Rights and Legal Concepts in a Massachusetts Criminal Case

This page explains the constitutional protections, evidentiary rules, and procedures that govern what evidence the Commonwealth may use against a person charged with a crime in Massachusetts and which defenses the accused may raise.

It covers the right to remain silent, searches and seizures of places and of digital devices, the admission of digital evidence, self-defense, cross-examination, pretrial detention on dangerousness, the classification of offenses as felonies or misdemeanors, and the rules that govern dismissal. Each section states the practical question and links to the page that answers it in full. How these rules operate at the trial itself, stage by stage, is covered in the Massachusetts criminal court practice section.

Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. Serpa Law Office can be reached at 617.936.0201.

The Right to Remain Silent

The Fifth Amendment and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protect a person from compelled self-incrimination. To stop custodial questioning, a person must invoke the right unambiguously. Remaining silent does not by itself invoke the right under federal law. The rules governing later use of silence depend on when the silence occurred and whether the person was in custody or under interrogation.

The complete discussion appears on your right to remain silent in Massachusetts.

Illegal Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment and Article 14 govern stops, exit orders, patfrisks, entries, and searches. When police obtain evidence through an unlawful search or seizure, the defense may move to suppress that evidence and evidence derived from the illegality.

Suppression is a remedy, not an automatic one. The Commonwealth may argue that the evidence came from an independent source, would inevitably have been discovered, or is sufficiently attenuated from the illegality. Whether a suppression ruling ends a prosecution depends on what admissible evidence remains.

The page on illegal searches and seizures in Massachusetts explains the grounds, exceptions, and possible remedies.

Phone, Computer, and Digital Device Searches

Taking a device, holding it while police apply for a warrant, obtaining the warrant, and searching within its limits are four separate questions with four separate rules. Police generally may not search a phone without a warrant, and the warrant limits what they may review and the period they may cover. Compelling a person to enter a passcode requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knows it.

See phone, computer, and digital device searches in Massachusetts for the complete search-and-seizure analysis. The pages on refusing to give police an iPhone passcode and digital search warrants address those narrower questions.

Digital Evidence at Trial

How police obtained digital material and whether a jury may see it are different questions. Admission requires authentication, and evidence that a message came from an account bearing a person’s name is not enough by itself to prove that person wrote it. Authorship, hearsay, and completeness are each separate objections.

The page on digital evidence in Massachusetts criminal cases explains the admission and objection rules. The text message and phone evidence FAQs answer the related client questions.

Self-Defense

Self-defense is a complete defense. Once the evidence raises it at trial through direct evidence or cross-examination, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in self-defense.

What the Commonwealth must prove depends on the level of force used because the standards for nondeadly and deadly force differ. Before using deadly force outside the home, a person must use all proper and reasonable means to avoid physical combat when retreat is safely available.

The full elements and burden appear on self-defense in Massachusetts.

Criminal Responsibility

Lack of criminal responsibility is the defense commonly called the insanity defense. A defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the offense, a mental disease or defect left them without substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform it to the requirements of law. Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967).

Once the evidence raises the question, the Commonwealth must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt, and it may do so through the defendant’s conduct without calling an expert. Commonwealth v. Keita, 429 Mass. 843 (1999); Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806 (2016). These trials are decided far more often on planning, concealment, and what the defendant said afterward than on the diagnosis. The verdict is an acquittal followed by commitment proceedings under G.L. c. 123, § 16.

The standard, the trial, and what follows the verdict are set out on criminal responsibility in Massachusetts.

Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy protection bars the government from prosecuting or punishing a person twice for the same offense. It comes from the Fifth Amendment, applied to the states in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), and from Massachusetts common law and statute.

Massachusetts decides whether two charges are the same offense with the same-elements test of Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433 (1871). The protection does not stop a retrial after a hung jury, which is the fact that decides most of these cases.

The three protections, when jeopardy attaches, and how the claim is raised are set out on double jeopardy in Massachusetts.

Cross-Examination

Cross-examination tests the reliability, accuracy, bias, and completeness of the Commonwealth’s testimony. What makes it effective is the material gathered before trial: prior statements, reports, recordings, and records that establish what a witness said before and what the witness had reason to say it.

The page on cross-examination in Massachusetts criminal trials addresses scope, impeachment, bias, confrontation, and preservation.

Jury Selection, Opening Statements, and Closing Arguments

At jury selection, the judge and the parties examine whether prospective jurors can decide the case fairly and follow the judge’s instructions. In an opening statement, counsel outlines the evidence counsel reasonably expects the jury to hear, and in closing argument counsel applies the law and the burden of proof to the evidence admitted at trial.

The trial guides explain jury selection in Massachusetts criminal trials and the rules governing opening statements and closing arguments.

The Dangerousness Hearing

Under M.G.L. c. 276, § 58A, the Commonwealth may move at arraignment to detain a defendant charged with an enumerated offense. Detention requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.

Where the judge orders detention, the statute provides that, absent good cause, the person shall not be detained more than 120 days in the district court or more than 180 days in the superior court, excluding periods of delay defined by Rule 36(b)(2). The short statutory schedule requires counsel to begin preparing the evidence and proposed release conditions immediately.

The client page on Massachusetts dangerousness hearings under M.G.L. c. 276, § 58A explains qualifying charges, detention, and release conditions. The bail and dangerousness hearing practitioner’s guide provides the more detailed procedural treatment.

Felonies and Misdemeanors

Massachusetts defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison. Every other crime is a misdemeanor.

Two consequences addressed here turn directly on the classification: whether the offense authorizes a state-prison sentence and whether § 100A applies a three-year or seven-year conviction-sealing period. Which court hears the case, and the immigration, firearms, and licensing consequences, do not turn on the classification alone.

The detailed pages explain felonies and misdemeanors in Massachusetts and the separate rules governing Massachusetts courts, state prison, and house of correction.

Dismissal

A case can end before trial. A prosecutor may enter a nolle prosequi, and a judge may allow a motion to dismiss on grounds including a defect in the complaint, an insufficient showing before the grand jury, or a speedy-trial violation. Which grounds the defendant may raise turns on the charging method and the procedural record.

The dismissal page explains how Massachusetts criminal cases can sometimes be dismissed or stopped before trial.

The Fifth Amendment in Civil and Protective Order Proceedings

A person facing a criminal investigation may also be a party to a civil case or a 209A or 258E proceeding. The Commonwealth may later obtain and seek to use testimony that the person gives in the civil proceeding, subject to the applicable evidentiary rules. A civil judge may also draw an adverse inference when a party invokes the privilege. Counsel should evaluate the civil and criminal proceedings together before the person testifies.

The page on the Fifth Amendment in Massachusetts civil cases explains that decision and its possible consequences.

Statements of an Absent Complainant

A domestic violence case can proceed when the complainant does not testify, through 911 calls and statements made at the scene. Whether those statements are admissible turns on an evidentiary question, whether the statement fits an exception such as an excited utterance, and on a constitutional question, whether the statement was testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. They are separate inquiries with separate answers.

The complete treatment appears on excited utterances, spontaneous utterances, and the recanting complainant.

The Marital Privilege

General Laws c. 233, § 20 contains two different spousal protections. The First clause disqualifies a spouse from testifying to a private marital conversation, and neither spouse can waive it. The Second clause gives the witness spouse, and only the witness spouse, the choice whether to testify against the other. Because that privilege applies to live testimony, the Commonwealth can still proceed on the complainant’s out-of-court statements.

The page on Massachusetts spousal privilege and marital communications sets out both protections, the statutory and doctrinal exceptions, and the procedure for invoking and preserving each.

The Massachusetts Spousal Privilege and Marital Communications FAQ gives short answers about current marriage, separation, divorce, private oral conversations, texts and emails, domestic violence cases, grand-jury subpoenas, and prior statements.

Recording Conversations

Massachusetts wiretap law restricts secret audio recording of an oral communication. A person who secretly records a conversation without the knowledge of the other participants may face criminal exposure, depending on what was recorded and how the person made the recording.

The page on secret recordings and the Massachusetts wiretap statute explains the statutory definitions and exceptions.

Traffic Stops

A stop, an exit order, a patfrisk, and a search of a car are separate intrusions requiring separate justification. Modern stops also involve phones, location data, and automatic license plate readers, each with its own rules.

The article on the modern Massachusetts traffic stop addresses those separate police actions and technologies.

Driver’s Licenses for Noncitizen Students

What a driver may lawfully do in Massachusetts turns on residency and licensing status, and a criminal charge can affect both.

The page on international students and Massachusetts driver’s licenses explains residency, foreign licenses, and Massachusetts licensing questions.

What Follows an Arrest

What an arrested person says and whether the person consents to a search can affect the evidence the Commonwealth later offers.

The related pages explain what to do in the first 24 hours after an arrest in Massachusetts and what occurs at arraignment in the Massachusetts Trial Court.

Records and Consequences

Once a case proceeds to arraignment, the complaint creates a CORI entry. The disposition then affects later reporting, sealing, immigration, and licensing questions.

The site provides separate pages on criminal records and outcomes, sealing and expungement, immigration consequences, and criminal defense for licensed professionals.

Serpa Law Office can be reached at 617.936.0201 for a free and confidential consultation. The Boston office is at 20 Park Plaza #400A. The Quincy Office is at 500 Victory Road, Suite 400A.