Mass. Gen. Laws » Part IV Title I Chapter 268
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 13A (2026)

Picketing court, judge, juror, witness or court officer

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 13A. Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the commonwealth, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the commonwealth of its power to punish for contempt.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Picard v. Magliano, 42 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Picard v. Magliano, 42 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2022). “Penal Code § 169 (statute prohibiting, among other things, picketing or parading in or a near a courthouse with intent to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice or to influence a judge or juror); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 13A (similar); Miss.”
O'Neil v. Canton Police Dep't, 116 F.4th 25 (1st Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “On November 7, 2023, appellants Meredith O'Neil, Jessica Svedine, Deanna Corby, and Roberto Silva sued various Canton, Massachusetts town and police officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the Massachusetts witness intimidation…”
Triplett v. Town of Oxford, 791 N.E.2d 310 (Mass. 2003). “In December of 1994, a Worcester County grand jury indicted Triplett for twice violating the conflict of interest law (G. L. c. 268A, § 17), filing a false report (G.”
Commonwealth v. Casiano, 876 N.E.2d 475 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “The defendant was convicted under an earlier version of the statute, G. L. c. 268, § 13A, as amended through St.”
Commonwealth v. Abramms, 849 N.E.2d 867 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “at 561. I fail to understand the alchemy by which the concurrence takes a courthouse picketing statute (similar to the courthouse picketing law which remains on the books in Massachusetts in G.”
O'Neil v. Canton Police Dep't (D. Mass. 2024). · cites it 7× “§ 1983 (Count I) and seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding the unconstitutionality of Mass. Gen. L. c. 268, §§ 13A, 13B, the witness intimidation statutes, facially and as-applied to Plaintiffs (Count II).”
O'Neil v. Canton Police Dep't (D. Mass. 2023). · cites it 5× “§ 1983 (Count I) and a declaratory judgment regarding the unconstitutionality of Mass. Gen. L. c. 268, §§ 13A, 13B, the witness intimidation statute, facially and as-applied to Plaintiffs (Count II).”
Commonwealth v. Aidan T. Kearney (Mass. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 3× “268, § 13B, unlawful picketing in order to influence a witness in violation of G.L. c. 268, § 13A, and conspiracy to commit witness intimidation in violation of G.”
Grant v. Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 137 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “at 561 (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 13A (1965); 18 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.