You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Petition of the Dist. Attorney for the Plymouth Dist.

Citations: 464 N.E.2d 62; 391 Mass. 723; 1984 Mass. LEXIS 1471

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; April 23, 1984; Massachusetts; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts examined a petition from the Plymouth District Attorney to compel a witness to testify before a grand jury, despite the witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Commonwealth sought to grant the witness immunity under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 233, Section 20E, but the court found that it failed to adhere to the statutory requirements for doing so. The court emphasized that immunity must be granted in accordance with specific procedures, and the use of a grand jury solely to obtain immunity was deemed improper. The court also considered whether the witness had waived his Fifth Amendment rights by previously testifying before another grand jury, leaving this determination to a trial judge. The court declined to use its superintendency powers to grant immunity under G.L. c. 211, § 3, citing the absence of a substantial rights violation. Ultimately, the application for immunity was denied, and the case was remanded to a single justice. This decision underscores the necessity of following statutory protocols when seeking to compel testimony through immunity and the limitations of grand jury usage in such contexts.

Legal Issues Addressed

Court's Superintendency Power and Immunity

Application: The court refrained from exercising its superintendency power under G.L. c. 211, § 3 to grant immunity, due to lack of a substantial rights violation.

Reasoning: The court also refrained from deciding on its authority to grant immunity under G.L. c. 211, § 3, concluding that there was no substantial claim of rights violation to warrant extraordinary relief.

Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Application: The court addressed whether a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was valid when the Commonwealth sought to compel testimony before a grand jury.

Reasoning: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed a petition from the Plymouth District Attorney seeking to compel a witness to testify before a grand jury after the witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Grand Jury Process and Abuse

Application: The court found that using the grand jury process to compel testimony merely to secure immunity constitutes an abuse of the grand jury system.

Reasoning: The court rejected the notion of an exception to the statutory procedures, stating that using the grand jury to compel testimony solely for the purpose of obtaining immunity would undermine the integrity of the process and could be seen as an abuse of the grand jury system.

Statutory Procedure for Granting Immunity

Application: The court determined that the Commonwealth failed to follow the statutory procedure under G.L.c. 233, § 20E for granting immunity to a witness who refuses to testify due to self-incrimination concerns.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the Commonwealth did not adhere to the required procedure for seeking immunity and improperly attempted to use the grand jury process to immunize the witness.

Waiver of Fifth Amendment Privilege

Application: The issue of whether the witness waived his Fifth Amendment privilege by previously testifying before another grand jury was deemed a matter for a trial judge to decide.

Reasoning: Additionally, the determination of whether the witness waived his Fifth Amendment privilege by testifying previously was deemed more appropriate for a trial judge.