Clerk’s Hearings
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – Taunton District Court
CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FOR THREE-COUNTS OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST REGISTERED NURSE DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
The client is a registered nurse. She has no criminal record. She has a valid license to carry firearms. The police were dispatched to her home for a wellness check on her boyfriend. When the police entered the home, they observed three firearms, which were not stored in a securely locked container or affixed with a trigger lock. The client was charged with three-counts of Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). This offense is very easy to prove. The Commonwealth need only prove that there was a working firearm that was not properly secured in either a locked container or affixed with a tamper-resistant lock or other safety device. Here, there was no doubt that the client committed the offenses charged. As a licensed nurse, any criminal offenses on her record would result in a suspension of her nursing license and termination from employment. At the clerk-magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the clerk to dismiss the complaints after one year, so long as the client does not get into any trouble, which shouldn’t be any trouble for this client, who is a stellar person.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Wrentham District Court
CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST CAR SALESMAN DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
The client has an unrestricted license to carry firearms. He went over to his girlfriend’s house. He did not want to bring his firearm into his girlfriend’s home, so he left the firearm in his car. When he returned home, he forgot that his firearm was in his car. The next morning, the client discovered that someone had broken into his car and stolen his firearm. The client immediately reported the theft of his firearm to the police. Because the client left the firearm unattended in his vehicle, permitting access to the firearm by others, including car thieves, the police charged him with Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). At the clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client made a mistake. However, in terms of mitigation, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client made efforts to secure the firearm by removing the magazine and fastening a cable through the empty magazine and chamber, but did not fully secure the firearm in compliance with Massachusetts law. Furthermore, the client acted responsibly by immediately reporting his missing firearm to the police. The clerk decided to dismiss the complaint after one year, so long as the client stays out of trouble, which shouldn’t be a problem because he has never been in any trouble before.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Brockton District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
The client had a heated dispute with a contractor. The client hired the contractor to build him a new front porch. As part of the agreement, the contractor was required to remove all debris. However, the contractor never removed the debris, material, or trash, so the client paid to have the debris removed. When the contractor requested payment, the client stated that he would pay the bill, minus the money he paid to have the debris removed. The contractor and his son showed up to the client’s house at 9:00 p.m. unannounced, demanding full payment. In this heated confrontation, the contractor called the police and reported that the defendant pushed him. The police charged the client with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the contractor and his son were the aggressors. When they were banging on his front door, at 9:00 p.m. at night, they startled and scared the client’s young children. When the client refused to pay the entire bill, the contractor and his son attempted to barge into the house, but the client pushed them away. The client took out his phone and said that he was calling the police at which time the contractor grabbed his phone and threw it. The contractor and his son committed an assault on the client. During this contentious hearing, the clerk decided to dismiss the complaint. The client had no record.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Taunton District Court
DRIVING OFFENSES AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
Our client recently emigrated to the U.S. from Haiti. He has been employed as a warehouse worker. The client was driving a friend’s vehicle and was pulled over because the car had no inspection sticker and the windshield was heavily cracked. Upon the stop, the client only had a learner’s permit with no authorized driver in the vehicle. As a result, the client was charged with Operating without a License, No Inspection, and a violation of the Code of Massachusetts Regulation for the defective windshield. The client did not have much money, so we took the case at a discounted rate and persuaded the clerk to drop all charges.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ARMED SECURITY GUARD DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
Police responded to the scene of a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, the client’s ex-girlfriend reported that the Defendant showed up to her apartment, unannounced, banging on the door and he forced himself inside the apartment. Defendant accused her of having an affair with another man. The other man was present in the apartment. An argument ensued between the Defendant and his ex-girlfriend’s lover, who claimed that the Defendant punched him in the face. Police observed visible injuries to his face. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13A. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented him at a clerk-magistrate hearing. Because of the criminal charge, Defendant was terminated from his job as an armed security guard and his license to carry firearms was suspended. Defendant required an LTC in order to work in armed security. Defendant had been an armed security guard for the past five years and the Defendant had no prior criminal record. Attorney Noonan convinced the clerk to hold the case open for 3 months. If the Defendant remains out of trouble and does not get arrested, the charge would be withdrawn, and the criminal offense will not show up on his record. Attorney Noonan is also retained for the purposes of restoring the Defendant’s LTC so he can return to work.
Commonwealth v. G.D. – Stoughton District Court
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.
Commonwealth v. G.D. – Stoughton District Court
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.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – Gloucester District Court
CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT FOR CAUSING A SERIOUS CAR CRASH ON ROUTE 128 RESULTING IN INJURIES TO SEVERAL PEOPLE IS DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.
Massachusetts State Police and Gloucester Police were dispatched to Route 128 in Gloucester for a report of a head-on collision car crash. The Defendant, a college student, was driving with her four friends in her vehicle. Defendant approached Exit 13 when she realized that the turn off the exit was sharper than she had anticipated. She applied her brakes and attempted to make the sharp right-hand turn when her vehicle began to skid and she lost control of the vehicle. Her vehicle crossed the highway, traveled across the grassy infield, and struck another vehicle head-on. Investigators determined that the Defendant’s vehicle traveled a distance of 266 feet from the point where she applied her brakes to the point of impact with the other vehicle. There was significant and serious damage to both vehicles. All four passengers in the Defendant’s car were injured and transported to the hospital where several of them suffered from serious injuries. Police charged the Defendant with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle also referred to as Operating to Endanger. G.L. c. 90, §24.
Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate to drop the Negligent Operation criminal charge and to find his client responsible for speeding. Attorney Noonan pointed out that Exit 13 is a dangerous exit to those unfamiliar with it, as there is a deceptive sharp turn in taking Exit 13. The client was unfamiliar with the sharp turn, which played a factor in the accident. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s car insurance had ample coverage to compensate those who were injured in the accident. Finally, Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client is an honor student at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island where she is studying in hopes of becoming a medical doctor. The client was negligent in operating her vehicle but Attorney Noonan felt that his client should not have to suffer the consequences of having a criminal record for causing this accident.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Plymouth District Court
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER BY EX-GIRLFRIEND DISMISSED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE EX-GIRLFRIEND SOUGHT THE CRIMINAL CHARGE IN ORDER TO GET CUSTODY OF THEIR SON.
Client and his ex-wife girlfriend were in a heated and contentious court battle over the custody of their 18 month-old son in the Family Court. Previously, the girlfriend reported to police that the client had kidnapped their child and brought the child to Florida with no intention of returning the child. As a result of the girlfriend allegations, a warrant issued for the client’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping (G.L. c. 265, §26A). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the Parental Kidnapping charge dismissed prior to arraignment and the client was never charged with that crime. Subsequently, the girlfriend went into the Plymouth Police Department and reported that the client had sent her text messages where he threatened to kill her. As a result of this allegation, the police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the client for Threats to Commit a Crime, the crime being Murder (G.L. c. 275, §2).
Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the girlfriend was motivated to accuse the client of threatening to kill her as a strategy and as a way to win custody of the child in the Family Court. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the girlfriend made a written proposal to the client where she stated that she would agree to drop the criminal charges against the client in exchange for the client giving her custody of the child. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint against the client.