Free Initial Consultation to Discuss Your Case • Call (508) 588-0422
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.
May 22, 2017
Commonwealth v. T.D.
Taunton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS 3 CHARGES FOR IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING SO LONG AS THE CLIENT STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE FOR ONE YEAR.
Taunton Police executed a search warrant of the residence of the client’s step-father. The client resided in his step-father’s residence. The police were investigating internet crimes against a child. The client was not the target of the investigation. The search warrant authorized police to search any persons present in the home. When the police executed the search warrant, they searched the client’s bedroom where they found, in the client’s bedroom closet, two assault rifles, a Glock 9 mm. and 7 large capacity clips. The found that the firearms and ammunition were not properly secured and they charged the client with 3 counts of Improper Storage of a Firearm.
Result: At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth must present sufficient evidence to prove that the firearms were “not” under the client’s control. Attorney Noonan argued that the firearms were within his client’s control because they were located in his bedroom closet and sufficiently nearby or in close proximity such that the client could access the firearms immediately. The Clerk Magistrate agreed to dismiss the complaint after one year so long as the client stays out of trouble and upon the condition that the client transfers all his firearms to another person who is authorized to possess them.
May 17, 2017
Commonwealth v. J.F.
Lawrence District Court
IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING
The Police Report states: Lawrence Police called the client into the police station to answer questions with regards to an investigation involving the discovery of the client’s firearm in the possession of another person who had been arrested. According to the police, the client was deceptive in the interview. The client maintained that he lawfully secured his firearm in key lock safe in his home. The person who was found in possession of the firearm was a former boyfriend of the client’s mother. The client speculated that the boyfriend may have stolen the firearm by obtaining the key, which was kept near the safe.
Result: At the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets the criminal complaint dismissed and no criminal charge was put on the client’s record.
May 11, 2017
Commonwealth v. D.S.
Marlboro District Court
CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST WORLD WAR II VETERAN AND RETIRED SECRET SERVICE AGENT DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING AND LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS REINSTATED.
Defendant, an 87-year-old resident of Marlboro, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm when his pistol was found unattended in the Dollar Tree store in Hudson. An employee at the Dollar Tree discovered the pistol on the floor and contacted the police. After the incident was reported to police, at approximately 3:00 a.m., the police came to the Defendant’s residence where they seized all his firearms and issued him a notice that his License to Carry was suspended. The Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan contacted the Hudson Police and requested that the matter be scheduled for a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing rather than proceeding directly to an arraignment, which would result in the criminal charge being entered on the Client’s record. The Hudson Police agreed and the case was scheduled for a Clerk’s Hearing.
Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Hudson Police Department and the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint outright. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was unaware that his pistol fell out of his holster because the pistol was so small and light that he didn’t notice it fall out. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant acted promptly and appropriately once he discovered that his firearm was missing. Upon realizing that his pistol was missing, Defendant retraced his steps and went back to the Dollar and reported to them that his pistol fell out. The Defendant then promptly went to the police department to report the incident. Attorney Noonan explained that his client was an 87 year-old decorated Marine Corps veteran of WWII who’s been a responsible gun owner his entire life. The Defendant was a retired Secret Service agent who served his country and protected Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Because the criminal complaint was dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing, the client did not have anything put on his criminal record. After the complaint was dismissed, the Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan petitioned the police department to reinstate the Defendant’s license to carry.
April 7, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.C.
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS GUN CHARGES AGAINST LOCAL RESTAURANT OWNER.
Client, a 41 year-old owner of a local restaurant and resident of Abington, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm and Failure to Surrender his Firearms to Police. The Police Report alleged: Abington Police were dispatched to the Client’s residence for a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. The Client had a valid License to Carry Firearms (LTC). When the police arrived to his residence, the Client responsibly informed the Police that he legally owned and possessed an AR-15 Assault Rifle and a .40 Caliber Smith and Wesson handgun. Prior to the police arriving, the Client placed all his firearms on his kitchen table so that the police were made aware that he possessed guns in his home. When the domestic dispute was resolved, the police instructed the Client to secure his firearms. As the client was securing his firearms, the police observed that the AR-15 Assault Rifle was not properly secured, as it was not in a secured container or equipped with a trigger lock. As a result, the police informed the Client that he would be charged with Improper Storage of the Firearm. As he was being charged with a firearms offense, the Client was required by law to surrender all his firearms to the police. The Client failed to promptly surrender his firearms to the police and was charged with that offense as well.
Result: The Client received notice that he would be arraigned in court on the gun charges. If he were arraigned, the gun charges would go on the Client’s criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case prior to his Client’s arraignment on the grounds that his Client was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing prior to being arraigned. The charges were dismissed prior to arraignment and the Client was given his right to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing. At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his Client had his Assault Rifle trigger-locked prior to the police arriving to his home. The trigger lock was on his nightstand in his bedroom but the Client forgot to trigger-lock the rifle when the police were watching him secure his firearms. The Client forgot to trigger lock his rifle because he was nervous when the police were watching him secure his firearms. With regards to the charge of Failure to Surrender his Firearms, Attorney Noonan showed that his Client surrendered his firearms less than 48 hours after the police instructed him to. After taking Attorney Noonan’s arguments into consideration, the Clerk Magistrate dismissed all charges thereby saving his client from having any criminal charges on his record.
January 13, 2017
TAUNTON MAN’S APPLICATION TO RENEW HIS LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO A PRIOR CONVICTION FOR A FIREARM’S OFFENSE BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RENEW CLIENT’S LTC.
Client is a 51-year-old Electrical Engineer from Taunton who is married with three children. Client has been an avid hunter and shooter and a big believer in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Guns have been a part of his life since he was a young kid. At age 16, he was issued a Firearms Identification Card. Client has had a License to Carry since 1995. He had been an active member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts (GOAL), and Taunton Rifle and Pistol Club. He has advanced training in firearms. He is a member of Team Glock a competitive team of shooting professionals.
Since 1995, the client has had a License to Carry (LTC) but in 2016 the Police Department denied his Application to Renew his LTC because he had a conviction for a firearms offense. Specifically, the Client pled guilty to the offense of Leaving a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. According to the Police Department, the conviction disqualified the client from getting an LTC.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the Chief of Police to renew his client’s license to carry firearms. Under the law, a conviction for a violation of any firearms law disqualifies an applicant from getting an LTC. Here, Client’s LTC renewal was denied because he had a conviction for violating a firearms law. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that: in order for a firearms violation to be a disqualifier, the firearms violation must carry a penalty of imprisonment. In his client’s case, the only punishment his client received for the firearms violation was a fine of $125.00. After considering Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s arguments, the client’s license to carry firearms was renewed.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
November 6, 2015
Commonwealth v. N.B.
Brockton District Court
UNLAWFUL POSS. OF AMMUNITION: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED
At 12:30 a.m., police responded to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant was driving his pick-up truck and struck a utility pole. Upon arrival, police called the ambulance and the Defendant was transported to the emergency room. Upon investigation, it was determined that the Defendant operated his vehicle negligently so as to endanger the safety of others. Police observed heavy front-end damage to the pick-up indicating that the Defendant was operating at a high rate of speed. Contents in the bed of the pick-up had been scattered all over the road. Police observed extensive damage to the utility, which had been broken in half also indicating that the Defendant struck the pole at a high rate of speed. Police observed very little skid marks prior to the crash. Police searched the Defendant’s pick-up truck and found a box containing 50 cartridges of .357 caliber ammunition. Police also found 13 cartridges of .38 caliber ammunition. Defendant did not have a Firearms Identification Card (FID) or any license to possess the ammunition. Defendant was a 21 year-old male with no criminal record. He had an Associate’s Degree and planned on enrolling as a student at Bridgewater State University. He was employed as full-time construction worker. He was also employed by the city as a snow-plower. The issuance of the criminal complaint would have jeopardized Defendant’s employment for the city as a snow-plower and would have affected his ability to enroll in college.
Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police department and the clerk-magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. As a result, no criminal charges will appear on the Defendant’s record.
October 1, 2015
Commonwealth v. S.H.
Wrentham District Court
CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING
Police were dispatched to the Mandarin Restaurant for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police approached the Defendant in the parking lot with his girlfriend. Police observed that the Defendant and his girlfriend were intoxicated. Police learned that Defendant’s girlfriend had an altercation with Defendant’s ex-girlfriend inside the restaurant and they were asked to leave. Officers allowed the Defendant to retrieve his personal belongings from his vehicle because a friend was on his way to pick the Defendant and his girlfriend. Police observed a leather jacket in his vehicle with a “Devil’s Disciples” patch on the back along a 1% patch and German Swastikas. Police observed a holster affixed to his belt on the small of his back with a clip. The firearm was identified as a Smith & Wesson SW40VE 40. caliber semi-automatic pistol with a magazine containing 13 jacketed hollow point rounds with one round loaded in the chamber. Police located another firearm on the Defendant’s right hip identified as a Smith & Wesson SW9VE 9 mm. semi-automatic pistol with a magazine containing 9 jacketed hollow point rounds and one round loaded in the chamber. Defendant also had five knifes on his person. Defendant had a valid license to carry firearms with no restrictions. Police placed the Defendant in protective custody and subsequently charged him with Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, on the first court appearance, argued a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Defendant was denied his statutory right to a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a clerk’s hearing because he posed an imminent threat to the public based upon the nature of the charge, the fact that the firearms were fully loaded with rounds in the chamber, and because he was affiliated with a motorcycle gang. Attorney Noonan convinced the judge that the Defendant did not pose an imminent threat because: he had a constitutional right to carry his firearms, the offense was a non-violent misdemeanor, defendant was cooperative and compliant, defendant did not engage in any violent or threatening behavior, and he was not involved in the domestic disturbance. Attorney Noonan argued that the police unfairly profiled him upon learning that he was associated with a biker gang. Upon learning that he was affiliated with a biker gang, police placed him in protective custody (alleging that he was intoxicated) when they initially allowed him to leave the scene upon being picked up by his friend. Had the Defendant not been affiliated with a biker gang, police would have allowed him to leave the scene with his firearms.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Subsequently, Police requested a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint but to keep the matter on file for three-months after which time the criminal complaint will be dismissed, so long as the Defendant does not commit any new crimes.
September 17, 2015
Chief of Police v. T.Z.
FIREARM SUSPENSION: LICENSE TO CARRY REINSTATED
Client had a valid license to carry firearms (LTC). The chief of police suspended his LTC pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 131 because he was arrested and charged with a felony sex offense. As a result of his arrest, client was required to surrender all his firearms to the police department. After successfully resolving his criminal case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and return his firearms.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and his firearms were returned.
June 25, 2015
Commonwealth v. S.H.
Wrentham District Court
CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED
Police were dispatched to a restaurant for a disturbance. Upon arrival, police encountered the Defendant in the parking lot. Police observed that the Defendant was intoxicated and they placed him in protective custody. Defendant had a loaded and chambered .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol in his back waistband. Defendant also had another loaded and chambered 9 mm. pistol in a holster affixed to his belt. Defendant also had five knives on his person. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the Defendant was denied his opportunity for a clerk-magistrate’s hearing under G.L. c. 218, §35A. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a clerk’s hearing because he posed an imminent threat to the public based upon the nature of the charge, the level of his intoxication, the fact that the firearms were fully loaded and chambered, and because he was affiliated with a notorious motorcycle gang.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed without prejudice and the Commonwealth must request a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing in order to pursue the charge.
July 22, 2014
Commonwealth v. J.G.
Dedham District Court
ASSAULT w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
THREAT TO COMMIT CRIME (MURDER) DISMISSED AT TRIAL
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION of FIREARM: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION of AMMUNITION: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
Defendant was arrested on allegations made against him by his ex-girlfriend of four years. She alleged that the Defendant choked her. She alleges a history of abuse, alleging that two-weeks prior to the incident Defendant choked her to the point that she had visible markings on her neck. She alleges that Defendant took out a black revolver and threatened to kill her with it. Police searched the Defendant’s home and found the black revolver (matching the alleged victim’s description) loaded with four rounds of ammunition. The alleged victim claims that the Defendant called her and threatened to kill her by slicing her throat. The alleged victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order against the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted extensive discovery and amassed damaging evidence to impeach the alleged victim’s credibility at trial.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains an outright dismissal of all criminal charges, which included violent offenses, a violent felony offense, and firearm offenses.
December 23, 2013
Commonwealth v. J.G.
Stoughton District Court
CARRYING FIREARM without LICENSE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
Police searched the Defendant’s home and found a Smith & Wesson 28 Special Revolver loaded with four rounds of ammunition. Defendant did not have any license to possess or carry firearms. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is a “residency exemption” in the amended statute, which applies to those possessing a firearm while “present in or on his residence.” Citing case law, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence showed that the Defendant possessed the firearm in his residence, which is not a crime, even though he did not have any gun license.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and he saves his client from serving a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 18 months.
August 1, 2013
Commonwealth v. R.L.
Dudley District Court
IMPROPER STORAGE: DISMISSED at ARRAIGNMENT
Oxford Police were dispatched to a domestic disturbance wherein a third-party caller reported that the Defendant and his wife were having a physical dispute. Upon arrival, officers observed items strewn about the bedroom. Defendant was in the process of packing his belongings in his bedroom to leave the house. Police observed a shotgun in Defendant’s bedroom closet, which was loaded and not trigger-locked. Police charged Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that there was insufficient probable cause to charge his client with the firearm offense because firearm was not outside the Defendant’s control because he had the shotgun sufficiently nearby him in his bedroom closet, a couple feet away, as he was packing his belongings in the bedroom. Attorney Noonan argued that the firearm was within arm’s reach of the Defendant and not outside his control.
Result: At the arraignment, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the gun charge upon the payment of $100 in court costs.
May 15, 2013
Commonwealth v. D.R.
Brockton District Court
CARRYING FIREARM W/OUT LICENSE: DISMISSED
POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION: DISMISSED
DEFACING SERIAL NUMBERS: DISMISSED
POSSESSION OF FIREARM WITHOUT FID: PROBATION
Client, 26-year-old male, was arrested during a raid where the gang unit task force of the Massachusetts State Police executed a search warrant of a residence in Brockton and found several large capacity firearms and ammunition. Client made inculpatory statements linking him to the firearms in the basement of the residence. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to amend the felony “carrying” charge, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of one-year in prison, down to a lesser misdemeanor simple possession charge. The Defendant pled guilty to the lesser-included misdemeanor charge and was placed on probation. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting all remaining charges dismissed.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves client from serving minimum mandatory jail sentence of one-year on gun charge.