Commonwealth v. Funches

How courts have described this case

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

• “Answering the questions concerning a conversation about drugs could lead to prosecution for conspiracy to violate the drug laws, G. L. c. 94C, § 40, or for the substantive offense, G. L. c. 94C, §§ 34-35”
• because key witness testified on direct and refused to answer questions on cross-examination, direct testimony struck
• no new trial where Commonwealth had “fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble”
• direct testimony of witness who invoked the privilege against self-incrimination during cross-examination should have been struck where facts sought to be raised on cross-examination went to the essence of the defense
• witness did not waive privilege against self-incrimination by admitting that defendants came to his door looking to buy drugs, because he did not admit to any element of any crime
• \The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction . . . but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).