Saferian test in Massachusetts

2026The mother disclaims any ineffective assistance of counsel, so we do not apply the Saferian standard, see Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).

2026The mother disclaims any ineffective assistance of counsel, so we do not apply the Saferian standard, see Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).

2016See *432 Satterfield, supra. 12 In other cases, we have drawn parallels between the second prong of the Saferian test and the standard that applies where a claimed error that defense counsel failed adequately to challenge at trial is raised for the first time on appeal or in a postappeal motion for a new trial.

2016See *432 Satterfield, supra. 12 In other cases, we have drawn parallels between the second prong of the Saferian test and the standard that applies where a claimed error that defense counsel failed adequately to challenge at trial is raised for the first time on appeal or in a postappeal motion for a new trial.

2025See Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 473 Mass. 42, 51-52 (2015); Clarke, 460 Mass. at 46 ("fail[ing] to ascertain that the defendant was not a United States citizen may be sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the Saferian standard").

2025See Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 473 Mass. 42, 51-52 (2015); Clarke, 460 Mass. at 46 ("fail[ing] to ascertain that the defendant was not a United States citizen may be sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the Saferian standard").

2014See Commonwealth v. Grannum, 457 Mass. 128 , 130 n.5 (2010), and authorities cited. 4 “[I]f the Saferian test is met, the Federal test is necessarily met as well.” Clarke, supra at 45 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Fuller, 394 Mass. 251 , 256 n.3 (1985). 5 Our Supreme Judicial Court has held that Padilla also requires that counsel inform noncitizen clients that a conviction at trial may have immigration consequences.

2014See Commonwealth v. Grannum, 457 Mass. 128 , 130 n.5 (2010), and authorities cited. 4 “[I]f the Saferian test is met, the Federal test is necessarily met as well.” Clarke, supra at 45 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Fuller, 394 Mass. 251 , 256 n.3 (1985). 5 Our Supreme Judicial Court has held that Padilla also requires that counsel inform noncitizen clients that a conviction at trial may have immigration consequences.

2018Where, as here, "a claim of ineffective assistance is directed to counsel's representation incident to a guilty plea, the second prong of the Saferian test requires a defendant to show 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.' " Commonwealth v. Pike , 53 Mass. App. Ct. 757 , 762, 762 N.E.2d 874 (2002), quoting Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 , 59, 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).

2018Where, as here, "a claim of ineffective assistance is directed to counsel's representation incident to a guilty plea, the second prong of the Saferian test requires a defendant to show 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.' " Commonwealth v. Pike , 53 Mass. App. Ct. 757 , 762, 762 N.E.2d 874 (2002), quoting Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 , 59, 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).

2025To show ineffective assistance of counsel, under the familiar Saferian standard the defendant must make two showings: that counsel's performance fell "measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer," and that counsel's performance "likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence." Marinho, 464 Mass. at 123, quoting Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).

2025To show ineffective assistance of counsel, under the familiar Saferian standard the defendant must make two showings: that counsel's performance fell "measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer," and that counsel's performance "likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence." Marinho, 464 Mass. at 123, quoting Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).

2024"Such a finding is necessary to resolve the performance prong of the Saferian analysis." Commonwealth v. Henry, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 446, 454 (2015).

2024"Such a finding is necessary to resolve the performance prong of the Saferian analysis." Commonwealth v. Henry, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 446, 454 (2015).

2024When the immigration consequences of a plea are "truly clear," then "the duty to give correct advice is equally clear." Commonwealth v. Chleikh, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 718, 723 (2012), quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010).

2024When the immigration consequences of a plea are "truly clear," then "the duty to give correct advice is equally clear." Commonwealth v. Chleikh, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 718, 723 (2012), quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010).

2024When the immigration consequences of a plea are "truly clear," then "the duty to give correct advice is equally clear." Commonwealth v. Chleikh, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 718, 723 (2012), quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010).

2024When the immigration consequences of a plea are "truly clear," then "the duty to give correct advice is equally clear." Commonwealth v. Chleikh, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 718, 723 (2012), quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010).

2024See Commonwealth v. Millien, 474 Mass. 417, 432 (2016) (prejudice standard under second prong of Saferian test met when reviewing court has "serious doubt whether the jury verdict would have been the same had the defense been presented").

2023Regarding the second prong of the Saferian analysis, "the defendant is entitled to a new trial if there is a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice arising from counsel's failure." Commonwealth v. Millien, 474 Mass. 417, 432 (2016).

2026See Poe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 801, 811 (2010). "[T]he civil formulation of the Saferian standard governs claims of ineffectiveness." Id.

2026See Poe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 801, 811 (2010). "[T]he civil formulation of the Saferian standard governs claims of ineffectiveness." Id.

2025We analyze ineffective assistance claims under the two-prong Saferian test: first, whether counsel's representation fell "measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer," and second, whether any such inadequacy "likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence." Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 471 Mass. 664, 673 (2015), quoting 1 The Commonwealth was granted leave to order the transcript of the plea colloquy.

2025We analyze ineffective assistance claims under the two-prong Saferian test: first, whether counsel's representation fell "measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer," and second, whether any such inadequacy "likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence." Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 471 Mass. 664, 673 (2015), quoting 1 The Commonwealth was granted leave to order the transcript of the plea colloquy.

2012In the Federal context, a defendant must show first that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and then that “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. United States, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). “[I]f the Saferian test is met, the Federal test is necessarily met as well.” Commonwealth v. Fuller, 394 Mass. 251 , 256 n.3 (1985).

2012In the Federal context, a defendant must show first that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and then that “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. United States, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). “[I]f the Saferian test is met, the Federal test is necessarily met as well.” Commonwealth v. Fuller, 394 Mass. 251 , 256 n.3 (1985).

2009In Care & Protection of Stephen, 401 Mass. 144, 148-149 (1987), the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that a parent confronting the transfer of custody of her children to the State possessed a statutory right to the effective assistance of counsel and that the courts should measure effectiveness by the Saferian standard.

2009In Care & Protection of Stephen, 401 Mass. 144, 148-149 (1987), the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that a parent confronting the transfer of custody of her children to the State possessed a statutory right to the effective assistance of counsel and that the courts should measure effectiveness by the Saferian standard.

2023The defendant's raising of his claim of ineffective assistance for the first time on direct appeal makes it the "weakest form" of such a claim, "because 'it is bereft of any explanation by trial counsel for his actions and suggestive of strategy contrived by 6 a defendant viewing the case in hindsight.'" Commonwealth v. Diaz, 448 Mass. 286, 289 (2007), quoting Commonwealth v. Peloquin, 437 Mass. 204 , 210 n.5 (2002).

2023The defendant's raising of his claim of ineffective assistance for the first time on direct appeal makes it the "weakest form" of such a claim, "because 'it is bereft of any explanation by trial counsel for his actions and suggestive of strategy contrived by 6 a defendant viewing the case in hindsight.'" Commonwealth v. Diaz, 448 Mass. 286, 289 (2007), quoting Commonwealth v. Peloquin, 437 Mass. 204 , 210 n.5 (2002).

2024L. c. 278, § 33E, and review the defendant's claim for a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice." Gibson, supra. Specifically, we consider "'whether defense counsel committed an error in the course of trial,' and if there was error . . . 'whether it was likely to have influenced the jury's conclusion.'" Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Ayala, 481 Mass. 46, 62 (2018).22 "Where a defendant challenges tactical or strategic decisions by trial counsel, the court will find ineffective assistance 'only if such a decision was manifestly unreasonable when made.'" Commonwealth v. Weaver, 474 Mas

2024L. c. 278, § 33E, and review the defendant's claim for a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice." Gibson, supra. Specifically, we consider "'whether defense counsel committed an error in the course of trial,' and if there was error . . . 'whether it was likely to have influenced the jury's conclusion.'" Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Ayala, 481 Mass. 46, 62 (2018).22 "Where a defendant challenges tactical or strategic decisions by trial counsel, the court will find ineffective assistance 'only if such a decision was manifestly unreasonable when made.'" Commonwealth v. Weaver, 474 Mas

2025"To determine whether either prong of the Saferian test is implicated here, we consider the merits of the defendant's claim that the delay in bringing him to trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial." Commonwealth v. Butler, 464 Mass. 706, 709 (2013).

2025"To determine whether either prong of the Saferian test is implicated here, we consider the merits of the defendant's claim that the delay in bringing him to trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial." Commonwealth v. Butler, 464 Mass. 706, 709 (2013).

2012“The burden lies with the defendant, see Commonwealth v. Healy, 438 Mass. 672, 677 (2003), and with respect to the second prong of the Saferian test, the defendant must show that ‘better work might have accomplished something material for the defense.’ Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109, 115 (1977).” Commonwealth v. Phinney, 446 Mass. 155, 162 (2006), S.C., 448 Mass. 621 (2007).

2012“The burden lies with the defendant, see Commonwealth v. Healy, 438 Mass. 672, 677 (2003), and with respect to the second prong of the Saferian test, the defendant must show that ‘better work might have accomplished something material for the defense.’ Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109, 115 (1977).” Commonwealth v. Phinney, 446 Mass. 155, 162 (2006), S.C., 448 Mass. 621 (2007).

2016See Commonwealth v. Azar, 435 Mass. 675, 685 (2002), S.C., 444 Mass. 72 (2005); Commonwealth v. LeFave, 430 Mass. 169, 173-174 (1999).

2016See Commonwealth v. Azar, 435 Mass. 675, 685 (2002), S.C., 444 Mass. 72 (2005); Commonwealth v. LeFave, 430 Mass. 169, 173-174 (1999).

2012“The burden lies with the defendant, see Commonwealth v. Healy, 438 Mass. 672, 677 (2003), and with respect to the second prong of the Saferian test, the defendant must show that ‘better work might have accomplished something material for the defense.’ Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109, 115 (1977).” Commonwealth v. Phinney, 446 Mass. 155, 162 (2006), S.C., 448 Mass. 621 (2007).

2012“The burden lies with the defendant, see Commonwealth v. Healy, 438 Mass. 672, 677 (2003), and with respect to the second prong of the Saferian test, the defendant must show that ‘better work might have accomplished something material for the defense.’ Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109, 115 (1977).” Commonwealth v. Phinney, 446 Mass. 155, 162 (2006), S.C., 448 Mass. 621 (2007).

2010In short, “the Saferian test brings the benefit of familiarity.” Loe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 73 Mass. App. Ct. 673, 686 (2009) (Sikora, J., concurring).

2010In short, “the Saferian test brings the benefit of familiarity.” Loe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 73 Mass. App. Ct. 673, 686 (2009) (Sikora, J., concurring).

2009We should therefore follow the example of Commonwealth v. Ferreira, 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 115 , and extend the Saferian standard to registration proceedings.

2009We should therefore follow the example of Commonwealth v. Ferreira, 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 115 , and extend the Saferian standard to registration proceedings.

2015It is difficult to determine that counsel should have done more in 2004 than he did, and therefore difficult to find that counsel’s behavior fell ‘measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer.’ [Commonwealth v.] Clarke , [460 Mass.] at 45.” Regarding the prejudice prong of the Saferian standard, the judge stated, “[concluding that any of [the possible means of establishing prejudice described in Commonwealth v. DeJesus, supra at 183 ], were it necessary to reach them, had been demonstrated would have been a stretch for this Court.” Subsequently we vacated our

2015It is difficult to determine that counsel should have done more in 2004 than he did, and therefore difficult to find that counsel’s behavior fell ‘measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer.’ [Commonwealth v.] Clarke , [460 Mass.] at 45.” Regarding the prejudice prong of the Saferian standard, the judge stated, “[concluding that any of [the possible means of establishing prejudice described in Commonwealth v. DeJesus, supra at 183 ], were it necessary to reach them, had been demonstrated would have been a stretch for this Court.” Subsequently we vacated our

2010But see Commonwealth v. Sargent, 449 Mass. 576, 585-586 (2007) (applying, but not deciding, whether Saferian standard applies to proceedings under G.

2009See Commonwealth v. Sargent, 449 Mass. 576, 586 (2007). 44 We reject the Commonwealth’s argument that the decision to waive the right to an indictment, without seeking a meaningful quid pro quo, ultimately did not prejudice the defendant, and so cannot provide a basis for relief.

1983There must be a two-step inquiry in which the defense must establish (1) that trial counsel’s conduct was “beyond the range of reasonableness” (see the Adams case, 374 Mass. at 730 ) and fell measurably below that which might be expected under the Saferian standard ( 366 Mass. at 96 ), and (2) that prejudice resulted.

1983There must be a two-step inquiry in which the defense must establish (1) that trial counsel’s conduct was “beyond the range of reasonableness” (see the Adams case, 374 Mass. at 730 ) and fell measurably below that which might be expected under the Saferian standard ( 366 Mass. at 96 ), and (2) that prejudice resulted.

1991While the Supreme Judicial Court has yet to harmonize completely the State and Federal standards for ineffectiveness of counsel, see Commonwealth v. Haggerty, 400 Mass. 437 , 438 n.2 (1987), they have said that the Saferian test is at least as strict as the Federal test.

1991While the Supreme Judicial Court has yet to harmonize completely the State and Federal standards for ineffectiveness of counsel, see Commonwealth v. Haggerty, 400 Mass. 437 , 438 n.2 (1987), they have said that the Saferian test is at least as strict as the Federal test.

2026See also Adoption of Raissa, 93 Mass. App. Ct. at 455 .

2026See also Adoption of Raissa, 93 Mass. App. Ct. at 455 .

2025See Commonwealth v. Collins, 470 Mass. 255, 261 (2014) (counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objection).

2025See Commonwealth v. Collins, 470 Mass. 255, 261 (2014) (counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objection).