Case Results – 2018

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

Criminal Defense Attorneys Justice for AllCriminal Defense Representation

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

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


December 14, 2018
Commonwealth v. J.A.
Suffolk Superior Court

WITNESS INTIMIDATION: NOT GUILTY
THREATS: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: GUILTY

Defendant, and five other Defendants, were employees at a juvenile detention center, which housed juveniles who had been adjudicated delinquent (or found guilty) for crimes and sentenced to serve sentences. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants would regularly threaten them, sexually abuse them, and physically abuse them. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants engaged in a ritualistic form of abuse known as “orange chicken” to punish or discipline them. The orange chicken assault involved the juvenile’s underwear being pulled down and getting smacked on the bare buttocks with an orange rubber sandal. If a juvenile complied with the orange chicken, the punishment would be less severe but if they resisted the assault would more severe. Defendants instructed other juveniles to participate in administering orange chicken assaults to other juveniles. The abuse was not limited to orange chicken assaults, as the juveniles described other forms of physical and sexual abuse by the Defendants. The Department of Children and Families and the Massachusetts State Police conducted an extensive investigation, which resulted in the juvenile facility being completely shut down. The District Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive grand jury investigation, which involved the testimony of juveniles, employees, law enforcement, and resulted in the production of thousands of pages of records and documents.

Result:

Defendant was charged with Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that the Defendants engaged in conduct designed to prevent the juveniles from reporting the abuse. Specifically, the Defendants threatened to put a “green light” on a juvenile if they reported the abuse. A “green light” meant that if a juvenile reported abuse they would be attacked at any other juvenile facility they went to because the Defendants had connections with other facilities. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had a Not Guilty finding entered on the Witness Intimidation charge because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence against his client.

Defendant was charged with Threats (G.L. c. 275, §2) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that Defendants threatened to give Victim #1 an orange chicken assault, if Victim #1 did not participate in orange chicken assaults on other juveniles. At trial, Attorney Noonan impeached Victim #1 with prior statements he made where he told police he didn’t recall being told that if he did not participate in orange chicken, he would be next. The most important piece of evidence that won an acquittal on the Threats charge was Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of Victim #1 where he got Victim #1 to admit that his client never made any such threat to him.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A) on Victim #2 based on Victim #2’s testimony that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room, forcibly pulled down his pants, and beat him on the bare buttocks with a sandal. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 had falsely accused another staff member of assaulting him in the laundry room during this same incident.

Specifically, Victim #1 testified at the grand jury that this other staff member assaulted him in the laundry and Victim #1 even sued this other staff member for assaulting him in the laundry room. However, when questioned about the incident in the laundry room, Victim #2 admitted that the other staff was not involved. Moreover, Attorney Noonan questioned the facility’s program director at trial who stated that she viewed surveillance video from the laundry room area on the date of the incident and there was no video to corroborate Victim #2’s allegations that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. The police even viewed the video, which did not show any evidence that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. Lastly, Victim #2 claimed that after the assault in the laundry room, he was discharged from the facility. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 met with his case worker shortly after the alleged assault in the laundry room and he did not say anything to his case worker about it.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on the testimony of a former employee who testified that he witnessed the Defendant beat Victim #3 with a sandal in the cafeteria. The Commonwealth gave this former employee immunity to testify against all defendants. This former employee testified that he personally participated in the assault on Victim #3 in the cafeteria and he witnessed the Defendant participating in the assault. However, during Victim #3’s trial testimony, he testified that the Defendant was present for the incident in the cafeteria but he could not recall if the Defendant participated. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan cited the law, which states that “no defendant…shall be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of…a person granted immunity.” G.L. c. 233, §20I. Attorney Noonan argued that the only evidence of the Defendant involvement in the assault and battery on Victim #3 came from the testimony of an immunized witness. Attorney Noonan argued and the Commonwealth failed to prove the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the Commonwealth did not present any other evidence to corroborate the testimony of its immunized witness.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on Victim #3’s testimony that the Defendant choked him with a wooden drumstick in the hallway. The jury convicted the Defendant on this one and only charge. However, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there were cameras that would have captured the incident in the hallway and the program director testified that she did not see any video footage of any assault on Victim #3 in the hallway. Moreover, Victim #3 testified that he assaulted the Defendant for no reason. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was legally entitled to use force to restrain juveniles in the course of his employment and he had a right to act in self-defense. Attorney Noonan cited the testimony of another employee who stated that “restraints” on juveniles’ are difficult to perform alone without any assistance from other employees. This employee testified that it is very difficult to perform a “restraint” in the manner they are trained to do where a juvenile violently attacks an employee and an employee has to do whatever he can to restrain the juvenile. In this case, Defendant was violently attacked by Victim #3 who was known to be violent and had previously attacked other juveniles and staff. The Commonwealth did not present evidence of the entire incident or the full picture of what happened. How can the Commonwealth say that the Defendant’s force to restrain Victim #3 was unreasonable when there were so many unanswered questions about what actually happened? How can it be said that the Defendant’s restraint was excessive when the Commonwealth did not any present evidence with regards to the severity of Victim #3’s assault on the Defendant? Defendant’s response would be appropriate if he was faced with a violent assault by a violent person.

At the end of this lengthy trial, the jury acquitted the Defendant on all charges, except for one.


December 6, 2018
Commonwealth v. John Doe
New Bedford District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS CHARGE AGAINST MEDICAL DOCTOR DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT, SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM HAVING THIS SERIOUS FELONY OFFENSE ON HIS RECORD.

Client, a medical doctor, went to a fitness center in Dartmouth to exercise. Another member of the gym reported to the gym’s manager that the Defendant exposed his genitals and masturbated in front of him in the sauna. The police were called to the gym. Police interviewed the alleged victim who again reported that the Defendant exposed his genitals and masturbated in front of him in the sauna. The alleged victim wrote a written statement of the incident. Police interviewed the Defendant who denied exposing his genitals or touching his penis in the sauna. Defendant provided a written statement to police denying the allegations.

Result: Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Open and Gross Lewdness (G.L. c. 272, §16). Defendant was summonsed to appear in the District Court for an arraignment on that charge. Had the Defendant been arraigned, the criminal charge would be entered on his criminal record and the matter would be prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed prior to arraignment on the grounds that the Defendant was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate before the criminal complaint issued. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s character. Client was a medical doctor in the Philippines where he was a member of a humanitarian organization that provided free medical care to the poor and victims who suffered horrific injuries. In particular, the client performed countless surgeries to those who had been horrifically disfigured. Attorney Noonan presented many letters from medical professionals attesting to the client’s humanitarian work and his good character. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint against the client. Open and Gross Lewdness is a felony offense that carries possible registration as a sex offender and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in ensuring that his client was not charged with this very serious offense.


November 15, 2018
Commonwealth v. B.S.
Brockton District Court

CHARGE OF ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER AGAINST MARINE CORPS VETERAN WITH SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS DISMISSED.

Defendant was committed to the Veteran’s Hospital in Brockton. Defendant physically assaulted another patient by punching him twice in the face. Defendant then stabbed a nurse in the neck with a ballpoint pen. Defendant suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type and presents with prominent symptoms of psychosis, including significant auditory hallucinations and delusions. Defendant hears voices telling him to do things. However, law enforcement took the position that the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions, knew exactly what he was doing, and that his mental illnesses did not play any factor in his attack on the nurse and other patient. Specifically, law enforcement alleged that the Defendant’s attack was premeditated and he planned the attack about an hour and half earlier. Defendant stated that the voices in his head did not tell him to attack the nurse. Defendant stated that he stabbed the nurse because he wanted to experience the feeling of killing someone. According to law enforcement, the attending physician could not say for certain whether the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions due to his mental illness. Defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder (G.L. c. 265, §15), Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), and Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53).

Result: Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial. The Commonwealth petitioned to have the Defendant committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital because he required the strict security of the facility while treating his mental illness. Defendant had been involuntarily committed for several years and periodically found incompetent to stand trial at the time that the Defendant’s father hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Defendant was transferred to the Worcester Recovery Center but still involuntarily committed. Attorney Noonan met with the Defendant, his father, and his treatment team. Defendant was doing well and progressing with his treatment. The treatment team wanted to progress the Defendant into his next stage of treatment, which was supervised community access where the Defendant would have limited exposure to the outside world. However, the treatment team could not advance the Defendant to this next level of treatment because the Defendant was “held without bail” and his bail status precluding him from leaving the hospital. The criminal case was greatly interfering with the Defendant’s treatment. Attorney Noonan successfully moved the Court to change the Defendant’s bail status so he could progress to his next level of treatment and have supervised community access. Defendant did very well with his next level of treatment and he had no incidents. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §16(f) because the Defendant has been held in the capacity of incompetent to stand trial for five (5) years, which is one-half of the maximum sentence of the most serious crime he was charged with: Assault with Intent to Murder. Attorney Noonan also argued that §16(f) grants the Court the discretion to dismiss such a case “in the interests of justice.” Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the Defendant’s treatment team stating how well the Defendant was doing and that the Defendant was temporarily scheduled to be discharged from the Hospital subject to an outpatient treatment plan. The Judge dismissed the case. With the criminal case dismissed, the Defendant has no restrictions on his ability to receive quality medical care.


November 6, 2018
Commonwealth v. G.D.
Stoughton District Court

CRIMINAL CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE’S HEARING.

Client’s wife obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against him. The wife went to the Canton Police Station to report that the Defendant violated the restraining order because he was taking pictures of her in the parking lot of the courthouse after their court hearing. As a result of the wife’s allegations, the Canton Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Violation of 209A Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk Magistrate Hearing. As a result, the client was never charged with this crime and has no criminal record from this incident.


November 5, 2018
Commonwealth v. G.P.
Boston Municipal Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO DISMISS FELONY DRUG CHARGE IN BOSTON AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS SERVING A JAIL SENTENCE FOR FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS IN BROCKTON – SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF SERVING SERIOUS JAIL TIME.

Defendant was charged, in the Brockton District Court, with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A-Heroin (G.L. c. 94C, §32) and Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C). While his Brockton District Court case was pending, Defendant was arrested in Boston and charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D (marijuana). In the Brockton District Court case, Defendant was convicted and was sentenced to serve time in jail while his drug case in Boston was still pending. As the Defendant was now previously convicted of Possession with Intent to Distribute in Brockton, he was facing serious penalties in his Boston case.

Result: In the Boston case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion a Dismiss the drug charge for lack of probable cause, which was denied by the Judge. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of an intent to distribute was insufficient because the officer did not make any findings with regards to the quantity of the drugs. After his Motion to Dismiss was denied, the Boston case was then scheduled for trial. On the trial date, this time before a different judge, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the drug charge based on the same argument he made before; that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute drugs because there was no evidence with regards to the quantity of drugs in the Defendant’s possession. This time, the judge agreed and dismissed the drug charge. This was a big victory because the client was facing serious penalties due to the fact that he had been previously convicted for Possession with Intent to Distribute.


November 1, 2018
Commonwealth v. K.L.
Barnstable District Court

ON THE FIRST TRIAL DATE, PROSECUTOR DROPS CHARGE OF OUI-DRUGS AGAINST SCREENWRITER RATHER THAN TRY THE CASE AGAINST ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN.

On June 19, 2018, Massachusetts State Police pulled over the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 6 in Barnstable because one of his taillights was out. The State Trooper observed that the vehicle was suspiciously activating its brake lights, several times, even though no other vehicles were on the road. The Trooper approached the vehicle. Upon the driver’s side window being rolled down, a big cloud of smoke poured out of the vehicle and the Trooper detected a strong smell of marijuana. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had smoked any marijuana and the Defendant admitted that he had “been smoking all day.” There were three passengers in the vehicle; all of whom admitted that they were smoking marijuana. Defendant stated that they were coming from dinner. Defendant further stated that he had smoked a joint before and after dinner. The Trooper observed that the Defendant spoke in a very slow and delayed speech. Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. After several requests, Defendant could not locate his vehicle’s registration. Defendant did not have a valid driver’s license either. During the entire driver’s side conversation, the Trooper noted that the smell and smoke from the marijuana was continuously flowing out of the vehicle. The Trooper asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Defendant stumbled several times while walking to the front of his vehicle. The Trooper administered the Walk and Turn field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. Trooper administered the Romberg field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. The Trooper formed the opinion that the Defendant was Operating under the Influence of Drugs-Marijuana (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appeared ready for trial armed with evidence to prove that his client was not under the influence of marijuana. The District Attorney was ready for trial and the State Trooper was present and prepared to testify. Attorney Noonan elected to have a jury-waived trial before a judge rather than a jury. The court took a brief recess. After the brief recess, the trial was going to start. During the recess, the prosecutor approached Attorney Noonan and stated that the Commonwealth was dismissing the charge of Operating under the Influence of Drugs.


October 25, 2018
Commonwealth v. G.D.
Stoughton District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST RETIRED BUSINESSMAN DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING AFTER VICTIM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE HER ONLY CORROBORATING WITNESS.

Client is a retired businessman from Easton who was in the middle of a nasty divorce with his soon-to-be ex-wife. The wife obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which prohibited the Defendant from contacting her. The wife went to the Canton Police Station alleging that the client violated the restraining order by having a mutual friend contact her by phone. The wife alleged that the client instructed this mutual friend to contact her and she could hear the Defendant in the background of the telephone call. As a result, the Canton Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint for Violation of 209A (G.L. c. 209A, §7).

Result: At the first clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client had no idea who this alleged mutual friend was who supposedly contacted his wife. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the wife was previously unsuccessful in obtaining a 209A Order against the Defendant. The wife was successful in her second attempt in obtaining a 209A Order. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Modify the conditions of the active 209A Order, which was allowed over the objection of the wife and her attorney. Upset about over the outcome of that hearing, the wife went directly to the police station to report this alleged violation. At the first clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Noonan requested that the wife produce the mutual friend as a witness to corroborate the wife’s allegation. Attorney Noonan argued that, if the wife could not produce the mutual friend as a witness now or in the future, the criminal charge would ultimately be dismissed – so it made sense to establish now, rather than later, if the wife could produce this witness. The Clerk-Magistrate ordered the wife to produce the mutual friend at the next Clerk’s Hearing. At the next Clerk’s hearing, the wife failed to produce this witness and the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the case.


October 23, 2018
Commonwealth v. L.P.
Waltham District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE OF ASSAULT & BATTERY ON AN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSON DISMISSED AGAINST WOMAN WITH PRIOR CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Defendant, a 54 year-old woman, was charged with Assault & Battery on Person over 60 or Disabled Person (G.L. c. 265, §13K) based on allegations that she assaulted her 79 year-old mother. The mother claimed that the Defendant was very aggressive, shoved her, and grabbed her by the hair. Defendant admitted to pushing her mother but did so only because her mother was in her face and arguing with her. In 2000, Defendant admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilt on a domestic violence charge.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the case. Attorney Noonan made arrangements for the victim-mother to speak to the District Attorney’s Office. The mother stated that she wanted the case against her daughter dismissed. Attorney Noonan provided the DA’s Office with 8 letters of people attesting to the Defendant’s character. Attorney provided letters from the Defendant’s other siblings stating that she was a loving and caring daughter to their mother. The DA agreed to dismiss the case.


October 18, 2018
Commonwealth v. John Doe

CHARGES OF DRUGGING PERSON FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND ASSAULT & BATTERY ARE SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.

Defendant, a 36 year-old Rhode Island resident and employee of a major health insurance company, was charged, when he was 27 years-old, with Drugging a Person for Sexual Intercourse (G.L. c. 272, §3) and Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully sealed the charges from the client’s criminal record. Client may now report that he was never arrested, charged, or convicted of these offenses.


October 4, 2018
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
Gloucester District Court

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT FOR CAUSING A SERIOUS CAR CRASH ON ROUTE 128 RESULTING IN INJURIES TO SEVERAL PEOPLE IS DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.

Massachusetts State Police and Gloucester Police were dispatched to Route 128 in Gloucester for a report of a head-on collision car crash. The Defendant, a college student, was driving with her four friends in her vehicle. Defendant approached Exit 13 when she realized that the turn off the exit was sharper than she had anticipated. She applied her brakes and attempted to make the sharp right-hand turn when her vehicle began to skid and she lost control of the vehicle. Her vehicle crossed the highway, traveled across the grassy infield, and struck another vehicle head-on. Investigators determined that the Defendant’s vehicle traveled a distance of 266 feet from the point where she applied her brakes to the point of impact with the other vehicle. There was significant and serious damage to both vehicles. All four passengers in the Defendant’s car were injured and transported to the hospital where several of them suffered from serious injuries. Police charged the Defendant with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle also referred to as Operating to Endanger. G.L. c. 90, §24.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate to drop the Negligent Operation criminal charge and to find his client responsible for speeding. Attorney Noonan pointed out that Exit 13 is a dangerous exit to those unfamiliar with it, as there is a deceptive sharp turn in taking Exit 13. The client was unfamiliar with the sharp turn, which played a factor in the accident. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s car insurance had ample coverage to compensate those who were injured in the accident. Finally, Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client is an honor student at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island where she is studying in hopes of becoming a medical doctor. The client was negligent in operating her vehicle but Attorney Noonan felt that his client should not have to suffer the consequences of having a criminal record for causing this accident.


September 28, 2018
Commonwealth v. G.D.
Stoughton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN DISMISSED AT TRIAL OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.

Client, an Electrician and Canton resident, was charged with Assault & Battery against his wife. Canton Police were dispatched to the parking lot of the client’s condominium in response to a 911 call made by his wife. Upon arrival, the wife, visibly upset at the scene, alleged that the client was angry with her and ripped her pocketbook out of her hands causing the contents of the pocketbook to be scattered about the parking lot. The client told police that they had a verbal argument but the police decided to arrest him and charge him with Assault & Battery.

Result: This case had a complicated history. The wife had taken out several restraining orders against the client where she made very serious allegations against him. Specifically, she claimed that the client had forced sex upon her, had threatened to kill her on multiple occasions, and even attempted to kill her. During the restraining order hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the wife and locked her into many lies, false allegations, and contradictory statements, which he planned on using against her at the client’s criminal trial. For example, the wife claimed that the Defendant had murdered his first wife but Attorney Noonan had irrefutable evidence that his first wife died of cancer. The wife further alleged that the Defendant took out a life insurance policy on her and was motivated to kill her to collect millions of dollars but Attorney Noonan had a witness from the insurance company ready to testify that these allegations were untrue. The wife alleged that the client had taken to Florida to feed her to alligators but Attorney Noonan had pictures from their trip to Florida showing the wife posing with stuffed alligators while laughing and having a good time. On a prior occasion, the wife called the police to report that the client had weapons in his house that he planned to kill her with but Attorney called the investigating officer as a witness who was prepared to testify that he searched the client’s home and did not find any weapons. Attorney Noonan had evidence to prove that the wife told lie after lie after lie. On the day of trial, the wife claimed that she needed an interpreter in order to testify but there was no interpreter in court. After speaking to the wife, the prosecutor requested a continuance of the trial so they could arrange to have an interpreter at the next trial date. Attorney Noonan objected to a continuance of the trial, and moved for trial, arguing that the wife did not need an interpreter because she had previously testified, in the same court, in two different hearings, without an interpreter and she did not have any difficulty speaking or understanding English and she previously filed written Affidavits, in English, in her own writing without the assistance of anyone. The Judge found that the wife did not need an interpreter to testify. The wife was faced with an ultimatum: Either she testifies at trial right now or the case gets dismissed. The wife elected not to testify. Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the case. The Judge dismissed the case over the objection of the prosecutor and the wife.


September 20, 2018
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Plymouth District Court

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER BY EX-GIRLFRIEND DISMISSED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE EX-GIRLFRIEND SOUGHT THE CRIMINAL CHARGE IN ORDER TO GET CUSTODY OF THEIR SON.

Client and his ex-wife girlfriend were in a heated and contentious court battle over the custody of their 18 month-old son in the Family Court. Previously, the girlfriend reported to police that the client had kidnapped their child and brought the child to Florida with no intention of returning the child. As a result of the girlfriend allegations, a warrant issued for the client’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping (G.L. c. 265, §26A). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the Parental Kidnapping charge dismissed prior to arraignment and the client was never charged with that crime. Subsequently, the girlfriend went into the Plymouth Police Department and reported that the client had sent her text messages where he threatened to kill her. As a result of this allegation, the police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the client for Threats to Commit a Crime, the crime being Murder (G.L. c. 275, §2).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the girlfriend was motivated to accuse the client of threatening to kill her as a strategy and as a way to win custody of the child in the Family Court. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the girlfriend made a written proposal to the client where she stated that she would agree to drop the criminal charges against the client in exchange for the client giving her custody of the child. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint against the client.


September 14, 2018
Jane Doe vs. John Doe
Attleboro District Court

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER BY WIFE, ALLEGING ABUSE AND SEEKING IMMEDIATE CUSTODY OF CHILD, IS TERMINATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE WIFE’S CLAIMS ARE NOT CREDIBLE AND INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. CLIENT IS NOW ALLOWED TO SEE HIS SON.

Client, a professional wrestler, had a short-term marriage to his wife and they have a 10 month-old son together. The wife obtained an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) from a Judge, which granted her immediate custody of the son. Client was ordered to move out of his own house, have no contact with his wife or child, and to stay away. Client immediately hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who represented the client at a hearing where he sought to terminate the Order. At the hearing, the wife claimed that the client suffered from bi-polar disorder, was mentally unstable, engaged in fits of rage, was suicidal, and had refused to take his bi-polar medication. The wife claimed that the client’s family knew all about his bi-polar disorder.

Result: At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the client’s mother to testify. His mother was a nurse who worked in a psychiatric unit. The mother testified, credibly, that the client did not have bi-polar (or any other mental illness), was never suicidal, and was certainly not mentally unstable. The mother’s testimony completely refuted the wife’s wild allegations that the client was mentally unstable. The mother testified that she would often babysit the child because the client worked long hours, as the sole financial provider for his wife and child. The mother frequently observed the client interacting with his child and testified, credibly, that the client was a loving and caring father, contrary to the wife’s claims. The mother testified to an incident where the wife had punched the client in the face. The mother testified that the wife had a history of blowing things out of proportion. After the hearing, the judge vacated the restraining order. Now, the client can see his son.


September 3, 2018
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Westborough District Court

CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST U.S. NAVY VETERAN DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE’S HEARING.

Westboro Police was notified by the suicide prevention line that they received a phone call from a female who was contemplating suicide and threatened to “shoot themselves.” However, the caller did not leave any information. Police began to ping the cell phone number and they learned that the cell phone belonged to the Defendant. Police then responded to the Defendant’s apartment where they encountered the female caller who stated that her boyfriend, defendant, owned a firearm. Police ran a search, which revealed that the Defendant had a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) from Georgia. Police then questioned the Defendant as to whether he had a firearm in his apartment. Defendant stated that he had his firearm in the bedroom closet. However, the female told police that she had possession of the Defendant’s firearm. Police seized the firearm from the female and transported her to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Westboro Police charged the Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, § 131L.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence regarding his client’s military service. Client was honorably discharged after serving six years in the U.S. Navy. He attained the rank of 2nd Class Petty Officer and worked as an Aviation Electronic Technician. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of awards and medals his client earned from his valiant military service. Client had no criminal record. The client wanted to work for the Department of Defense as a civilian operations network engineer and the outcome of this criminal complaint had the potential to bar him from even applying. In light of the client’s background, military service, and plans for future employment, the clerk-magistrate did not issue the complaint.


August 2018 Case Results


August 16, 2018
Commonwealth v. J.W.
West Roxbury District Court

PROSECUTION AGREES TO DROP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN HAD WITNESSES READY TO TESTIFY THAT THE VICTIM ATTACKED THE DEFENDANT AND HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery upon the adult daughter (alleged victim) of his longtime girlfriend. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant punched her in the face, causing her to go to the emergency room where she was treated for injuries to her face. Defendant had a prior conviction for domestic violence.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had two witnesses prepared to testify that the victim was a violent person who attacked them both on prior occasions. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had another witness prepared to testify that he witnessed the victim attack the Defendant on a prior occasion. Attorney Noonan was prepared to introduce ample evidence showing the victim’s violent character and prior acts of violence initiated by the victim. Attorney Noonan produced two witnesses who witnessed the actual incident between the Defendant and the victim. The two witnesses were prepared to testify that they observed the victim attack the Defendant and they saw the Defendant act in self-defense. On the day of trial, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge after one-year, so long as the Defendant complied with conditions and stayed out of trouble. With this outcome, Defendant was not required to admit any guilt or wrongdoing.


August 15, 2018
Commonwealth v. J.T.
Brockton District Court

ASSAULT CHARGES DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING IN FIGHT BETWEEN TWO MOTORISTS IN BROCKTON. CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Brockton Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident and a fight in progress between the two drivers. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim who reported that the Defendant struck him in the forehead with a stick. Officers observed a visible injury to the victim’s forehead. Our client was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Batter with a Dangerous Weapon for allegedly striking the other man in the face with a wooden stick.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client acted in self-defense. Our client was parked in the street partially blocking traffic. The other party intentionally drove into the rear-end of our client’s vehicle. Both men exited their vehicles. Our client saw something in the other man’s hand, grew fearful, and grabbed a wooden stick out of his car in self-defense. Attorney Noonan produced an Affidavit of a witness who reported that he saw the other male driver yell, “You mother******, move your car or I’m going to run your ass over.” Our client moved his vehicle several feet but the other driver intentionally drove into the rear of our client’s vehicle. This witness stated that he saw a female in the other man’s car get out of the vehicle holding a plastic bag and proceeded to walk down the street. The witness reported that the other man was acting very aggressively. Another witness reported observing the two men grappling over the stick. This witness observed damage to our client’s car from being rear-ended by the other man. This witness observed that the other man’s car was parked very close to the rear of our client’s vehicle. After the hearing, no criminal complaint issued.


August 2018
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Taunton District Court

AFTER A HEARING, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS FELONY ASSAULT CHARGE SEALED FROM ASPIRING TEACHER’S CRIMINAL RECORD

In 2013, when our client was 22 years-old, he was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (a felony) upon his then-girlfriend. There were photographs showing serious injuries to the girlfriend’s face and the Defendant had written a letter to his girlfriend apologizing for what he did. Prior to our representation, our client entered a plea to both charges, admitted to sufficient facts, and was placed on probation for two years with conditions that he receives anger management and substance abuse treatment. In 2015, the charges were dismissed upon his successful completion of probation. Because our client was charged with a felony, he was not eligible to have his record sealed until ten (10) years following the disposition of his case. That is, our client was not eligible to get the felony sealed until 2025. It should be noted that, in October of 2018, new legislation will go into effect regarding record sealing and expungement. Our client was a college graduate. He had hopes of getting a Graduate Degree in Education and fulfilling his dream of becoming a high school science teacher. However, because of the criminal charges on his record, including the felony charge, our client did not feel he could get into Graduate School or get hired as a teacher.

Result: Our client was very discouraged. He felt that he would never be able to become a teacher so he didn’t even try. Then, one day, he called our law office to see if anything could be done. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed his case and told him about our record sealing laws in Massachusetts and how he could petition the Court to have his record sealed immediately rather than waiting until 2025. Our client decided to give it a shot. At a hearing, our law office presented evidence to convince the Judge order to the sealing of our client’s criminal record.


August 2018

COMPUTER SPECIALIST IS DENIED A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARM’S BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CHANGE IT’S MIND AND THEY ISSUE HIS CLIENT A LICENSE TO CARRY.

The client is a 41 year-old, happily married, father of three children. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms with the police department in his place of residence. The police department denied his application for LTC because of two prior criminal cases on his record, which disqualified him.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented the police department with evidence that the two prior criminal cases should not disqualify his client from obtaining an LTC. One of the prior criminal cases, a felony drug conviction, was later vacated by the court and should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. The other prior criminal case, a charge of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, resulted in a Not Guilty verdict, which should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. Attorney Noonan also presented evidence showing that his client was a suitable person to possess a firearm. After considering Attorney Noonan’s evidence, the police department changed its mind and issued the client a license to carry firearms.


July 2018 Case Results


July 27, 2018
Commonwealth v. Ritch Dorce
Brockton District Court

IN A RARE CASE WHERE A DEFENDANT CONFESSES TO A CRIME ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES HIS CLIENT’S INNOCENCE AND WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING.

On December 31, 2016, there was a New Year’s Eve party at a home on Orchard Ave. in Brockton. Police received several 911 calls reporting multiple gunshots fired at the home. One call reported that six gunshots were fired. One bullet traveled through a bedroom where a young child had been sleeping. Upon arrival the home, police interviewed several witnesses who lived in the home and were present for the party. Two of the witness immediately informed police that they had Snapchat videos posted by the person who committed the shooting. The Snapchat videos were posted from the account of Ritch Dorce, the Defendant in the case. One video physically showed Dorce present at the party. Another video showed Dorce sitting in the car, holding a firearm, and confessing the shooting. Dorce states: “I just got jumped, but, ayy, it’s OK. I just emptied all my shells. I ain’t got no more shells. But, ayy, I’m about to go back and get some more.” Dorce is then seen releasing the magazine to the firearm. Police interviewed approximately nine individuals who were present at the party. Some witnesses told police that Dorce got into a physical altercation with others at the party over marijuana. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was in the company of approximately 4-5 other males who were also involved in fights with others at the party. Some witnesses reported that Dorce, and the males with him, retrieved baseball bats and damaged a vehicle with bats. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was seen holding a taser. Some witnesses reported that Dorce threatened to come back and shoot the house up. Two witnesses stated that they were outside when they observed two vehicles drive by and fire shots at the house. One witness identified Dorce as sitting in one of the vehicles, which was involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s Snapchat account, which confirmed that Dorce had in fact posted the incriminating videos on his Snapchat account. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, GPS, and tower locations for his cell phone, which allowed police to locate Dorce and arrest him. Dorce agreed to videotape interview with police. In the interview, Dorce admitted that he posted the video but Dorce maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce admitted that he got jumped at the party but he maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce was charged with: 1) Carrying a Firearm without a License, 2) Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, 3) Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, 4) Malicious Destruction of Property, and 5) Malicious Damage to a Vehicle.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that somebody else committed the shooting. In his interview, Dorce told police that he attended the party with three other males, one of whom was named Jeff. Dorce stated that he left the party and his cousin gave him a ride to his apartment in Brockton where he met his girlfriend and daughter. While he was in his Brockton home, Dorce received a phone call from Jeff who instructed Dorce to come outside and meet him in his car. While in the car, Jeff told Dorce that he (Jeff) “took care of it” because he didn’t want Dorce “to get his hands dirty.” Jeff then showed Dorce the handgun. At that point, Dorce foolishly decided to post a video on Snapchat of himself holding the handgun and taking credit for the shooting. Dorce stated that he posted the video to let people know not to mess with him. Attorney Noonan presented evidence with regards to Jeff’s true identity and the fact that police did not conduct any investigation into Jeff. Attorney Noonan had his private investigator testify that he was able to locate Jeff’s public Facebook page, which contained posts where Jeff appeared to feel guilty over the fact that Dorce was in jail for something he did not do and Jeff posted that he would take responsibility. The private investigator testified that he confronted Jeff with his posts but Jeff did not deny that he was involved in the shooting. Attorney Noonan argued that the police had evidence that would show Dorce’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting but the police did not bring this evidence to trial. Specifically, Dorce voluntarily handed over his cell phone to police and gave them the password to his phone. Dorce even asked the police to search his phone records, as the records would show that he was not involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, including his GPS and cell tower locations for the night of the shooting. Dorce’s cell phone records would show his whereabouts at the time of the shooting. If Dorce’s phone records showed that he was in the vicinity of the shooting at the time the shooting occurred, Attorney Noonan argued, the police would have brought that evidence to trial and showed it to the jury. Attorney Noonan argued that the police could have tested the fingerprints from the shell casings found at the scene in order to prove that Dorce handled the bullets that fired the gun. Attorney Noonan argued that Dorce’s Snapchat video was one of hundreds of videos where Dorce is playing a character as part of an online persona where he tried to look tough and sound tough. Dorce held himself out to be somebody he wasn’t. There was the real Dorce and his online persona. The Snapchat video was simply another example of Dorce trying to sound tough. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Mr. Dorce was not the shooter and they acquitted him of all charges except one charge. The jury found Dorce guilty of only holding the firearm in the Snapchat video but they found that Dorce was not the shooter and was not involved in the shooting. In a rare case where a Defendant confesses to committing a crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proves his client’s innocence.  

Media about the case:

A Snapchat split decision – Brockton ‘poser’ both guilty and acquitted.

Also:

Snapchat ConfessionClick HERE or on the image above to view larger.


June 2018 Case Results


June 27, 2018
Commonwealth v. A.G.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE, AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE “WHO” OPERATED THE VEHICLE.

Bridgewater Police received a call from a resident stating there was a disabled vehicle parked in the street and the driver appeared to be sitting in the vehicle with his head back. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the shoulder of the road with two tires blown out. The officer approached the driver’s side of the vehicle where the Defendant had been seated. The officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. The officer asked how the tires were blown out and the Defendant stated that he must have hit something back there and pointed down the road. Defendant admitted that he had smoked a roach while attempting to change his tires prior to Defendant calling for a tow truck. Defendant claimed that he had a medical marijuana card but stated that it had been “responded” when he meant to say “expired.” Defendant admitted to drinking two Budweiser beers about three hours ago. There was a female sitting in the front passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle. She told police that Defendant had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol earlier in the night but she felt he was fine to drive. There were two empty nip bottles on the ground outside the vehicle. The female passenger initially stated that the bottles belonged to her but later stated that the Defendant told her to throw out the nip bottles. The officer testified that the Defendant failed several field sobriety tests, such as the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. At the police station, police found a plastic bag containing marijuana in the Defendant’s pant pocket. At the police station, Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test, which shows that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%, above the legal limit.

Result: In order to prove the Defendant guilty of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was the “operator” of the vehicle. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove that the Defendant, and not the female, was the operator of the vehicle, as there was evidence tending to show that the female could have driven the vehicle. Even though the Defendant had admitted to being the operator, that alone, was insufficient to convict the Defendant unless there was evidence to corroborate that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that, besides the Defendant’s admission to operating the vehicle, there was no other evidence to corroborate that he was the driver. 


June 19, 2018
Commonwealth v. N.H.

Plymouth District Court

PARENTAL KIDNAPPING CHARGE AGAINST FLORIDA MAN IS DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS CASE LAW SHOWING HIS CLIENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME

 Defendant had a young child with his girlfriend. Defendant, his girlfriend, and the child all lived together in Florida, where the Defendant is from. They recently moved to Plymouth where they lived together in an apartment. The girlfriend and the Defendant had an argument one afternoon. Defendant told the girlfriend that he was taking the child to Florida for a few days to see his family. Defendant told the girlfriend that he would return to Massachusetts with the child after seeing his family. The girlfriend went to the police station to report that the Defendant had kidnapped the child. The police contacted the Defendant, as he was traveling to Florida. Defendant told the police that he had a right to take his child and he was doing nothing illegal. Police continued to contact the Defendant but he did not answer his phone. As the Defendant was in Florida, the girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant in the Plymouth Probate and Family Court, which granted her immediate custody of the child. The Probate and Family Court issued an Order ordering the Defendant to immediately return the child to the girlfriend in Massachusetts. With the assistance of Plymouth Police, the girlfriend filed a Missing Person’s Report. The Plymouth Police Department obtained an Arrest Warrant for the Defendant’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Plymouth Police contacted the Tampa Police seeking their assistance in apprehending the Defendant and returning the child to Massachusetts.

Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan from Florida and explained that he had a warrant for his arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Attorney Noonan made arrangements for the Defendant to come to Massachusetts to remove the Arrest Warrant. Attorney Noonan brought the Defendant into court and reached an agreement with the prosecution that they would remove the arrest warrant and they hold off on charging the Defendant for one week. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecution with case law showing that the Defendant could not be charged with the crime of Parental Kidnapping because there were no court orders regarding child custody at the time the Defendant took the child to Florida. See Commonwealth v. Beals, 405 Mass. 550 (1989)(where SJC held: parent who has taken his or her children from the other parent before there was any court proceeding cannot be convicted of parental kidnapping.) The prosecution agreed with Attorney Noonan and they dismissed the Parental Kidnapping charge prior to arraignment.


June 7, 2018
Commonwealth v. P.C.
Framingham District Court

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST FORMER MARINE AND RETIRED BUSINESS OWNER FOR OPERATING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE

Client is a 77 year-old retired business owner who owned commercial real estate in a shopping center he operated for decades. He was a former special police officer in Natick and Framingham. He was very active in the community. Unfortunately, he amassed a series of motor vehicle offenses, and received three prior tickets for speeding, improper passing, and marked lanes violations. Due to the multitude of driving violations, the client’s license was suspended and he was required to driving classes in order to get his license reinstated. While his license was suspended, client drove his vehicle to do some errands and was pulled over for speeding and was charged with Operating after Suspended License.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint so long as the client completes a driving course. 


June 5, 2018
Commonwealth v. N.T.
Wareham District Court

FELONY THEFT CHARGE AGAINST UNITED STATES POSTAL WORKER FOR STEALING MAIL IS DISMISSED AFTER A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING

A named victim called the Wareham Police to report that a Best Buy gift card that he purchased and mailed to his son had been stolen. Police found that the Defendant had stolen and used the Best Buy card. Specifically, police obtained surveillance video showing the Defendant using the stolen Best Buy Card at a Best Buy store. It was learned that the Defendant, a United States Postal Worker, had stolen the Best Buy card from the envelope that it had been mailed in. The intended recipient’s mailing address for the Best Buy gift card was on the Defendant’s assigned route. The U.S. Postal Service conducted a sting investigation to catch the Defendant in the act of stealing mail. They placed a red envelope, containing cash, in the mail for the Defendant’s mailing route. They put an address on the green envelope, which was not on the Defendant’s assigned route. Per procedure, the Defendant was supposed to have returned the green envelope to the Post Office, as it was not in the Defendant’s assigned route. Undercover postal investigators observed the Defendant preparing to leave in her personal vehicle. The postal investigators recovered the red envelope in the Defendant’s personal vehicle.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint not to issue against his client. Attorney Noonan argued that his client did not have the intent necessary to commit the larceny of the red envelope, as it did not appear as though the Defendant knew what was inside the red envelope and the Defendant did not have a sufficient opportunity to return the envelope pursuant to postal procedure. This was a very serious charge because it dealt with a theft of federal proportions from the United States Mail by a United States Postal Worker.


May 2018 Case Results


May 11, 2018
Commonwealth v. E.M.

Brockton District Court

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST PARAMEDIC AND BRIDGEWATER STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT DISMISSED AFTER CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to Auto Zone for a reported larceny. Upon arrival, police spoke to the calling party who was an employee working at the cash register. The employee reported that the Defendant came to this register and attempted to purchase three items on his credit card. The cashier told the Defendant that his credit card was declined at which time the Defendant grabbed the items and quickly headed for the door. The cashier yelled to the Defendant, approximately six times, for him to stop and come back into the store. The Defendant fled the store in his vehicle but the cashier wrote down his license plate. The cashier was able to identify the Defendant through the information on his Auto Zone reward card. The officer ran the license plate, which came back to the Defendant. The officer showed a picture of the Defendant’s driver license to the cashier, who immediately identified him as the suspect.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint upon the Defendant’s payment of restitution to Auto Zone for the stolen items. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saves his client, a paramedic and college student at Bridgewater State University, from having a criminal record.


May 9, 2018
Commonwealth v. John Joyce
Stoughton District Court

IN A MANSLAUGHTER INVESTIGATION FOR A DRUG OVERDOSE, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, INCLUDING: SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S HOME, AND INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT. LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION DID A FEATURE ON THE CASE FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

Police responded to a private residence for a drug overdose. Upon arrival to the scene, police found a male lying on the floor of his living room dead of a drug overdose. Police searched the deceased’s pockets and found a rolled up $20 bill with brown residue on the tip of it. Police also found on the deceased’s pocket a folded $20 bill and Keno ticket containing brown powder. The brown powder tested positive for heroin. Police searched the deceased’s cell phone and found text messages with the Defendant showing that the two had met the night before the overdose. Police used the deceased’s cell phone, posing as the deceased, and contacted the Defendant by text message and asked to buy some drugs from the Defendant. Police instructed the Defendant to bring the drugs to a parking lot. Upon Defendant’s arrival to the parking lot, Defendant is immediately arrested as soon as he exits his vehicle. Police search the Defendant’s vehicle and find heroin. Defendant is brought to the Stoughton Police Station where he is interrogated by police. In the interrogation, Defendant tells police that he has heroin and pills in his bedroom. The Defendant signed a form giving police permission to search his home. The Defendant also signs another form giving police permission to search his cell phone. Subsequently, police searched the Defendant’s home where they found heroin and pills. Police intended to use the Defendant’s cell phone records to prove that the Defendant sold the heroin, which caused the deceased to die from a drug overdose. Police intended to use the evidence they obtained from the Defendant to charge him with Manslaughter for having caused the death of the deceased.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence in which he sought to suppress the following evidence: statements made by Defendant to police during the interrogation, defendant’s consent for police to search his home, and defendant’s consent for police to search his cell phone. After four hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the evidence was illegally obtained by police. Attorney Noonan proved that the statements made by the Defendant during the police interrogation should have been suppressed because he clearly invoked his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney but the police continued to question him anyway in violation of his constitutional rights. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the Defendant’s consent for the police to search his home and cell phone was invalid because the Defendant’s consent was not given freely or voluntarily. Specifically, Defendant had never been arrested before, he had no prior involvement with police, and he was unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. On top of that, Defendant had been tasered by police prior to the interrogation and Defendant remained handcuffed during the interrogation. Officers admitted that the interrogation was aggressive, at times, and involved yelling. The Defendant’s consent to search his home was not voluntary, as there was evidence that police used the Defendant’s mother as a way to coax him into consenting to a search of his home. Defendant lived with his mother and he was concerned for his mother’s well-being should the police show up at her house, unannounced, and start searching throughout the home. In essence, police told the Defendant that things would be easier for his mother if he simply consented to a search of his bedroom.

See Lawyer’s Weekly Article about the case, Search results from residence, cell suppressed (.pdf)


April 2018 Case Results


April 18, 2018
Commonwealth v. O.M.
Brockton District Court

CHARGES DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING FOR ACCIDENT CAUSING INJURIES TO PEDESTRIANS

Our client was charged with Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Marked Lanes Violation as a result of a car accident. Witnesses reported to police that our client’s vehicle turned into a parking lot, drove through a parking space, struck a wooden pillar, went through some bushes, and struck two pedestrians before crashing into a building.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, the injured pedestrians appeared and wanted additional criminal charges brought against the client. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client was responsible for causing the accident but she should not be charged criminally because the case was being resolved through his client’s car insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client’s insurance accepted fault for the accident and his client’s insurance policy had ample coverage to compensate the victims for their injuries.


April 12, 2018
Commonwealth v. S.K.

Boston Municipal Court

CHARGES OF USING A FAKE I.D. AND UNDERAGE DRINKING ARE DISMISSED AGAINST EMERSON COLLEGE STUDENT

Boston Police went to The Tam, a bar on Tremont Street in Boston, to conduct a licensed premises inspection. While surveilling the crowd of patrons drinking at the bar, police noticed a patron (our client), who looked underage, drinking a Rolling Rock beer. Police approached our client and asked him for proof of his age. Our client handed the officer an I.D. that was fake. Our client admitted to the officers that it was a fake I.D. and provided his real driver’s license showing that he was under the age of 21.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented character evidence showing that his client was a good kid, who made a stupid mistake, and should be given a break. Attorney Noonan introduced his client’s transcript at Emerson College showing that he was a Dean’s List student. Attorney Noonan presented a letter from one of our client’s professors at Emerson College attesting to his good character, work ethic, and how great of a student he was. Our client is majoring in Sports Communications and wishes to someday become a sport’s broadcaster. 


April 9, 2018
Commonwealth v. P.G.

New Bedford District Court

SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD RAPE ARE DISMISSED ON DAY OF TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WAS ARMED WITH EVIDENCE SHOWING THE VICTIM WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY HIS BIOLOGICAL FATHER, AND NOT THE DEFENDANT.

The alleged victim (A.V.) was the Defendant’s step-son who he helped raise since the child was very young. Defendant and A.V.’s mother divorced. After the divorce, Defendant had no contact with A.V. or his ex-wife. Approximately seven years later, A.V. accused the Defendant of sexually abusing him even though he had not seen him for many years. Through investigation, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan learned that A.V. had a long history of engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior. A.V. got into trouble in daycare for engaging in sexual behavior with other children. A.V. got into trouble for engaging in sexual behavior with a neighbor. A.V. got into trouble, several times, at school for engaging in sexual behavior with other kids. Whenever A.V. got into trouble for his sexual misconduct, he was sent to therapy. Eventually, A.V.’s sexualized behavior escalated to the point where he sexually assaulted another student and, as a result, A.V. was criminally charged for his conduct. When A.V. was being interrogated by police after being charged for his own criminal conduct, A.V. accused the Defendant, for the first time, of sexually abusing him, even though A.V. had not seen the Defendant in seven years.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and gathered records of A.V.’s therapy sessions with various social workers and mental health counselors. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that A.V.’s counselors believed that A.V. was being sexually abused by his biological father, and not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained records from the Department of Children and Families showing that A.V.’s mother reported her concerns that A.V.’s biological father might be sexually abusing him. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had two of A.V.’s therapists ready to testify that, in their opinion, A.V. was being sexually abused by his biological father, and not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan was prepared to prove that the real abuser was A.V.’s biological father, not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan was prepared to show that A.V. had a motive to falsely accuse the Defendant of abusing him because A.V. was too afraid to tell police or others that it was his biological father who had been abusing him.


March 2018 Case Results


March 30, 2018
Commonwealth v. J.H.
Stoughton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST PARAMEDIC

The client is a paramedic / EMT. On the night in question, she approached a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock in the Town of Canton. At the checkpoint, the police officer detected an odor of alcohol and observed that the client’s speech was slurred and that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot. The client admitted that she had consumed alcohol. The officer instructed the client to exit the vehicle so he could administer some field sobriety tests. The officer administered several field sobriety tests, including the Alphabet Test, the Walk and Turn Test, and the One Leg Stand Test. Based on his observations of the client’s sobriety and her performance on the field sobriety tests, the officer formed the opinion that the client was under the influence of alcohol.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan attacked the testimony of the police officers, questioned their observations, and challenged their opinion that the client was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client performed well on the field sobriety tests despite having to perform physical tasks while wearing flip-flops and the conditions under which the tests were administered were very difficult. After the police officer testified and the Commonwealth rested its case, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof and the judge found our client not guilty.


February 2018 Case Results


February 20, 2018
Commonwealth v. K.T.
Somerville District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST VIETNAMESE NAIL TECHNICIAN DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT HIS CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE

The Client is a 32 year-old Vietnamese woman with no criminal record. She works six days a week as a nail technician to support her family, which includes two children, one of whom is severely autistic. On the date of the incident, the client, her husband, and two children were sitting in their SUV in the parking lot of a Starbucks. Her husband, who was sitting in the driver’s seat, was programming an address into the GPS. Meanwhile, a female in a vehicle was waiting to use the client’s parking space. The female operator began to beep her horn and was motioning for the client to back out of the parking space. The client’s severely autistic son became upset, as the other woman was beeping of the horn. The client rolled down the window and told the female to wait but the other female yelled that to the client that she was taking up two parking spaces. The client exited her vehicle and approached the other female and a heated argument ensued. The client claims that the other female made a racial slur, saying: “Go back to where you came from!” The verbal argument turned physical. The female told police that the client punched her, grabbed her, and pulled her. The officer observed that the female was bleeding and had swelling and redness under her left eye. However, the female did admit to the police officer that there was mutual fighting between her and the client. The officer then spoke to the client who stated that the female kicked her in the leg. The officer observed bruises to the client’s leg. The officer charged our client with Assault and Battery for having punched the other female in the face.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client acted in self-defense when she struck the other female. The police was vague as to who struck who first. The police report did not contain any concrete evidence showing that the client struck first. The police report did give the impression that the fighting was mutual. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer also charged the other female with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon for having kicked the client with her shoe. After the hearing, the Clerk Magistrate declined to issue the complaint against our client. 


February 2018
Stonehill College vs. Student

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST STONEHILL COLLEGE STUDENT FOR PUNCHING ANOTHER STUDENT IN THE FACE RESULTING IN STITCHES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

Client was a junior at Stonehill College in Easton, MA. One night, he was attending an on-campus party when another male student approached him and told him that he had made advances on the client’s girlfriend. This entire incident was being video recorded on another student’s phone. For his advances on the client’s girlfriend, the male student offered to let the client punch him in the face. The Defendant declined the invitation. The male student then encouraged the client to punch him in the face. At the male student’s insistence, the client punched him in the face just one time. The client considered the matter resolved by one punch. Unfortunately, the male student began to bleed profusely from his head, which required medical treatment and numerous stitches. For some reason, the male student decided to report the incident to campus police. As a result, the school administration brought charges against the client for Assault & Battery pursuant to the school’s code of conduct. The client was facing very serious consequences, which included expulsion and termination from the school.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the client for a Hearing before the school administration for his violation of the school’s code of conduct. It was argued that the client did not commit an Assault and Battery because, like the criminal offense of Assault & Battery, the battery (or intentional touching) must be done without the other party’s consent. Here, the battery was consensual because the victim encouraged and insisted that the client punch him in the face. Based on the video, it was clear that the client had no intention to strike the victim and he even declined the victim’s invitation to punch him in the face. Although the client’s conduct may have been improper, he did not commit any criminal offense. After a hearing, the school decided not to expel or terminate the client from the school and they allowed him to graduate. 


February 13, 2018
Commonwealth v. P.M.
Wrentham District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST DISMISSED, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THAT THE FIREARMS WERE INOPERABLE, HEIRLOOMS, WHICH WERE PASSED DOWN BY HIS GRANDFATHER.

Client’s ex-wife obtained a 209A abuse prevention order against her ex-husband, the Defendant. Franklin Police went to the Defendant’s home in Franklin to serve him with the restraining order and to seize his firearms. Police observed that the firearms were in a case but not properly secured and they charged the client with Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L)

Result: Client received a summons to appear in Wrentham District Court for an arraignment on the charge of Improper Storage of a Firearm. Client immediately retained Gerald J. Noonan who was able to dismiss the criminal complaint prior to arraignment on the grounds that his client was entitled to a clerk-magistrate’s hearing prior to the issuance of any criminal charge. If the client were arraigned, the gun charge would be on his record. At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that the firearms were inoperable. The firearms were passed down to the client by his deceased grandfather. Client never fired the guns nor did he have any ammunition for the guns. The client was planning on selling the firearms to a dealer and using the money to make a down payment on a new house. Client was a Medical Technologist and biomedical laboratory technician. Client had no criminal record. The clerk magistrate decided to hold the matter open for a period of time and so long as the client stays out of trouble the charge will be dismissed.


February 8, 2018
Commonwealth v. I.R.
Barnstable District Court

CHARGES OF FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT AND IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST CAPE COD MAN AND RUSSIAN IMMIGRANT ARE DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

Defendant, a resident of Hyannis, called police while intoxicated to report that his roommate stole his gun. When Barnstable Police arrived at the scene, Defendant was intoxicated and was yelling that his roommate stole his gun. Police found the gun sitting on the top of some laundry. Police placed the Defendant in protective custody because he was intoxicated and posed a threat of harming himself or his roommate. Police charged Defendant with making False Reports to Police Officers (G.L. c. 269, §13A) due to falsely accusing his roommate of stealing his gun. Police also charged Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm.

Result: At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the clerk to dismiss the charge of Filing a False Police Report for lack of probable cause. Attorney Noonan brought Defendant’s roommate to the hearing as a character witness. The roommate worked for Defendant’s roofing company and Defendant gave him a place to live because he was homeless. The roommate did not want the Defendant charged and wanted the case dismissed. The roommate stated that the Defendant was a good boss and a good man for giving him a place to live while he got back on his feet. The criminal complaint will be dismissed so long as Defendant remains out of trouble.


February 6, 2018
Commonwealth v. M.D.
Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO POLICE OF STEALING $6,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER ARE SUPPRESSED FROM EVIDENCE, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT POLICE DID NOT READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS.

Client was an employee for a company in Brockton. A fraud investigator from the company confronted the Defendant with evidence showing that he stole more than $6,000 from the company. The fraud investigator told Defendant he was going to the police to report it and it would be a good idea for the Defendant to come along. At the Brockton police station, the fraud investigator gave the police officer company records showing the Defendant’s thefts from the company totaling more than $6,000. The police officer proceeded to interrogate and question the Defendant about the thefts. During the interrogation, Defendant admitted that he stole from the company. Based largely on his confession, the officer charged him with Larceny over $250 (G.L. c. 266, §30)

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress his client’s confession to the police officer on the grounds that the police officer did not read him his Miranda Rights. After a hearing, the judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Suppress and his client’s confession is now suppressed from evidence. At trial, the Commonwealth cannot introduce any evidence that the Defendant confessed to the police officer that he stole the money.


January 2018 Case Results


January 31, 2018
Commonwealth v. Colin O.
Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, POSSESSION OF A CLASS C SUBSTANCE, AND OPERATING TO ENDANGER.

Quincy Police were dispatched to a call from a concerned citizen reporting that a person (defendant) was passed out and slumped over the steering wheel of his car. Upon arrival to the scene, police spoke to the witness who pointed to the Defendant’s car as it was leaving the scene. Police pursued the vehicle. When police came upon the vehicle, they discovered there had been an accident. Police spoke to the other driver who reported that the Defendant struck her vehicle. Police spoke to the Defendant who was lethargic and nodding off. Defendant admitted to smoking marijuana. Defendant admitted to recently taking a prescription medication called Seroquel, which made him very sleepy and tired. Police searched Defendant’s vehicle and discovered a pill, which was later tested and found to be Clonazepam, a Class C Controlled Substance. In his vehicle, police also found syringes and other items consistent with intravenous drug use. With the Clonazepam in the vehicle, police charged Defendant with Possession of a Class C Substance (G.L. c. 94C, §34). Police charged him with Operating under the influence of Drugs (G.L. c. 90, §24) and Operating to Endanger (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty on all charges. First, Attorney Noonan convinced the judge that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Seroquel was a “drug.” The Commonwealth went on to claim that Defendant was under the influence of marijuana or heroin, or both. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the police officer could not give an opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of marijuana or heroin because the police officer was not qualified as an expert. Third, the Commonwealth sought to prove that the pill was Clonazepam through a Drug Certificate of Analysis where the crime lab tested the pill and identified it as Clonazepam. Attorney Noonan convinced the judge to throw out the Drug Certificate because the Commonwealth failed to lay a proper foundation. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the pill identified in the Drug Certificate may not have been the same pill found in the trash can because the police officer testified that the pill in the vehicle was “blue” where the drug certificate identified the pill as “green.” Lastly, Attorney argued that his client had no idea that there was a pill in the vehicle. This was a work vehicle where other workers had access to the vehicle and the pill could have belonged to any of the workers who previously used the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have any knowledge that a Clonazepam pill was in the work truck because it was buried at the bottom of a trash barrel with other trash and discarded items.


January 30, 2018
Matter of S.H.

NO CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST DOG WALKER FOR STEALING ALCOHOL FROM CLIENT’S HOME.

Client was employed as a dog walker for a dog walking company in Sharon. The company received a call from one client who reported that he had video of the dog walker stealing alcohol from the bar in his home. When confronted by the company, she admitted to stealing the alcohol. The company fired her. The company contacted her stating the customer wanted restitution for the stolen alcohol or they would press charges.

Result: Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately resolved the dispute with the dog walking company and the customer. No criminal charges were brought against our client.


January 23, 2018
Commonwealth v. L.L.
Chelsea District Court

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST HOTEL EMPLOYEE FOR STEALING MONEY DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN REACHES A RESOLUTION WITH THE HOTEL.

Defendant, Brockton resident, is a 25 year-old Haitian immigrant with no criminal record and father of a newborn baby. He was working the front desk at a hotel in Revere when a customer came in to rent a room. The customer stated he didn’t have enough money to pay the fee for an overnight guest. The customer asked the Defendant to give him a break and only charge him $100. Defendant allegedly accepted the customer’s proposal, pocketed the $100, didn’t register the customer in the computer system, and allowed him to stay in a room overnight. The manager viewed surveillance video showing the Defendant pocketing the cash and not registering the guest. When confronted by the manager, Defendant admitted to taking the cash. The manager filed an application for criminal complaint against defendant for Larceny (G.L. c. 266, §30).

Result: At the clerk magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had the opportunity to mediate the dispute with the hotel manager and owner. They reached an agreement where the Defendant agreed to pay the hotel restitution for the money they lost. If the Defendant stays out of trouble, the charge will be dismissed.


January 12, 2018
Commonwealth v. H.Q.
Hingham District Court

JURY FINDS DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF OUI-LIQUOR (0.08% OR ABOVE) AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EXPERT EVIDENCE SHOWING DEFENDANT’S BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL WAS BELOW 0.08% AT THE TIME SHE OPERATED HER VEHICLE.

Norwell Police were dispatched to the scene of a single car crash. Upon arrival, police found the Defendant’s car, flipped over, more than 100 feet off the ground in a drainage ditch. Defendant admitted to being the operator. At trial, the officer testified that he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant and her eyes appeared to be red and bloodshot. The officer testified that it was his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The officer contacted an ambulance, as the Defendant appeared injured. The DA called the paramedic who testified that it was his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. The DA introduced hospital records showing that Defendant’s blood was tested for the presence of alcohol. The DA called an expert witness who testified that Defendant’s blood alcohol level was between 0.117% and 0.124%.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called an expert witness, Dr. Samson, who is a toxicologist, specializing in alcohol. Dr. Samson testified that Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was below 0.08% based on conversion factors she applied, which were generally accepted in the scientific community. In addition, Dr. Samson testified that the hospital’s blood test was not scientifically reliable and produced a higher alcohol level than what it actually was. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of Operating under the Influence of Liquor with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or above, as the jury was not convinced that the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.08% or above.


January 10, 2018
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO TERMINATE HARASSMENT PREVENTION ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT.

Plaintiff and Defendant, residents of Brockton, had an ongoing feud. Plaintiff was in a relationship with Defendant’s soon to be divorced husband. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant would come to her home, on numerous occasions, and pound on the door and would also follow her in her car. On one occasion, Plaintiff called police to report that Defendant confronted her in a parking lot and threatened her. Plaintiff obtained a Harassment Prevention Order (G.L. c. 258E) against the Defendant. A hearing was scheduled with regards to whether the restraining order would be extended for an additional period of time.

Result: After hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets the judge to terminate the restraining order.