Courts strongly prefer live, in-person testimony. In criminal cases, that preference has an explicit constitutional foundation in Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (the right to meet witnesses face to face) and is reflected in the federal Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Civil procedure likewise favors oral testimony in open court under Mass. R. Civ. P. 43(a).
People are not required to appear voluntarily. Every party in civil and criminal cases therefore has access to compulsory process—called a subpoena in civil practice and a summons in criminal practice—to compel attendance or the production of documents and objects. These can be issued by the court or, in criminal cases, by prosecutors. Indigent criminal defendants are entitled to summonses necessary for an adequate defense at public expense.
A subpoena duces tecum is the usual tool for requiring a person or entity to bring specified books, papers, or tangible items to court. Recipients must produce only what is specifically requested and in their possession or control. Unreasonable or oppressive process can be quashed or modified; privilege logs and protective orders are available when needed. When a third-party’s statutorily privileged records are sought, applicable protocols must be followed.
Witnesses who appear are entitled to the statutory fee (generally $6 per day plus ten cents per mile, with different rates for police and certain others). Contingent-fee arrangements for testimony are treated as corrupt bargains and are prohibited; prosecutors may not participate in contingent private payments tied to a guilty verdict. Non-contingent cooperation agreements and promises of leniency or immunity for truthful testimony remain permissible if they meet applicable standards.
Experts, like lay witnesses, may be compelled to testify about their personal knowledge. They generally cannot be forced to give professional opinions unless justice requires it. Privileges are not self-executing, so even a witness who intends to assert a privilege (including the privilege against self-incrimination) must still appear when properly summonsed.
For witnesses who are incarcerated or institutionalized, a subpoena or summons is insufficient. Counsel must obtain a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, directed to the custodian, ordering production of the person at the specified time and place. Issuance is discretionary and turns on whether the interests of justice require the witness’s presence.
In short, Massachusetts practice treats the ability to compel live testimony and documentary evidence as a core feature of a fair trial. Effective trial preparation therefore includes timely, properly drafted compulsory process for every witness and item of evidence the case may require.