Commonwealth v. Ivers

Against the criteria for probation revocation discussed in Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 112-120 (1990), and further explicated in Commonwealth v. Maggio, 414 Mass. 193, 195-199 (1993), we consider the testimony offered by a probation officer in this case inadequate to support a decision to revoke probation.1 In addition to the inherently insufficient nature of the evidence offered by the probation officer, the judge who presided at the revocation proceedings did not satisfy rule 6(b) of the District Court Rules for Probation Violation Proceed*445ings (2000). That rule requires a judge…