Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 12/8/1997

Commonwealth v. Burgess

Citations

426 Mass. 206
688 N.E.2d 439
1997 Mass. LEXIS 406

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting two reasons: first, to protect taxpayers' reasonable expectation of privacy; second, to ensure maximal compliance with Federal tax laws
no right to refuse to produce physical evidence under art. 12 of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
we have consistently held that art. 12 provides broader \protection against self-incrimination than does the Fifth Amendment\ and provides greater protection
“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies not only to verbal communications, but . . . also to nonverbal acts that imply assertions”
“[WIe are not at liberty to construe the statute in a manner that might advance its purpose but contravenes the actual language chosen by the Legislature”
“Under the Fifth Amendment only compelled communication that is testimonial and potentially incriminating is precluded by the privilege against self-incrimination . . . and under art. 12 compelled communication that furnishes evidence is precluded”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fried

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

50 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.