression of the [statement] unless that 

[statement] was 'an act of free will [sufficient] to purge the 

primary taint of the unlawful invasion.'" Kaupp, 538 U.S. at 

632-633, quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486 

(1963). See Commonwealth v. Damiano, 444 Mass. 444, 453 (2005). 

Demonstrating that the underlying illegality is purged from 

taint falls on the Commonwealth. See Kaupp, supra at 633; 

Damiano, supra at 454. Relevant considerations include "(1) the 

temporal proximity of the admission to the arrest; (2) the 

presence of intervening circumstances between the arrest and the 

admission; (3) the observance of the Miranda rule subsequent to 

the unlawful arrest; and (4) the purpose and flagrancy of the 

official misconduct." Damiano, supra at 455. The observance of 

the Miranda rule standing alone is insufficient to remove the 

taint of an unlawful detention. See Kaupp, supra; Commonwealth

v. Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244, 258 (1982).

Although the officers recited the Miranda warnings to the 

defendant, consideration of the remaining factors reveals little 

to no attenuation between the arrest and interrogation. The 

defendant was questioned within ten minutes of arriving at the 

 

24 The Commonwealth concedes this point, and the judge's 

findings warrant it, as the officers testified that the 

defendant had not yet become a suspect in the victim's killing.
38

police station, and no intervening circumstances occurred before 

the interview commenced. Further, in transporting the defendant 

to the police station for interrogation, the police sought 

expediently to confirm or to dispel whether the defendant had 

involvement in the victim's death. On balance of the factors, 

we conclude that the Commonwealth has not satisfied its burden 

here.

Our conclusion that the defendant's statement resulted from 

an unlawful arrest does not end our inquiry. We must determine, 

under the circumstances, whether the erroneous admission of the 

defendant's interview with police (the portion that the motion 

judge did not suppress) created a substantial likelihood of a 

miscarriage of justice. See Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 469 Mass. 

410, 417 (2014). The relevant inquiry is whether the jury's 

verdict finding that the defendant was guilty of felony-murder 

would likely have been the same had the interview been 

suppressed. Id.

The defendant argues that his recorded interview was the 

"clearest and least equivocal evidence that any robbery or 

attempted robbery actually took place in the apartment." We 

disagree. The evidence, apart from the defendant's statements 

to the police during the recorded interview, was strongly 

supportive of the Commonwealth's theory that the defendant had 

participated in a joint venture to rob the victim on the night 
39

of the murder. We recount the relevant evidence below to 

illustrate the point.

The defendant had already told police at the hospital that 

the victim was at the apartment for a drug deal; that three men 

entered, some of whom had guns; that the defendant escaped 

downstairs to his sister's apartment; and that, after the men 

left, the defendant found the victim alive, but badly beaten. 

Thus, the purpose of the encounter with the victim did not 

derive solely from the defendant's recorded interview.

Although the defendant denied any involvement in the crime, 

it was the defendant's wife who firmly placed the defendant in 

the midst of the scheme to rob the victim. Her testimony that 

the defendant instructed the victim to meet at Stenstream's 

apartment instead of his wife's apartment as originally planned; 

that the defendant packaged between $42,000 and $58,000 in cash 

and took it with him when he left to meet the victim; and that 

the defendant questioned someone on the telephone before he left 

for Stenstream's apartment as to whether he was "going to get it 

back" established the defendant as a willing and necessary 

participant in the plot to rob the victim. Also, Matteson's 

testimony that Morin, the day before the killing, had informed 

him of a plot involving Morin, the defendant, and others to rob 

the victim at an apartment owned by the defendant further 

corroborated the defendant's wife's extremely damaging 
40

testimony. From this testimony, the jury reasonably could have 

inferred that the defendant was involved in a robbery or 

attempted robbery of the victim.

To be sure, some of the defendant's statements in his 

recorded interview added information that the jury did not hear 

or learn elsewhere at trial. For instance, in the recorded 

interview the defendant stated that the victim told the three 

men that they owed him money and that the victim had a large 

plastic bag in his pocket that contained drugs. This 

information, however, did not implicate the defendant in the

robbery or attempted robbery.

While the defendant's recorded interrogation added for the 

first time that one of the men hit the victim with a gun, that 

detail did not add anything of significant value, as the 

defendant kept to his story that he "bolted" as soon as he had 

the opportunity and that he did not have any involvement with 

the three men and the incident that occurred.

Also, the defendant's admission in his recorded interview 

that $1,000, from the $1,600 discovered on his person that 

night, was payment from the victim for use of the apartment was 

not relevant to the defendant's participation in a robbery or 

attempted robbery of the victim. Rather, the admission 

concerning the money only strengthened the Commonwealth's 

existing evidence that the defendant was at that time, contrary 
41

to his statements, still involved in drug dealing and perhaps 

even this particular drug deal. None of the defendant's 

statements suggested that the drug deal was a ruse for a robbery 

or attempted robbery. That suggestion came from Matteson during 

his trial testimony.

We turn now to the information obtained from the 

defendant's cellular telephone, which the defendant argues 

derived from the illegal interrogation. While at the hospital 

when he was not in custody, the defendant granted permission to 

police to look at his cellular telephone. From this 

examination, police learned that the defendant's cellular 

telephone recently had been in communication with Morin's 

telephone numerous times. Further, as we have already noted, 

the defendant's wife testified about communications between 

Morin and the defendant on the day before the victim's death, 

and a telephone call from Morin looking for the defendant after 

something had "happened" with "that kid" who was "tough." Also, 

telephone records of Morin's cellular telephone independently 

supported the prosecutor's suggestion that the telephones of the 

two men had been in frequent communication before and after the 

victim's death. The defendant's telephone records were 

cumulative of Morin's records and other evidence, and any effect 

on the jury from their admission thus was minimal.
42

A close examination of the defendant's statements in the 

recording shows that his statements strengthened the 

Commonwealth's claim that the defendant was involved in drugs 

and drug dealing, but not in a robbery or attempted robbery of 

the victim. Concerning the robbery or attempted robbery, the 

interview bore little on the jury's determination that the 

defendant was a joint venturer in the robbery or attempted 

robbery of the victim. The significant evidence, which the 

defendant overlooks, was the testimony of his sister and her 

husband regarding what they heard that night above them; his 

wife's testimony regarding the events of the night; and 

Matteson's testimony that Morin had revealed to Matteson what 

had been planned and who was involved the day before the 

victim's death. In these circumstances, we conclude that no 

substantial likelihood of a miscarriage occurred by the 

erroneous admission of the defendant's statements made during 

his interview with police.

2. Motion to withdraw. The defendant argues that the 

judge erred in "forcing" him to trial with defense counsel who 

unsuccessfully had sought to withdraw his representation of the 

defendant just two days before trial. He further contends that 

he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel 

because he was forced to stand trial with defense counsel who 
43

did not want to represent him and who purportedly had admitted 

to preparing his defense at a "low level."

On October 29, 2012, which was two days prior to trial, 

defense counsel, who was retained by the defendant and his 

family, filed a motion to withdraw. In support of that motion, 

defense counsel filed an affidavit stating the following. 

Communication between defense counsel and the defendant had 

"broken down." Defense counsel had learned that the defendant 

recently had accused him of "jamming him up," not preparing his 

case, and forcing him to accept a plea to murder in the second 

degree. The defendant had telephoned his office on October 25 

and had told an associate that he was dissatisfied with defense 

counsel's representation and no longer wished for him to serve 

as his trial counsel. Defense counsel indicated that the 

defendant felt that counsel was not acting in the defendant's 

best interests; that he had not properly prepared the 

defendant's case; and that, by advising the defendant to take a 

plea, he had abandoned the defendant's case. Defense counsel 

stated that the defendant wanted to be heard by the court and 

that he had advised the defendant and his family that they 

needed to arrange for successor counsel. Defense counsel went 

on to state that, notwithstanding the defendant's position, he 

was continuing to prepare the case for trial. Defense counsel 

also represented that, with several exceptions regarding some 
44

specific pretrial preparation (preparing a witness list, for 

example), he had been fully prepared for trial prior to the 

defendant's telephone call on October 25.

The judge, who was also the trial judge, held a hearing on 

October 29. The defendant explained:

"I no longer trust [defense counsel], I lost all my 

faith in him. I feel [that he] hasn't taken my best 

interest, fifteen to life, when I'm one hundred per cent 

innocent. He also told me he'll put no more effort into my 

case. I'm indigent. And I have lawyers that state that, 

your Honor. On top of that, writing letters that you're 

going to proceed on my trial at a low level."

The defendant added that he was dissatisfied because he 

requested, but was not afforded, either an expert to review the 

medical examiner's autopsy report or a private investigator to 

speak with "a few people." The defendant also wanted "some 

motions in" after he "lost" the suppression motion.

The letters to which the defendant referred included one 

dated October 15, 2012, from defense counsel to the defendant, 

which the defendant submitted to the judge. In the one-page 

letter, defense counsel expressed concern regarding the large 

amount owed for his services and expenditures. Defense counsel 

also wrote, "Much work remains on your case although I am ready 

on a low level. I feel however you want additional work and I 

am willing to provide it subject to me getting paid."

Defense counsel confirmed at the hearing that he had sent 

the defendant the October 15 letter. He explained what he meant 
45

by the phrase "low level," which included preparing indexes for 

every police report, every grand jury hearing, and every other 

hearing, including the extensive suppression hearing. "Low 

level" preparation, according to defense counsel, did not 

constitute extensive trial preparation, which involves working 

"day and night" and weekends in order to try the case when the 

trial date is firm. When defense counsel authored the letter, 

he was not yet conducting actual trial preparation.

Defense counsel told the judge that communication between 

him and the defendant deteriorated for several reasons, 

including that the defendant refused to accept the impact of our 

decision in Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449, 466-468 

(2009), which effectively erased the distinction between 

principal and joint liability with regard to joint venture 

liability. In addition, defense counsel informed the judge that 

he had consulted at least two doctors to review the autopsy 

report, and the defendant did not want to accept their opinions 

that there was no basis to dispute the victim's cause of death. 

The defendant also "reject[ed] entirely" the fact that his wife, 

who apparently was not going to testify against him, had changed 

her mind and would be testifying "to some major things that are 

very problematic." Another damaging fact that the defendant 

refused to accept was his sister Lucia's expected testimony 

that, on the night of the killing, after the group had run out 
46

of Stenstream's apartment, she heard the defendant and another 

voice from Stenstream's apartment, which was significant because 

the testimony supported an inference that the victim had been 

alive and alone with the defendant. Defense counsel stated that 

his plea recommendation had nothing to do with "the payment of 

fees, but an evaluation of the evidence."25

Defense counsel sought to withdraw, but stated he would "do 

[his] best" were the judge to order him to proceed. The judge 

ruled that the defendant had the right to bring in new counsel 

"provided new counsel is prepared to impanel this case [in two 

days]." The judge noted that the case commenced in "the early 

portion of 2010" and that the Commonwealth "can be prejudiced by 

the denial of a speedy trial as its witnesses' memories may dull 

and wane by the passage of time." The judge added that the 

motion judge had actually agreed with defense counsel regarding 

a portion of the motion to suppress, so that it was not fair to 

 

25 Without citation to any authority, the defendant's 

appellate counsel suggests that the defendant's trial counsel 

revealed communications that were protected by the attorneyclient privilege. We have stated, however, where a defendant 

"essentially accuse[s] trial counsel of incompetence in 

circumstances covered by the attorney-client privilege and to 

which the only witnesses were the defendant and trial counsel,

the privilege must be deemed waived, in part, to permit counsel 

to disclose only those confidences necessary and relevant to the 

defense of the charge of ineffective assistance of counsel." 

Commonwealth v. Silva, 455 Mass. 503, 529 (2009), and cases 

cited. Here, defense counsel acted appropriately, revealing 

communications that were responsive and relevant to the 

defendant's claims of ineffective assistance.
47

state that the motion had been lost. The judge stated that an 

attorney is not to "operate simply as an accommodating party" 

and is required to be effective in plea negotiations in addition 

to a trial. He validated the challenges defense counsel faced 

based on the circumstances and facts of the case. Last, the 

judge rejected the accusation that defense counsel had abandoned 

the defendant, pointing to his voir dire questions and motions 

in limine that had been filed.

The judge declined to continue the case to permit the 

defendant to obtain new counsel. The defendant stated that he 

did not see how it could be possible to try the case in two days 

with new counsel. The judge denied the motion to withdraw.

We review the denial of a motion to withdraw counsel for 

abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Rice, 441 Mass. 291, 297 

(2004). We also review the denial of a request for a 

continuance for abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Ray, 467 

Mass. 115, 128 (2014).

"The Sixth Amendment [to the United States Constitution] 

guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel, but it 

'does not invariably require a "meaningful attorney-client 

relationship."'" Commonwealth v. Britto, 433 Mass. 596, 600 

(2001), quoting Commonwealth v. Tuitt, 393 Mass. 801, 806 

(1985). "Freedom to change counsel . . . is restricted on the 

commencement of trial." Commonwealth v. Chavis, 415 Mass. 703, 
48

711 (1993). "A motion to discharge counsel, when made on the 

eve of trial, or on the day on which trial is scheduled to 

begin, 'is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial 

judge.'" Tuitt, supra at 804, quoting Commonwealth v. Moran, 

388 Mass. 655, 659 (1983). There is no "mechanical test" that 

applies. Chavis, supra. A trial judge is to "balance the 

movant's need for additional time against the possible 

inconvenience, increased costs, and prejudice which may be 

incurred by the opposing party if the motion is granted. He 

must also give due weight to the interest in the judicial system 

in avoiding delays which would not measurably contribute to the 

resolution of a particular controversy." Id., quoting 

Commonwealth v. Cavanaugh, 371 Mass. 46, 51 (1976).

Turning to requests for continuances, we have explained 

that "there is no 'mechanical test' for determining whether the 

denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion 

because we must examine the unique circumstances of each case, 

particularly the reasons underlying the request." Commonwealth

v. Pena, 462 Mass. 183, 190 (2012). "A judge should grant a 

continuance only when justice so requires, balancing the 

requesting party's need for additional time against concerns 

about inconvenience, cost, potential prejudice, and the burden 

of the delay on both the parties and the judicial system." Ray, 

467 Mass. at 128. "[C]ognizant of a criminal defendant's 
49

constitutional entitlement to assistance of counsel, who 'must 

be afforded "a reasonable opportunity to prepare and to present 

the defence,"'" id. at 128-129, quoting Cavanaugh, 371 Mass. at 

50, we have cautioned that "a trial judge may not exercise his 

discretion in such a way as to impair" this right. Ray, supra

at 129, quoting Commonwealth v. Miles, 420 Mass. 67, 85 (1995).

Here, the judge gave the defendant the opportunity to 

explain his reasons for his dissatisfaction with defense counsel 

and acted within his discretion in denying both the motion to 

withdraw and the request for a continuance. See Chavis, 415 

Mass. at 712 (judge gave defendant "fair opportunity to explain 

the reasons for his dissatisfaction with trial counsel"). The 

judge appropriately gave consideration to the facts that the 

case was scheduled for trial in two days, the defendant had been 

indicted some two years earlier, and he had not engaged 

successor counsel. The judge did not misstate the law 

concerning a defendant's right to a speedy trial, but rather, in 

context, properly considered the defendant's needs against the 

legitimate needs of judicial administration, including the need 

for witness testimony to be unhindered due to the passage of 

time. See Commonwealth v. Gilchrest, 364 Mass. 272, 276 (1973). 

The judge could properly take such matters into account even in 

the absence of evidence of a calculated effort made by the 

defendant to postpone the trial.
50

The judge considered the nature and seriousness of the 

conflict between the defendant and his counsel. See Rice, 441 

Mass. at 297. Implicit in the judge's conclusion was that he 

credited defense counsel's explanation of what he meant by using 

the phrase "low level." Further, the judge credited defense 

counsel's statements that he was prepared for trial, noting his 

extensive trial preparation efforts, namely the motions he had 

filed on the defendant's behalf and the filings submitted in 

preparation of jury empanelment. Cf. Cavanaugh, 371 Mass. at 

48, 57 (error to deny continuance where defense counsel stated 

he was not prepared). The judge explored the allegations that 

defense counsel had not met all of the defendant's demands, 

finding them unreasonable or unsupported in the circumstances. 

For these reasons, there is no basis for the defendant's 

argument that the judge abused his discretion in failing to 

reach a different conclusion, namely, that defense counsel had 

"washed his hands" of the defendant and was willing to put in 

only minimal effort for trial. See Britto, 433 Mass. at 601 

(stating that counsel's failure to meet all of defendant's 

demands does not equate with "an irreconcilable breakdown of 

communication").

Last, concerning the defendant's claim that he was deprived 

of the effective assistance of trial counsel because he was 

forced to stand trial with defense counsel who did not want to 
51

represent him and who purportedly had admitted to preparing his 

defense at a "low level," the "ultimate question is whether the 

defendant likely would be denied the effective assistance of 

counsel if counsel is not removed." Id. Based on the record 

before us, we conclude that the defendant has failed to make the 

requisite showing.

3. Ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant's 

ineffective assistance of counsel argument is predicated on the 

claims of error we have already addressed and, thus, lacks

merit.

4. Relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Pursuant to 

our statutory duty, we discern no basis to reduce the verdict or 

to order a new trial pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Conclusion. We reverse the order denying in part the 

defendant's motion to suppress statements. We affirm the order 

denying defense counsel's motion to withdraw. We affirm the 

defendant's conviction.

So ordered.