Massachusetts Criminal Defense Results: Dismissals, No Complaints, and Case Victories

The following results represent a portion of Serpa Law Office’s criminal defense work across Massachusetts District Courts and the Boston Municipal Court. The entries include recent results from March through October 2026 and selected earlier results that remain relevant to former clients. Results include clerk-magistrate hearing denials in which no complaint issued and no CORI entry was created, dismissals prior to arraignment in which the CORI entry was prevented, post-arraignment dismissals, and victories at restraining order hearings. Every matter is different. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation.

The firm’s page on dismissals, not guilty verdicts, and the alternatives to a guilty plea explains how outcomes like these are reached, from pretrial motions to trial verdicts.

The procedures behind those endings are set out on the page explaining how Massachusetts criminal cases get dismissed, including the judicial grounds for dismissal, the effect of a successful motion to suppress, and how a case can end before arraignment.

The most consequential stage in most Massachusetts criminal cases is the clerk-magistrate hearing, a private, pre-arraignment proceeding at which a complaint can be denied before any public record is created. A result of “No Complaint” means the clerk-magistrate denied the application. No arraignment occurred. No CORI entry was created. The matter is permanently and privately closed. An application held in abeyance is different: no complaint has issued, but the private application remains pending for the stated period. If that period passes without a new incident, the application is destroyed. A result of “Dismissed Prior to Arraignment” means the charge was resolved before the arraignment date, preventing the CORI entry from being created. See: Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearing FAQs and I Received a Show Cause Notice in Massachusetts. What Do I Do?.

November 2026

Domestic Violence: 209A Restraining Order Extension, Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: Order Not Extended After a Full Hearing

A software engineer faced the plaintiff’s request to extend a 209A restraining order in the Boston Municipal Court, Central Division. The plaintiff’s application for the ex parte order alleged domestic violence. Attorney Joe Serpa investigated the allegations in depth, researched the governing law and prepared a written memorandum opposing the extension. The judge held a full hearing on November 6, 2026, the first extension hearing, and found no need to extend the 209A restraining order.

Domestic Violence: Intimidation of a Witness (G.L. c. 268, § 13B), Assault and Battery on a Person 60 or Older (G.L. c. 265, § 13K(a½)) and Larceny Over $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, § 30(1)), Dedham District Court: All Three Felonies Dismissed and the Record Sealed

A biotechnology finance professional with a Ph.D. in pharmacology from Johns Hopkins faced three felony charges in a domestic violence case: intimidation of a witness, assault and battery on a person 60 or older, and larceny over $1,200. On June 25, 2025, Dedham District Court dismissed all three charges. The public docket still listed the three felony charges, and employers in the client’s field fill positions through background checks. Attorney Joe Serpa petitioned the court to seal the record under G.L. c. 276, § 100C. In March 2026 the court found that the public record kept the client from adequate work in the profession, but denied the first petition because the dismissal was then recent. Attorney Serpa filed a renewed petition with a written memorandum documenting the client’s education, professional work and continued scientific research. On November 5, 2026, after a hearing, Dedham District Court allowed the renewed petition and sealed the record of all three charges. When an employer or landlord now asks about the case, the clerk and the Commissioner of Probation report that no record exists, and the client may answer “no record” on an application for employment or housing.

Assault and Battery on a Police Officer (G.L. c. 265, § 13D), Disorderly Conduct and Disturbing the Peace (G.L. c. 272, § 53), Boston Municipal Court, South Boston Division: All Charges Dismissed

A U.S. Army veteran who retired from the United States Postal Service after more than 29 years faced charges of assault and battery on a police officer, disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. The charges arose from a medical call that state troopers answered. The police also applied for a charge of domestic assault and battery, but no complaint issued on that charge. Attorney Serpa submitted a written memorandum documenting the client’s honorable Army service, military awards and postal career. On November 5, 2026, the Boston Municipal Court, South Boston Division, dismissed all three charges.

Fake ID: Forged License Document (G.L. c. 90, § 24B), Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

A college student pursuing an architecture degree faced a private citizen’s application for a criminal complaint charging misuse of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document, the offense commonly called a fake ID. The student has a strong academic record, with Dean’s List recognition and a merit scholarship, and is on track to graduate. The student also worked for several years as a lifeguard, with training in CPR and first aid, and as a recreational soccer referee. Attorney Serpa submitted a written memorandum documenting the student’s education and work, and presented the case at a full clerk-magistrate hearing on November 4, 2026. The clerk-magistrate declined to issue a criminal complaint. The student therefore has no criminal record from this application.

Keeping a Noisy and Disorderly House (G.L. c. 272, § 53(a)), Boston Municipal Court, West Roxbury Division: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

A Northeastern University student studying political science and international affairs, with a minor in business administration, faced an application by the Boston Police Department for a criminal complaint charging keeping a noisy and disorderly house. The application concerned one gathering at the student’s apartment. The student has a strong academic record and is on track to graduate in 2028. The student works in a cooperative-education position in city government operations and also leads campus tours for prospective students and their families. The student’s volunteer service includes serving meals at a community center and nonpartisan voter outreach to fellow students. The student plans to study abroad in a university global program in 2027. Attorney Serpa submitted a written memorandum documenting the student’s education, work and service, and presented the case at a full clerk-magistrate hearing on November 3, 2026. The clerk-magistrate declined to issue a criminal complaint. The student therefore has no criminal record from this application.

Keeping a Noisy and Disorderly House (G.L. c. 272, § 53(a)), Boston Municipal Court, West Roxbury Division: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

A Northeastern University business student concentrating in finance, with a minor in biology, faced an application by the Boston Police Department for a criminal complaint charging keeping a noisy and disorderly house. The application concerned one gathering at the student’s apartment. The student has a strong academic record and is on track to graduate in 2028. The student is preparing for a career in finance. The student was also a finalist in a university consulting case competition, building a market expansion strategy and financial models for a nonprofit organization. The student has worked in marketing and sales for a local business, as a fitness center receptionist, and as a student sports journalist. Since 2021, the student has coached and mentored more than seventy children from low-income families in hockey, math, science and English, and has raised money and gathered equipment so the program runs free of charge. Attorney Serpa submitted a written memorandum documenting the student’s education, work and service, and presented the case at a full clerk-magistrate hearing on November 3, 2026. The clerk-magistrate declined to issue a criminal complaint. The student therefore has no criminal record from this application.

October 2026

Domestic Violence: Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, § 13M(a)), Boston Municipal Court, East Boston Division: Dismissed Prior to Arraignment

A recent Babson College graduate in a first job in finance faced a criminal complaint charging assault and battery on a family or household member in a domestic violence case. The clerk-magistrate issued the complaint after the graduate was deprived of the clerk-magistrate hearing that G.L. c. 218, § 35A requires. Attorney Serpa moved to dismiss the complaint before arraignment because the graduate was deprived of a statutory right to the § 35A hearing. On October 30, 2026, the Boston Municipal Court, East Boston Division, dismissed the complaint before arraignment. No arraignment occurred, and no criminal record will result from this case.

Fake ID: Forged License Document (G.L. c. 90, § 24B), Boston Municipal Court, Brighton Division: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

A selective business school junior studying business administration, with concentrations in marketing and business analytics, faced an application for a criminal complaint charging misuse of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document, the offense commonly called a fake ID. The student has a strong academic record over two years of college and is carrying a full course load this fall. The student completed two marketing internships, each lasting most of a year, while attending classes full time. The student also ran a small business during freshman year. The student has tutored and mentored younger students through a scholarship program since 2017. The student served as student body president in high school and has organized film, cultural and charity events for fellow students in college. Attorney Serpa submitted a written memorandum documenting the student’s education, work and service, and presented the case at the clerk-magistrate hearing on October 29, 2026. The clerk-magistrate declined to issue a criminal complaint. The student therefore has no criminal record from this application.

Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. c. 275, § 2), Boston Municipal Court, Brighton Division: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

An international graduate student faced an application by a university police department for a criminal complaint charging threats to commit a crime. The application was based on emailed threats to university officials that were violent and concerning. The student graduated from a leading American university with a degree in philosophy and classical studies, held two academic fellowships there, and published philosophical writing in a student journal. The student’s volunteer service includes teaching children in rural communities, weekly visits with nursing home residents, food distribution to neighbors in need, and college admissions counseling for students from families with limited financial resources. The student also taught an online ethics course for high school students. The student lived overseas and appeared at the hearing by video. Attorney Serpa filed a written memorandum documenting the student’s education, service and family support, then presented the case at the clerk-magistrate hearing on October 28, 2026. The clerk-magistrate declined to issue a criminal complaint. The student therefore has no criminal record from this application.

Fake ID: Forged License Document (G.L. c. 90, § 24B), Boston Municipal Court, Brighton Division: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

A Boston College sophomore studying finance at the university’s business school faced an application for a criminal complaint charging misuse of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document, the offense commonly called a fake ID. The student graduated from high school with honors, has held a retail job since 2024, and spent the summer of 2026 as a camp counselor and certified lifeguard responsible for a cabin of young children. The student also served as an officer of a high school business club that raised tens of thousands of dollars for a children’s charity. The student received volunteer service awards in four consecutive years and is now seeking internships in consulting and asset management. Attorney Serpa submitted a written memorandum documenting the student’s education, work and service, and presented the case at the clerk-magistrate hearing on October 28, 2026. The clerk-magistrate declined to issue a criminal complaint. The student therefore has no criminal record from this application.

Domestic Violence: Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, § 13M(a)), Boston Municipal Court, Charlestown Division: Charge Dismissed

Attorney Serpa represented a technology professional charged with assault and battery on a family or household member in a domestic violence case. On October 27, 2026, the Charlestown Division of the Boston Municipal Court dismissed the charge on the scheduled trial date.

Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (Domestic Assault and Battery) and Witness Intimidation, Waltham District Court: Both Charges Dismissed

A scientist and engineer with a doctorate in computer science faced charges of assault and battery on a family or household member and witness intimidation. His professional background included university research, data science, and work in artificial intelligence and machine learning. He also mentored junior scientists and engineers. As an employed parent closely involved in his children’s daily lives, he had substantial responsibilities at work and at home. The pending prosecution raised concerns about professional background screening and disruption to his career and family life.

Attorney Serpa’s representation included review of the criminal complaint, police reports, and recorded emergency calls, and preparation for the scheduled trial. The defense focused on the evidence available to the Commonwealth and whether the prosecution could proceed. On the scheduled trial date, Waltham District Court dismissed both charges.

Strangulation or Suffocation (G.L. c. 265, § 15D(b)) and Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, § 13A(a)), Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: Pre-Arraignment Diversion

A business owner whose government contracts and professional licenses were at stake faced a felony charge of strangulation or suffocation and a charge of assault and battery. Attorney Serpa investigated the allegation before arraignment, served defense subpoenas for the security camera video, and had an investigator interview witnesses. He then presented the video and the interviews to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office with a written request to resolve the case before arraignment. The Commonwealth recommended pre-arraignment diversion. The court continued the case without arraignment while the client completes a three-month program. The case will be dismissed before arraignment, with no CORI entry, if the client completes the program.

Fake ID: Forged License Document (G.L. c. 90, § 24B), Suffolk County Juvenile Court: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

A gifted student and soccer player headed to an Ivy League college faced an application for a delinquency complaint alleging forgery or misuse of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document. Attorney Serpa prepared a memorandum setting out the student’s academic and athletic record and represented the student at a clerk-magistrate hearing. No delinquency complaint issued, and no arraignment occurred.

Fake ID: Forged License Document (G.L. c. 90, § 24B), Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: No Complaint Issued

A Syracuse University communications major and athlete faced an application for a criminal complaint alleging misuse or forgery of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document. Attorney Serpa prepared a memorandum with supporting exhibits and represented the student at a clerk-magistrate hearing. No criminal complaint issued. The student will have no criminal record.

Assault (G.L. c. 265, § 13A), Somerville District Court: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

A retired fire captain, military veteran, and grandfather faced an application for a criminal complaint for assault after an argument with another man in a parking lot. The other man claimed that our client raised his fists and pushed him. Attorney Serpa submitted a written memorandum to the clerk-magistrate setting out our client’s service as a firefighter and a veteran and the limits of the evidence in the police report. After a clerk-magistrate hearing on October 20, 2026, no criminal complaint issued. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry resulted from the application.

Fake ID: Forged License Document (G.L. c. 90, § 24B), Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: No Complaint After Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

A Boston College engineering student faced an application for a criminal complaint alleging that he used a fake ID, charged as misuse or forgery of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document. The student had graduated with high honors from a Massachusetts boarding school and had spent two years helping train service dogs for people with limited mobility. Attorney Serpa presented that record to the clerk-magistrate in a written memorandum with supporting exhibits. After a clerk-magistrate hearing on October 19, 2026, no criminal complaint issued. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry resulted from the application.

258E Harassment Prevention Order: No Extension After a Full Hearing

Our client, a lawyer, faced unfair harassment claims from an overly litigious and unreasonable neighbor over property issues. Attorney Joe Serpa assembled the parties’ messaging history and established the neighbor’s bias. He used that record to challenge the allegations and oppose the neighbor’s request to extend the harassment prevention order.

After a full hearing, the judge declined to extend the order. The client can now live at home without the restrictions imposed by that order.

Shoplifting by Concealing Merchandise, G.L. c. 266, § 30A, Brookline District Court: Dismissed Prior to Arraignment

A working professional admitted to an undergraduate business program faced a shoplifting charge in Brookline District Court. The supporting records documented steady employment in health care, higher education, insurance, and research support, completion of a structured career-development program and university internship, and continued professional training. Attorney Joe Serpa sent a pre-arraignment submission documenting that record and requested dismissal before the scheduled arraignment. The charge was dismissed prior to arraignment. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry resulted from the case.

Serious Motor Vehicle Charge, Stoughton District Court: Dismissed Prior to Arraignment

A small-business owner whose work depended on a commercial driver’s license faced a serious motor vehicle charge after a serious accident. Attorney Joe Serpa presented evidence that the driver was not at fault and addressed the charge’s potential effect on his ability to work. The district attorney’s office dismissed the charge before arraignment. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry resulted from the case.

Drinking in Public, Boston Municipal Court, South Boston Division: Dismissed Prior to Arraignment

An experienced technology professional faced a drinking-in-public charge based on an allegation more than a decade old. A work platform denied access to a new opportunity after a background check identified an open warrant. Attorney Joe Serpa prepared a written request for dismissal before arraignment supported by the court record, the documented employment consequence, and the professional’s work history and education. The charge was dismissed before arraignment.

209A Abuse Prevention Order, Boston Municipal Court, Roxbury Division: Order Dismissed at the First Hearing

A college engineering student faced a 209A abuse prevention order issued on an application that alleged sexual assault. The order put his enrollment at risk and could have barred him from campus. Attorney Joe Serpa prepared a written opposition and reviewed the complete history of messages between the student and the plaintiff, nearly 500 pages. Those messages showed the actual course of the relationship and of the encounters the plaintiff described. At the first hearing, Attorney Serpa cross-examined the plaintiff on those messages. The judge then declined to extend the order and dismissed the 209A matter.

September 2026

209A Abuse Prevention Order, Cambridge District Court: Order Not Extended; 209A Case Dismissed

A reporter and researcher faced the plaintiff’s request to extend a 209A abuse prevention order in Cambridge District Court. Attorney Joe Serpa prepared a memorandum opposing the extension and, after the first day of testimony, a supplemental memorandum on the evidence presented that day. At a contested hearing held on September 30, 2026, Attorney Serpa cross-examined the plaintiff and presented messages, photographs, and bank records. The judge then declined to extend the abuse prevention order and dismissed the 209A case.

Failure to Stop for a Police Officer, G.L. c. 90, § 25, and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a), Malden District Court: Nolle Prosequi

A working professional was charged in Malden District Court with failing to stop for a state trooper and with negligent operation of a motor vehicle. To convict the client, the Commonwealth had to prove that the client was the person driving. The trooper claimed to have identified the client. Nothing in the discovery showed that the trooper saw the driver’s face or ever identified the client. Attorney Serpa challenged any in-court identification of the client under Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (2014). Under Crayton, a witness who did not identify the defendant before trial may identify the defendant for the first time in the courtroom only if there is good reason for the identification. On September 25, 2026, the Commonwealth filed a nolle prosequi on both criminal charges. A nolle prosequi is the Commonwealth’s formal notice that it will not prosecute the charges. The court found the client not responsible on the two civil motor vehicle infractions.

Reckless Endangerment of a Child, G.L. c. 265, § 13L, Wrentham District Court: No Complaints Issued

Two technology professionals and parents faced companion applications for criminal complaints alleging reckless endangerment of a child. Attorney Serpa filed a joint memorandum and exhibit appendix addressing the police account, the statutory elements, and the documented reasons formal prosecution was unnecessary. After a clerk-magistrate hearing in Wrentham District Court, no criminal complaint issued on either application. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry resulted from either application.

Assault and Battery, G.L. c. 265, § 13A, Concord District Court: No Complaint

A licensed professional and small-business owner with no criminal record faced an application for a criminal complaint alleging assault and battery after a brief encounter with a stranger. Attorney Serpa filed a memorandum and represented the client at a clerk-magistrate hearing in Concord District Court. The clerk-magistrate declined to issue the complaint. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry was created from the application.

Shoplifting by Recording a False Value, G.L. c. 266, § 30A, Cambridge District Court: Continued Generally Before Arraignment; Dismissal Deferred

A master’s-level psychotherapist with a distinguished academic record faced a proposed shoplifting complaint while applying for Massachusetts mental-health-counselor licensure. She graduated with highest honors from a selective university, earned a graduate degree in mental health counseling, was providing trauma-informed psychotherapy to a substantial weekly caseload, and had a documented history of crisis-line service. A pending criminal prosecution could have imperiled her clinical career and professional licensing.

Attorney Serpa filed a pre-arraignment packet documenting her education, clinical work, public service, health and treatment record, and pending licensure, and requested dismissal or a brief pre-arraignment resolution. Cambridge District Court continued the matter generally before arraignment under a deferred-dismissal arrangement. No arraignment occurred. The case remains pre-arraignment while dismissal is deferred.

Forged License Document (G.L. c. 90, § 24B), Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: No Complaint

A high-achieving college applicant with sustained academic, athletic, and musical accomplishments faced an application for a criminal complaint alleging misuse or forgery of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document. Attorney Serpa prepared a focused presentation addressing the applicant’s record, extracurricular commitments, and plans to attend a selective university. After a clerk-magistrate hearing in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court, no criminal complaint issued. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry resulted from the application.

Operating a Motor Vehicle After Suspension of Registration (G.L. c. 90, § 23), Cambridge District Court: Application Dismissed Before Arraignment; No Complaint Issued

An MIT graduate student and foreign national faced an application for a criminal complaint alleging operation of a motor vehicle after suspension of its registration. Attorney Serpa filed a memorandum addressing the absence of evidence that the student operated the legally parked, unoccupied vehicle or caused or permitted anyone else to operate it. The memorandum also addressed the foreign-driver laws for international students and visitors and the related licensing and vehicle requirements. It presented the vehicle’s prompt Massachusetts insurance and registration and the student’s academic achievement, professional work, leadership, service, and family ties. After a clerk-magistrate hearing in Cambridge District Court, the clerk-magistrate dismissed the application without issuing a criminal complaint. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry was created from the application, protecting the student’s academic, professional, travel, and immigration path.

Forged License Document (G.L. c. 90, § 24B), Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: No Complaint

A college student in a professional healthcare program faced an application for a criminal complaint alleging misuse or forgery of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document. Attorney Serpa prepared an exhibit presentation documenting the student’s strong academic record, steady employment, community service, and professional path in healthcare. The presentation also addressed the background-screening requirements of the student’s professional program. After a clerk-magistrate hearing in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court, the clerk-magistrate declined to issue the complaint. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry was created from the application.

Strangulation or Suffocation (G.L. c. 265, § 15D(b)) and Threat to Commit a Crime (G.L. c. 275, § 2), Somerville District Court: Both Charges Dismissed in 2018

A Northeastern University student faced charges of strangulation or suffocation and threat to commit a crime. Attorney Serpa obtained pretrial probation and, after the required program was completed, filed a motion to dismiss. The Somerville District Court allowed the motion and dismissed both charges. The former student is now permitted to return to the United States.

Forged License Document, G.L. c. 90, § 24B, Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: No Complaint Issued; Private Application Held in Abeyance for One Year

A Northeastern University student with an exceptional academic record faced an application for a felony criminal complaint alleging misuse or forgery of a Registry of Motor Vehicles document. Attorney Serpa submitted a memorandum addressing the student’s 3.98 GPA, background, and the reasons formal prosecution was unnecessary, then represented the student at a clerk-magistrate hearing in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court. The assistant clerk-magistrate did not issue a criminal complaint and held the private application in abeyance for one year. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry was created. The assistant clerk-magistrate stated that, if the year passes without a new incident, the application will be destroyed.

August 2026

209A Abuse Prevention Orders, Boston Municipal Court: Orders Allowed in Clients’ Favor and Denied Against Them

Two professional parents faced competing 209A proceedings arising from a difficult and longstanding family conflict. Attorney Serpa presented the evidence supporting the parents’ need for protection and opposed the requests for orders against them. The court allowed the abuse prevention orders in the clients’ favor and denied the requests for orders against the clients.

Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (Domestic Assault and Battery, G.L. c. 265, § 13M), Newton District Court: Case Dismissed and Record Sealed

A technology engineer and mother of two faced a charge of assault and battery on a family or household member. Her technology work requires security vetting and extensive background screening, and the dismissed case continued to affect employment and career advancement. Attorney Serpa obtained a six-month term of pretrial probation. After the client completed the term without incident, the court dismissed the charge. Attorney Serpa then filed a petition to seal supported by a memorandum and exhibits addressing her professional work, career mobility, family responsibilities, and the continuing consequences of an available criminal record. On August 27, 2026, Newton District Court allowed the petition and sealed the case. The dismissed charge no longer appears on the CORI available through ordinary background checks.

Identity Fraud (G.L. c. 266, § 37E), Woburn District Court: No Complaint

A mother, professional, and small-business owner faced an application for a criminal complaint alleging identity fraud. Attorney Serpa submitted a memorandum addressing probable cause and presenting evidence concerning the purpose of the Registry of Motor Vehicles visit, professional background, business ownership, and family responsibilities. After a clerk-magistrate hearing in Woburn District Court, the clerk-magistrate declined to issue the complaint. No arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry was created from the application.

Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, § 13A) and Intimidation of a Witness (G.L. c. 268, § 13B), Chelsea District Court: No Probable Cause, No Complaints Issued

A municipal police officer faced applications for criminal complaints alleging assault and battery and intimidation of a witness. The complainant alleged that the officer physically moved her during a family property retrieval and threatened her by invoking her office as a police officer and claiming influence with the police department.

Attorney Serpa presented the conflicting accounts, the omission of the alleged physical contact from the initial report, eyewitness evidence concerning the encounter, and the officer’s professional record and commendations. After a contested clerk-magistrate hearing in Chelsea District Court at which both sides appeared and were heard, the clerk-magistrate did not credit the allegation that the officer used her official position to threaten or intimidate the complainant, even under the probable cause standard. The clerk-magistrate found no probable cause on either proposed charge. No criminal complaint issued, no arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry was created.

Violation of a 209A Abuse Prevention Order (Domestic Violence, G.L. c. 209A, § 7), Two Counts, Cambridge District Court: No Probable Cause, No Complaints Issued

Police sought two criminal complaints alleging violations of a 209A no-contact order. The client, a professional and parent, faced arraignment and a CORI entry if either application resulted in a complaint and arraignment. One allegation arose from a research query intended for ChatGPT but mistakenly entered into an iMessage window. The client immediately told police that the transmission was accidental, and contemporaneous computer evidence showed the ChatGPT and iMessage windows open together. The second allegation involved a message to a relative who lived outside Massachusetts. That message did not name or refer to the protected person, ask the recipient to relay anything, or otherwise direct a communication to the protected person.

Attorney Serpa filed a memorandum supported by the order, police materials, complete message context, contemporaneous digital evidence, and professional background. At the clerk-magistrate hearing in Cambridge District Court, the defense argued that the first transmission was accidental and that the separate third-party message did not establish indirect contact with the protected person. The clerk-magistrate found no probable cause on either count and denied both complaint applications. No criminal complaint issued, no arraignment occurred, and no CORI entry was created.

Shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, § 30A), Dedham District Court: No Complaint

A high-achieving pre-med student preparing for medical school faced a complaint application alleging two shoplifting incidents. Attorney Serpa prepared an extensive mitigation presentation documenting the student’s Dean’s List academic record, demanding science curriculum, steady employment in two jobs, substantial healthcare volunteering, health-science competition recognition, and sustained community service. After a clerk-magistrate hearing in Dedham District Court, no criminal complaint issued on either allegation. The matter ended without an arraignment or a CORI entry, protecting the student’s path toward medical school.

Unlicensed Operation (G.L. c. 90, section 10): Warrant Recalled and Case Dismissed, Wareham District Court

The client, a foreign national living and working in Israel, faced an unlicensed-operation complaint after presenting an Israeli driver’s license during a Massachusetts traffic stop. He had returned to Israel before notice of the arraignment issued, and the resulting warrant prevented him from safely reentering the United States for a planned three-week visit involving New York, Florida, and a cruise. Attorney Serpa challenged the legal sufficiency of the charge and sought recall of the warrant. The court recalled the warrant and dismissed the case.

July 2026

False Identification (Fake ID), Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: No Complaint

The client, a college student with no prior criminal record, faced an application for a criminal complaint after being found with a false identification. Attorney Serpa appeared at the clerk-magistrate hearing in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court and presented the client’s circumstances and the weaknesses in the application. The clerk-magistrate declined to issue the complaint. No arraignment occurred, no CORI entry was created, and the matter is permanently and privately closed.

Felony Assault and Battery, Injury to a Victim Over 60: Continued Without a Finding for One Year, Unsupervised

The client was charged with a serious felony after an altercation that injured a victim over 60. The incident was captured on camera, and the case drew coverage from the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and Boston television news. Attorney Serpa’s investigation produced video and witness evidence that placed the incident close to self defense, together with mitigation the Commonwealth could not ignore. The case resolved with a one year continuance without a finding, unsupervised. The client avoided supervised probation and a felony conviction.

Threats to Commit a Crime: Complaint Dismissed on § 35A and Probable Cause Grounds, Lawrence District Court

The client, a biomedical engineer, was charged with threats to commit a crime under G.L. c. 275, § 2. The complaint had issued without the clerk-magistrate hearing G.L. c. 218, § 35A requires. Attorney Serpa moved to dismiss under Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, and the court dismissed the complaint on both § 35A and probable cause grounds.

209A Abuse Prevention Order: Extension Denied After Cross-Examination, Woburn District Court

The plaintiff asked the court to extend a 209A abuse prevention order, alleging years of repeated domestic violence. At the extension hearing, Attorney Serpa cross-examined the plaintiff and walked the judge through the plaintiff’s own messages and video evidence. After a deep review of that evidence, the court declined to extend the order, and it expired.

Default Warrant: Warrant Recalled and Case Dismissed, Waltham District Court

International student on an F-1 visa. A default warrant had made returning to the United States impossible while the case sat open, and his flight back was imminent. On an emergency request, the court allowed him to appear by Zoom from his home country. The judge recalled the warrant and dismissed the case, clearing the way for him to reenter and finish his degree.

Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (Domestic Assault and Battery, M.G.L. c. 265, § 13M): Dismissed, BMC Dorchester

College graduate and Amazon employee. Serious roadside incident in which Massachusetts State Police responded to a report of domestic violence in progress. Charge dismissed.

Leaving the Scene: Cambridge District Court: No Probable Cause, No Complaint Issued

Police applied for a criminal complaint against our client for leaving the scene under M.G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). Our client, a Harvard graduate, military veteran, retired teacher beloved by a generation of students, and classical vocalist who performs throughout his community, had never faced a criminal charge. The application threatened a record at the end of a long career of service. Attorney Serpa represented him at the clerk-magistrate hearing in Cambridge District Court and contested probable cause. The clerk-magistrate found no probable cause and declined to issue the complaint. The case ended there. No arraignment, no CORI entry, and no criminal record. The charge is explained at Leaving the Scene of an Accident in Massachusetts.

Shoplifting: Waltham District Court: No Probable Cause, No Complaint Issued

A retailer sought a criminal complaint against our client for shoplifting. Attorney Serpa prepared a comprehensive exhibit presentation for the clerk-magistrate hearing in Waltham District Court and contested the application. No complaint issued. The matter ended without an arraignment, without a CORI entry, and without a criminal record.

Forged License Document, G.L. c. 90, § 24B: Boston Municipal Court, Central Division: No Complaint Issued

Our client faced a complaint application under G.L. c. 90, § 24B, a felony, at a clerk-magistrate hearing in the Boston Municipal Court, Central Division. A felony complaint would have followed a young client for decades. Attorney Serpa contested the application at the hearing, and no complaint issued. No arraignment, no CORI entry, and no felony record. The charge category is explained at Fake ID and License Charges in Massachusetts.

Identity Fraud, G.L. c. 266, § 37E: Wrentham District Court: No Complaint Issued

Our client faced a complaint application for identity fraud under G.L. c. 266, § 37E at a clerk-magistrate hearing in Wrentham District Court. Attorney Serpa contested the application, and the clerk-magistrate declined to issue the complaint. The case ended before it began. No arraignment, no CORI entry, and no criminal record.

Firearms Offenses Connected to a 209A Order: Lawrence District Court: Continuance Without a Finding

The Commonwealth charged our client with serious firearms offenses connected to a 209A order, on evidence that made the charges readily provable at trial. Attorney Serpa litigated the case thoroughly, including motion practice challenging the Commonwealth’s evidence, and negotiated a resolution by continuance without a finding. Our client avoided a conviction on every charge. Upon successful completion of the continuance period, the case will be dismissed. On facts the Commonwealth could easily prove, the difference between a conviction record and a dismissal is the defense.

Shoplifting (M.G.L. c. 266, § 30A): No Complaint, Waltham District Court

Well-regarded small business owner, Harvard Business School graduate, with a young family. Multiple alleged incidents. All complaints denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

June 2026

Fake ID (M.G.L. c. 90, § 24B), No Complaint, BMC Central

Bentley University Economics Honors student. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing. No arraignment, no CORI entry, no university disclosure triggered. See: Massachusetts fake ID defense.

Assault and Battery, No Complaint, BMC West Roxbury

UMass Boston recent graduate. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

258E Harassment Prevention Order, No Extension, Woburn District Court

Amherst College student. Extension denied at hearing.

ABPO and Domestic Assault and Battery, Dismissed and Sealed, BMC Central

Boston College graduate. Both charges dismissed and sealed.

Fake ID (M.G.L. c. 90, § 24B), No Complaint, BMC Central

Indiana University management major. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Domestic Assault and Battery and 209A Abuse Prevention Order, All Resolved Simultaneously, BMC West Roxbury

Licensed mental health professional. No complaint issued on the assault charge and no extension of the 209A order, both resolved at the same hearing.

OUI Drugs, Multiple Assault Charges, and Resisting Arrest, All Dismissed, BMC Roxbury

Colorado State University graduate. OUI resolved with 24D first-offender disposition; all assault and resisting arrest charges dismissed.

Assault and Battery with a Protective Order (ABPO), No Complaint, BMC Central

Berklee College of Music student. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Fake ID (M.G.L. c. 90, § 24B), No Complaint, BMC Central

Berklee College of Music student. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct, No Complaint, BMC Central

Contracting business owner. Both complaints denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (ABDW), Dismissed, Attleboro District Court

UMass Dartmouth student. Charge dismissed.

Multiple Firearm and FID Violations, No Complaint, BMC South Boston

Management professional in the insurance industry. All complaints denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Fake ID (M.G.L. c. 90, § 24B), No Complaint, BMC Central

Northeastern University finance student. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Shoplifting (M.G.L. c. 266, § 30A), No Complaint, BMC Central

Small business owner in esthetics. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing. See: Shoplifting and Larceny Clerk-Magistrate Hearings in Massachusetts.

May 2026

Unlicensed Operation (M.G.L. c. 90, § 10), No Complaint, Concord District Court

Finance professional. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing. See: Unlicensed Operation Clerk-Magistrate Hearings: Students, New Residents, and Skilled Workers.

Domestic Assault and Battery and Witness Intimidation, Dismissed, Dedham District Court

Software engineer. Both charges dismissed.

Shoplifting (M.G.L. c. 266, § 30A), No Complaint, Brockton District Court

UMass Boston student. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Breaking and Entering and Malicious Destruction, No Complaint, Somerville District Court

Tufts University finance major. Both complaints denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (ABDW), No Complaint, BMC East Boston (Logan Airport)

Dentist. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing. See: Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts.

258E Harassment Prevention Order, No Extension, Taunton District Court

Union elevator manager. Extension denied at hearing.

Fake ID (M.G.L. c. 90, § 24B), No Complaint, BMC Brighton

USC student. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (ABDW), Dismissed, Salem District Court

Corporate manager. Charge dismissed.

Reckless Operation and Failure to Obey a Police Order, No Complaint, Waltham District Court

Northeastern University business major. Both complaints denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Fake ID (M.G.L. c. 90, § 24B), No Complaint, BMC Brighton

Boston College political science major. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

April 2026

Assault and Battery and Threats, Dismissed, Waltham District Court

Union electrician. Both charges dismissed.

209A Abuse Prevention Order, No Extension, Dedham District Court

Extension denied at hearing.

Unlicensed Operation (M.G.L. c. 90, § 10), No Complaint, Westborough District Court

Federal intelligence officer. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

OUI, Dismissed, BMC West Roxbury

Contractor. Charge dismissed.

Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (Domestic Assault and Battery, ABFHM), Dismissed and Sealed, Brookline District Court

Investment firm partner. Charge dismissed and sealed. See: Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts.

Fake ID (M.G.L. c. 90, § 24B), No Complaint, BMC Brighton

Boston College English major. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Larceny Over $1,200, Dismissed Prior to Arraignment, BMC South Boston

Northeastern University sports management major. Dismissed before arraignment, no CORI entry created.

OUI, Dismissed, BMC Charlestown

Contractor. Charge dismissed.

March 2026

Domestic Assault and Battery (ABFHM) and 209A Restraining Order Violation, Dismissed and Sealed, BMC West Roxbury

Boston University business PhD student. Both charges dismissed and sealed.

Domestic Assault and Battery (ABFHM) and Witness Intimidation, Dismissed, Lynn District Court

Rutgers University finance major. Both charges dismissed.

Larceny Over $1,200, Dismissed Prior to Arraignment, Cambridge District Court

Registered nurse. Dismissed before arraignment, no CORI entry created. See: Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts.

Fake ID (M.G.L. c. 90, § 24B), No Complaint, BMC Central

Tufts University engineering major. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Sex for a Fee, Dismissed, BMC Roxbury

Nursing student. Charge dismissed.

Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (ABDW), No Complaint, BMC South Boston

City of Boston parking official. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Assault and Battery and Threats, No Complaint, Concord District Court

U.S. Navy contractor engineer. Both complaints denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Disorderly Conduct and Noise Violation, Dismissed Prior to Arraignment, BMC Brighton

Boston University finance major. Dismissed before arraignment, no CORI entry created.

OUI, No Complaint, BMC West Roxbury

Retail manager. Complaint denied at clerk-magistrate hearing.

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation. Boston office: 20 Park Plaza #400A. Quincy Office: 500 Victory Road, Suite 400A.

Related Pages

• Clerk-Magistrate Hearings in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearing FAQs
• I Received a Show Cause Notice in Massachusetts. What Do I Do?
• Massachusetts fake ID defense
• Negligent Operation Clerk-Magistrate Hearings in Massachusetts
• Shoplifting and Larceny Clerk-Magistrate Hearings in Massachusetts
• Unlicensed Operation Clerk-Magistrate Hearings: Students, New Residents, and Skilled Workers
• College and University Student Criminal Defense
• Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts
• OUI Defense in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense
• Massachusetts 209A Restraining Orders
• Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Orders
• Massachusetts CORI and Criminal Records
• Sealing and Expunging a Massachusetts Criminal Record