Result

NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT AGAINST DIRECT-CARE WORKER CHARGED WITH PHYSICALLY ASSAULTING AN INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED PERSON IN HIS CARE AT A GROUP HOME.

Defendant, a Quincy resident, and immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record, was employed as a Direct Care Worker at a Group Home for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. On October 27, 2017, a woman was stopped at a stop sign across the street from the Group Home. The woman called 911 to report that a young man (alleged victim) ran out the front door of the Group Home. She reported that a black male (defendant) grabbed the young man by the neck and dragged him into the house. A police officer arrived to the Group Home. The officer looked into the window of the front door and observed the Defendant with his hand grasped around the rear of the victim’s neck and pushed him up the stairs. The alleged victim suffered from various intellectual disabilities. As a result, the police officer arrested and charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery on a Disabled Person (G.L. c. 265, §13K), a felony offense carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years in State Prison, or 2 and ½ years in the House of Correction.

Result: Patrick J. Noonan, Brendan J. Noonan, and the Noonan Defense immediately conducted an investigation in preparation of trial. The Defense Team interviewed the woman who allegedly observed the assault on the victim. Although the woman reported to 911 that she observed the defendant grab the victim by neck, her statements to the defense were very different and exculpatory. The woman told the Defense Team that she did not see any physical contact between the Defendant and the Victim. At trial, the prosecution did not call the woman as a witness. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the police officer as to his observations of the alleged assault. The officer admitted that he made his observations through a “stained glass window,” making it difficult for him to make out precisely what was happening. The officer also admitted that he only observed the incident for approximately 1-2 seconds. The officer also admitted that he was unsure if the Defendant’s hand was grasped at the rear of the victim’s neck, or if the Defendant’s hand was placed on the victim’s upper back. The Noonan Defense Team introduced evidence that the Defendant was legally justified in using reasonable force to prevent the victim from injuring himself. Specifically, our team introduced evidence that the victim attempted to escape from the residence and run into the street but our client used reasonable force to prevent him from escaping and injuring himself. The victim had a history of eloping from the residence. The victim’s mother was concerned about the victim eloping and running into the busy street and injuring himself. The Group Home was located on a State Highway where vehicles drove by at speeds exceeding 50 MPH. The front door of the Group Home was very close to the State Highway. It was only 15-20 feet from the front door to the State Highway. There was no fencing to prevent the victim from running into the street. The victim had no safety awareness. The Lead Clinician from the Group Home testified that force may be necessary to prevent the victim from running into the busy street and injuring himself. The police officer testified that there had been major accidents and fatalities on this State Highway. Due to the victim’s history of elopement and the potential danger of him running into the street, the Group Home was supposed to implement door alarms but they never did. In addition, the Noonan Defense Team introduced evidence that the Defendant was legally justified in using reasonable force on the victim to prevent injury to another resident who also had disabilities. In particular, the victim had attacked this other resident several times on the date of this incident. The victim ran at the other resident, attacked the other resident, and physically struck the other resident. The other resident, a large man, was known to be volatile when agitated. The Group Home would not even attempt to restrain the other resident when he became agitated and their policy was to call 911 rather than attempt a restraint due to his size and capability of injuring others. Here, the Defendant acted reasonably in restraining the victim for the safety of the other resident who the victim had previously attacked. Finally, the Defense Team introduced evidence of the victim’s history of violent behavior. Prior to this incident, the victim was so violent that three staff employees were required to restrain him. During this incident, the Group Home was understaffed because two employees left the home to go grocery shopping, leaving the Defendant and one other employee as the only staff present to supervise all the residents in the home. After a two-day jury trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty.

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST UNCLE FOR ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD-NIECE VACATED OVER OBJECTION OF PLAINTIFF.

Defendant, a middle-age man with no criminal record, had an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order (209A) taken out against him by his sister. His sister alleged that the Defendant sexually abused her daughter who was 7 years-old at the time. Defendant’s prior attorney contested the restraining order at a very lengthy hearing, which included testimony of several witnesses, including the sister who brought the restraining order. After the hearing, the judge found sufficient evidence of “abuse” of the child and issued the restraining order for six-months. After the restraining order was issued, Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. In September 2019, the sister sought to extend the restraining order for one-year.

Result: At the hearing to extend the restraining order for one-year, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the police investigated the sister’s allegations that the Defendant sexually abused her minor child and, after conducting an investigation, the police department determined that there was no evidence to charge the Defendant with a crime. Therefore, the sister’s allegations were not deemed to be sufficient enough to bring any criminal charges against the Defendant, even under the low standard of probable cause to charge somebody with a crime. Moreover, Attorney Noonan cross-examined the sister and presented evidence regarding her motive to make this false allegation against the Defendant. Mainly, the sister and her children were living with the Defendant, at his home, rent free. After an argument, Defendant kicked his sister and her children out of his house leaving her with no place to live. Upset over the argument, the sister went to the police department to obtain a restraining order against the Defendant wherein she sought to have the Defendant evicted from his own home so she could move back into his house and have a place to live, rent free. The Judge originally issued the restraining order because the sister testified that the District Attorney’s Office was investigating her allegations of sexual abuse but Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there was no evidence for authorities to charge him with a crime.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST MILITARY POLICE OFFICER DISMISSED DESPITE THE CLIENT’S ADMISSION TO BEING “BLACK-OUT DRUNK” AND HOSPITAL BLOOD TESTS SHOWING HER BLOOD-ALCOHOL LEVEL WAS MORE THAN TWICE THE LEGAL LIMIT.

The client is a decorated Military Police Officer with no criminal record. At the time of this case, she was about to be deployed overseas for active duty in the military. On the night of the incident, the client crashed her car into a telephone pole. A civilian witness came to her assistance. The civilian witness observed that she smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, and had difficulty standing and walking. The civilian witness later stated that he believed that the client was intoxicated. When the police arrived, the officer made the same observations as the civilian witness and opined that she was intoxicated. The client was taken to the emergency room by ambulance. The client admitted to consuming shots of Tequila. She even stated that she was “black out” drunk. The hospital drew her blood and tested it for alcohol. The blood test showed that the client’s blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit. The client was given a citation for Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: The client hired Attorney Gerald J. Noonan the day after she was released from the hospital. As the client retained Attorney Noonan early in the case, Attorney Noonan was able to get the client a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal offense of OUI-Liquor. Ordinarily, a client would have been arraigned and charged with OUI in the District Court – giving the client a criminal record. However, Attorney Noonan obtained a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing to determine whether the client would be charged with OUI-Liquor. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Magistrate not to issue criminal charges against his client. If the client were charged with a crime, her military career would have been ruined. The client’s commanding officer came to her defense by submitting a glowing letter attesting to the client’s character. Evidence was presented of all the awards the client had earned through her military service. She has served our country honorably. With the criminal charge dismissed at the Magistrate Hearing, the client can now continue with her military service and she has been deployed overseas where she is serving the United States.

WITNESS INTIMIDATION: NOT GUILTY
THREATS: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: GUILTY

Defendant, and five other Defendants, were employees at a juvenile detention center, which housed juveniles who had been adjudicated delinquent (or found guilty) for crimes and sentenced to serve sentences. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants would regularly threaten them, sexually abuse them, and physically abuse them. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants engaged in a ritualistic form of abuse known as “orange chicken” to punish or discipline them. The orange chicken assault involved the juvenile’s underwear being pulled down and getting smacked on the bare buttocks with an orange rubber sandal. If a juvenile complied with the orange chicken, the punishment would be less severe but if they resisted the assault would more severe. Defendants instructed other juveniles to participate in administering orange chicken assaults to other juveniles. The abuse was not limited to orange chicken assaults, as the juveniles described other forms of physical and sexual abuse by the Defendants. The Department of Children and Families and the Massachusetts State Police conducted an extensive investigation, which resulted in the juvenile facility being completely shut down. The District Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive grand jury investigation, which involved the testimony of juveniles, employees, law enforcement, and resulted in the production of thousands of pages of records and documents.

Result:

Defendant was charged with Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that the Defendants engaged in conduct designed to prevent the juveniles from reporting the abuse. Specifically, the Defendants threatened to put a “green light” on a juvenile if they reported the abuse. A “green light” meant that if a juvenile reported abuse they would be attacked at any other juvenile facility they went to because the Defendants had connections with other facilities. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had a Not Guilty finding entered on the Witness Intimidation charge because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence against his client.

Defendant was charged with Threats (G.L. c. 275, §2) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that Defendants threatened to give Victim #1 an orange chicken assault, if Victim #1 did not participate in orange chicken assaults on other juveniles. At trial, Attorney Noonan impeached Victim #1 with prior statements he made where he told police he didn’t recall being told that if he did not participate in orange chicken, he would be next. The most important piece of evidence that won an acquittal on the Threats charge was Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of Victim #1 where he got Victim #1 to admit that his client never made any such threat to him.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A) on Victim #2 based on Victim #2’s testimony that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room, forcibly pulled down his pants, and beat him on the bare buttocks with a sandal. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 had falsely accused another staff member of assaulting him in the laundry room during this same incident.

Specifically, Victim #1 testified at the grand jury that this other staff member assaulted him in the laundry and Victim #1 even sued this other staff member for assaulting him in the laundry room. However, when questioned about the incident in the laundry room, Victim #2 admitted that the other staff was not involved. Moreover, Attorney Noonan questioned the facility’s program director at trial who stated that she viewed surveillance video from the laundry room area on the date of the incident and there was no video to corroborate Victim #2’s allegations that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. The police even viewed the video, which did not show any evidence that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. Lastly, Victim #2 claimed that after the assault in the laundry room, he was discharged from the facility. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 met with his case worker shortly after the alleged assault in the laundry room and he did not say anything to his case worker about it.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on the testimony of a former employee who testified that he witnessed the Defendant beat Victim #3 with a sandal in the cafeteria. The Commonwealth gave this former employee immunity to testify against all defendants. This former employee testified that he personally participated in the assault on Victim #3 in the cafeteria and he witnessed the Defendant participating in the assault. However, during Victim #3’s trial testimony, he testified that the Defendant was present for the incident in the cafeteria but he could not recall if the Defendant participated. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan cited the law, which states that “no defendant…shall be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of…a person granted immunity.” G.L. c. 233, §20I. Attorney Noonan argued that the only evidence of the Defendant involvement in the assault and battery on Victim #3 came from the testimony of an immunized witness. Attorney Noonan argued and the Commonwealth failed to prove the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the Commonwealth did not present any other evidence to corroborate the testimony of its immunized witness.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on Victim #3’s testimony that the Defendant choked him with a wooden drumstick in the hallway. The jury convicted the Defendant on this one and only charge. However, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there were cameras that would have captured the incident in the hallway and the program director testified that she did not see any video footage of any assault on Victim #3 in the hallway. Moreover, Victim #3 testified that he assaulted the Defendant for no reason. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was legally entitled to use force to restrain juveniles in the course of his employment and he had a right to act in self-defense. Attorney Noonan cited the testimony of another employee who stated that “restraints” on juveniles’ are difficult to perform alone without any assistance from other employees. This employee testified that it is very difficult to perform a “restraint” in the manner they are trained to do where a juvenile violently attacks an employee and an employee has to do whatever he can to restrain the juvenile. In this case, Defendant was violently attacked by Victim #3 who was known to be violent and had previously attacked other juveniles and staff. The Commonwealth did not present evidence of the entire incident or the full picture of what happened. How can the Commonwealth say that the Defendant’s force to restrain Victim #3 was unreasonable when there were so many unanswered questions about what actually happened? How can it be said that the Defendant’s restraint was excessive when the Commonwealth did not any present evidence with regards to the severity of Victim #3’s assault on the Defendant? Defendant’s response would be appropriate if he was faced with a violent assault by a violent person.

At the end of this lengthy trial, the jury acquitted the Defendant on all charges, except for one.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS CHARGE AGAINST MEDICAL DOCTOR DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT, SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM HAVING THIS SERIOUS FELONY OFFENSE ON HIS RECORD.

Client, a medical doctor, went to a fitness center in Dartmouth to exercise. Another member of the gym reported to the gym’s manager that the Defendant exposed his genitals and masturbated in front of him in the sauna. The police were called to the gym. Police interviewed the alleged victim who again reported that the Defendant exposed his genitals and masturbated in front of him in the sauna. The alleged victim wrote a written statement of the incident. Police interviewed the Defendant who denied exposing his genitals or touching his penis in the sauna. Defendant provided a written statement to police denying the allegations.

Result: Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Open and Gross Lewdness (G.L. c. 272, §16). Defendant was summonsed to appear in the District Court for an arraignment on that charge. Had the Defendant been arraigned, the criminal charge would be entered on his criminal record and the matter would be prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed prior to arraignment on the grounds that the Defendant was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate before the criminal complaint issued. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s character. Client was a medical doctor in the Philippines where he was a member of a humanitarian organization that provided free medical care to the poor and victims who suffered horrific injuries. In particular, the client performed countless surgeries to those who had been horrifically disfigured. Attorney Noonan presented many letters from medical professionals attesting to the client’s humanitarian work and his good character. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint against the client. Open and Gross Lewdness is a felony offense that carries possible registration as a sex offender and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in ensuring that his client was not charged with this very serious offense.

CHARGE OF ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER AGAINST MARINE CORPS VETERAN WITH SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS DISMISSED.

Defendant was committed to the Veteran’s Hospital in Brockton. Defendant physically assaulted another patient by punching him twice in the face. Defendant then stabbed a nurse in the neck with a ballpoint pen. Defendant suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type and presents with prominent symptoms of psychosis, including significant auditory hallucinations and delusions. Defendant hears voices telling him to do things. However, law enforcement took the position that the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions, knew exactly what he was doing, and that his mental illnesses did not play any factor in his attack on the nurse and other patient. Specifically, law enforcement alleged that the Defendant’s attack was premeditated and he planned the attack about an hour and half earlier. Defendant stated that the voices in his head did not tell him to attack the nurse. Defendant stated that he stabbed the nurse because he wanted to experience the feeling of killing someone. According to law enforcement, the attending physician could not say for certain whether the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions due to his mental illness. Defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder (G.L. c. 265, §15), Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), and Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53).

Result: Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial. The Commonwealth petitioned to have the Defendant committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital because he required the strict security of the facility while treating his mental illness. Defendant had been involuntarily committed for several years and periodically found incompetent to stand trial at the time that the Defendant’s father hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Defendant was transferred to the Worcester Recovery Center but still involuntarily committed. Attorney Noonan met with the Defendant, his father, and his treatment team. Defendant was doing well and progressing with his treatment. The treatment team wanted to progress the Defendant into his next stage of treatment, which was supervised community access where the Defendant would have limited exposure to the outside world. However, the treatment team could not advance the Defendant to this next level of treatment because the Defendant was “held without bail” and his bail status precluding him from leaving the hospital. The criminal case was greatly interfering with the Defendant’s treatment. Attorney Noonan successfully moved the Court to change the Defendant’s bail status so he could progress to his next level of treatment and have supervised community access. Defendant did very well with his next level of treatment and he had no incidents. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §16(f) because the Defendant has been held in the capacity of incompetent to stand trial for five (5) years, which is one-half of the maximum sentence of the most serious crime he was charged with: Assault with Intent to Murder. Attorney Noonan also argued that §16(f) grants the Court the discretion to dismiss such a case “in the interests of justice.” Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the Defendant’s treatment team stating how well the Defendant was doing and that the Defendant was temporarily scheduled to be discharged from the Hospital subject to an outpatient treatment plan. The Judge dismissed the case. With the criminal case dismissed, the Defendant has no restrictions on his ability to receive quality medical care.

CRIMINAL CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE’S HEARING.

Client’s wife obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against him. The wife went to the Canton Police Station to report that the Defendant violated the restraining order because he was taking pictures of her in the parking lot of the courthouse after their court hearing. As a result of the wife’s allegations, the Canton Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Violation of 209A Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk Magistrate Hearing. As a result, the client was never charged with this crime and has no criminal record from this incident.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO DISMISS FELONY DRUG CHARGE IN BOSTON AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS SERVING A JAIL SENTENCE FOR FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS IN BROCKTON – SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF SERVING SERIOUS JAIL TIME.

Defendant was charged, in the Brockton District Court, with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A-Heroin (G.L. c. 94C, §32) and Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C). While his Brockton District Court case was pending, Defendant was arrested in Boston and charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D (marijuana). In the Brockton District Court case, Defendant was convicted and was sentenced to serve time in jail while his drug case in Boston was still pending. As the Defendant was now previously convicted of Possession with Intent to Distribute in Brockton, he was facing serious penalties in his Boston case.

Result: In the Boston case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion a Dismiss the drug charge for lack of probable cause, which was denied by the Judge. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of an intent to distribute was insufficient because the officer did not make any findings with regards to the quantity of the drugs. After his Motion to Dismiss was denied, the Boston case was then scheduled for trial. On the trial date, this time before a different judge, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the drug charge based on the same argument he made before; that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute drugs because there was no evidence with regards to the quantity of drugs in the Defendant’s possession. This time, the judge agreed and dismissed the drug charge. This was a big victory because the client was facing serious penalties due to the fact that he had been previously convicted for Possession with Intent to Distribute.

ON THE FIRST TRIAL DATE, PROSECUTOR DROPS CHARGE OF OUI-DRUGS AGAINST SCREENWRITER RATHER THAN TRY THE CASE AGAINST ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN.

On June 19, 2018, Massachusetts State Police pulled over the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 6 in Barnstable because one of his taillights was out. The State Trooper observed that the vehicle was suspiciously activating its brake lights, several times, even though no other vehicles were on the road. The Trooper approached the vehicle. Upon the driver’s side window being rolled down, a big cloud of smoke poured out of the vehicle and the Trooper detected a strong smell of marijuana. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had smoked any marijuana and the Defendant admitted that he had “been smoking all day.” There were three passengers in the vehicle; all of whom admitted that they were smoking marijuana. Defendant stated that they were coming from dinner. Defendant further stated that he had smoked a joint before and after dinner. The Trooper observed that the Defendant spoke in a very slow and delayed speech. Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. After several requests, Defendant could not locate his vehicle’s registration. Defendant did not have a valid driver’s license either. During the entire driver’s side conversation, the Trooper noted that the smell and smoke from the marijuana was continuously flowing out of the vehicle. The Trooper asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Defendant stumbled several times while walking to the front of his vehicle. The Trooper administered the Walk and Turn field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. Trooper administered the Romberg field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. The Trooper formed the opinion that the Defendant was Operating under the Influence of Drugs-Marijuana (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appeared ready for trial armed with evidence to prove that his client was not under the influence of marijuana. The District Attorney was ready for trial and the State Trooper was present and prepared to testify. Attorney Noonan elected to have a jury-waived trial before a judge rather than a jury. The court took a brief recess. After the brief recess, the trial was going to start. During the recess, the prosecutor approached Attorney Noonan and stated that the Commonwealth was dismissing the charge of Operating under the Influence of Drugs.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST RETIRED BUSINESSMAN DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING AFTER VICTIM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE HER ONLY CORROBORATING WITNESS.

Client is a retired businessman from Easton who was in the middle of a nasty divorce with his soon-to-be ex-wife. The wife obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which prohibited the Defendant from contacting her. The wife went to the Canton Police Station alleging that the client violated the restraining order by having a mutual friend contact her by phone. The wife alleged that the client instructed this mutual friend to contact her and she could hear the Defendant in the background of the telephone call. As a result, the Canton Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint for Violation of 209A (G.L. c. 209A, §7).

Result: At the first clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client had no idea who this alleged mutual friend was who supposedly contacted his wife. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the wife was previously unsuccessful in obtaining a 209A Order against the Defendant. The wife was successful in her second attempt in obtaining a 209A Order. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Modify the conditions of the active 209A Order, which was allowed over the objection of the wife and her attorney. Upset about over the outcome of that hearing, the wife went directly to the police station to report this alleged violation. At the first clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Noonan requested that the wife produce the mutual friend as a witness to corroborate the wife’s allegation. Attorney Noonan argued that, if the wife could not produce the mutual friend as a witness now or in the future, the criminal charge would ultimately be dismissed – so it made sense to establish now, rather than later, if the wife could produce this witness. The Clerk-Magistrate ordered the wife to produce the mutual friend at the next Clerk’s Hearing. At the next Clerk’s hearing, the wife failed to produce this witness and the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the case.