BOSTON, Aug. 18, 2015—The Supreme Judicial Court today reversed a judge’s order that would have kept cell tower records out of evidence in the 2004 domestic violence murder of Julaine Jules, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

The 20-page decision, authored by Justice Margot Botsford for the unanimous court, vacates an order by Superior Court Judge Peter Krupp, who last year ruled that an affidavit by Massachusetts State Police investigating Jules’ murder had not established probable cause to believe that the cell tower records would produce evidence in the case or aid in the apprehension of the person responsible – in this case, prosecutors allege, SHABAZZ AUGUSTINE (D.O.B. 2/19/79), Jules’ one-time romantic partner.

On Aug. 24, 2004, after learning that Jules had been seeing another man, Augustine allegedly concocted a ruse to lure her from her Fort Point office to his Dorchester home, killed her, wrapped her remains in plastic and weighted them down, dumped them in the Charles River, and then set her car on fire in Malden near the Revere border.

More than three weeks later, Jules’ remains were spotted on the Cambridge side of the river and, as a result, the Middlesex DA’s office took the lead on the investigation. As part of their probe, investigators obtained a court order from a Superior Court judge for telephone call cell site location information under the prevailing statute. Filing a detailed affidavit, State troopers sought and received the cell site location information, or CSLI, for an 11-day period following Jules’ disappearance.

In 2011, after continued investigation and a lengthy presentation to the Suffolk County Grand Jury, Augustine was indicted for Jules’ murder and moved to suppress the phone records because they were obtained with a judicial order pursuant to the relevant federal law. In 2014, the SJC announced that CSLI records required a search warrant supported by probable cause rather than a judicial order supported by specific and articulable facts showing that the evidence is relevant and material to an ongoing investigation.

The high court then remanded the case back to the Superior Court to determine whether the six-page affidavit filed in support of the judicial order established probable cause. The Superior Court ruled that it did not. Prosecutors appealed that ruling, and the high court today found that prosecutors had met their burden for the critical three-day period following the last day Jules was seen alive.

“On this, we disagree with the motion judge’s determination that the affidavit does not provide the requisite probable cause, and conclude that the defendant’s CSLI likely will produce evidence of these offenses,” Botsford wrote. “The … affidavit offers significant support for the conclusion that the defendant committed the arson [of Jules’ car], and implicates him in the murder as well.”

Prosecutors hailed the decision.

“Investigators took every appropriate step in obtaining this evidence, and the high court made the right call in reversing its suppression,” Conley said. “In 2004, some 10 years before it was legally required, they provided a judge with a detailed affidavit that would have supported a search warrant even though, at the time, they were obliged to meet a significantly lower standard.”

Assistant District Attorney Cailin Campbell of the DA’s Appellate Division argued the case before the SJC. Assistant District Attorney Mark Lee, deputy chief of the DA’s Homicide Unit, is the lead prosecutor. Augustine is represented by attorney Steven Sack.

–30–

All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.