Case Results – 2016

Free Initial Consultation to Discuss Your Case • Call (508) 584-6955

Criminal Defense Attorneys Justice for AllCriminal Defense Representation

The Noonan Defense Firm rigorously defends clients charged with any criminal charge so no matter where you are located in Southeast Massachusetts, expert legal help is just a phone call away.  To schedule a free, no-obligation case review and consultation with an experienced criminal defense trial lawyer call our law offices at (508) 584-6955.

When you make the call, rest assured you have taken your first step to find out how best to confront the charges you are facing.  You can also use our Free Case Evaluation Form to submit information about your case in confidence, or to request that we contact you.


December 2016 Case Results


December 8, 2016
Commonwealth v. A.C.
Brockton District Court

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST COLLEGE FRESHMAN FOR BEING A MINOR IN POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGE ENTERED ON HER RECORD

Client, an 18 year-old freshman student at Bridgewater State University, was caught carrying a duffel bag containing alcohol into a dormitory. Prior to her Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had his client take the proactive approach of completing a brief alcohol education and intervention program. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Noonan presented the Clerk with a Certificate of Completion from the brief alcohol program. In addition, Attorney Noonan presented evidence with regards to his client’s background, which included being an honor student at Boston Latin, a 4-year varsity athlete, and a volunteer worker teaching Catholic education to young children.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint of being a minor in possession of alcohol. Attorney Noonan saves his young client from having a criminal record and avoids any school disciplinary proceedings.


November 2016 Case Results


November 17, 2016
Commonwealth v. M.F.
Stoughton District Court

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST MOTHER WHO ALLEGEDLY PERMITTED 50 PLUS MINORS TO CONSUME ALCOHOL ON HER PREMISES DURING A LOUD, DISRUPTIVE PARTY.

Sharon police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence due to several calls reporting “explosions.” Upon arrival to the residence, police heard fireworks. There were approximately 50-75 underage youths in the backyard consuming alcohol. Police observed 20-30 empty beer cans and there was vomit on the back porch. Defendant was the homeowner and she was hosting a birthday party for her 17 year-old daughter. One underage youth was seen vomiting and this youth admitted to having consumed too much alcohol. This was the second incident in which police responded to this residence for a similar issue.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan introduced extensive evidence regarding steps his client has made to address the issue. For example, his client sought counseling and education regarding successful parenting and underage drinking. In addition, Attorney Noonan presented letters from 7 different people attesting to his client’s character. Finally, Attorney Noonan argued that the issuance of a criminal complaint would jeopardize his client’s employment as a Choir Director, a position she has held for over six years. After considering all the evidence and arguments presented by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.


November 8, 2016
Commonwealth v. J.F
.
Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL CHARGES INVOLVING THE USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND THREATS TO KILL DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

Client was picking up his girlfriend at her home in Brockton. Client parked his car on the side of the street and waited for his girlfriend to come outside. Client’s cousin was sitting in the front passenger seat and the client’s baby was sitting in the backseat. As they were waiting, a man and his wife were returning home and had trouble pulling into their driveway because the client’s vehicle was partially blocking their driveway. The man got out of his car and proceeded to yell at the client to move his car. The client backed his car up and the man was able to pull into his driveway. The man exited his car and proceeded to make his way to the side entrance of his home. When he reached the side entrance to his home, the man continued to yell at the client to move his car. The client told the man to shut up and go inside his house. The man then retrieved a wooden 2 x 4 and approached the client’s car while making threats. The man’s wife came out to stop her husband from getting into a fight. The client and his cousin exited the car and an argument ensued. During the argument, a glass bottle was thrown at the man and his wife. The glass bottle struck the wife on the leg and then smashed on the ground. The man then picked up a rock and threw it at the client’s windshield shattering the glass. Everyone was yelling threats at each other. The wife reported to police that the client threatened to shoot them. The wife reported to police that the client threw the bottle at her. The client was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon for having allegedly thrown the glass bottle at the wife. The client was charged with Threats to Commit Murder for allegedly threatening to shoot them.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan notified the District Attorney that he would be introducing “third-party culprit” evidence at trial. Specifically, Attorney Noonan notified the DA that he would be introducing evidence that the client’s cousin was the person who threw the bottle. On the day of trial, the man who threw the rock at the client’s car invoked his Fifth Amendment Privilege and opted not to testify against the client. The man’s wife failed to appear at the trial. Because the man invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, because the man’s wife failed to appear at trial, and based on the third-party culprit evidence, the DA decided to dismiss all charges.


October 2016 Case Results


October 26, 2016
Commonwealth v. H.Q.
Hingham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN SUPPRESSES INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS HIS CLIENT MADE TO POLICE.

Police responded to the scene of a single car crash where a vehicle was 300 feet off the road, rolled over, and overturned in an embankment. At the scene were the 18 year-old defendant, her father, and stepmother. The officer questioned the defendant’s father who stated that his daughter was the driver. The officer then questioned the defendant who admitted to being the driver. The officer observed that the defendant smelled of alcohol. The officer observed that the defendant was injured and requested an ambulance. The defendant was placed in a stretcher and loaded in the back of the ambulance. Inside the ambulance, the officer proceeded to question the defendant about her consumption of alcohol. The officer did not read the defendant her Miranda warnings. The defendant made incriminating statements to the officer where she admitted to consuming alcohol. Based, in large part on the defendant’s incriminating statements, the officer charged the defendant with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to suppress the incriminating statements his client made to the police officer inside the ambulance. Attorney Noonan argued that the officer failed to read the defendant her Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are necessary when one is subject to “custodial interrogation.” Custodial interrogation is questioning by law enforcement officers while a person is in custody or deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan proved that the statements his client made to the police officer inside the ambulance were the product of “custodial interrogation.” As a result, all incriminating statements made by the defendant to the police officer inside the ambulance were suppressed from evidence.


October 19, 2016
Commonwealth v. E.P
.
Attleboro District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SAVES HIS CLIENT FROM SERVING 6 MONTHS IN JAIL FOR VIOLATING HIS PROBATION.

Client was charged with a third offense for drunk driving, an offense carrying a minimum mandatory jail sentence of five months. After extensive negotiations, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney to reduce the third offense to a second offense thereby saving the client from serving a mandatory jail sentence. As part of the agreed-upon sentence, client was placed on probation for three years with one condition being that he submits to random alcohol testing. If the client violated the terms of his probation, he would have to serve 6 months in jail. During his probation, the client tested positive for alcohol. Due to this probation violation, client was immediately detained by probation and sent to the house of correction.

Result: The client was facing a six-month jail sentence for violating the terms of his probation by testing positive for alcohol. From the house of correction, client called Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. Immediately, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested a hearing. At the hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to negotiate a deal in exchange for his client’s immediate release from jail. As part of the deal, client was placed on a mobile alcohol testing unit called Scram and ordered to attend 2 AA meetings per week. Even though he violated his probation, Attorney Noonan was able to ensure that his client’s original probationary sentence of 3 years was not extended.


October 18, 2016
Commonwealth v. E.D.
Attleboro District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS SHOPLIFTING CHARGE AGAINST HABITUAL OFFENDER DISMISSED OUTRIGHT AT FIRST COURT DATE.

Client was a habitual shoplifter having been convicted for shoplifting well over three times. On this occasion, client was at JC Penny where she was observed by Loss Prevention removing the tag to a bottle of cologne and concealing the bottle of cologne in her purse. The client passed by all cash registers, exited the store, and was apprehended by Loss Prevention. She admitted to having stolen the bottle of cologne. Prior to this case, the client served eight months in the House of Correction for having been convicted of shoplifting, as a repeat offender. At a Clerk’s Hearing, JC Penny requested that the criminal complaint issue, even though the item was returned and the client paid restitution.

Result: Client was facing the very real prospect of jail time because she had been previously convicted for shoplifting on at least three prior occasions and served 8 months in jail for shoplifting in the past. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the shoplifting charge dismissed outright at the first court date and saved his client from serving another jail sentence.


October 18, 2016
Commonwealth v. N.V
.
New Bedford District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS CLIENT PRETRIAL PROBATION FOR 2 FELONY DRUG OFFENSES, WHICH WILL BE DISMISSED IN ONE-YEAR IF THE CLIENT STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE AND THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT THE CLIENT DID NOT ADMIT TO ANY WRONGDOING.

Client was the target of an investigation for distributing heroin from her home. A confidential informant (CI) reported to police that the CI has purchased heroin and continues to purchase heroin from the client. The CI told police that, on several occasions, the CI would purchase the heroin from the client and pick up the drugs at the client’s home. The CI participated in a “controlled buy” in which police had the CI contact the client by phone and arrange for the purchase of heroin from client. Police conducted surveillance and observed the CI contact the client by phone, arrange for the purchase of heroin, and followed the CI to the client’s home where the CI purchased the heroin from the client. Based upon this information, police obtained a search warrant of the client’s home. Police executed the search warrant and recovered the following from the client’s home: 2.5 grams of Fentanyl, 9 tabs of Klonopin, 4 grams of cocaine, a scale, and currency. The client was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class B (Cocaine) and Possession with Intent to Distribute Class C (Klonopin)

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to persuade the District Attorney’s Office to give his client the very favorable disposition known as Pretrial Probation. With pretrial probation, the client did not have to admit any guilt. The client was placed on probation for one year with just one condition; do not get arrested for any other crimes. If the client stays out of trouble for one year, the felony drug charges will be dismissed. In any future criminal proceedings, this case cannot be used against the client, as there was no finding of guilt.    


October 12, 2016
Commonwealth v. J.H.
Wrentham District Court

SHOPLIFTING:  DISMISSED ON FIRST COURT DATE

A Walpole Police Officer was conducting a security check in the parking lot of Walmart when his attention was drawn to a white male (defendant) who was acting suspiciously. The male was walking quickly to his vehicle, jumped in his vehicle, and kept looking at the officer’s police cruiser. The officer followed the defendant’s vehicle, which was speeding away. During the pursuit, the officer received a dispatch about a recent shoplifting at Walmart. The officer stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant told the officer that he was doing some shopping at Walmart and forgot to pay for some items. Police obtained surveillance video footage showing the defendant stealing items from Walmart, loading the items in his vehicle, and driving away. Defendant had a 5-page criminal record with convictions for theft crimes, drug crimes, and violent crimes.

Result: Despite the client’s lengthy criminal record, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the Shoplifting charge dismissed upon payment of court costs on the first court date. Attorney Noonan argued that there were mitigating circumstances. Defendant had been battling some mental health issues for a long time. After he was charged with this offense, Defendant sought and received treatment for his mental illnesses for the first time. Defendant was the primary caregiver for his elderly mother. Prior to exiting the store, the client voluntarily returned all the items.


October 12, 2016
Commonwealth v. Juvenile
Brockton Juvenile Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST STATE CHAMPION HOCKEY PLAYER AND HONOR STUDENT FOR USING FAKE I.D. TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 17 year-old high school senior, was charged with using a fake I.D. to purchase alcohol at a liquor store. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 90, § 8H prohibits the use of forged identification cards.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate and the Police Prosecutor to dismiss the criminal complaint against his 17 year-old client. Client was a senior in high school. He was a member of the National Honor Society. He is graduating in the top 15% of his class. He scored 1340 on his SATs. He was the Captain of a junior hockey team that won the State Championship. Client is applying to several top colleges and universities in New England. Because the criminal complaint was dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing, the client has a clean criminal record.

Having a criminal record poses a serious problem for students applying for admission to colleges and universities. The Common Application used by more than 600 institutions asks students certain questions about their criminal history. However, the U.S. Department of Education is urging schools to remove questions about a student’s criminal record in the early stages of college applications. The Common Application for the upcoming school year will still ask whether students have been found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony but will remove part of the question asking about any other crimes. “The Common Application used for college admissions at more than 600 institutions is changing a question it asks about students criminal records, as the U.S. Department of Education urges schools to drop the question altogether.” Christine Armario, Associated Press (2016)


October 11, 2016
Commonwealth v. J.R.
Woburn District Court

FELONY GUN CHARGE AGAINST ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Client, 36 year-old man, had a valid License to Carry Firearms, including large capacity firearms. After finishing a day’s work as a Foreman for an Asphalt Company, client discovered that his handgun was stolen from his work truck. Client immediately went to the police station to report the theft of his firearm. Client spoke to the police officer in the lobby of the police station for approximately three minutes. After their brief discussion, the officer informed the client that he would be charging him with Improper Storage of a Firearm, a felony charge because the firearm was large capacity. Client had taken police entrance exams in New Hampshire and the Civil Service Exam in Massachusetts. Client was offered full-time positions as a police officer by several New Hampshire Police Departments. However, the client had his sights set on becoming a police officer in the town where he has long resided. The client had fulfilled the majority of the requirements to become a police officer in his home town. The client was in the process of finishing the rest of his requirements when this criminal complaint was filed against him.

Result: Prior to his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented the Commonwealth with evidence that his client had his firearm properly locked in a secured container, as required by law. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had two witnesses who were willing to testify that the client routinely stored his firearm in a metal box secured with a latch and key lock. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan pointed out that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove their case at trial. The offense of Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L) requires that the Commonwealth prove that the alleged firearm meets the definitional requirements of a firearm. Specifically, the Commonwealth must prove that the alleged firearm was a working firearm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan pointed out that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the alleged firearm at issue met the definition of a firearm (i.e., that it was a working firearm) because the firearm was missing. After considering the evidence and arguments raised by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the Commonwealth dismissed the felony gun charge prior to arraignment. As a result, the client is now free to continue his pursuit of becoming a police officer.


September 2016 Case Results


September 22, 2016
Commonwealth v. L.Z.
Stoughton District Court

CRIMINAL HARASSMENT CHARGE SEALED FROM REGISTERED NURSE’S RECORD

Client was in a tumultuous relationship with a man who had been cheating on her with several other women. Client’s ex-boyfriend obtained a Harassment Prevention Order (restraining order) against her. The client did not retain an attorney nor contest the restraining order. On the day she was served with the restraining order, the client admitted to police that she violated it by making a phone call to her ex-boyfriend’s current girlfriend. As a result, client was charged with Violation of a Harassment Prevention Order. The client was given a disposition known as Pretrial Probation and her case was dismissed after six months. After her criminal case was dismissed, client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to seal her criminal record. The client was a 52 year-old woman with no other criminal record. She was a Registered Nurse and worked as a Staff Nurse for Children’s Hospital for 30 years. She was named runner-up by the Boston Globe for Nurse of the Year. She made a terminal ill child’s dream of speaking to Ellen DeGeneres come true. When her criminal case was pending, the client left Children’s Hospital. After her criminal case was dismissed, the client applied for over 100 jobs in the nursing field without any success. It was clear that the client’s criminal record was preventing her from getting a job in the nursing field even though she was highly qualified and had a stellar work history. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Seal the Client’s Criminal Record pursuant to G.L. c. 276, §100C.

Result: After a hearing in which Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented compelling evidence, the judge issued an order sealing the client’s criminal record.


September 19, 2016
Commonwealth v. O.M.
Brockton District Court

CHARGES OF ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER AND RESISTING ARREST AGAINST U.S. MARINE CORPS RECRUIT TO BE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT IN SIX MONTHS IF CLIENT COMPLETES COUNSELING

Police were called to a bar for a report of a drunk and disorderly patron. When the police arrived, they found the defendant sitting outside, visibly intoxicated. Police placed the defendant in protective custody pursuant to G.L. c. 111B, §8. Defendant resisted when police tried to handcuff him. Defendant was yelling and swearing and causing a scene when officers placed him under arrest. During transport to the police station, Defendant was kicking the backseat of the police cruiser. It took three officers to escort the Defendant to his holding cell. In the holding cell, Defendant attacked one officer severely bruising his arm and the officer was unable to work for several days. Police tried to move the Defendant to another holding cell when he bit another officer on the knee. Police filed three criminal complaints for Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest, and Assault & Battery on a Police Officer. Prior to this incident, client was close to finishing the process of enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented compelling evidence on behalf on his client. First, Attorney Noonan presented a letter from the client’s Marine Corps. Recruiter. In the letter, the Recruiter stated that he was aware of the pending charges and would continue with the client’s enlistment should his case resolve favorably. Attorney Noonan had his client write letters of apology to all the police officers. The Clerk-Magistrate accepted Attorney Noonan’s proposal to hold the matter open for six months with the condition that his client undergo treatment with a substance abuse counselor. If the client successfully completes his substance abuse treatment than all criminal charges will be dismissed in six months and, hopefully, the client will be able to enlist in the Marine Corps. 


September 8, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O
.
Dedham District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELDERLY, DISABLED MAN DISMISSED BY COMMONWEALTH DURING TRIAL

Client, 72-year-old man, was in a relationship with his girlfriend for 40 years. On one night, the client’s girlfriend called 911 and reported that she was physically assaulted by her boyfriend. She told police that the client had sucker-punched her in the face several times. She alleged that she locked herself in her bedroom after being chased by the client. She claimed that the client was banging on her bedroom door with a 6-foot wooden club. She took out a restraining order in which she alleged that she was afraid that the defendant would beat her to death with the wooden club. Prior to the trial, the girlfriend provided the District Attorney with photos showing scratches and marks to her face, as well as damage to her bedroom door.

Result: Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the girlfriend was recently charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from an incident in which she threw hot coffee at two Dunkin Donut employees. The Commonwealth dismissed this charge against the girlfriend. In a prior hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asked the girlfriend if she threw the hot coffee at the employees and she vehemently denied doing so. At the start of the trial, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion in Limine to admit evidence of the hot coffee incident. Attorney Noonan argued that the girlfriend’s violent actions in throwing the hot coffee at the unsuspecting employees were relevant to show that she was the first aggressor and that she attacked the client. After a hearing, the judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion. Anticipating that the girlfriend would once again deny throwing the hot coffee, Attorney Noonan had a witness ready to testify that he was standing in line and saw her throw the hot coffee at the two employees. The Judge allowed Attorney Noonan to call this witness and have him testify to the hot coffee incident. As we were getting ready to empanel a jury, the girlfriend opted not to take the witness stand and she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As a result, the Commonwealth had to dismiss the case.


September 7, 2016
Commonwealth v. I.A.
Brockton District Court

SHOPLIFTING CHARGE AGAINST 32-YEAR-OLD SINGLE MOTHER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to Walmart for a report of shoplifting. Police observed surveillance video footage of a suspect (believed to be the defendant) stealing numerous items and leaving the store. Loss Prevention Officers confronted the suspect, as she was leaving the store but the suspect fled in her vehicle. Loss Prevention took down the license plate of the vehicle. The vehicle came back to a Brockton resident. Police questioned and showed the vehicle’s owner a photo of the suspect from the surveillance video. The vehicle’s owner identified the suspect as the Defendant. Loss Prevention Officers reported that the suspect has stolen items in the past.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. Defendant paid restitution for the stolen items. Defendant is a 32-ear-old single mother with no criminal record. She works full time at an Addiction Treatment Center and attends college at night with hopes of getting a better job in the medical field.


August 2016 Case Results


August 26, 2016
Commonwealth v. J.W.
New Bedford District Court

THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME:  DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

The defendant went to business to donate two mattresses. After the defendant unloaded the mattresses, an employee informed the defendant that the business does not accept mattresses with box springs. According to the employee, the defendant became angry and threatened him by saying, “Is this worth it? Do you want me to kick your ass?” The employee told the defendant that he was reporting the threat to his manager. When the employee returned with his manager, they observed the defendant leave in his pickup truck. The employee called the police, reported the threat, and provided police with the license plate of the pickup truck. The defendant was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime for making the threat to the employee.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the alleged victim misunderstood the defendant’s statement and took it out of context. In actuality, the defendant said to the employee, “Is this worth it? I don’t want to get into a fight over this.”  As Attorney Noonan argued, this statement does not constitute a “threat” under the law because the defendant did not “express an intent to injure” the employee. Based on Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s arguments, the clerk magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.


August 12, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.B.
Brockton District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM:  DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence in response to a 911 call. Upon arrival, police spoke to the Defendant’s brother-in-law who reported that he received a call from the Defendant’s wife telling him that the Defendant was highly intoxicated and she needed help. They wanted to bring the Defendant to the hospital so he could receive treatment for his substance abuse issues. Defendant refused and became argumentative. Prior to the police arriving, Defendant fled from the house. Police were concerned because the Defendant was wearing only a T-shirt and shorts and it was freezing outside. Later, police observed the Defendant fighting with his brother-in-law in the street. The fight caused a disturbance in the neighborhood. After breaking up the fight, police arrested the Defendant for Disturbing the Peace. After his arrest, police received information that some of the Defendant’s firearms may have been missing from his gun locker. The Defendant’s wife directed officers into the basement of their home and gave them permission to search the Defendant’s gun locker. The police observed that the gun locker was partially open and not locked. Due to the locker not being securely locked, police charged the Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm and seized all his firearms, which included: six rifles, two shotguns, and ammunition.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress arguing that the Defendant’s wife did not have lawful authority to give police consent to search the Defendant’s private property. The hearing on the Motion to Suppress was continued. Prior to the next scheduled hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the Improper Storage of a Firearm.


July 2016 Case Results


July 21, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.R.
Waltham District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM:  DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Defendant was a retired 62 year-old grandfather of three with no criminal record. It was alleged that the Defendant negligently left his loaded revolver in a public bathroom.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint against his client. The Clerk-Magistrate accepted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s proposal to dismiss the criminal complaint after six-months, so long as the Defendant does not commit any offenses. The criminal complaint will be dismissed on January 21, 2017, so long as the Defendant does not commit any new offenses. 


July 19, 2016
Commonwealth v. David A.
Brockton District Court

OUI-SERIOUS BODILY INJURY:  DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)

Defendant was alleged to have caused a major motor vehicle accident resulting in serious injuries to his passenger and himself. Defendant was driving a vehicle on Route 24 South with a female passenger in the front seat. Witnesses told police that they saw the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed and abruptly swerve into the Burger King rest area and then crash into the rear of a parked 18-wheel tractor-trailer. The vehicle was completely crushed and lodged underneath the rear of the tractor-trailer. Upon arrival, Defendant and the passenger were unconscious and unresponsive. As the Defendant was unconscious in the driver’s seat, police officers detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The Defendant and the female passenger were taken by helicopter to the Rhode Island Hospital. The female passenger remained in the hospital for nearly one month. She sustained serious bodily injuries, including: partial blindness in one eye, head trauma, broken bones (especially in the legs), and internal injuries. Police interviewed the Defendant’s wife who stated that the Defendant had issues with alcohol and cocaine use. Police interviewed the Defendant who admitted to consuming beer prior to the accident.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan examined a civilian witness who was the first responder. Prior to any police arriving to the scene, this witness went over to the vehicle, looked in, and checked on the status of the Defendant and passenger. This witness attempted to speak to them but received no response. This witness physically went inside the vehicle and physically extricated the female passenger from the vehicle. The witness was unable to extricate the Defendant. During Attorney Noonan’s examination, the witness stated that he did not detect any odor of alcohol inside the vehicle and he did not detect any odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant – which was inconsistent with the reports of police that they detected an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant, as he lay unconscious in the driver’s seat.  The Commonwealth sought to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records from the Rhode Island Hospital. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected to the Commonwealth’s request to subpoena the hospital records – but a Brockton District Court Judge issued a court order for the Defendant’s hospital records. In order to lawfully obtain a person’s medical records from the Rhode Island Hospital, the requesting party must comply with the laws of Rhode Island. Here, the Commonwealth obtained a Massachusetts Court Order, but did not comply with Rhode Island law. Attorney Noonan pressed hard for a trial date. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth was unable to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records. The Commonwealth requested a continuance in order to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected to the continuance and stated that he was ready for trial. The Commonwealth was unable to proceed without any medical evidence. As a result, the case was dismissed on the trial date. Had the client been convicted, he faced a minimum mandatory jail sentence of six-months and an automatic 2-year loss of license. The Defendant owned and operated a professional truck driving business and his business would have been ruined if he were convicted.


July 11, 2016
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile

ASSAULT & BATTERY:  DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)
WITNESS INTIMIDATION:  DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)

Client was a junior in high school. A female student reported to the police that she had been receiving sexually charged and sexually inappropriate text messages from the client. The female students provided the sexually explicit text messages to the police. The client was not charged in connection with the text messages but police informed him that he was the prime suspect. The client denied the allegations and protested, repeatedly, that he did not send the text messages.

The police instructed the client to have no contact with the female student or else he would be charged with Intimidation of a Witness. Several weeks later, the female student reported to the police that the client had been staring at her in school and would strike her with his arm, shoulder, and backpack when passing her in the school hallway. The police officer pulled video footage from the hallway and, based on the officer’s opinion, the video showed the client intentionally striking the female student with his backpack. Based on the physical contact in the hallway, the police charged the Client with Assault & Battery. In addition, the police charged the Client with Witness Intimidation for staring and striking the female in the hallway on several different occasions.

Result: In conducting his pre-trial investigation, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained evidence that another student (not the client) was the person that sent the sexually inappropriate text messages to the female student. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained text messages in which this other student admitted to sending the sexually inappropriate text messages to the female student. In his police report, the officer states that he paused the video on a specific minute and second where the client’s backpack made physical contact with the female’s left shoulder. Attorney Noonan blew up a picture of the minute and second where the officer claims he saw physical contact. In Attorney Noonan’s opinion, the image did not show any physical contact. If there was any contact, it was a slight brush and purely incidental as a result of students navigating their way to class in a crowded, narrow hallway. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan extracted and developed large photographs breaking down the sequence and movements of the client and the female student in the hallway. These images showed that the female student displayed absolutely no physical or emotional reaction in response to the so-called contact. On the day of trial, the District Attorney moved to dismiss the criminal complaints due to the mountain of evidence showing that the client did not commit any criminal offenses. 


July 6, 2016
Commonwealth v. T.B.
Commonwealth v. A.P.

MINOR POSSESSING ALCOHOL:   DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client #1 (19 years old) and Client #2 (18 years old) were pulled over for driving without any headlights. The officer observed alcohol scattered throughout the interior of the vehicle including: an open and empty 30 pack of beer, two full 12 pack of beer, an empty cup containing alcohol residue, and empty 12 oz. can under the passenger seat. Although the driver (Client #1) emitted an odor of alcohol from his breath, he passed all field sobriety tests. The passenger (Client #2) was clearly intoxicated. Due to their signs of intoxication and the large quantity of alcohol found in the vehicle, both clients were placed under arrest and charging with being minors in possession of alcohol.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan entered into an agreement with the District Attorney’s whereby the clients’ cases would be dismissed prior to arraignment, so long as they completed community service. On 07/07/16, both criminal cases against both clients were dismissed prior to arraignment. The clients’ were freshmen in college and had no prior criminal records. With this outcome, no criminal charges will appear on the clients’ criminal records.


June 2016 Case Results


June 7, 2016
Commonwealth v. Allen Costa
Docket No.: 1658 CR 0507

OPEN & GROSS:  DISMISSED upon MOTION
OPEN & GROSS:  DISMISSED upon MOTION

A woman approached Hanover Police Officers at Forge Pond Park and reported two incidents where she observed a man walking on the trail and the man was naked from the waist down. The woman provided police with a physical description of the male suspect. The police placed a trail camera in the area where the witness reported seeing the male naked from the waist down. According to the police report, the camera showed a male party (matching the witness’s description) walking on the trail wearing no pants on two separate occasions on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16. Subsequently, police conducted a stakeout where they hid in the woods in the area where the male party was seen walking naked from the waist down. According to the police report, one officer observed a male party (later identified as the defendant) walking on the trail wearing no pants or underwear with his penis and testicles completely exposed and the male suspect was swinging his penis side to side with his right hand. The officers emerged from the woods and arrested the Defendant at gun point. At the police station, officers showed the defendant two pictures from the trail camera and the defendant acknowledged that he was the person depicted in the photos. The police charged the defendant with 3 counts of Open and Gross Lewdness. Two of the charges stemmed from the two separate occasions where the trail camera showed the defendant naked from the waist down on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the two counts that were based on the camera footage of 03/28/16 and 03/30/16. Attorney Noonan argued that the offense of Open and Gross Lewdness requires that the defendant “expose his genitals to one or more persons” and the law requires that the illegal conduct occur “in the presence of another person.” Attorney Noonan argued that the two charges should be dismissed because there were no human being(s) present to observe the illegal conduct. Attorney Noonan argued that the only witness to the alleged offenses on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16 was the trail camera (an inanimate object) and not a human being. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan’s argument and dismissed the two counts that were based on the camera footage.

This Case in the News

Is public nudity lewd is no one sees it? Hingham judge says no  August 2, 2016 by Neal Simpson, The Patriot Ledger via The EnterpriseExcerpt:  “The law requires that the person expose himself to a person – that there be a person present to see it,” Noonan told the Ledger. “What we have here is an inanimate object – a camera – and no human being there to see it.”  “Judge Bradley agreed…”

Patrick Noonan Defends Man Caught Jogging Without Pants (Fox 25 News Video)


June 9, 2016
Commonwealth v. M.M.
Brockton District Court

STABBING CASE: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Brockton Police were dispatched to the emergency room at the Good Samaritan Hospital for a report of a patient-victim who had been stabbed. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim. The alleged victim stated that he attended a family party at a residence in Brockton. The alleged victim and members of the party were hanging out in the street outside the party. The alleged victim reported that he saw a few guys fighting in the street and he went over to break it up. One of the male parties involved in the fight confronted the alleged victim and threatened him.  The male party left the scene. Minutes later, the male party returned to the scene and again confronted the alleged victim by getting in his face. The male party then stabbed the alleged victim and fled the scene. The alleged victim gave a physical description of the male suspect who stabbed him. Police spoke to a witness of the stabbing who happened to be a friend of the alleged victim. The witness told police that he witnessed the male party stab the alleged victim. The witness told police that the suspect was the Defendant. The witness knew the Defendant because the Defendant lived down the street from the witness. The witness provided police with the suspect’s name and address. Police went to the Defendant’s residence where they observed people in the street arguing about the stabbing. Police observed that the Defendant matched the description given to police by the alleged victim. After briefly speaking with the Defendant, police placed him under arrest for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon to wit: knife.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asserted that the Defendant acted in self-defense. The Defendant told police that he had been jumped by five guys. The Defendant showed police bruises and abrasions that he sustained to his back, which were consistent with the Defendant being the victim of an attack. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan subpoenaed the emergency physician who treated the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to present medical evidence showing that the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with the accounts given by the alleged victim and the witness. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to present medical evidence showing that the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with a deliberate stabbing based upon the depth, size, and nature of the stab wound. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan also subpoenaed the emergency room nurse. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to introduce evidence that the emergency room nurse called Brockton Police because the alleged victim and his friends were being loud and causing a disturbance in the waiting area. Specifically, the emergency room nurse heard the alleged victim and his crew talk about “strapping up” and going out to get the Defendant. This evidence tended to show that the alleged victim and his crew were the aggressors in the conflict and they were acting violent. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, the Commonwealth requested a continuance over the Defendant’s objection. On the second trial date, the criminal charge was dismissed.


June 9, 2016
Commonwealth v. B.H.
New Bedford District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY:  DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL
A & B with DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY:  DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL

Defendant’s girlfriend called 911 to report that she had been assaulted by the Defendant and she was bleeding. The girlfriend told police that the Defendant started a verbal argument and he pushed her into a fish-tank causing the glass from the fish-tank to shatter. The girlfriend told police that pieces of the shattered glass were lodged in her body. She attempted to call 911 but the Defendant threw her cell phone to the ground and fled the apartment. Police observed the Defendant running in the area and they arrested him. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery, Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Malicious Destruction of Property. Defendant was arraigned on these charges and released on personal recognizance.

While his case was pending, Defendant was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery (subsequent offense) and Malicious Destruction of Property stemming from a completely separate incident with his family. Police were dispatched to the residence of the Defendant’s parents for an Assault & Battery. Upon arrival, Defendant’s brother told police that the Defendant had punched him in the face. Police observed redness and swelling to the brother’s face. Defendant’s mother told police that the Defendant attacked her by grabbing her hair and attempting to push her down. Defendant’s father told police that the Defendant wrestled him to the ground. Police observed that the father had redness to his back and neck. The new offenses were eventually dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Because the Defendant committed these new offenses while his previous case was pending, the Commonwealth moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail. On 04/20/16, the Court revoked the Defendant’s bail and the Defendant was placed in custody. Defendant was facing 90 days in the house of correction because his bail was revoked by virtue of the new offenses.

Result: Defendant retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan while he was in custody at the house of correction. Immediately, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan marked the original case for trial. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained exculpatory text messages sent to the Defendant’s cell phone by his ex-girlfriend, the alleged victim – as well as exculpatory voice mails left on the Defendant’s cell phone by the alleged victim. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan located a witness who had been in a relationship with the alleged victim. This witness was willing to testify that the alleged victim had made threats to falsely accuse of him of crimes if she didn’t receive certain things in return from the witness. That is, if the witness did not comply with her demands, she would call the police and falsely accuse him of a crime. This was precisely the situation in the Defendant’s case. In the Defendant’s case, the alleged victim called 911 and falsely accused the Defendant of these crimes because the Defendant was unwilling to give in to the alleged victim’s demands. The evidence obtained by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented Fifth Amendment issues for the alleged victim because she would have incriminated herself when testifying against the Defendant at trial. On the day of trial, all criminal charges were dismissed and the Defendant was released from custody.


June 7, 2016
Commonwealth v. R.S.
Fall River District Court

DANGEROUSNESS HEARING:  RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

Fall River Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle crash involving two vehicles. Officers observed front-end damage to the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers observed rear-end damage to the second vehicle. The operator of the second vehicle told police that he pulled over to the right-hand side of the road to take a phone call when he was rear-ended by the Defendant’s vehicle. The other operator had to assist the Defendant from his vehicle. The other operator told police that he believed the Defendant to be intoxicated. Upon speaking with the Defendant, police immediately observed a strong odor of alcohol, glazed eyes, and slurred speech. Defendant agreed to participate in field sobriety tests. Defendant failed all the field sobriety tests. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor, Negligent Operation, and Marked Lanes Violation. During booking, police discovered that the Defendant had three prior convictions for OUI-Liquor with the most recent conviction being in 2015. Defendant was arraigned on the charge of OUI-Liquor Subsequent Offense. Because this was the Defendant’s fourth offense for OUI-Liquor, the Commonwealth moved to have the Defendant held in custody during the pendency of his case under the Dangerousness Statute. The Commonwealth argued that: based upon the nature of the offense and the Defendant’s criminal history, no conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community. If successful, the Defendant could be held in custody for up to 180 days.

Result: At the conclusion of the dangerousness hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in persuading the court to release the Defendant from custody. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there were conditions that the court could impose that would reasonably assure the safety of the community. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan advocated that the court impose certain strict conditions that would reasonably assure the safety of the community. The Judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s recommendation and released the Defendant upon certain strict conditions. As a result, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saved his client from serving considerable jail time (up to 180 days), as his case was pending.


June 2, 2016
Commonwealth v. M.M.
Boston Municipal Court

DISTURBING THE PEACE:  DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
TRESPASSING: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Boston police were dispatched for a large fight in progress outside a night club. Upon arrival, officers had to immediately intervene to break up the large fight. Defendant was involved in the large fight. Police broke up the large fight and ordered that everyone disperse from the area. An officer specifically told the Defendant to leave the area. Defendant ran around the officer and attacked another party who he had been fighting with prior to police arriving. Defendant was placed under arrest. The Defendant was born, raised, and permanently resides in Saudi Arabia. This incident occurred when the Defendant was in the United States visiting friends. Defendant was a full time college student at the time attending a University in Canada majoring in Bilingual Business Economics.

Result: Prior to the Defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan amassed a wealth of evidence attesting to his client’s outstanding character and submitted it to the DA’s Office requesting that the criminal charges be dismissed prior to arraignment. Attorney Noonan provided the DA’s Office with letters from three different companies where the Defendant had completed internships. Defendant completed internships with worldwide marketing companies. All letters attested that the Defendant was a very responsible, loyal, and hard-working intern. Attorney Noonan submitted the Defendant’s college transcripts showing that he was an honor student. After considering all the favorable information provided by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the DA’s Office agreed to dismiss the criminal complaints prior to arraignment. This was a considerable victory because the Defendant was a college student with a great future ahead of him and these criminal charges will not appear on his record.


May 2016 Case Results


May 26, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O.
Wareham District Court

OPERATING to ENDANGER (sub. offense): DISMISSED

Defendant had a lengthy record of criminal driving offenses. In 2014, Defendant was convicted of Operating to Endanger after a trial. In 2013, Defendant pled to the charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident. In 2011, Defendant pled to the charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident. In this case, witnesses observed the Defendant’s vehicle peel out of a Bar parking lot at a high rate of speed. The vehicle lost control and went off the roadway into the woods. Defendant’s vehicle struck the guide wire to a telephone pole ripping the guide wire off the telephone pole. Defendant left his motor vehicle in the woods and did not report the incident to police. The following day, police contacted the Defendant. Defendant admitted to driving his vehicle off the road, into the woods, and leaving the vehicle in the woods without reporting it.

Result: If convicted of Operating to Endanger, Defendant faced a year-long revocation of his driver’s license because this was a subsequent offense. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to persuade the Commonwealth to dismiss the case saving his client a year-long revocation of his driver’s license. Defendant worked full-time as a construction worker. Defendant would have lost his job if his driver’s license was revoked for one-year.


May 26, 2016
Commonwealth v. C.S.
Wareham District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM:  DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant called 911 to report that her husband had taken her revolver and threatened to shoot himself with it. Defendant was able to take the revolver away from her husband. Upon arrival, police spoke with the husband who stated that he had taken his wife’s revolver from her gun safe, which was unlocked, and threatened to shoot himself with it. The husband was taken to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Defendant told police that she had locked her gun safe and that her husband must have known the combination in order to access the firearm.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan was prepared to argue that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the firearm in question was a working firearm and capable of discharging a shot or bullet. The Commonwealth failed to have the firearm examined and test fired by a ballistician in order to prove that the firearm was operable. In addition, Defendant’s husband invoked his marital privilege not to testify against his wife, the Defendant. Without the husband’s testimony, the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the Defendant did not properly secure the firearm. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth moved to dismiss the criminal complaint.


May 24, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.W.
New Bedford District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY:  PRETRIAL PROBATION
DISORDERLY CONDUCT:        PRETRIAL PROBATION

Police at UMASS-Dartmouth were on patrol when they heard yelling and observed a fight in progress outside a college apartment. The fight involved a large number of people. Immediately, an officer attempted to stop the fight by identifying himself as a police officer and ordering the parties to stop. Upon his command, the majority of the crowd dispersed and ran away. Despite his commands, the officer observed two males on top of a male victim and they were punching and kicking the victim. The two male aggressors and the male victim all ran away, as the officer approached them. Officers pursued the males in a foot chase. Officers eventually apprehended the Defendant but were unable to catch the other parties. At the station, Defendant admitted to consuming 6-8 beers. Officers observed blood and markings on the Defendant’s knuckles. Defendant told police that he observed a fight break out involving his friend. Defendant stated that he intervened to break up the fight and assist his friend. Defendant admitted to throwing punches and hitting the male victim. Defendant was immediately suspended from UMASS-Dartmouth.

Result: After his arraignment, Defendant’s parents contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan amassed a wealth of evidence attesting to his client’s outstanding character and submitted it to the District Attorney’s Office requesting that the DA’s Office place his client on Pretrial Probation. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan submitted the Defendant’s college transcripts showing that he was an Honor Student. Attorney Noonan submitted a glowing letter of recommendation from the Defendant’s College Football Coach. In addition, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered evidence showing that his client never kicked the male victim during the fight. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan worked with the Campus Police and other school officials and they supported Attorney Noonan’s request for Pretrial Probation. At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan reached an agreement with the Commonwealth that the criminal charges would be dismissed upon the Defendant’s completion of community service. This was a significant victory, which allowed the Defendant to return to school the following semester and complete his college education. With this disposition, the Defendant did not have to admit guilt and the charges will be dismissed outright so long as he completes his community service.


May 16, 2016
Commonwealth v. D.W.
Brockton District Court

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS:  DISMISSED DURING TRIAL

An identified witness called police to report that she had observed a male party masturbating in his vehicle with his penis exposed. The witness told police that she was stopped at a red light. The witness stated that a vehicle was stopped next to her at the stop light. The witness stated that a male party in the vehicle next to her turned on his interior light, thrusted his hips upward, exposed his penis to her while masturbating. The witness stated that the vehicle cut her off and boxed her in preventing her from driving away. The witness stated that the male party motioned for her to follow him. The witness was able to maneuver her vehicle and drive away. The witness called 911 and provided police with the make, model, color and license plate of the vehicle. Police ran the vehicle’s registration and it came back to the Defendant. The witness provided a description of the Defendant as: white, late 30s to early 40s, heavy set, with a long strawberry-colored beard, and wearing a wool skull cap. The police administered a photo array to the witness and she positively identified the Defendant as the suspect. Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to suppress the witness’ positive identification of the Defendant because the police conducted the procedure in an unduly suggestive manner.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion in Limine to exclude the witness from identifying the Defendant during her trial testimony. The Commonwealth argued that the witness was able to identify the Defendant based upon the observations she made of him during the incident. During the hearing, the witness testified that she was certain that the Defendant was the suspect based upon the observations she made of him during the incident. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the witness and showed that the witness’s identification was unreliable because she did not have a sufficient opportunity to observe the perpetrator at the time of the crime. At the conclusion of Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination, the judge ruled that the witness could not identify the Defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. As a result, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case.


April 2016 Case Results


April 14, 2016
Commonwealth v. W.E.
Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY:  DISMISSED

Police were dispatched in response to a 911 in which the Defendant’s wife stated that the Defendant was intoxicated and had struck her on the side of the face. She was in fear of the Defendant. Upon arrival, she told police that the Defendant struck her on the right side of the face with an open hand. Defendant denied hitting his wife and told the police that his wife actually hit him.

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaint on the basis that the Defendant’s wife would be asserting her marital privilege not to testify against the Defendant, and that the Commonwealth had no other evidence upon which to try and convict the Defendant. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal charge was dismissed against his client, a computer technician with no prior criminal record.


April 8, 2016
L.M. v. S.O.
Dedham District Court

209A RESTRAINING ORDER: VACATED

The alleged victim (girlfriend) called 911 from her locked bedroom and reported that her boyfriend had just assaulted her. She claimed that the Defendant was banging on her bedroom door with a wooden staff and she was afraid that he may kill her. Upon arrival, the alleged victim reported that the Defendant has a history of mental illness and was experiencing a manic episode. She claimed that the Defendant became violent and aggressive. She claimed that the Defendant sucker punched her in the face 4 times. She ran to her bedroom to get away from him. Defendant chased her to her bedroom. She was trying to close the bedroom door but the Defendant was trying to force is way in. She was able to close the bedroom door and lock it. She called the police from her bedroom at which time the Defendant was banging on her bedroom door with a wooden staff. Police observed that the alleged victim has scratches on her face, that she was bleeding from her face, that her ear-ring had been ripped, and that she was bleeding from the ear. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery. Later that afternoon, the alleged victim obtained an emergency abuse prevention restraining order against the Defendant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested a two-party hearing to challenge the extension of the 209A abuse prevention restraining order. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and showed that she assaulted and battered the Defendant, not the other way around. She testified that she pushed the Defendant to the ground in his bedroom. She testified that she pushed the Defendant to the ground, a second time, in the hallway to her bedroom. Attorney Noonan alleged that she had beaten the Defendant while he was on the ground with a wooden staff and a long cat scratcher. Attorney Noonan introduced photographs showing that the Defendant sustained extensive physical injuries in the attack. The photos showed that the Defendant had very large, sizeable bruises across his lower back, along his left hip, and distinct contusions to the chest, stomach, and elbows, and that he was bleeding extensively from his foot. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s injuries were consistent with him being the victim of a violent assault. As a result of the injuries he sustained in the assault, Defendant had to go to the emergency room by ambulance. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant is 72 years-old and suffers from many serious physical and medical conditions, such as: arteriovenous malformation in the brain, cardiac disease, kidney insufficiency, aortic aneurysm, hypertension, and anemia. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was physically and medically incapable of violently assaulting the alleged victim, as she described. Attorney Noonan showed that the alleged victim was currently on probation for assaulting two victims with hot coffee. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge terminated the 209A Abuse Prevention Order.


April 5, 2016
Commonwealth v. Juvenile
Dedham Juvenile Court

ASSAULT:  DISMISSED

An eighth grade student (alleged victim) reported to police that he was threatened by four males and was fearful that they would kill him. The alleged victim reported that he was walking home from school when he was approached by a vehicle with four males inside. The males were yelling at him from the vehicle. The alleged victim stated that two of the males got out of the vehicle and chased him on foot but the alleged victim was able to get away. The alleged victim reported that the same two males subsequently approached him at the Dunkin Donuts scaring the alleged victim causing him to leave the Dunkin Donuts and immediately go home. The alleged victim reported the incident to police because he was scared to walk home fearing that the males would hurt him. The alleged victim provided a description of the males. Based on his description, the officer was able to identify the Juvenile as one of the males that got out of the car and chased the alleged victim. Police interviewed the driver of the vehicle and he told police that the Juvenile was one of the males that got out of his vehicle and chased the alleged victim. Juvenile was charged with Assault.

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. 


April 4, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.S.
New Bedford District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY:  PRETRIAL PROBATION

Defendant’s father called 911 to report a fight between the Defendant and his 16-year-old younger brother. The father reported that the Defendant charged at his younger brother and they began fighting on the floor. The father pointed out that the Defendant outweighs his younger brother by 100 lbs. The father intervened to protect his younger son from the Defendant and the father had to punch the Defendant in the face to break up the fight. The younger brother told police that the Defendant pushed his finger into his eye socket multiple times. Police observed that the younger brother had redness to his left eye and redness around his mouth. The parents made written statements to police. All parties (father, mother, brother) stated that the Defendant has an anger problem and needs help for his anger issues.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year with the condition that he undergoes counseling to address the concerns of his family members. If the Defendant abides by the conditions, the criminal charge will be dismissed after one-year and the Defendant will not have to admit guilt.


March 2016 Case Results


March 28, 2016
Commonwealth v. C.D.
Attleboro District Court

LEAVING THE SCENE:   NO COMPLAINT ISSUED

Defendant was traveling on Route 495 South returning from dinner with friends. Defendant was cut off by another vehicle. Defendant swerved to avoid a collision, lost control of his vehicle, and ended up in the woods off the highway in an embankment. Upon arrival, the police found the Defendant sitting on the guardrail in the breakdown lane near his vehicle. Police administered field sobriety tests and the Defendant passed them all. Officers informed him that he may receive a summons in the mail for Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Defendant did receive a summons for Leaving the Scene of an Accident and immediately contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan immediately requested a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing and sought a copy of the Police Report.

Result: On the day before the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was informed that the police department was withdrawing the criminal complaint. Defendant had no criminal record and was nearing graduation from the police academy.


March 28, 2016
Commonwealth v. N.P.
Quincy District Court

LEAVING THE SCENE: DISMISSED
UNLICENSED OPERATION: DISMISSED
FAILURE TO USE CARE:  NOT RESPONSIBLE

Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he rear-ended a vehicle pushing that vehicle into the vehicle in front of it. The driver of the front vehicle was injured and taken to the hospital by ambulance. Defendant approached the injured driver but the driver refused to speak to him. Defendant gave his name and information to the driver of the other vehicle involved in the chain collision. Defendant properly reported the accident to his insurance company. Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Personal Injury, Failure to Use Care in Stopping, and Operating a Vehicle without a License.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing on the criminal complaints. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Defendant took appropriate steps in making himself known and providing his information to the injured motorist. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaints.


March 17, 2016
Commonwealth v. B.S.
Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant had an argument with her boyfriend. The boyfriend told the Defendant to pack up her belongings and leave the residence. They proceeded to argue over the items that the Defendant wished to take with her upon moving out of the house. The argument escalated and the boyfriend alleged that the Defendant assaulted and battered him. The boyfriend called 911 and made a written statement to police. The police arrested the Defendant. Because the boyfriend-alleged victim was over 60 years old, Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person, an aggravated offense. The Commonwealth refused to dismiss the criminal complaint, even though the Defendant was in her late 50s and had no criminal record.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice that he would be asserting self-defense at trial. At trial, the alleged victim appeared ready to testify, as well as the arresting officer. At trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the criminal complaint that charged Defendant with an aggravated offense.


March 8, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.B.
Stoughton District Court

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK:  DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK:  DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK:  DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK:  DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK:  DISMISSED

Defendant owned and operated his own business manufacturing wood products. Defendant’s business would purchase wood materials from a vendor-company. The company alleged that they engaged in five separate transactions with the Defendant. The company alleged that they provided the Defendant with wood materials in these five separate transactions. The company alleged that they sent invoices to the Defendant with regards to these five separate transactions. All invoices were for an amount greater than $250. With each invoice, the company alleged that they received a business check from the Defendant, which was returned due to insufficient funds. The company claimed that they attempted to contact the Defendant regarding the returned checks but were unsuccessful. The company claimed that they sent a certified demand letter to the Defendant demanding payment for all five business transactions. The company went to the police department with all the documentation (invoices, business checks, bank records, and demand letter).

Result: Defendant was summonsed to court where he was arraigned on 10 felony charges. Defendant then retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan got all 10 felony charges dismissed against his client, a business owner with no criminal record.


March 3, 2016
Commonwealth v. C.R.
Brockton District Court

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED

Defendant was an employee at a retail store. Defendant was alleged to have made two fraudulent transactions totaling over $250. Defendant admitted to Loss Prevention and Police that she made the two fraudulent transactions.

Result: At the arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal charge dismissed.


March 1, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O.

Wareham District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED

Defendant called the police to report that someone broke into his apartment and stole his shotgun and ammunition from his gun case. Upon arrival, the police inspected the gun case. The gun case had been tampered with and some of the latches were missing. The officer believed that the Defendant did not have a lock on his gun case and charged him with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Police took fingerprints from the gun case. The only identifiable fingerprints on the gun case belonged to the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Preserve the gun case. At trial, the Commonwealth did not have the gun case. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the police dispatcher because the Defendant called the police and reported to the police dispatcher that he had a lock on his gun case. Attorney Noonan intended to call the Defendant’s father to testify. Defendant’s father would go shooting with the Defendant every other weekend. Defendant would bring his gun case when shooting with his father. Defendant’s father was willing to testify that the Defendant always had the same lock on his gun case every time they went shooting together. Defendant’s father was willing to give a description of the Defendant’s lock. Defendant’s father was willing to testify that they went shooting together 2 weeks before this incident and that the Defendant’s gun case had the same lock on it. In addition, Attorney sought to elicit testimony that the Defendant identified the suspect to police who he believed broke into his apartment and stole his firearm and ammunition. Attorney Noonan sought to show that the Commonwealth never investigated the suspect believed to have stolen the Defendant’s firearm. Police did not test the gun case for the suspect’s fingerprints. Attorney Noonan also intended to call the Defendant’s sister who lived in the same apartment with him and she was willing to testify that she told police that the same suspect stole money from her apartment the same day that the Defendant reported his firearm stolen.

Result: The day before trial, the Commonwealth informed Attorney Patrick J. Noonan that they would be dismissing the case on the day of trial.


February 2016 Case Results


February 24, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.F.
Wareham District Court

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

A department store employee called police to report that the Defendant left the store without paying for items. Police apprehended the Defendant outside the store. A search of the Defendant’s purse showed 13 items that she shoplifted from the store, totaling $379.88. Store security informed police that the Defendant shoplifted from the store on five other occasions in the past month. Store security provided police with surveillance videos showing that the Defendant shoplifted from the store on five previous occasions. The total amount of items shoplifted on the five previous occasions amounted to $862.04. Defendant was charged with Larceny over $250 stemming from the incident in which she shoplifted amounting to $379.88. The police were seeking to bring 5 additional counts of Larceny over $250.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the felony charge of Larceny over $250 upon the payment of restitution. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth not to charge the Defendant with 5 additional felony charges of Larceny over $250. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan facilitated the payment of restitution to the department store for all 6 shoplifting incidents. As a result, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saved his client from having 5 felony charges on her record.


February 23, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.C.
Brockton District Court

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: PRETRIAL DIVERSION
DISTURBING THE PEACE: PRETRIAL DIVERSION
MINOR IN POSS. OF ALCOHOL: PRETRIAL DIVERSION

At 1:00 a.m., Bridgewater Police received a complaint reporting a loud house party. This house had issues with prior disturbances over the past several months. Upon arrival, police heard loud music playing, people yelling inside, and glass shattering. The people inside refused to open to the door for police. Upon entering the house, police observed numerous alcoholic containers, marijuana residue, and the people inside appeared to be under 21. Several youths fled from the house. Subsequently, the fire department and building inspector condemned the house as unsafe. The renter of the home was uncooperative. It was alleged that the party had been going on for 3 days before police broke it up. Neighbors reported seeing teenagers urinating in the yard. Police arrested everyone present in the home. In total, police arrested 41 people, including the Defendant. Prior to the arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan met with the District Attorney’s Office. Attorney Noonan explained that his client was a sophomore at Bridgewater State University. Attorney Noonan explained that his client worked in Wellesley from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Attorney Noonan explained that his client went to the house party after work for the purpose of driving her three friends home who had been drinking. Defendant was acting as the designated driver. Shortly after the Defendant arrived to the house to pick up her three friends, the police arrived and arrested everybody. Attorney Noonan’s client was 19 years-old, she had no criminal record, and she was a Dean’s List student. The case received national media attention.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to enter his client into the Pretrial Diversion Program. Upon the client’s successful completion of community service and having not committed any new offenses, the Commonwealth will dismiss all criminal charges against the Defendant prior to arraignment on 05/23/16. Therefore, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client will have no criminal charges on her record.

This case in the news:


February 23, 2016
G.C. v. T.G.
Uxbridge District Court

209A RESTRAINING ORDER: VACATED

Defendant’s ex-fiancé obtained a temporary restraining order against him pursuant to Chapter 209A alleging that: Defendant abused her, Defendant stalked her, and Defendant threatened her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan contested the restraining order and requested a two-party hearing such that Attorney Noonan could cross-examine the Plaintiff and present evidence on the Defendant’s behalf. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan attacked the Plaintiff’s credibility by introducing evidence that she had prior restraining orders issued against her by an ex-boyfriend. Attorney attacked her credibility by presenting evidence that the Plaintiff had criminal complaints lodged against her by an ex-boyfriend for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (hammer), Domestic Assault & Battery, Breaking & Entering, and Malicious Destruction of Property. Attorney Noonan argued that the Plaintiff had a pattern of volatile behavior in dating relationships and that she was repeating such behavior in the aftermath of her relationship with this Defendant. At the hearing, the Plaintiff did not contest the prior restraining orders or criminal charges. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not abuse the Plaintiff during or after their relationship. Attorney Noonan introduced letters and e-mails sent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff in which she thanks the Defendant for getting her gifts. Attorney Noonan showed that the Defendant bought a Jeep for the Plaintiff and when the Defendant broke off the relationship he demanded the return of the Jeep and she refused. Defendant threatened to call the police if the Plaintiff did not return the Jeep.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly attacked the credibility of the alleged victim and established that the Defendant did not “abuse” the Plaintiff.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge vacated the restraining order.


February 18, 2016
Commonwealth v. B.M.
Brockton District Court

LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED

Client was alleged to have written a check in the amount of $136.00 to pay for groceries. The check was returned due to the account being closed. The grocery store filed an application for criminal complaint for larceny by check. Defendant did not receive notice of the criminal complaint, as he moved to a different address. As a result, a default warrant issued. Several years later, Defendant was arrested on the warrant and arraigned in court on the Larceny by Check charge. After his arraignment, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the Larceny by Check charge by agreement of all the parties.


February 17, 2016
Commonwealth v. E.D.
Attleboro District Court

LEAVING SCENE OF ACCIDENT: DISMISSED

A victim went into the police station to report that her vehicle was damaged in the parking lot of a supermarket. An identified witness left a note of the victim’s windshield stating that the Defendant’s vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle and left the scene without leaving a note. The witness provided the make, model, and license plate of the Defendant’s vehicle. The witness stated that the Defendant’s vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle, as the Defendant was attempting to park. After striking the victim’s vehicle, Defendant backed out and parked in a different parking spot. Defendant did not exit her vehicle to assess the damage she caused to the victim’s vehicle. Defendant did not leave a note on the victim’s vehicle reporting what happened and providing the victim with her information. Defendant admitted to police that she hit the vehicle and left the scene. Defendant appeared at a Show Cause Hearing without representation. The clerk magistrate found probable cause to issue the criminal complaint. After her arraignment, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney to dismiss the criminal charge and provided documentation showing that the Defendant’s car insurance paid for all the damage to the victim’s vehicle.


February 17, 2016
Commonwealth v. D.G.
Attleboro District Court

POSS. INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED
POSS. CLASS B: PERCOCET: DISMISSED
POSS. CLASS C: ADDERALL: CWOF (Admin. Probation)

The DEA, Bristol County Drug Task Force, and Mansfield Police conducted a 6 year investigation into the Defendant’s drug activities. In 2009, police had a confidential informant engage in two controlled buys with the Defendant for Percocet and Oxycodone. The investigation re-launched in 2015 with another confidential informant. This informant provided police with information concerning the Defendant’s selling of prescription pills. This confidential informant engaged in two controlled buys with the Defendant for Oxycodone. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s apartment and motor vehicle. At the Defendant’s apartment, police recovered 48 blue pulls, 2 white pills, and 114 orange pills. $5,000 in cash was found in the Defendant’s vehicle. During questioning, Defendant admitted that he had Adderall pills in his storage locker. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed an extensive discovery motion seeking pointed information into the confidential informant’s used by the police in this 6-year investigation. When Attorney Noonan appeared for a hearing on the Discovery Motion, the Commonwealth offered to dismiss the felony Intent to Distribution charge and the Possession of Class B Percocet charge. The Commonwealth offered the Defendant a continuance without a finding on the Possession of Adderall charge, the least serious of all the charges. The Defendant was placed on administrative probation with no terms or conditions for one-year.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony Intent to Distribute charge and misdemeanor Possession of Class B Percocet charges dismissed. Defendant receives a continuance without a finding on the least serious charge of Possession of Adderall. Defendant was placed on administrative probation for one-year with no terms or conditions. Client was very pleased with the outcome of his case.


February 11, 2016
Commonwealth v. N.G.
Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant’s boyfriend called 911 and he reported that the Defendant bit him and that the Defendant had a knife in her hand. The boyfriend stated that they were having an argument over finances when the Defendant bit him and retrieved a knife at which point the victim left the apartment and called 911. Police were dispatched to the residence and they placed the Defendant under arrest for Domestic Assault & Battery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. At trial, the alleged victim failed to appear. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would not be able to introduce the 911 call into evidence, as the 911 call did not meet the necessary rules of evidence. Without the victim’s testimony and without the 911 call, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case.


January 2016 Case Results


January 28, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.D.
Brockton District Court

LEWD & LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT: NOT GUILTY

A woman (alleged victim) called 911 to report that a woman in a second story apartment building was exposing her vagina and masturbating. The alleged victim was driving her teenaged daughter and her teenaged daughter’s friends to school. They went to the Dunkin Donuts drive thru. While placing their order in the drive-thru line, the alleged victim’s daughter directed her attention to the second story window in the apartment adjacent to the Dunkin Donuts. The alleged victim looked up into the window and saw a heavyset woman standing in the window naked from the waist down with her vagina exposed. The alleged victim beeped her horn so that the woman in the window would leave. When she beeped her horn, the alleged victim saw the woman in the window insert her fingers into her vagina and masturbate. The alleged victim immediately called 911. Upon arrival, police looked into the apartment window and a saw a heavy-set woman naked from the waist down. Police gained entry into the apartment. The Defendant was in the apartment. When speaking with the Defendant, police identified the Defendant as the person in the window naked from the waist down. Police observed that the Defendant matched the description given by the alleged victim. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the alleged victim withheld the names and identities of percipient witnesses. That is, there were two other girls in the alleged victim’s vehicle that the alleged victim decided not to disclose to the police. At trial, the prosecutor introduced a photograph that one of the girls in the car had taken of the person in the window. The photo showed a leg propped up on the window sill. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that this photograph was provided to police shortly after the alleged incident and that it was not disclosed to the defense until the day of trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth made the decision to introduce a black and white copy of the photo when they should have introduced a color copy of the photo. The color copy was the best evidence and may have been exculpatory to the defense. Attorney Noonan questioned the government’s decision to introduce the black and white photo when they had the ability to introduce a color copy. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have the intent to expose herself to the public. Attorney Noonan showed that the shades to the window were pulled down so the only thing visible was below the person’s waist. Attorney Noonan showed that the window had red curtains on both sides. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant desired privacy and took steps to ensure her privacy. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s exposure was negligent, not reckless.

Result: After a two-day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the jury that the Defendant did not commit a sexual act in the apartment window and that the Defendant did not masturbate in the apartment window. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict on the offense of Lewd, Wanton, and Lascivious Conduct.


January 21, 2016
Commonwealth v. F.P.
Quincy District Court

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: NOT GUILTY

A woman (alleged victim) walked into the police station to report an incident that just happened in the parking lot of TJ Maxx. The alleged victim claimed that she parked her vehicle in the parking lot of the TJ Maxx. She stated that she parked next to the Defendant’s vehicle and their driver’s side doors were facing each other. The Defendant was sitting in his vehicle with the driver’s side window down. She claimed that she exited her vehicle and walked past the Defendant’s driver’s side window. She claimed that she looked down into the Defendant’s window and saw that he had an erect penis exposed through the zipper of his pants. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discredited the alleged victim. The alleged victim testified that she went immediately into the TJ Maxx to report the incident to the manager. She testified that she provided the manager with the make, model, and license plate to the Defendant’s vehicle. She testified that she provided the manager with a physical description of the Defendant. She testified that the manager offered to escort her to her vehicle but she refused. She testified that the manager offered to call the police but she refused. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the TJ Maxx manager as a witness. The manager testified that he had no knowledge of receiving such a report and that he would remember receiving such a report. The manager testified that he had never met the alleged victim. This impeachment testimony discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan thoroughly attacked the investigation conducted by police. The arresting officer testified that he interviewed the alleged victim for approximately 30 minutes. After interviewing the alleged victim, the arresting officer spoke with the Defendant in the lobby of the police station. The Defendant arrived to the police station before the alleged victim to report that a crazy woman falsely accused him of exposing his penis in the TJ Maxx parking lot. The arresting officer testified that he spoke to the Defendant for about 1-2 minutes and placed him under arrest. The arresting officer did not conduct any investigation other than speaking to the alleged victim. The arresting officer did not listen to what the Defendant came to the police station to report. The arresting officer made up his mind that the Defendant committed the crime after he spoke with the alleged victim. Because he rushed to judgment, the arresting officer did not conduct any investigation. Lastly, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the Defendant to testify on his own behalf. Defendant worked for the Department of Corrections for 37 years. Defendant was a veteran of the Air Force. Defendant testified that he went to the TJ Maxx to do some shopping. After shopping, Defendant went back to his vehicle and sat in the driver’s seat. Defendant drank a large ice coffee and ate a coffee roll while sitting in his driver’s seat. While eating and drinking in the driver’s seat, the alleged victim walked past his window and said, “Pull up your pants, you creep.” Defendant was shocked by the alleged victim’s accusation because he didn’t do anything wrong. Defendant went directly to the police station to report the false accusation. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant’s actions showed consciousness of innocence.

Result: After a two day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict on the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness. Attorney Noonan’s client was a 65 year-old retired state employee and a military veteran with no criminal record.


January 13, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O.
Wareham District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT of CHILD: DISMISSED

The alleged victim walked into the police station to report that the Defendant assaulted him and endangered the life of his two year-old son. The Defendant’s sister had a two year-old child with the alleged victim. The alleged victim claimed that he was pushing his two year-old son in a baby stroller for an afternoon walk. When he was crossing the street, the alleged victim claimed that the Defendant accelerated his high-performance vehicle at him and the baby. The alleged victim claimed that the vehicle came inches from hitting him and the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that he had to push the baby stroller out of the way or else the vehicle would strike the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant and two other males got out of the vehicle and approached him. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant got in his face, yelled at him, threatened him, and pushed him into the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that an unidentified neighbor threatened to call the police and the Defendant fled the scene. Defendant had two open criminal cases. When he was charged with this offense, probation moved to find him in violation for committing a new offense while on probation and while he had two criminal cases pending. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan refused to have his client stipulate to violating probation by committing a new offense. Attorney Noonan requested a hearing to challenge probable cause that the Defendant committed a new crime.

Result: At the probation violation hearing, the alleged victim appeared and recanted his statements to police. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to dismiss the criminal complaints because the alleged victim recanted his statement to police. The judge dismissed the criminal complaints and the Defendant was not found in violation of probation.


January 7, 2016
Commonwealth v. M.S.
Brockton District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Defendant, the president of a company with no prior criminal record, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm when police searched his apartment and found a fully loaded handgun in the drawer to his nightstand in his bedroom. The fully loaded handgun was not equipped with a trigger lock and was not secured in any locked container. At his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss Prior to Arraignment successfully argued that the Defendant was denied his statutory right to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing prior to the issuance of any criminal charges. The case was remanded for a Clerk’s Hearing.

Result: After getting the case dismissed prior to arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police prosecutor and the clerk magistrate to hold the matter open for a period of one year. If the Defendant stays out of trouble for one year, the charge will be dismissed prior to arraignment and he will not have any criminal charges on his record.


January 7, 2016
Commonwealth v. C.M.
Brockton District Court

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness. The allegations were that the Defendant, a senior in high school, was sitting on the school bus on the way home from school when another student observed him expose his penis and masturbate on the school bus. There was evidence that the Defendant had previously masturbated on the school bus on approximately three prior occasions. One student told police that she observed the Defendant masturbate on the school bus on two separate occasions. Another student told police that she observed the Defendant masturbate on the school bus on at least one occasion. Prior to this incident, one student reported to the school that the Defendant masturbated in class. Defendant admitted to school officials that he did masturbate in class as reported. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the trial judge to exclude these “prior bad acts” from evidence. As a result, the Commonwealth was prohibited from introducing any evidence of the prior instances in which the Defendant allegedly masturbated on the school bus and in class. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim who claimed that she saw the Defendant’s penis exposed on the school bus, and that she observed the Defendant masturbating on the school bus. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan introduced into evidence a videotape of the actual bus ride and highlighted all the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony in comparison to what was shown on the videotape. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the victim did not look over at the Defendant during the bus ride, which was contrary to her trial testimony. Attorney Noonan established that the victim looked out the window or looked straight ahead during the bus ride and didn’t look over at the Defendant as she claimed. The victim testified that she looked over at the Defendant and saw him masturbate when a student behind her tapped her on the shoulder. When she was tapped on the shoulder she turned her head to say hello to the student behind her and that’s when she observed the Defendant masturbating. Attorney Noonan impeached the victim by pointing out that the student behind her pulled her hair and didn’t tap her on the shoulder. Attorney Noonan established that the only time she looked over at the Defendant was when the student behind her pulled her hair and she reacted by turning her head in the Defendant’s direction. Attorney Noonan established that it was in a split-second (when she turned her head in reaction to her hair being pulled) that she allegedly saw the Defendant masturbating. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the victim did not tell anybody on the bus that she saw the Defendant’s penis or him masturbating. Defendant got off the school bus before the victim yet the victim did not report the incident to anyone on the school bus after the Defendant got off the bus. The victim testified that she was offended by what she saw. However, as Attorney Noonan pointed out, the videotape did not show any reaction from the victim after she allegedly saw another student expose his penis and masturbate.

Result: At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved the judge for a Required Finding of Not Guilty arguing that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to support each element of the offense. The trial judge agreed and entered a required finding of Not Guilty on the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Related posts: