Section 525. Comment
upon or Inference from Claim of Privilege
(a) Civil Case. Comment may be made
and an adverse inference may be drawn against a party when that party, or in
certain circumstances a witness, invokes a privilege.
(1) No comment may be made and no adverse inference
may be drawn against a defendant who invokes the privilege against self-incrimination
or against a defendant for calling a witness who invokes a privilege that belongs to the witness and not to the defendant.
(2) In a case tried to a
jury, the assertion of a privilege should be made
outside the presence of the
jury whenever reasonably possible.
NOTE
Subsection (a). This subsection
is derived from the long-standing rule in Massachusetts that an adverse inference
may be drawn against a party who invokes a testimonial privilege in a civil
case. Phillips v. Chase, 201 Mass. 444, 450, 87 N.E. 755, 758 (1909)
(attorney-client privilege). Drawing the adverse inference in a civil case does
not infringe on the party’s privilege against self-incrimination under
either Article 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts
Constitution or the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Kaye
v. Newhall, 356 Mass. 300, 305–306, 249 N.E.2d 583, 586 (1969)
(attorney-client privilege). It makes no difference that criminal matters are
pending at the time. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 596, 651 N.E.2d 1206, 1210
(1995) (privilege against self-incrimination).
In Labor
Relations Comm’n v. Fall River Educators’ Ass’n, 382 Mass. 465, 471–472, 416 N.E.2d 1340, 1344–1345
(1981), the Supreme Judicial Court expanded
the rule to allow an adverse inference to be drawn against an organizational
party as a result of a claim of the privilege against self-incrimination
by its officers who had specific knowledge of actions taken on behalf of the
organization in connection with the underlying claim. In Lentz v. Metropolitan
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 437 Mass. 23, 26–32, 768 N.E.2d 538, 541–545 (2002), the Supreme
Judicial Court expanded the principle even further to include circumstances in
which the court finds, as a preliminary question of fact, that the witness who
invokes the privilege against self-incrimination is acting on behalf of
or to further the interests of one of the parties. The Supreme Judicial Court
also noted that the potential for prejudice can be reduced by limiting the
number of questions that may be put to the witness who invokes the privilege,
and by a limiting instruction. Id. at 30–31, 768 N.E.2d at 544.
Counsel has the right to comment on an
opposing party’s failure to testify in a civil case. See Kaye v. Newhall, 356 Mass. at 305, 249 N.E.2d at
586; Silveira v. Kegerreis,
12 Mass. App. Ct. 906, 906–907, 422 N.E.2d 789, 789 (1981).
When a nonparty
witness is closely aligned with a party in a civil case, and the nonparty
witness invokes the privilege against self-incrimination, the jury should be
instructed that the witness may invoke the privilege for reasons unrelated to
the case on trial, and that they are permitted, but not required, to draw an
inference adverse to the party from the witness’s invocation of the privilege
against self-incrimination. The jury is permitted to draw an inference adverse to
a party from the witness’s invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination.
Lentz v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
437 Mass. at 26–32, 768 N.E.2d at 541–545.
Subsection (b)(1).
This subsection is derived from Article 12 of the Declaration of
Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, as well as from G. L. c. 233, § 20,
Third, and G. L. c. 278, § 23. See Commonwealth v. Goulet,
374 Mass. 404, 412, 372 N.E.2d 1288, 1294 (1978). See also Commonwealth
v. Szerlong, 457 Mass. 858, 869–870 n.13, 933
N.E.2d 633, 644 n.13 (2010). In
Commonwealth v. Vallejo, 455 Mass. 72, 78–81, 914 N.E.2d 22, 28–30 (2009), the Supreme Judicial Court
adopted the reasoning of Commonwealth v. Russo, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 579, 731 N.E.2d
108 (2000), and held that a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination
may be violated by comments made by a codefendant’s counsel on the defendant’s
pretrial silence or the defendant’s decision not to testify. For a discussion
of the numerous cases dealing with the issue of whether a remark by a judge, a
prosecutor, or a co-counsel constitutes improper comment on the defendant’s
silence, see M.S. Brodin & M. Avery,
Massachusetts Evidence § 5.14.8 (8th ed. 2007). A defendant may have the
right to simply exhibit a person before the jury without questioning the
person. See Commonwealth v. Rosario, 444 Mass. 550, 557–559, 829 N.E.2d
1135, 1141 (2005). When there is a timely request made by the defense, the
trial judge must instruct the jury that no adverse inference may be drawn from
the fact that the defendant did not testify. See Carter v. Kentucky, 450
U.S. 288, 305 (1981); Commonwealth v. Sneed, 376 Mass. 867, 871–872, 383
N.E.2d 843, 845–846 (1978). See also Commonwealth v. Rivera, 441 Mass.
358, 371 n.9, 805 N.E.2d 942, 953 n.9 (2004) (“We remain of the view that
judges should not give the instruction when asked not to do so. We are merely
saying that it is not per se reversible error to do so.”).
Subsection (b)(2).
This subsection is derived from Commonwealth v. Martin, 372 Mass.
412, 413, 421 n.17, 362 N.E.2d 507, 508, 512 n.17 (1977) (privilege against
self-incrimination), and Commonwealth v. Labbe,
6 Mass. App. Ct. 73, 79–80, 373 N.E.2d 227, 232 (1978) (spousal privilege). “Where
there is some advance warning that a witness might refuse to testify, the trial
judge should conduct a voir dire of the witness,
outside the presence of the jury, to ascertain whether the witness will assert
some privilege or otherwise refuse to answer questions.” Commonwealth v.
Fisher, 433 Mass. 340, 350, 742 N.E.2d 61, 70 (2001). If the witness
asserts the privilege or refuses to testify before the jury when it was not
anticipated, the judge should give a forceful cautionary instruction to the
jury. Commonwealth v. Hesketh, 386 Mass. 153,
157–159, 434 N.E.2d 1238, 1241–1243 (1982).