I have been wrongfully accused of doing damage to another's car. Now the "victim" has filled out a criminal complaint at the District Court and I am scheduled to a hearing in late July in front of the Clerk Magistrate. What are my rights? What do I do?

Being wrongfully accused is the worst feeling.

You should hire an attorney. The other side will have to provide proof that will meet court standards

you should hire an attorney. The other side will have to provide proof that will meet court standards

This is only a hearing with the Clerk Magistrate so I don't need an attorney yet. I spoke to the court and that's what they told me.

What kind of "proof" does the other side need?

If you are going to be in court, you always need an attorney, esp if it is criminal.

The first hearing normally decides if there is enough evidence to procedure. And you will not know what to object to, what evidence should not be allowed and so on.

if you are going to be in court, you always need an attorney, esp if it is criminal.

The first hearing normally decides if there is enough evidence to procedure. And you will not know what to object to, what evidence should not be allowed and so on.

I can't afford an attorney so I called the court and asked for a court-appointed one, and that's when they told me I don't need one quit yet.

Hello b:

From what you say, you are being sued - not charged with a criminal act. Too many things are missing if this was criminal.. First off would be the lack of a police investigation. It appears that it's going from complaint directly to a hearing. The criminal process doesn't work that way. The civil process does.

Of course, if you're in Canada, things may be different. I can't tell if you are, but we don't have things called clerk magistrates.

excon

Hello b:

From what you say, you are being sued - not charged with a criminal act. Too many things are missing if this was criminal.. First off would be the lack of a police investigation. It appears that it's going from complaint directly to a hearing. The criminal process doesn't work that way. The civil process does.

Of course, if you're in Canada, things may be different. I can't tell if you are, but we don't have things called clerk magistrates.

excon

The "victim" didn't report the scratches on her car with the police but she did report that I punctured her tire with a bobby pin to the police.

You're saying that there needs to be an investigation before being summoned to court?

So I am being sued for something I didn't do. Wonderful.

She is claiming you punctured her tire with a "bobby pin"?? Go to a tire shop and see if you can get an old tire or just a piece of sidewall. Then go into court with the sidewall and some bobby pins. Ask the magistrate to try an puncture the sidewall with a bobby pin.

That should end that case.

So you're saying that there needs to be an investigation before being summoned to court?Hello again, b:

Yes, of course. But, we don't know that it WASN'T done. I only suspect it wasn't because the cops never interviewed YOU. Maybe they did their investigation and concluded positively that YOU did the deed... But, that's pretty hard to do unless somebody SAW you do it. And, even WITH an eyewitness, the cops should have interviewed YOU.

But, we can cut right to the chase if you'd just tell us WHAT the hearing before the clerk magistrate is FOR. It'll say so right on the front of the summons. If it says ARRAIGNMENT, it's criminal.

excon

I'm going to make a guess here. I'm going to guess that the magistrate's office may also be the investigating office and that this hearing may be just to determine the facts.

It would really help to know where this is happening.

She is claiming you punctured her tire with a "bobby pin"??? Go to a tire shop and see if you can get an old tire or just a piece of sidewall. Then go into court with the sidewall and some bobby pins. Ask the magistrate to try an puncture the sidewall with a bobby pin.

That should end that case.

Yes it should end the case.

Hello again, b:

Yes, of course. But, we don't know that it WASN'T done. I only suspect it wasn't because the cops never interviewed YOU. Maybe they did their investigation and concluded positively that YOU did the deed... But, that's pretty hard to do unless somebody SAW you do it. And, even WITH an eyewitness, the cops should have interviewed YOU.

But, we can cut right to the chase if you'd just tell us WHAT the hearing before the clerk magistrate is FOR. It'll say so right on the front of the summons. If it says ARRAIGNMENT, it's criminal.

excon

The night she claimed I popped her tire, the police did get my side of the story. She also did have a "witness" who is a minor, but the funny thing about that is, she asked that witness to basically lie and give a statement saying he saw me, even though he didn't.

I am being summoned. It isn't an arraignment.

I'm going to make a guess here. I'm going to guess that the magistrate's office may also be the investigating office and that this hearing may be just to determine the facts.

It would really help to know where this is happening.

I have been summoned to appear in front of the Clerk Magistrate with the "victim." It is a hearing to find out if it's necessary to charge me with the crime.

I have been summoned to appear infront of the Clerk Magistrate with the "victim." It is a hearing to find out if it's necessary to charge me with the crime.Hello again, b:

You're not helping us. WHERE is this? If you want to know about the LAW, tell us the country you live in so we look up the LAW! You sure aren't in the US. We don't have stuff like that.

Which brings me to the point of THIS post. This is a hearing where it's going to be determined whether you should be charged with a CRIME, yet "they" don't think you need a lawyer... I wouldn't be taking my legal advice from some clerk on the phone. That would be because he's WRONG!!

excon

I strongly agree with excon on the issue of an attorney. You should NOT, under ANY conditions answer questions that may lead to your prosecution for a crime without benefit of legal counsel.

Yes, remember if they find there is at least enough evidence to proceed to trial ( it takes a lot less evidence for this than it does at the trial) If a witness says they say you do it, that may be all it takes. The bobby pin could have been a knife, the court does not care at this point, the issue of could it have done it, is for trial, not for the hearing.

Remember if they do find to go to trial, you may be held and have to post bail, so are you ready for that, the day of court.

Sorry NOW is the best time for an attorney

Hello again, b:

You're not helping us. WHERE is this? If you wanna know about the LAW, tell us the country you live in so we look up the LAW! You sure aren't in the US. We don't have stuff like that.

Which brings me to the point of THIS post. This is a hearing where it's going to be determined whether you should be charged with a CRIME, yet "they" don't think you need a lawyer... I wouldn't be taking my legal advice from some clerk on the phone. That would be because he's WRONG!!!

excon

I am in Massachusetts.

Hello again, b:

I wasn't lying to you when I said, here in America, we don't have those things... And, we don't. Your total lack of understanding about the process you're going through is going to come back to BITE you. You need a lawyer, and you need him YESTERDAY.

It would also HELP us to HELP you if we didn't have to pull every detail out of you. We could have eliminated a whole page of stuff if you would have related the facts as they occurred from the beginning. You didn't. You said she filed a complaint at the district court. That didn't happen. What she DID was call the cops. These things MATTER.

excon

Hello again, b:

I wasn't lying to you when I said, here in America, we don't have those things.... And, we don't. Your total lack of understanding about the process you're going through is going to come back to BITE you. You need a lawyer, and you need him YESTERDAY.

It would also HELP us to HELP you if we didn't have to pull each and every detail out of you. We could have eliminated a whole page of stuff if you would have related the facts as they occurred from the beginning. You didn't. You said she filed a complaint at the district court. That didn't happen. What she DID was call the cops. These things MATTER.

excon

To make a long story short:

I dated her boyfriend while ago. I broke it off between him and I. He got pissed and she was jealous. I took her boyfriend to court for a restraining order but I wasn't granted one because I didn't have the evidence they needed. She moved back in. When she moved back in, that is when all the allegations started. She has accused me of harassing her and doing damage to her car. She has called the cops on me twice and told them that I, 1.) popped her tire with a bobby pin and 2.) threatened her. I did no such things. I went to court because she filed a harassment order on me. The judge granted her one. The judge didn't even listen to what I had to say. So now, I have to stop "abusing" her for 1 year and if I should, I could go to jail. Funny thing is, I didn't do one single thing to her. So after she got the harassment order on me, she filled out a criminal complaint form. I got a copy in the mail. I have to appear in front of the Clerk Magistrate for a hearing to see if this should proceed to court.

Also, in MA criminal investigations are not done by a court. A court will decide only whether there is enough evidence to bind you over for trial. And, you have every right to have legal counsel represent you.

So after she got the harassment order on me, she filled out a criminal complaint form. I got a copy in the mail. I have to appear infront of the Clerk Magistrate for a hearing to see if this should proceed to court.Hello again, b:

Let me see if I understand it now, as it's COMPLETELY different than where you started.. It appears that she was granted a restraining order, and AFTER she got it, she filled out a criminal complaint for popping her tire, which you did, or was accused of doing, BEFORE she got the RO.

Is that correct? If so, you didn't violate the RO because it wasn't in place when the tire thing happened... Or, do you need to explain again??

excon

Hello again, b:

Lemme see if I understand it now, as it's COMPLETELY different than where you started.. It appears that she was granted a restraining order, and AFTER she got it, she filled out a criminal complaint for popping her tire, which you did, or was accused of doing, BEFORE she got the RO.

Is that correct? If so, you didn't violate the RO because it wasn't in place when the tire thing happened... Or, do you need to explain again???

excon

excon,

She got a harassment order on me, not a restraining order; two different things but alike in ways.

After she was granted the harassment order, I received a criminal complaint in the mail 3 days later.

And no, I did not key her car nor did I pop her tire with a bobby pin nor did I harass or threaten her. I am being accused of such things, though. It's for personal reasons, I know it.

I also just found out that I am attending a "show case" hearing with the clerk.

Do NOT go to the hearing without an attorney!!

As excon said you are presenting a different story. Not sure what an harassment order is but in any case a judge has already believed her story that you have been harassing her. So what makes you think the court won't believe that you damaged her car. Also "popping" a tire is different. Using a bobby pin to let the air out is feasible.

The question is whether you have proof that you didn't do these things.

Do NOT go to the hearing without an attorney!!!!!!

As excon said you are presenting a different story. Not sure what an harassment order is but in any case a judge has already believed her story that you have been harassing her. So what makes you think the court won't believe that you damaged her car. Also "popping" a tire is different. using a bobby pin to let the air out is feasible.

The question is whether you have proof that you didn't do these things.

This harassment order is new in Massachusetts. As long as you're a "victim" the judge will give it to you, no matter if he's heard the "abuser's" side of the story or not. I gave my story as well as evidence that she was the one harassing me, not me and yet the judge still granted her it. How is that fair when I had proof of harassment? It doesn't make sense. Even the cops that were involved in this did not understand why they granted her the order.

I will not go to this hearing with an attorney.

This harassment order is new in Massachusetts. As long as your a "victim" the judge will give it to you, no matter if he's heard the "abuser's" side of the story or not. I gave my story as well as evidence that she was the one harassing me, not her and yet the judge still granted her it. How is that fair when I had proof of harassment? It doesn't make sense. Even the cops doing that were involved in this did not understand why they granted her the order.

I will not go to this hearing with an attorney.

The law is not always fair. I don't know what proof you offered, but the judge apparently didn't believe it.

If you don't want to go to this hearing without an attorney that's your decision, but I believe you are making a HUGE mistake.

If you are expecting just truth to be all you need, and if you are expecting for any silly reason that the courts will be looking for justice, get those silly ideas out of your head.

The courts work from laws, nothing more or less, And it appears that the court is already taking her side, and you will be coming into this, already looking like the bad guy, so it is all set against you.

Going without an attorney? Take your toothbrush with you, since you may well be staying

If you are expecting just truth to be all you need, and if you are expecting for any silly reason that the courts will be looking for justice, get those silly ideas out of your head.

The courts work from laws, nothing more or less, And it appears that the court is already taking her side, and you will be coming into this, already looking like the bad guy, so it is all set against you.

Going without an attorney ?? take your toothbrush with you, since you may well be staying

I never said I was going without an attorney. I am going with one. I did speak to a lawyer and he told me I'm not going to jail for this. If for some reason I am found guilty, I will have to pay.

I never said I was going without an attorney. I am going with one. I did speak to a lawyer and he told me I'm not going to jail for this. If for some reason I am found guilty, I will have to pay.
You may not have meant to say it, but this is what you posted:

I will not go to this hearing with an attorney.

Glad to hear you are seeking legal counsel. I agree you won't see jail over this. But you could get a criminal record as well as be required to pay damages.

Yes, sorry, you said you were going without one, so that is what I assumed you were doing. Glad to hear you will get one
Let us know how it turns out

You may not have meant to say it, but this is what you posted:


Glad to hear you are seeking legal counsel. I agree you won't see jail over this. But you could get a criminal record as well as be required to pay damages.

Wow.

A criminal record for being completely innocent. Perfect. I do hope I find a good a** lawyer!

Thanks for the advice everyone! I'll let you all know how it went.

Wow.... A criminal record for being completely innocent. Perfect. Hello again, b:

My perfectly innocent granddaughter burned her finger the other day, when she stuck it in a candle flame. The lesson SHE learned, is that being innocent doesn't stop the world from hurting you. It's a lesson you should absorb too.

excon

Hello again, b:

My perfectly innocent granddaughter burned her finger the other day, when she stuck it in a candle flame. The lesson SHE learned, is that being innocent doesn't stop the world from hurting you. It's a lesson you should absorb too.

excon

Great advice excon! This is a lesson to be learned for sure; but how many times must I learn this "lesson" until I cry out for justice? It may just be a lesson that yes, people do harm others, but where does it end?