Patrick J. Noonan – Case Results

From left, defense attorney Patrick J. Noonan, shows East Bridgewater police officer Peter Belmore, a photograph. (Photo: Marc Vasconcellos/The Enterprise)
From left, defense attorney Patrick J. Noonan, shows East Bridgewater police officer Peter Belmore, a photograph. (Photo: Marc Vasconcellos/The Enterprise)

Free Initial Consultation to Discuss Your Case • Call (508) 588-0422

Criminal 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.

More About Attorney Patrick J. Noonan

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.


Recent Case Results


January 13, 2017
Commonwealth v. D.R
.
Middlesex Superior Court

DA’S OFFICE ARGUES THAT DEFENDANT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO RELEASE FROM JAIL BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE.

A Grand Jury returned 7 indictments against the Defendant for: Kidnapping, Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person, Assault & Battery with Dangerous Weapon on an Elderly Person (two counts), Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon Causing Serious Bodily Injury, and Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person Causing Serious Bodily Injury.

Defendant resided in the same home with his 83-year-old mother, the alleged victim. Police received a call from the alleged victim’s other son who was concerned that the Defendant may have the mother tied to a chair. A police officer was dispatched to the home. The officer looked into the window and saw the alleged victim lying on a couch waving her arms in the air. The officer went to the side door. Defendant opened the door and allowed the officer inside. The officer observed dried blood on the Defendant’s shirt. The officer heard the alleged victim yelling for help from the living room. As the officer made his way to the living room, he observed dried blood droplets on the floor. The alleged victim told the officer that the Defendant had assaulted her the day before. Specifically, she alleged that the Defendant threw her walker at her leg causing a laceration to her leg. She claimed that the blood droplets on the floor were from her leg injury. Photographs were taken of the leg laceration. She was taken to the hospital.

From that point on, the alleged victim would go on to make a series of false allegations against the Defendant. She alleged that the Defendant held her against her will. She alleged that he took the phone away to prevent her from calling for help. She alleged that the Defendant physically abused her, on multiple occasions, to the point where she needed to go to the hospital. She alleged that the Defendant would not feed her. She alleged that the Defendant would make awful statements to her. She alleged that the Defendant stole money from her. She believed the Defendant would kill her. The Defendant denies all these false allegations.

On January 5, 2017, the DA’s Office requested that the Court hold the Defendant in custody (in jail) for 90 days or until his trial because he was too dangerous to release. As the Defendant was in jail awaiting his Dangerousness Hearing, he retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan dropped everything he was doing and came to his client’s aid.

Result: After a two-day hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting his client released from jail. If the Judge sided with the DA, the client would have been held in jail for 90 days or until his trial.


January 3, 2017
Commonwealth v. Craig Barton
Brockton Superior Court
Indictments: 2013 -303

DEFENDANT WAS FACING LIFE IN PRISON BUT DUE TO THE RELENTLESS EFFORTS OF THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

In 2013, a Grand Jury returned the following 11 indictments against the Defendant: 2 indictments for Rape of Child by Force, an offense which carries a sentence in state prison for life or for any term of years; 2 indictments for Assault with Intent to Rape a Child, an offense which carries a sentence in state prison for life or for any term of years; 2 indictments for Incest, an offense which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years; and 5 indictments for Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child, an offense which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

The case was very involved, highly complex, thoroughly investigated, and strongly prosecuted. The Commonwealth was very intent on prosecuting the case to the fullest extent of the law. The Noonan Defense Team was even more intent on proving their client’s innocence. On January 3, 2017, the Noonan Defense Team came to trial ready to attack. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi on all charges “in the interest of justice.” A Nolle Prosequi is the formal determination of the District Attorney that he will no longer prosecute the case.

Result: Our client was charged with very serious offenses carrying the possibility of LIFE IN PRISON but due to relentless efforts of the Noonan Defense Team the District Attorney’s Office, on the day of trial, decided that they will no longer prosecute the case.

This Case In The News

Easton man arraigned on sexual assault indictment charges.


November 2016 Case Results


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 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. 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 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.


August 2016 Case Results


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 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. 


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.


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 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 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. 


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 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 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 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.


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.


December 2015 Case Results


December 22, 2015
Commonwealth v. D.W.
Brockton District Court

OPEN & GROSS LEWNDESS: IDENTIFICATION SUPPRESSED

An identified civilian witness called 911. She called to report that she was driving home when her vehicle was cut off and blocked in by another vehicle. She claimed that the male operator in the vehicle pulled out his penis and motioned for her to follow him. She claimed that the male operator turned on the interior light, thrust his hips upward, opened his pants, exposed his penis, and proceeded to masturbate. She provided police with the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle. She provided police with a physical description of the suspect as being: a white male, in his late 30s / early 40s, with a long strawberry colored beard, and heavy up top. Police conducted an RMV query of the vehicle, which was registered to the Defendant. The Defendant’s RMV photograph matched the witness’s description in that the Defendant’s picture showed that he had a long strawberry colored beard. The police presented a photo array of potential suspects to the victim. She identified the Defendant’s photograph and stated that she was 100% certain that the Defendant was the suspect. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police conducted the photo array. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant’s photo “stood out” from the other photos. First, there were substantial disparities in the age of the suspects. The victim described the suspect as being in his late 30s / early 40s. The Defendant was 34 years old. The majority of the photos were of males that were in their early to mid-twenties. Second, several of the suspects had skinny builds unlike the Defendant’s build, which was heavier. Third, the most striking point of suggestion was that only two of the eight suspects had long facial hair. Fourth, the photos that were presented to the victim were in black and white, not in color. In addition to the Defendant’s photo standing out, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police presented the photos to the victim. Originally, police generated an 8-person photo array. However, when the police presented the photos to the victim, they mistakenly left out two photos, and the photo array only consisted of 6 photos. The victim went through the six photos and stated that the suspect was not in the 6 photos. Police realized that they mistakenly left the two missing photos at the police station. Police generated the same 8 person photo array and conducted a second showing to the victim. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police re-used the same 6 filler photos, which were already shown to the victim. Contrary to standard practice, the police did not shuffle the photos and presented them in the same order as they did the first time. The victim breezed through the first 6 photos because she had already looked at these same six photos in the first presentation. The suspects in the first six photos did not have facial hair. When the victim got to the seventh photo, she identified the Defendant, as his picture showed that he had long facial hair. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police did not show the victim the eighth and final photo. The last photo showed a suspect with a long beard. Other than the Defendant’s photo, the suspect pictured in the last photo had a long beard, and this photo should have been shown to the victim.

Result: At the conclusion of the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge that the photo array procedure used by police was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and therefore violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights. As a result, the judge suppressed the out of court identification from evidence and precluded the Commonwealth from presenting the victim’s positive identification of the Defendant at trial.


December 18, 2015
Commonwealth v. Juvenile
Dedham Juvenile Court

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAWS: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED

Three 17-year-old juveniles were arrested on a theory of joint venture to distribute marijuana. A police officer conducting patrol observed three males standing in the middle of the street and the police officer detected a “strong, distinctive odor of marijuana.” The officer stopped and questioned the three juveniles. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client (Juvenile #1) had his backpack searched, which contained: a gallon zip lock bag containing marijuana, a marijuana blunt inside another zip lock bag, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and cash. The officer searched the backpack of another Juvenile #2, which contained: liquor bottles, a zip lock bag containing marijuana, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and a glass pipe with marijuana inside. The officer searched the person of Juvenile #3 and recovered four plastic baggies of marijuana. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress the physical evidence seized from his client’s backpack. Upon examining the arresting officer, Attorney Noonan established that: the officer seized the juveniles immediately upon approaching them; the officer exceeded the scope of the threshold inquiry because possession of less than one-ounce of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and social sharing of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and most importantly, that the search of Juvenile #1’s backpack was not justified as a lawful pat and frisk for weapons. The officer testified that he searched Juvenile #1’s backpack for weapons because Juvenile #1 had a knife on him. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would not fear for his safety – as to justify a pat-frisk of the backpack for weapons.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was allowed. The judge found that the search of the Juvenile’s backpack was unlawful. As a result, the judge suppressed all evidence seized from the Juvenile’s backpack. With all the drugs suppressed from evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss all charges.


December 3, 2015
Commonwealth v. M.S.
Brockton District Court
Docket No.: 1515 CR 4971

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was charged with four felony counts of Malicious Destruction of Property. The allegations were that the Defendant was terminated from the Company he was employed at for over 30 years. The police report alleges that the Defendant vandalized the Company’s outdoor air chiller unit on at least four different occasions. The company told police that the equipment was vital to the day to day operation of the business. The company alleged that they had to shut down production due to the vandalism. The company claimed that the value of the damage caused by the Defendant was approximately $102,000.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report failed to present sufficient probable cause to support each element of the felony offenses.


November 2015 Case Results


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 2015 Case Results


October 28, 2015
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
New Bedford District Court

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: EXPUNGED

Defendant is a 30-year-old woman with no criminal record. She is college educated. She has degrees in Graphic Design and Programming. She has been gainfully employed with the same company for 12 years, progressing from payroll, to accounts manager, to human resources manager. She earned a position with an international company as a data systems analyst. Defendant was charged with a felony offense of Uttering a False Prescription. The felony was docketed on her permanent record. She has been applying for positions with several international corporations, which perform extensive criminal background checks. She has not applied for any positions due to the felony charge on her record. In Massachusetts, expungement is extremely rare and only happens in very limited circumstances. In most, if not all cases, the Defendant’s remedy is to seal the record, not expunge the record.

ResultIn a very rare case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to obtain a court order permanently expunging the Defendant’s record. Expungement involves the removal and destruction of records “so that no trace of information remains.”


October 15, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.C.
Lynn District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOLLE PROSS
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: NOLLE PROSS
RESISTING ARREST: CWOF
STALKING: Amended to THREATS TO COMMIT A CRIME: CWOF

The alleged victim dated the Defendant. They dated for 9 months. She states that the Defendant was “very controlling” over the course of the relationship. He controlled what clothing she wore and he controlled what people she could talk to. They broke up. Two days after the break-up, Defendant called the alleged victim at 1:00 a.m. He called her 4 times in a row screaming at her. In the last call, Defendant threatened to burn her house down. Approximately 15 minutes after the phone call, Defendant showed up to the alleged victim’s house. He barged into the house very intoxicated. She claims that the Defendant was screaming and yelling at her. She claims that she felt that the Defendant was going to hit her. She alleges that she was in fear of her life. The alleged victim’s parents got the Defendant to leave. The alleged victim called the Defendant’s mother to come pick him up. The alleged victim looked out her window and saw the Defendant fighting and wrestling with his father (defendant’s father) in the street. She called 911. Police arrived and observed the Defendant fighting his father in the street. The officer intervened. The officer ordered the Defendant to stop fighting his father. The officer attempted to gain control of the Defendant’s right arm but he repeatedly pulled his arm away. The officer warned the Defendant that he was spray him with mace if he continued to resist. The Defendant continued resisting and the officer sprayed him in the face and placed him under arrest. The police officer observed a 5 gallon container of gasoline in the street where the Defendant and his father were fighting. The alleged victim’s mother came outside. She picked up the gas container and observed that it was less than half-way full of gasoline. Police interviewed the Defendant’s father. The father stated that he received a call from the alleged victim stating that the Defendant barged into her house intoxicated and he needed to be removed. The father, after much persistence, was able to get the Defendant in his car to drive him home. While driving the car home, the Defendant stated that he was “going to burn that shit down.” The Defendant also threatened to kill himself. The Defendant jumped out of the moving car and ran home where he went into the garage and retrieved the 5 gallon container of gasoline. His father tackled him in an attempt to prevent the Defendant from going to the alleged victim’s house to carry out his threat. The Defendant was able to wrestle away from his father and run over to the alleged victim’s house; 1-2 streets away. The father got into his car and drove to the alleged victim’s house where he confronted the defendant in the street. The father tackled the Defendant to the ground and attempted to hold him down until police arrived.

Immediately, the District Attorney’s Office filed a Motion with the Court requesting that the Defendant be held in custody for 120 days or until his trial because he was “dangerous” and posed a danger to the alleged victim and the public if he were released. After a Dangerousness Hearing in which Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and her mother, Attorney Noonan was successful in obtaining the release of his client with certain conditions.

The Commonwealth was intent on finding the Defendant Guilty of all the offenses and having him serve jail time. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge arguing that the incidents of Stalking did not occur “over a period of time,” as required by statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged acts of Stalking occurred within the time-span of 45 minutes, which is inconsistent with the language of the statute, which requires three instances of stalking “over a period of time.” Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was denied but he preserved the issue for appeal.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared for trial. He obtained an arsenal of information to attack the alleged victim’s credibility at trial. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the Defendant broke up with the alleged victim – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the alleged victim initiated contact with the Defendant on the night of the incident – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan established that the alleged victim did not call the police or tell her parents when the Defendant threatened to burn her house down in the phone call. Rather, the alleged victim went back to sleep. Shortly, thereafter, the alleged victim saw the Defendant walking up the front steps to her home. Again, she did not call the police but decided to let him into the house showing that she did not take his threat to burn the house down seriously. When the Defendant was inside the house, Attorney Noonan obtained previously testimony from the mother that the Defendant did not touch anyone when he was inside the house. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the mother that there was no physical confrontation whatsoever in the home and it took less than one minute to get the Defendant to leave. After the Defendant left, the alleged victim nor her parents called 911 – but rather they all went back to sleep showing that they did not take his threats seriously. When the alleged victim looked out the window and saw the Defendant fighting with his father in the street, she told police at the scene that she obtained a gas can close by. Attorney Noonan obtained the alleged victim’s 911 call in which the alleged victim never tells the 911 dispatcher that the Defendant threatened to burn her house down or that she observed a gas can in the street. The 911 call shows that the alleged victim was not fearful, scared, crying, breathing heavy, etc. Rather, the 911 tape shows that the alleged victim was calm and unemotional. She even laughed at one point in the call, showing that she did not take the Defendant’s threat seriously. After the Defendant was arrested, the police officer interviewed the alleged victim and her parents. Attorney Noonan, in a prior hearing, established that the alleged victim and her parents declined getting a restraining order because they did not feel it was necessary. A week after the incident, the alleged victim obtained a restraining order. Attorney Noonan found a restraining order that the alleged victim filed against a previous ex-boyfriend several years before the Defendant’s case. The alleged victim applied and obtained the prior restraining order with the assistance of her mother. Attorney Noonan contended that the alleged victim was familiar with the process of obtaining a restraining and had she been in imminent fear of the Defendant she would have obtained one immediately. Attorney Noonan also argued that the alleged victim’s mother had taken precautions to protect her daughter in the past by assisting her daughter in getting a restraining order. Had the alleged victim’s mother felt that the Defendant posed a danger to her daughter, she would have persuaded her daughter to get a restraining order – as she did in the past. Attorney Noonan felt that the alleged victim’s mother did not persuade her daughter in getting a restraining order against the Defendant because she felt that the Defendant did not pose a danger to her daughter. After the alleged victim obtained a restraining order against the Defendant, Attorney Noonan obtained evidence of the alleged victim attempting to contact the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained a text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s mother. Attorney Noonan obtained another text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s friend. Attorney Noonan obtained information that the alleged victim sent a request to the Defendant’s Instagram account in an effort to contact him. When all her attempts to contact the Defendant failed, the alleged victim went into court and removed the restraining order. Attorney Noonan obtained an audio recording and transcript of the hearing. In the hearing, the alleged victim states that the real reason why she sought the restraining order against the Defendant was to give the Defendant some time to get himself together – rather than being in fear of him. When asked about the alleged incident, the alleged victim states that she did not believe that the Defendant would carry out such a threat because she knows him and she knows he is not the type of person to do such a thing. She further states that she would like to have contact with him because they were practically engaged and their relationship was not the type of thing to just throw away.

Attorney Noonan provided the Commonwealth with his discovery and the evidence he intended to introduce at trial. On the eve of trial, the Commonwealth made a proposition, which the Defendant refused. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth made another proposition. The Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi on the Assault & Battery and Disorderly Conduct. The Commonwealth amended the felony Stalking to charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. The Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to continue the two charges without a finding and upon the Defendant’s successful completion of probation the two charges will be dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to Nolle Pross the Assault & Battery charge and the Disorderly Conduct. Attorney Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to amend the felony Stalking charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Noonan assured that the Stalking charge would not appear on his client’s record. Even though the Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on the remaining charges of Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to continue them without a finding. The client will not have any felonies on his record. If he complies with probation, he will get dismissals on the two misdemeanor offenses.


October 13, 2015
Commonwealth v. W.A.
Brockton District Court

KEEPING NOISY & DISORDERLY HOME: DISMISSED ON 05/16/16

Client, a 23-year-old senior college student, was charged with Keeping a Noisy and Disorderly Home in connection with an off-campus party in which more than 200 students attended. Police received noise complaints due to the loud noise from the party – as there was a DJ blasting music in the backyard. When police arrived, they observed a female dancing on the roof of the garage. Many of the party-goers were yelling for her to “jump.” Seconds later, a male student pushed the female off the roof and into the crowd. Police arrested the man who pushed the female off the roof. The incident of the male pushing the female student off the roof was captured on film. The case involving the male student pushing the female off the roof received a lot of publicity.
Our client was one of three college students that were named on the lease. My client had no criminal record. He was a standout wrestler in high school and college. He is expected to graduate with a degree in Physical Education and Coaching. Our client had never been arrested and never been involved with any problems in school. After the incident, he made plans to move out of the house to avoid any potential issues arising in the future.

Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police prosecutor and the clerk-magistrate to hold the case open until his client graduates in the spring. Client does not have any criminal and will continue to have no criminal record, so long as he stays out of trouble until the spring. Client intends to become a wrestling coach.

Video shows man shoving woman off roof at Bridgewater party. Pix11.com, by Jeremy Tanner, September 1, 2015. Excerpt: BRIDGEWATER, Mass. – Cellphones came out when a woman climbed onto a roof at a party Sunday night in Bridgeport, Massachusetts — and now prosecutors are using that footage after a man allegedly pushed the woman off as cameras recorded.

Read More About This Case in the News


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 2015 Case Results


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.


Back to Top

August 2015 Case Results


August 13, 2015
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Taunton Juvenile Court

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED
RESISTING ARREST: DISMISSED

A homeowner called police to report that a male had just ripped off his mailbox. Upon arrival, police located the male matching the description. Upon spotting him, the male fled into the woods and police chased him. During the chase, police tackled him to the ground and the male flailed his arms striking the officer in the head and shoulder. The male broke away and continued to flee into the woods. The officer attempted to tackle him several times but the male pushed him away. Finally, the officer tackled the male to the ground and delivered two fist strikes to his head. Afterwards, police learned that the male destroyed nine mailboxes. The male, a juvenile, was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property (felony) and Resisting Arrest. The juvenile had no prior criminal record. He was a standout athlete on the football team at his high school. The juvenile met with a Marine Corp. recruiter and signed a letter of intention to enlist. If the juvenile were convicted or given of CWOF for the felony offenses, he would be disqualified from military service. Moreover, if the juvenile were placed on Pretrial Probation, he would be disqualified from military. The only disposition that would not disqualify from military serve was an outright dismissal of the charges. After much work, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to dismiss all charges outright. Now, the client can pursue his dream of serving in the military.

Result: Charges dismissed outright and juvenile can now pursue his dream of enlisting in military.


August 6, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.A.
Brockton District Court

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to a motor vehicle crash on Route 24 south in which the Defendant rear-ended a vehicle on Route 24 south. The defendant admitted that he was distracted by his cell phone. Three witnesses told police that the Defendant had been traveling over 100 mpg when he struck the other vehicle. The alleged victim sustained neck and back injuries and went to the emergency room via ambulance. After extensive negotiations with the insurance company, the District Attorney’s Office, and the alleged victim, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the criminal charge against his client.

Result: Negligent Operation charge dismissed outright after extensive negotiations.


Back to Top

July 2015 Case Results


July 16, 2015
Commonwealth v. D.O.
Wareham District Court

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED
LARCENY FROM BUILDING: DISMISSED

The alleged victim and a witness went to the Middleboro Police Department to report that the Defendant entered their home without permission and stole a cell phone valued at $650. Defendant admitted to police that he did enter the alleged victim’s house but denied stealing the cell phone.

Result: Both felony charges dismissed upon restitution on the first court date.

July 6, 2015
Commonwealth v. T.Z.
Wareham District Court


OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: DISMISSED

Three witnesses reported to police that they observed the Defendant in his front yard with no pants on and his genitals and bare butt exposed. A neighbor called 911 and the Defendant was placed under arrest and charged with Open and Gross Lewdness, a felony sex offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Commonwealth to reduce the felony sex offense of Open & Gross Lewdness to the lesser-included misdemeanor offense of Indecent Exposure and place his client on probation at the conclusion of which the charge will be dismissed so long as the client complies with the terms of his probation.


July 2, 2015
Commonwealth v. E.G.
Hingham District Court

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

A civilian witness testified that she was driving on Route 3 South when she was almost struck by a large SUV driving erratically. She followed the SUV and observed that it was “all over the road” in that it almost struck the guardrail in the breakdown lane. A State Trooper observed the SUV driving erratically at a high speed and almost hit the guardrail. There was a passenger passed out in the front seat. The Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol. The Defendant failed all three field sobriety tests. At the police station, Defendant was verbally assaultive and uncooperative.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.


Back to Top

June 2015 Case Results


June 29, 2015
Commonwealth v. K.S.
Taunton District Court

LARCENY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Taunton Federal Credit Union filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Larceny under $250. Prior to his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the Keeper of Records at the Bank and confirmed that the Bank was not seeking any restitution nor did they have any objections to the case being dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss Prior to Arraignment, which was allowed, and the criminal charge will not appear on the client’s record.


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.


June 16, 2015
Commonwealth v. M.R.
Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to a residence for a call of domestic violence in which the caller stated that he was hit by his girlfriend. Upon arrival, the alleged victim told police that his girlfriend pushed him and scratched him, leaving marks on his right shoulder. Defendant is 32 years-old and a mother of two with no criminal record. She has worked as a Home Health Aide for over four years. She graduated from Community College and, prior to this incident, applied to several nursing schools to become a Registered Nurse.

Result: No complaint issued, and client may report No Record on school applications.


June 8, 2015
Commonwealth v. T.M.
Brockton District Court

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense) NOT GUILTY

An off-duty sheriff testified that he was returning home from work when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut him off, travel at a high rate of speed, cross over the center line four times, travel in the opposite lane, and almost strike the shoulder of the road. The sheriff observed the Defendant slam on his brakes at a stop sign and skid to a stop with his vehicle parallel to oncoming traffic. The sheriff conducted a motor vehicle stop and radioed police. Police observed a half-empty 12 pack of beer in his car. Police observed that his speech was very slurred, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and that he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant failed the nine-step walk and turn and the one-legged stand tests. A portable breath test gave a result of 0.19%. During booking, Defendant stated that he had stopped drinking for four years and all it takes is “a few too many.”

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.


Back to Top

May 2015 Case Results


May 21, 2015
Commonwealth v. K.S.
Brockton District Court

OPERATING w/ SUSPENDED LICENSE: DISMISS PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
FAILURE TO STOP / YIELD: NOT RESPONSIBLE

Client’s license was suspended for failure to pay speeding tickets. He was then pulled over by Police for a motor vehicle infraction and was arrested for Operating with a Suspended License and cited for Failure to Stop / Yield.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed the charge prior to arraignment and no entry was made on the client’s clean criminal record.


May 19, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.A.
Stoughton District Court

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR / DISMISSED

Police stopped a vehicle for speeding. There were three males in the vehicle. Officers observed the male in the backseat (defendant) reaching down at his feet. In the vehicle, police found one package of marijuana, six individual packets of marijuana, twelve empty zip-lock baggies, an empty vile, and two condoms. Defendant was in the final stages of enlisting in the United States Air Force. Client would be disqualified from enlisting in the Air Force if the felony charge was not reduced to a misdemeanor and then dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Commonwealth to reduce the felony drug charge to a simple misdemeanor and to dismiss the simple misdemeanor outright, which allowed his client to enlist in the Air Force.


May 11, 2015
Commonwealth v. V.M.
Brockton District Court

RECKLESS OPERATION: DISMISSED
FAILURE TO STOP: NOT RESPONSIBLE
FAILURE TO STOP: NOT RESPONSIBLE
UNREGISTERED VEHICLE: NOT RESPONSIBLE

Brockton Police received reports of gun shots. Police observed a gray SUV traveling at a high rate of speed in the area where the gun shots were reported. The operator, already traveling at a high rate of speed, increased his speed and police attempted to initiate a stop of the vehicle. The operator continued traveling at a high rate of speed and blew through a stop sign at an intersection. The operator refused to stop for police and took a series of turns on several side streets while still traveling at a high rate of speed. The operator finally pulled into a driveway and rushed out of the vehicle. Officers ordered the operator to the ground at gunpoint and arrested him.

Result: After extensive negotiations with the Commonwealth, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained an outright dismissal of the criminal charge and Not Responsible findings on the three civil infractions. “Brockton man arrested after car chase.”


May 5, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.M.
Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from allegations that he grabbed his girlfriend’s phone and struck her repeatedly in the head with it. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant slapped her, pushed her to the ground, and threatened to kill her. After the assault, the alleged victim immediately went to the police station to report it and she obtained an emergency restraining order.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty verdict on the violent felony offense of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon.


Back to Top

April 2015 Case Results


April 29, 2015
Commonwealth v. M.R.
Brockton Superior Court

DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS B: AMENDED TO LESSER CHARGE
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL ZONE: GUILTY (Min. Mandatory Sentence)
DISTRIBUTION SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE: DISMISSED

On December 18, 2012, Defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover detective within 300 feet of a school zone. With regards to the Distribution indictment (Chapter 94C, §32A(a)), there was a minimum mandatory jail sentence of two and a half years in the house of correction. Attorney Noonan negotiated with the Commonwealth to amend the charge to §32A(c), which does not carry a minimum mandatory sentence. In 2007, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent making the Defendant a subsequent offender. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the Commonwealth to dismiss the Subsequent Offense indictment, which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 ½ years in State Prison. With the Distribution and Subsequent Offender indictments, Defendant was facing 3 ½ to 5 ½ years in prison.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving a prison sentence of 3 ½ to 5 ½ years.


April 15, 2015
Commonwealth v. B.S.
Brockton Superior Court

RAPE BY FORCE: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was indicted for Rape by Force and Indecent Assault & Battery stemming from allegations that he forcibly raped and sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan tried the case before a jury. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant had consensual sex with the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of two percipient witnesses that were sleeping on a futon approximately three-feet away from the bed where the rape allegedly occurred. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from these percipient witnesses that they did not hear the alleged victim screaming, crying, or yelling when they were in the futon three feet away, which directly contradicted the alleged victim’s testimony.

Result: After a three-day jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained Not Guilty verdicts on all indictments, which include Rape by Force and Indecent Assault & Battery, saving their client from a lengthy prison sentence and having to register as a sex offender. “East Bridgewater man found not guilty in Bridgewater Rape.”


Back to Top

March 2015 Case Results


March 24, 2015
Commonwealth v. D.H.
Brockton District Court

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

A gas station employee called 911 and reported that the Defendant pulled into the gas station and exited his vehicle and appeared to be very drunk and observed that the Defendant had fallen over. Police arrived and observed that the Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, that his eyes were bloodshot and red, and that he was very unsteady on his feet. The police officer testified that he could not conduct any physical field sobriety tests because the Defendant was “highly intoxicated.” The police officer testified that he did not administer any physical field sobriety tests because he was concerned that the Defendant would fall and injure himself.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.


March 23, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.L.
Boston Municipal Court

SHOPLIFTING: NO CHARGES FILED

Client, a 29 year-old special education teacher with no criminal record, was detained by loss prevention officers at Shaw’s Supermarket for shoplifting various items. The issuance of a criminal complaint for shoplifting would affect the client’s employment as a special education teacher and may affect his ability to enroll in a master’s program. After he was detained by security, client received a notice in the mail from the Loss Prevention Department. Client immediately called Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who negotiated with the Loss Prevention and Legal Department at Shaw’s and convinced them not to pursue any criminal charges against his client. On March 23, 2015, the legal department at Shaw’s sent written confirmation to Attorney Noonan that they would not pursue any criminal charges against his client.

Result: No criminal charges were filed against the Defendant and client’s clean record remains intact.


March 19, 2015
Commonwealth v. R.P.
Brockton Superior Court

ASSAULT w/ INTENT TO MURDER: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was indicted for Assault with Intent to Murder stemming from allegations that he tried to murder his wife with knives he kept throwing at her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan tried the case before a jury. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced a 911 tape in which the alleged victim was screaming and crying that her husband was trying to kill her with knives he kept throwing. The Commonwealth also presented photographs of damage inside the couple’s home including stab marks in the wall, holes in the wall, furniture tossed over, and broken glass. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant directed all his destruction on the house (not his wife) by throwing knives into the wall, stabbing the wall, punching holes on the wall, and tossing over furniture. During the course of his destruction, the Defendant never touched his wife, and Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim did not sustain any injuries and never complained of any injuries.

Result: After a three-day trial, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of Assault with Intent to Murder, the most serious of the indictments. “Trial opens in Brockton for ex-firefighter charged with assaulting late wife.”


Back to Top

February 2015 Case Results


February 27, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.C.
Lynn District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
RESISTING ARREST: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
THREATS TO COMMIT ARSON: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
STALKING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

The Commonwealth sought to hold the Defendant in custody for 120 days or until trial due to the seriousness of the allegations that he attempted to burn down his ex-girlfriend’s house with gasoline until police intervened to physically stop him. After a Dangerousness Hearing, Defendant was released from custody. Upon a finding of dangerousness and a finding that no conditions of release would ensure the public safety, the Defendant would be held in the House of Correction for 120 days under the new domestic violence statute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the client at the Dangerousness Hearing and thoroughly impeached and discredited the testimony of the alleged victim-girlfriend.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving 120 days in jail.


February 2, 2015
Commonwealth v. K.T.
Hingham District Court

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED
LARCENY FALSE PRETENSE: DISMISSED

Client was charged with Receiving Stolen Property over $250, a felony offense, stemming from allegations that she stole three pieces of jewelry from the alleged victim totaling approximately $5,430, including a gold Claddagh ring (valued at $100), a diamond pendant necklace with a gold necklace (valued at $130), a 14K gold diamond anniversary band ring (valued at $2,200), and a 14K gold teardrop solitaire ring (valued at $2,000-$3,000). The client then allegedly pawned the jewelry, claiming to be the rightful owner of the property, and received payment resulting in an additional charge of Larceny by False Pretense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed outright at the second court date.


Back to Top

January 2015 Case Results


January 30, 2015
Commonwealth v. V.S.
Dedham District Court

INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: REDUCED TO NON-SEXUAL MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE

The alleged victim (age 16) accused the Defendant (her brother-in-law) of sexually abusing her on three different occasions beginning when she was 11 years-old. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the felony sex offense of Indecent Assault & Battery to a simple misdemeanor Assault & Battery, which is a non-sexual offense. Had the Defendant been convicted of the felony sexual assault, he would have to register as a sexual offender and face the possibility of prison time. Defendant was placed on probation for the simple misdemeanor assault and battery. Defendant was placed on probation for the misdemeanor Assault & Battery. He returned to his home in Texas where he lives with his wife and child.

Result: Commonwealth reduces felony sex offense of Indecent Assault & Battery to a misdemeanor Assault & Battery, which is a non-sexual offense, saving his client possible jail time and having to register as a sex offender.


January 16, 2015
Commonwealth v. K.J.
Brockton Juvenile Court

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED

Police responded to the breaking and entering in progress. Upon arrival to the home, police detained a man walking across the front lawn. The man confessed to breaking into the home to steal $10,000 and stated that he committed the crime with two friends named Kevin and Andrew. A short distance away, police observed two males walking on the sidewalk. They were identified as Kevin and Andrew and were placed under arrest as joint venturers in the house break. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s mere presence at the crime scene (without any other corroborative evidence of his involvement) was insufficient to charge him as a joint venturer.

Result: After Hearing, Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the felony B & E charge was dismissed.

Back to Top

Click to See More Cases Results


Learn More About Attorney Patrick J. Noonan

 

 

 

Save

Save

Save

Related posts: