Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 4 (2026)

Testimony creating presumption of perjury; commitment; recognizance; witnesses bound over; notice

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 4. If it appears to a court of record that a party or a witness who has been legally sworn and examined, or has made an affidavit, in any proceeding in a court or course of justice has so testified as to create a reasonable presumption that he has committed perjury therein, the court may forthwith commit him or may require him to recognize with sureties for his appearance to answer to an indictment for perjury; and thereupon the witnesses to establish such perjury may, if present, be bound over to the superior court, and notice of the proceedings shall forthwith be given to the district attorney.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1927–2016 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Beaulieu, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 773 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Beaulieu, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 773 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “6 A judge may 6 We note that G. L. c. 268, § 4, provides the judge with authority to take action if there is reason to believe that a witness has committed perjury ("If it appears to a court of record that a party or a witness who has been legally sworn and examined, or has made…”

Commonwealth v. Crowe, 488 N.E.2d 780 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 268, § 4. Pirrotta and Fournier argue that the judge acted improperly, with the effect of inhibiting the defendants and their witnesses in presenting a defense.”

Commonwealth v. Michel, 409 N.E.2d 1293 (Mass. 1980). “Cole testified as to details of the attack on him but did not identify any of the four defendants as the persons responsible for that attack.”

Katz v. Commonwealth, 399 N.E.2d 1055 (Mass. 1979). “The contempt power is not cut down or affected by G. L. c. 268, § 4. Blankenburg v. Commonwealth, 260 Mass.”

Blankenburg v. Commonwealth, 157 N.E. 693 (Mass. 1927). “The argument that the judge is prevented from dealing with perjury, when committed in such circumstances as to constitute contempt, by G. L. c. 268, § 4, cannot be supported. That section confers an ancillary and additional power upon courts.”

Commonwealth v. Michel, 327 N.E.2d 720 (Mass. 1975). “But the judge operated within the authority of G. L. c. 268, § 4, in concluding that this testimony created a reasonable presumption of perjury.”

Miaskiewicz v. Commonwealth, 402 N.E.2d 1036 (Mass. 1980). “At the outset of trial, it appeared from the pretrial discovery that there would be irreconcilable conflicts of testimony, and the judge instructed both counsel to inform their clients of G. L. c. 268, § 4, relating to perjury. On Febru *155 ary 12, 1979, after the jury retired…”

Commonwealth v. Penta, 669 N.E.2d 767 (Mass. 1996). “The only “threat” made by the prosecutor was a request, made in open court at a hearing on reconsideration of the defendant’s motion to suppress, that Mueller be given notice under G. L. c. 268, § 4 (1994 ed.), that his inconsistent testimony in two judicial proceedings could…”

Commonwealth v. Penta, 586 N.E.2d 996 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). “At the request of the prosecutor, the judge, acting under G. L. c. 268, § 4, ordered Mueller to appear and answer to any potential indictment for perjury.”

Blankenburg v. Commonwealth, 73 A.L.R. 808 (Mass. 1930). “o extraneous facts, if any, as were not involved in the hearing on the merits of the judgment to be reexamined, that a rehearing cannot be had upon the merits of the findings of fact made by the trial judge, that the evidence heard by the trial judge is no part of the record,…”

Prall v. City of Boston, 985 F. Supp. 2d 115 (D. Mass. 2013). · cites it 2× “, May 16, 2008) (The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a conviction for furnishing a false name to the police under Mass. Gen. L. c. 268 § 4 when the defendant identified himself by his brother’s name during the booking process after his arrest for other crimes.”

Commonwealth v. Souza, 448 N.E.2d 1137 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). “See also G. L. c. 268, § 4 (“the court may forthwith .”

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.