# Commonwealth v. Padilla

> Massachusetts Appeals Court · January 22, 1997 · 42 Mass. App. Ct. 67

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6459837

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Pastor Padilla
- **Court:** Massachusetts Appeals Court
- **Decided:** January 22, 1997
- **Citations:** 42 Mass. App. Ct. 67; 674 N.E.2d 1102; 1997 Mass. App. LEXIS 15
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Dreben
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6459837

## Opinion text

Brown, J.
(concurring). I concur, albeit reluctantly. It seems to me that if a picture painted by affidavits is cloudy, it is the responsibility of the motion judge — not this court — to puzzle out the situation. If Commonwealth v. Amral, 407 Mass. 511 (1990), stands for anything, it is a red flag for lower court judges at least to make a minimal exploratory inquiry.
Although I think the judge here should have conducted an Amral hearing, I concur because, apart from the probable waiver of such a hearing, as the majority points out, “there was here no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6459837. Public record. Not legal advice.