requiring that warnings be given orally in the words of the statute and allowing defendant’s motion to withdraw admission to sufficient facts and for new trial where colloquy did not “identify the immigration consequence that the defendant is now suffering”
How later courts described this case
- requiring that warnings be given orally in the words of the statute and allowing defendant’s motion to withdraw admission to sufficient facts and for new trial where colloquy did not “identify the immigration consequence that the defendant is now suffering”
- concluding that, pursuant to § 10(c), M.G.L. c. 258 did not entitle the defendant public official to immunity because he had been sued individually for an intentional tort
- invalidating warning where colloquy did not “identify the immigration consequence that the defendant is now suffering”
- “With the commencement of deportation proceedings against [the defendant], there is no dispute that the defendant ‘may’ suffer one of the enumerated immigration consequences . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Ireland, J.
(concurring). I concur with the court in this case *820 for the same reason that I dissented in Commonwealth v. Villalobos, ante 797, 806 (2002).