Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 277, § 68 (2026)

Issuance of subpoenas by attorney general and district attorneys

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 68. The attorney general and district attorneys may issue subpoenas under their hands for witnesses to appear and testify on behalf of the commonwealth, and such subpoenas shall have the same force, and be obeyed in the same manner, and under the same penalties, in case of default, as if issued by the clerk of the court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Odgren, 915 N.E.2d 215 (Mass. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Odgren, 915 N.E.2d 215 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 18× “We consider whether the Commonwealth, in a criminal case, may seek the production of records from a third party in advance of trial or an evidentiary hearing by issuing a subpoena duces tecum directly to the party under G. L. c. 277, § 68, or whether it must first obtain…”

Commonwealth v. Garcia, 972 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “See G. L. c. 277, § 68. The subpoena specifically requested that Silva bring with him any audio recordings of calls to or from the defendant from September 15, 2005, through June 1, 2006.”

Commonwealth v. Lampron, 806 N.E.2d 72 (Mass. 2004). “See G. L. c. 277, § 68. In light of that fact, we are disinclined to give a hypertechnical reading to the requirement that an affidavit submitted by defense counsel in support of a defendant’s motion for a summons for documentary evidence be made on personal knowledge, and…”

Commonwealth v. Smallwood, 401 N.E.2d 802 (Mass. 1980). “See G. L. c. 277, § 68. 3 We emphatically disapprove of this practice.”

Commonwealth v. Hart, 914 N.E.2d 904 (Mass. 2009). “In this case, the subpoena was issued pursuant to G. L. c. 277, § 68, 12 and properly set forth the first day of trial as the return date for the production of the documents.”

Commonwealth v. Balboni, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 651 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “G. L. c. 277, § 68. See Odgren, supra at 185 n.”

Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 444 Mass. 786 (Mass. 2005). “Without deciding the question, we know of no compelling reason why the Commonwealth would not also be entitled to move ex parte for the issuance of a summons for production of documents prior to trial, pursuant to rule 17 (a) (2), in carefully circumscribed situations.”

Preventive Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Commonwealth, 992 N.E.2d 257 (Mass. 2013). “233, § 1; G. L. c. 277, § 68; and Mass. R. Crim. R 17.”

Commonwealth v. Bright, 25 Mass. L. Rptr. 233 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2008). · cites it 6× “The District Attorney’s Subpoena Power The prosecutor’s power to subpoena witnesses and/or documents has two sources: G.L.c. 277, §68, and Mass.R-Crim.P. 17(a).”

Commonwealth v. Callender, 32 Mass. L. Rptr. 49 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 14× “Facing indictments for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, armed assault with intent to murder and first degree murder, the defendant, Brandon Callender, moves to suppress statements gathered by the Commonwealth, pursuant to G.L.c. 277, §68. He maintains that…”

Commonwealth v. Mendez, 94 N.E.3d 878 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017). “See G.L.c. 277, § 68. As such, the judge properly allowed the Commonwealth's motion to obtain these recordings.”

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.