When Is a Statement Considered a Confession Under Massachusetts Law?

Under Massachusetts law, a confession isn’t just something you say, it’s something the prosecution must prove was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.

A confession is generally defined as an admission to all or part of a crime. But the law treats statements differently depending on when, where, and how they’re made. If police question you in custody, they must give you Miranda warnings before any statement can be used against you.

But even if Miranda isn’t required, for example, during roadside stops or casual encounters, the statement still has to be voluntary under both the Fifth Amendment and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

Massachusetts courts go further than the federal standard. Under Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, if police don’t record your statement electronically, the judge must instruct the jury to view it with caution. And in many cases, subtle pressure, confusion, or mental health issues can make a statement involuntary, even without direct threats or violence.

I’ve successfully suppressed statements in cases where:
- Police used deceptive tactics 
- Clients didn’t understand their rights 
- Custody wasn’t clear, but the pressure was real 
- Miranda was given too late or not at all

Not every statement counts as a confession. And even if it does, it may not be admissible. If the police claim you “admitted” something, I can review the recording, the transcript, and the circumstances and fight to keep it out of court.

Understanding the Crime of Intimidation of a Witness in Massachusetts

Witness intimidation is one of the most broadly applied felony charges in Massachusetts and it’s often misunderstood.

Under G.L. c. 268, § 13B, it’s a crime to attempt to influence, threaten, or mislead anyone involved in a criminal investigation or court proceeding. That includes witnesses, victims, jurors, and even police officers. And here’s the catch: you don’t need to make a threat or use force to be charged.

The law covers:
- Trying to convince someone not to testify 
- Encouraging someone to lie to police 
- Destroying or hiding evidence 
- Harassing a witness, even passively 
- Sending messages, directly or indirectly, that affect the case

It’s a felony, with a possible sentence of up to 10 years. In practice, it’s often added as a second charge in domestic cases, assault and battery cases, or group incidents, sometimes based on a single text or comment. I’ve seen clients charged for saying “Don’t say anything” or “You better not talk to the cops.”

But context matters. The statute requires specific intent to interfere with a proceeding. Juries and judges are often skeptical of overreach, especially when the alleged intimidation is vague or non-threatening.

If you're facing this charge, the stakes are high. I work to challenge both the evidence and the interpretation of intent. In many cases, we can show the statement was misunderstood or that it doesn’t meet the legal standard.

Breath Test Results Thrown Out in Massachusetts: What the Hallinan Decision Means for OUI Defendants

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a major ruling in Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (2023), reaffirming what defense attorneys have known for years: the state’s breathalyzer program was a mess, and the evidence it produced can’t be trusted. The decision formally excludes breath test results from a critical time period, June 2011 through April 18, 2019, unless the Commonwealth can prove their reliability in each individual case.

As a criminal defense attorney, I’ve seen firsthand how breath test results are often treated as ironclad evidence in OUI prosecutions. The Hallinan decision is a long-overdue recognition that science without transparency isn’t justice, it’s just conviction by shortcut.

What Did the SJC Decide?

The Court upheld a lower court finding that the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) failed in its obligations to ensure the scientific integrity of breathalyzer machines. Specifically, OAT withheld evidence, failed to disclose critical information about calibration practices, and essentially misled courts and defense counsel for years. The SJC ruled that breath test results from the Alcotest 9510 device during the affected time period are presumptively inadmissible unless the state can meet a high burden to prove reliability.

Who Is Affected?

If you’re facing an OUI charge based on a breath test between June 2011 and April 18, 2019, your defense just gained significant leverage. Prosecutors may now be forced to drop breathalyzer evidence entirely or prove in court why your specific test should be admissible.

For people who already pled guilty or were convicted during that period, Hallinan could also open the door to post-conviction relief. If your case depended on a breath test, it’s worth revisiting whether that conviction was built on unreliable evidence.

Why It Matters

Hallinan isn’t just about faulty machines, it’s about accountability. When the government presents scientific evidence in court, it has a duty to ensure that evidence is accurate, fair, and disclosed fully to the defense. The misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing violated that duty, and the SJC’s decision reflects the seriousness of that breach.

This case should serve as a warning: justice can’t be automated. Breath tests may seem like simple numbers, but behind those numbers is a system that depends on honesty, oversight, and due process. When that system fails, people’s lives are unfairly upended. I’m glad the SJC stepped in and I’ll continue fighting to make sure my clients are judged by facts, not faulty machines.

Can Police Detain You Without Arresting You in Massachusetts?

Yes, police in Massachusetts can detain you without arresting you, but only if they follow strict legal rules. This type of stop is known as an investigative detention, or a Terry stop, and it’s governed by the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

To legally detain you without arresting you, police must have reasonable suspicion: a specific, articulable belief that you’re engaged in criminal activity. That’s a lower standard than probable cause, but it still requires more than just a hunch or vague suspicion.

These stops are supposed to be brief and limited in scope. Officers can ask questions, check ID, and do a quick pat-frisk only if they believe you might be armed. But they can’t prolong the stop without new justification and they can’t handcuff or search you unless it escalates to a full arrest or a protective concern is supported.

Massachusetts courts are often stricter than federal courts on this issue. Under Commonwealth v. Torres, Commonwealth v. Narcisse, and others, the SJC has made clear that actions like handcuffing, prolonged questioning, or transporting a suspect can turn a lawful stop into an illegal arrest, triggering suppression of any evidence that follows.

I’ve won cases where a simple street encounter turned into an unlawful seizure. If the police stop you, you still have rights. You don’t have to answer questions, and you can ask if you’re free to leave. If the stop went too far, a judge may agree and throw the evidence out.

What Is a Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty in Massachusetts?

In a Massachusetts criminal trial, a motion for a required finding of not guilty is one of the most important tools a defense lawyer has. It’s a way to ask the judge to dismiss the case before it ever goes to the jury.

Under Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(a), the defense can make this motion after the Commonwealth closes its case. The judge has to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether a rational jury could find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the evidence falls short, even slightly, the judge must allow the motion and enter a not guilty finding. No jury vote. No further argument. The case ends right there.

I’ve used this motion to win cases when the Commonwealth’s witnesses contradicted themselves, when key facts weren’t proven, or when the evidence simply didn’t meet the legal standard, even if it sounded bad at first glance.

Judges are sometimes reluctant to take a case away from the jury, but the law is clear. If the prosecution doesn’t meet its burden, the defense has every right to ask for a required finding, and sometimes, that’s all it takes to win.