Patrick J. Noonan – Case Results
Free Initial Consultation to Discuss Your Case • Call (508) 584-6955
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.
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
April 2019 Case Results
April 22, 2019
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS FELONY CONVICTION FOR BREAKING & ENTERING AGAINST TRUCK DRIVER VACATED AND THROWN OUT.
Defendant is a 48 year-old commercial truck driver, a happily married man, and a loving father. Defendant applied for a License to Carry Firearms (LTC). However, the police department denied his application for an LTC because he had a felony conviction on his record. Defendant was shocked to hear that he had a felony conviction. Defendant obtained a copy of his criminal record, which showed that he had been convicted of Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime with the Intent to Commit a Felony when he was 14 years-old. He was convicted in 1984. Defendant knew he had a juvenile case when he was really young but did not know he had been convicted of a felony. Defendant has no other criminal record. Defendant retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to vacate his felony conviction.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and learned that the felony Breaking & Entering charge stemmed from an incident when the Defendant, at age 14, went into a vacant home with a friend to smoke a cigarette. A neighbor reported seeing people inside the unoccupied home and the Defendant was later arrested. This was a home in the Defendant’s neighborhood that kids would use as a cut through yard. Kids cut through the yard because no one was living there. Attorney Noonan obtained records for the residence showing that it had been unoccupied at the time of the offense. Attorney Noonan sent a written request to the District Attorney’s Office requesting to vacate the conviction arguing that his client did not have the intent to commit the felony because he merely went into the unoccupied house with a friend to smoke a cigarette. His only intent was to commit a Trespass. They did not steal anything from the house. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with evidence regarding his client’s background as a hard-working guy, law-abiding citizen, and family man and the collateral consequences this old felony conviction has caused. The District Attorney’s Office reviewed the case. The DA’s Office was very reasonable and agreed to vacate the Defendant’s felony conviction. Today, the conviction was thrown out.
April 22, 2019
Commonwealth v. K.G.
Brockton District Court
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES AGAINST UBER DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL
Defendant, an Uber driver from Brockton, was charged in the Brockton District Court with Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A). Defendant’s girlfriend called 911. In the 911 call, you can hear a female screaming “Stop!” “Leave me alone!” There is another party in the background of the call who she accuses of attacking her. During the 18-minute 911 call, you can hear the female yelling and arguing with the other party. She whispers to the 911 operator, “Hurry.” Police are sent to the Defendant’s apartment. The police found a female party hiding in the bedroom. She identified herself as the 911 caller. She tells police that the Defendant was intoxicated and angry with her. She states that the Defendant grabbed her arm and started throwing anything he could find at her. She was struck a piece of furniture. Defendant told police that they simply had a verbal argument. Police arrested the Defendant.
Result: At the first trial date, the alleged victim did not appear in court. The prosecutor sought to prove the case without the alleged victim’s testimony. In particular, the prosecutor sought to introduce the 911 call into evidence and to call the police officers who investigated the case. The trial was continued due to court congestion. On the second trial date, the alleged victim did not appear. The prosecutor asked Attorney Noonan if he would accept a plea deal, which involved his client admitting to the charges but Attorney Noonan rejected the offer. Again, the Commonwealth sought to introduce the 911 call and attempt to prove the case without the alleged victim’s testimony. However, the prosecutor was unable to get the police dispatcher to come into court in order to admit the 911 tape. The Commonwealth was unable to go forward. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the Court to dismiss the charges. The charges were then dismissed.
April 19, 2019
Commonwealth v. V.O.
Dedham District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN AND PATRICK J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND RECKLESS OPERATION CASE AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL.
Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)) and Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The prosecution introduced the following evidence at trial: A Westwood Police Officer was on patrol in the parking lot of the Marriot Hotel when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving around the parking lot and driving around in circles with no headlights. The officer followed the vehicle, as it exited the parking lot still with no headlights on. The vehicle went through a stop sign without stopping and began to travel the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. The prosecution argued that the Defendant could have killed or seriously injured someone by traveling the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. When the officer approached the vehicle, he observed a rear seat passenger drinking out of a Corona beer bottle. There were three passengers in the car. A search of the car revealed an open Corona beer bottle and a nearly empty Corona beer bottle in the backseat. The prosecution introduced photos of the beer bottles for the jury. The officer asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle and to perform field sobriety tests. On the first test, the One-Leg Stand test, the officer testified that the Defendant almost hopped into the street. The officer had to terminate the test because he was concerned for the Defendant’s safety. On the next test, the 9 Step Walk and Turn, the Defendant repeatedly told the officer that he felt pressured into performing the test. The officer then administered the Alphabet test and testified that the Defendant recited the letter “z” out of order. The officer testified that the Defendant continuously swayed throughout his encounter with him. The officer testified that the Defendant swayed back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” The officer testified that the Defendant had a “strong odor” of alcohol on his breath. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was “extremely slurred” and that he had bloodshot eyes.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the police officer for over an hour and attacked his credibility. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer did not ask the Defendant if he had any physical or medical conditions prior to administering the field sobriety tests. Officers are taught and trained to ask someone if they have any physical or medical conditions because those factors may affect their performance on the field sobriety tests. In this case, Defendant had a pinched nerve in his back from a prior car accident, which caused numbness in his left leg. Although the arresting officer testified that the Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, a back-up officer testified that the Defendant did not have a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The most crucial piece of evidence was the booking video, which served to discredit the officer’s testimony. In his closing argument, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that Defendant appeared sober on the video and did not exhibit the signs of intoxication, as testified to by the police officer. On the video, Defendant was not swaying back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” There was nothing on the video to substantiate the officer’s testimony that the Defendant’s balance was so bad that he almost hopped into the street. The officer testified that he had to physically assist the Defendant out of the police cruiser and escort him into the police station. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the video told a completely different story. Specifically, the video showed the Defendant getting out of the police cruiser, with no assistance from anyone and with no difficulty, even though he had both arms handcuffed behind his back. Defendant walked into the police station with perfect gait and without any assistance. Attorney Noonan highlighted certain portions of the video, which demonstrated the Defendant’s sobriety. Although the Defendant drove the wrong way down the street, he immediately apologized to the officer and admitted that he made a mistake. After a two-day trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on all charges.
March 2019 Case Results
March 28, 2019
Commonwealth v. G.G.
Plymouth Superior Court
THE DEFENSE TEAM OF PATRICK J. NOONAN AND BRENDAN J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON CHARGES OF RAPE OF CHILD, UNNATURAL AND LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD, DISSEMINATION OF OBSCENE MATTER TO A MINOR, AND CHILD ENTICEMENT.
Defendant, an 81 year-old man from Hanover, was indicted by a Plymouth County Grand Jury on the following criminal offenses: (1) Rape of Child – Use of Force (G.L. c. 265, §22A), (2) Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor (G.L. c. 272, §28), (3) Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16 (G.L. c. 272, §35A), (4) Enticement of a Child under 16 (G.L. c. 265, §26C), and (5) Enticement of a Child under 16.
The Defendant was facing a life sentence or the possibility of a very severe and long sentence. The crime of Rape of Child carries a sentence of life in state prison. The crimes of Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of a Child under 16, all carry a sentence of 5 years in state prison.
Defendant resided by himself in a home in Hanover. In May of 2016, Defendant asked his daughter and step-daughter to move into his house because he needed help around the house and help with other things. The daughters discovered stacks of handwritten notes in his house of pornographic websites, including many websites for child pornography. They searched the Defendant’s electronic devices (his iPhone, iPad, and Laptop) and discovered that his devices contained a lot of pornographic material. The daughters also noticed that a young, teenaged boy would come over to the house and do chores for the Defendant. They noticed that the Defendant would frequently provide the young teenage boy with car rides. Based on their discovery of the child pornography websites, the daughters were very concerned that the Defendant was engaging in sexual behavior with the boy. The daughters confronted the Defendant who admitted to them that he had sex with the boy on 4-5 occasions and would pay the boy for sexual favors. Defendant also stated that he and the boy almost engaged in Bestiality with a dog but the dog was too jumpy, so they couldn’t do it. The daughters decided that they needed to get the Defendant’s confession on tape, so they secretly recorded a conversation with Defendant. In this recorded conversation, the daughters spoke to the Defendant on the back porch of his home. The daughter used her cell phone, which she discretely held in her hand, to record the conversation. In the recorded conversation, the Defendant admitted to having sex with the boy on 4-5 occasions and he admitted that he would pay the boy for sexual favors. After obtaining his confession, the daughters took the Defendant’s electronic devices (his iPhone, iPad, and Laptop) from his home and brought them to the police department. At the police department, the daughters and officers searched the electronic devices. Later on, police obtained search warrants for the Defendant’s devices. A search of the Defendant’s devices revealed that word searches for “porn” returned over 7,000 hits, “erotica” returned over 8,000 hits, and “bestiality” returned over 500 hits. Police then contacted the teenage boy and had him come into the police station for an interview. Several weeks later, the boy was interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office. In his interview, the boy stated that the Defendant paid him $300 for the Defendant to perform oral sex on the boy. The boy stated that the Defendant performed oral sex on him and paid him for it. The boy stated that the incident of oral sex occurred in December of 2014 when the boy was 15 years old. The boy stated that the Defendant showed him Bestiality and he had asked the boy to provide him with child pornography. The boy stated that the Defendant would pay him money in exchange for the boy providing the Defendant with pornographic websites that were to the Defendant’s liking. In his interview, the boy mentioned that he (the boy) would bring his female friend over to the Defendant’s home and the Defendant would give them car rides. The boy was three months older than the female. The police and District Attorney’s Office interviewed the female. The female stated that she would go over the Defendant’s home during her freshman year of high school when she was around 14 years or older. The female stated that the Defendant asked her to provide him with naked pictures of herself and her friends. Defendant specifically asked her for butt, boob, and pussy pictures. The female didn’t actually provide the Defendant with naked pictures of herself or her friends. Instead, she would find naked pictures of women online. The female would tell the Defendant that the naked pictures were of herself when they were actually women online. The female stated that the Defendant would ask her and the boy to tell him sex stories of their sexual experiences. The female would make up sex stories to tell the Defendant. The female stated that the Defendant would buy them alcohol and cigarettes.
Result: Defendant was represented by Attorneys Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. The Defendant was charged with three crimes (Rape of Child – Use of Force, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of Child under 16) – based on the same incident of oral sex with the boy. A necessary element for these offenses against the boy requires proof that the boy was under the age of 16. After an excellent cross-examination of the boy, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the incident of oral sex occurred toward the end of the boy’s relationship with the Defendant, when the boy was over the age of 16. Through his cross-examination of the female victim, Attorney Noonan was able to solidify that the incident of oral sex occurred when the boy was over the age of 16. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan showed the jurors a Chart, which outlined the timeline of events, and proved that the incident of oral sex occurred when the boy was over the age of 16. However, the jury could still find the Defendant guilty of Rape of Child – Use of Force if they found that the oral sex was done by force or without the boy’s consent. Through a very effective cross-examination of the boy, Attorney Noonan established that the oral sex was consensual. The jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of Rape of Child – Use of Force, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of Child under 16 because our defense team was able to prove that the oral sex was consensual and the boy was over the age of 16. Defendant was still charged with Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor (the boy) and a minor is defined as a person under the age of 18. The evidence at trial showed that the boy, at all times during his relationship with the Defendant, was under the age of 18. The charge of Dissemination of Harmful Matter to the boy was based on the Commonwealth’s allegations that the Defendant showed the boy Bestiality and Child Pornography. There was no evidence at trial that the Defendant showed the boy Child Pornography. However, the boy did testify that the Defendant would ask the boy to provide him with the names of Bestiality websites. The boy would look up Bestiality websites, write down the domain names, and provide the Defendant with those domain names. Attorney Noonan asked the judge to find the Defendant not guilty on the Dissemination charge because the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was legally insufficient. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not show or disseminate Bestiality to the boy because the Defendant merely asked the boy if the boy could provide him with the names of Bestiality websites. There was no evidence of dissemination. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant not guilty of the Dissemination charge. The jury found the Defendant guilty on only one charge, which was Enticement of a Child; the child being the female victim. The Noonan’s moved for the Judge to find the Defendant not guilty of this Child Enticement offense because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proof. The Judge denied the request. While the jury was deliberating, the jury submitted four questions to the judge regarding the Child Enticement charge involving the female victim. The jury’s four questions were all factual questions. There were no answers for the jury’s factual questions because the Commonwealth did not present any evidence that would have answered them. In our opinion, the jury’s four factual questions suggested that the jury had reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, our law firm is appealing the Defendant’s one and only conviction for Child Enticement. This was an enormous victory because our client was facing a life sentence. Due to our client’s advanced age, any jail time would be a life sentence.
Click to Newspaper Article “Hanover man, 81, acquitted of most charges in child enticement case.”
March 15, 2019
Waltham District Court
Commonwealth v. Z.O.
AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEYS PATRICK J. NOONAN AND GERALD J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A WALTHAM MAN WHO ALMOST DROVE HIS VEHICLE INTO SOMEBODY’S HOUSE.
Defendant, a self-employed Realtor from Waltham, caused a major car accident in Watertown. Defendant lost control of his vehicle, drove through two sign posts, crashed through a fence and almost drove into the front of somebody’s house. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence. Upon arrival to the car accident in Watertown, a Watertown Police Officer testified to the severity of the crash, which caused significant damage to the Defendant’s vehicle rendering it inoperable and a total loss. The Defendant was immediately uncooperative with police. They asked him to remain in his vehicle but he refused and exited the vehicle. He was described as argumentative. The officer alleged that the Defendant was unable to recall where he was coming from. The Defendant admitted to consuming two or possibly three beers. He had an odor of alcohol on his breath. His speech was slurred. The officer decided to conduct field sobriety tests (FSTs). When walking to the location of the FSTs, Defendant was “extremely unsteady on his feet.” Defendant almost fell to the ground but the officers caught him. Defendant dropped his wallet on the ground. He mumbled to himself and spoke with slurred speech. Defendant was instructed to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn test. However, the Defendant continually interrupted the officer and attempted to start the test, on two occasions, before the officer had an opportunity to finish her instructions. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn test, the officer noted that the Defendant stumbled, did not walk heel to tow, did not count the steps out loud, used his arms for balance, and took the incorrect number of steps. On the One-Leg Stand test, the officer noted that on the Defendant’s first attempt he could only raise his leg for one-second and his body was tipping. On his second attempt, Defendant swayed and almost fell to the ground before the officers caught him. Defendant could not recite the Alphabet. After his arrest, Defendant was booked at the Watertown Police Station. The booking officer testified that he could detect an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant during the booking process. The arresting officer stated that the Defendant was unsteady during booking.
Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called, as a witness, a police officer from the neighboring town of Belmont to testify. Just minutes prior to the car accident in Watertown (which resulted in the Defendant’s arrest for OUI), Defendant was involved in a minor car accident in the town of Belmont where he rear-ended another vehicle. A Belmont Police Officer investigated the minor car accident in Belmont and interviewed the Defendant. At the conclusion of her investigation, the Belmont Officer gave the Defendant a warning for following too closely and she allowed the Defendant to leave the scene and drive away in his vehicle. Attorney Noonan questioned the Belmont Officer who testified that she did not observe any signs of intoxication by the Defendant and she found that the Defendant was sober. Attorney Noonan established that the accident in Belmont (where the Belmont Officer found him to be sober) occurred just minutes prior to the accident in Watertown. Therefore, just minutes prior to his arrest for OUI-Liquor in Watertown, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that another officer from Belmont found the Defendant to be sober. At the scene of the Watertown car accident, Defendant was evaluated by EMTS prior to the officer administering his FSTs. Defendant refused medical treatment. Attorney Noonan introduced the ambulance report, which showed that the EMTs did not observe any signs that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan also introduced medical records of the Defendant showing that he had chronic medical issues, which could have affected his ability to perform the FSTs. Finally, Attorney Noonan introduced portions of the Defendant’s booking video, which showed evidence of the Defendant’s sobriety. After a two-day jury trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty.
February 2019 Case Results
February 26, 2019
Commonwealth v. John Doe
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE SEALED FROM ATTORNEY’S RECORD
A self-employed Attorney from Belmont, Massachusetts was charged with Assault and Battery. His girlfriend, the alleged victim, went to the police station and spoke with an officer. Based on the conversation with the officer, the officer decided to charge the Defendant with Assault and Battery. The girlfriend was surprised that the police charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery, as it was never her intention for him to get charged with a crime. She believed that the officer misrepresented what she stated to him. The girlfriend expressed that she wanted the case dismissed. The District Attorney’s Office filed a Nolle Prosequi with the Court, which is a formal notice stating that they will not prosecute the Defendant.
Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he needed his domestic violence charge sealed immediately, as he was very close to being hired for a legal position and he would be denied the job if the employer saw that he had been charged with Assault & Battery. Defendant knew he would be denied the position, even though the case had been Nolle Prossed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s criminal sealed within six (6) days and the client was later hired for the job.
February 21, 2019
Commonwealth v. M.W.
Quincy District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS A NOT GUILTY IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO CAUSED A SERIOUS CAR ACCIDENT AND HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF .214%.
Defendant, a Brockton man, was traveling on Route 24 South in Randolph when he caused a serious motor vehicle accident. It was alleged that the Defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed and rear-ended another vehicle causing both vehicles to spin out of control and end up off the highway. The Defendant’s vehicle rolled over multiple times and ended up in the woods. Defendant caused significant damage to the rear of the other vehicle. There were three occupants in the other vehicle. Upon arrival, Defendant did not follow the instructions of the officers. Officers observed that the Defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath; he spoke with slurred speech, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant admitted to consuming two beers. Defendant was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The investigating officer went to the hospital where he spoke with the Defendant. The officer made the same observations of the Defendant’s sobriety that he made at the scene. The officer formed the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. At the hospital, Defendant’s blood was drawn and tested for alcohol. The blood test revealed that the Defendant had a blood alcohol level of .214%, which is well over the legal limit of 0.08%.
Result: Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who fast-tracked the case to trial before the District Attorney’s Office had an opportunity to subpoena his client’s hospital records and find out that he had a blood alcohol level of .214%. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant sustained a head injury and bodily injuries in the crash. In his cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Noonan got the officer to admit that his observations of the Defendant’s alleged intoxication could have been symptoms from the crash and his injuries as opposed to signs of alcohol consumption. For example, Defendant’s unsteadiness on his feet, slurred speech, and his inability to follow the instructions of police could have been symptoms from his head and bodily injuries, and not symptoms of intoxication. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was intoxicated. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant Not Guilty.
February 5, 2019
Commonwealth v. M.D.
Brockton District Court
DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO STEALING $8,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS LARCENY CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.
Defendant, a Brockton man, worked for a business in Brockton. An investigator for the company found that the Defendant was stealing from the business in excess of $8,000. The investigator gathered all records and documents showing the Defendant’s thefts from the business. The investigator provided the police with all the documents detailing the employee theft. At the police station, Defendant admitted that he stole the money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting the Defendant’s confession suppressed after proving that the police officer did not read the Defendant his Miranda rights. The District Attorney’s Office still had enough evidence to prosecute the Defendant for the crime of Larceny over $250 (G.L. c. 265, §30).
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan was prepared to move the Court to exclude from evidence the documents from the investigator, which purportedly showed the Defendant’s thefts from the business on the grounds that the documents were not admissible as business records. Attorney Noonan was prepared to present evidence that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove all the essential elements of a Larceny beyond a reasonable doubt. On the first trial date, the investigator appeared in court and was ready to testify but the trial was continued due to court congestion. On the second trial date, the Commonwealth got the trial continued, over the objection of the defense, because a witness was on vacation. On the third trial date, the trial got continued due to court congestion. On the fourth trial date, the investigator did not appear because he had a job training that day. Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, as the Commonwealth was not ready for trial.
January 2019 Case Results
January 28, 2019
Commonwealth v. R.A.
Wareham District Court
EASTON MAN WAS CAPTURED ON FILM COMMITTING THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF AN ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JURY TO FIND HIS CLIENT NOT GUILTY.
Defendant is a 69 year-old hairstylist from Easton who has owned his own business for 35 years. The victim worked for the Defendant and they developed a romantic relationship and dated for 5 years. The victim claimed that she ended the relationship with the Defendant due to his obsessive behavior and because he was stalking her. The victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order, known as a 209A Order, which the Court issued against the Defendant. The 209A Order ordered the Defendant not to contact the victim, not to abuse the victim, and to stay at least 100 yards away from the victim. Defendant was charged with Violation of Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) based on allegations that he followed the victim in violation of the Order, which ordered him to stay at least 100 yards away. On the day in question, the victim was driving her vehicle with her husband in the front passenger seat. They (victim and her husband) claimed to have seen the Defendant’s vehicle in Easton while they were on the way to breakfast. After breakfast, they went to Dunkin Donuts on Route 44 in Raynham where they claimed to have seen the Defendant’s vehicle drive by them. To get away from the Defendant, they drove into the Shaw’s parking lot on Route 44 and waited for the Defendant to leave. They pulled out of the Shaw’s parking lot and proceeded to drive on Route 44 when they observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving directly behind them and following them. The husband took out his cell phone and filmed the Defendant following directly behind them. The prosecution introduced the video at trial, which clearly showed the Defendant’s vehicle following directly behind the victim and at times following them very closely. The victim claimed that the Defendant was following them for 20-30 minutes. They went directly to the Middleboro Police Station to report the incident. At trial, the Commonwealth argued that the Defendant knowingly followed the victim through three different towns in violation of the restraining order.
Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that his client did not know that he was following the victim and that the encounter was accidental. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client left his business in Easton to go to Route 44 to do some errands for work. When the victim first saw the Defendant in Easton, she saw his vehicle three cars ahead of her. In Easton, Defendant was not following her and the victim saw him get onto Route 24 South. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was not following her in Easton, as the victim saw him three cars ahead of her. After the Defendant got onto Route 24 South, the victim went to West Bridgewater to eat breakfast. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant could not have known that the victim would be going to Route 44 because he had already gotten on the highway and was already on Route 44 doing errands while the victim was eating breakfast in West Bridgewater. When the victim was at Dunkin Donuts on Route 44, she claimed to have seen the Defendant but Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was on his way to a store called Salon Centric in the vicinity of Dunkin Donuts. Attorney Noonan introduced a receipt verifying that his client went to Salon Centric near the Dunkin Donuts. When the victim pulled out of Shaw’s she claimed to have seen the Defendant following her on Route 44 but Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was on this section of Route 44 because he had just finished having lunch at KFC and was on his way to Middleboro to watch the herring run. Attorney Noonan introduced a receipt from KFC verifying that his client had just eaten lunch, which explained why he was traveling on this section of Route 44. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that it was his client’s routine and regular practice to go to Route 44 to buy products at Salon Centric and get a bite to eat at KFC. Attorney Noonan introduced receipts showing that his client went to Salon Centric and the KFC on Route 44 at least once of week. Attorney Noonan presented witnesses who testified to the Defendant’s routine practice of going to Route 44. Attorney Noonan introduced a map of Route 44 highlighting the locations of Dunkin Donuts, Shaw’s, Salon Centric, and KFC showing the Defendant’s locations and routes of travel. The map explained why the victim saw the Defendant’s vehicle at these locations. After 10 minutes of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty.
January 23, 2019
Commonwealth v. T.B.
Brockton District Court
WHITMAN MAN IS CHARGED WITH OUI-LIQUOR (2ND OFFENSE) AFTER HE CRASHES INTO UTILITY POLE, TELLS POLICE OFFICER, “I KNOW I’M GOING TO JAIL FOR THIS,” AND HAS A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF 0.249%. CLIENT AVOIDS A CONVICTION, JAIL TIME, AND A 3-YEAR LOSS OF LICENSE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE JUDGE TO TREAT THIS CASE AS A 1ST OFFENSE OUI.
Defendant, a 38 year-old Whitman man, was driving erratically and struck a utility pole with such force as to snap the pole at its base. A concerned citizen called 911. Upon arrival, the officer observed that the Defendant was highly intoxicated. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol. Defendant’s eyes were red and glassy. When asked for his license, Defendant attempted to open his car door and fell to the ground. The officer could not administer any field sobriety tests due to the fact that the Defendant could not stand and was falling over. Defendant told the officer, “I know I’m going to jail for this.” Defendant was transported to the hospital where they tested his blood for alcohol. Defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.249%, which is three times over the legal limit. Defendant was charged with a second offense OUI (as he was previously convicted of OUI) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The District Attorney’s Office had an expert ready to testify at trial that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.249%.
Result: Although charged with a second-offense OUI, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to sentence his client to a first-offense OUI pursuant to Commonwealth v. Cahill, 442 Mass. 127 (2004). Defendant received a Continuance without a Finding (CWOF) with one-year of probation instead of a Guilty. If the Defendant successfully completes probation, the case will be dismissed. With this first offense disposition, Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended for only 45 days. If he was sentenced to a second offense OUI, Defendant would have lost his driver’s license for 3 years. With a Cahill disposition, the Registry of Motor Vehicles must honor the decision of the court to treat a second offense OUI as a 1st offense if it occurs more than 10 years from the date of the 1st drunk driving conviction. It should be noted that the District Attorney’s Office objected to Attorney Noonan’s request for the judge to treat this case as a 1st offense OUI and the Commonwealth requested a Guilty finding with a suspended jail sentence.
Click Here to Read Enterprise Newspaper Article: “What Whitman main charged with drunken driving told police.”
January 10, 2019
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES NEWSPAPER TO CORRECT INACCURATE INFORMATION PUBLISHED ABOUT A CLIENT’S ARREST.
Client, a college student, was arrested and charged with drug possession, disorderly conduct, and other charges. A Newspaper published an online article about the client’s arrest. However, some of the information in the article was not accurate. Client was concerned about members of the public reading the inaccurate information in the article about his arrest. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan about getting the newspaper to change the article to include the correct information.
Result: After several negotiations, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the newspaper to correct the inaccurate information that had been published online about the client’s arrest. The newspaper updated the article and included the correct information at the very top of the article, so readers could see the correct information prior to reading the article.
December 2018 Case Results
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.
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.
November 2018 Case Results
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 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 2018 Case Results
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 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.
September 2018 Case Results
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.
August 2018 Case Results
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.
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:
Click 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.
May 2018 Case Results
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)”
March 2018 Case Results
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.
February 2018 Case Results
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.
December 2017 Case Results
December 14, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.B.
Barnstable District Court
GUN CHARGE FOR LEAVING A LOADED LARGE CAPACITY FIREARM WITH A MINOR, WHICH CARRIES A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE, DISMISSED AGAINST SINGLE MOTHER FROM CAPE COD.
Defendant had a valid License to Carry Firearms. She was a resident of Yarmouth. She owned a .40 caliber Ruger handgun, which she kept in her home. Defendant was previously arrested for a domestic Assault & Battery. Because she was arrested for a crime, her License to Carry was suspended. Yarmouth Police went to her house to serve her with a suspension notice and to seize her firearm. Upon entry into the home, Defendant stated that she did not know where the firearm was located. Police searched the home and found the firearm, in a case, lying on the floor in the corner of the living room. The case was not locked and the firearm was not secured properly. Defendant had three young children in the home. Client was charged with the very serious offense of Improperly Storing a Loaded Large Capacity Firearm Near a Minor, a charge that carries a mandatory jail sentence. See G.L. c. 140, §121 and G.L. c. 140, §131L(b)-(e).
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved to the DA that the firearm was not a large capacity firearm because it was not capable of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In addition, Attorney Noonan persuaded the DA to reduce the charge to the misdemeanor offense of Improper Storage. The DA wanted the Defendant to attend a parenting course as a condition of her probation. Attorney Noonan persuaded the judge to remove that condition because the Defendant was a single mother and sole provider for her three children and the course would pose an undue hardship on her. In the end, Defendant admitted to sufficient facts on the lesser misdemeanor charge and was placed on administrative probation for one year with no conditions. If the Defendant stays out of trouble, the charge will be dismissed after one year.
December 12, 2017
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
OUI CONVICTION SEALED FROM INTERIOR DESIGNER’S RECORD
Client, an owner of an interior designer company, was convicted of Operating under the Influence of Liquor in Boston. She had no other criminal record. She contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan with the hopes of getting her one conviction sealed from her record, as this was something that always bothered her.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s conviction for Operating under the Influence of Liquor sealed from her record.
November 2017 Case Results
November 20, 2017
Commonwealth v. Peter P.
Brockton District Court
AT TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS 5 ASSAULT CHARGES, INCLUDING 3 FELONY CHARGES FOR ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, DISMISSED AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT FACING POTENTIAL DEPORTATION.
Brockton Police were dispatched to a gas station for a reported fight in progress. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant being held on the ground by two males. An investigation showed that the Defendant had a dispute with gas station employees over payment of gas. The employees were claiming that the Defendant was trying to steal gas without paying. The employees claimed that the Defendant retrieved a tire jack from his vehicle and began swinging it wildly trying to injure the employees. Defendant was charged with 3 counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 165, §15B) for attempting to strike three employees with the tire jack. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery for allegedly pushing a female employee and another count of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) for hitting a male employee.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought the case to trial. With a court order, Attorney Noonan obtained a video that one employee took on her cell phone of an argument taking place inside the gas station office. Attorney Noonan learned that another employee took a video on his cell phone of the entire incident that occurred outside. Attorney Noonan sought a court order for the employee to produce this video, which he never did. Attorney Noonan was prepared to argue that the employee took a video of the entire incident but deliberately choose not to produce it under court order. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed this person but he failed to appear at trial. Attorney Noonan notified the Commonwealth that he would be arguing self-defense at trial. Attorney Noonan claimed that the Defendant acted in self-defense when he grabbed the tire jack because the two male employees attacked him. Defendant did not hit anyone with the tire jack; he only swung it to get his attackers to back away. Attorney Noonan sought to introduce evidence that one of the male employees, who attacked the Defendant, had prior convictions for violent offenses, which supported his case that the male employee was the aggressor. Defendant was prepared to take the stand in his own defense and testify that the male employees were aggressive, had attacked him, and preventing him from leaving the gas station. One employee even made a racial slur against the Defendant who was black. Attorney Noonan obtained evidence that his client did not attempt to steal any gas. Rather, his client had sufficient funds on his debit card, which for some reason did not process on the gas station’s machine. After two trial dates, the alleged victims (gas station employees) failed to appear and the case was dismissed. Defendant was in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen and, if convicted for these serious criminal offenses, he was facing deportation.
November 7, 2017
Commonwealth v. Peter L.
Boston Municipal Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN ASSAULT & BATTERY CASE AFTER PROVING HIS CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.
Boston Police responded to the parking lot at the Logan Airport for a report of an Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) stemming from a dispute between two limo drivers. At the scene, police spoke to the alleged victim, a female limo driver. She reported that the Defendant confronted her in the parking lot because her vehicle was parked too close to his vehicle. She claimed that the Defendant demanded that she move her vehicle. When she refused, the Defendant became irate; he forcefully opened her car door, and continued yelling at her. She claimed that the Defendant cornered her and backed her up against her vehicle so she couldn’t escape. She claimed that the Defendant violently pushed her, causing her to fall down and strike her head against the pavement. On scene, police observed a fresh abrasion to her head. At trial, Commonwealth introduced photos showing the physical injuries to her head.
Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented compelling evidence convincing the judge that his client acted in self-defense. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the victim was the aggressor. Attorney Noonan called an independent witness who testified that he saw the victim yelling in the Defendant’s face and she was pointing her finger in his face several times. The Defendant testified that the victim’s finger made physical contact with his nose. The Defendant asked the victim several times to stop pointing her finger in his face. When she continued yelling and pointing her finger in his face, Defendant acted reasonably in pushing her back. He made it clear to the court that his only intent was to get her to back up out of his face. He had no intention of hurting her. Attorney Noonan thoroughly discredited the victim by showing that she was motivated by money. Within a week of the incident, she hired an Attorney to sue the Defendant to get money from him. By the time of trial, she retained another civil attorney to sue the Defendant. She embellished her injuries so she could sue him for even more money. She even went so far as to claim that she suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. By the time Attorney Noonan was done with her, her credibility was destroyed. The Judge found that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant did not act in self-defense.
October 2017 Case Results
October 24, 2017
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Boston Municipal Court
CONVICTIONS FOR ASSAULT & BATTERY ON POLICE OFFICER AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT ARE SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.
Client had convictions out of the Boston Municipal Court where he pled guilty to Assault & Battery on a Police Officer (G.L. c. 265, §13D) and Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53).
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully petitioned to have his client’s criminal convictions sealed from his record. Now, when the client is asked on job applications and other documents if he has ever been convicted of a crime, he may answer “no.”
September 2017 Case Results
September 28, 2017
Commonwealth v. Mark S.
Brockton District Court
AFTER JUDGE ORDERS DEFENDANT TO PAY $19,552.57 IN RESTITUTION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND JUDGE RECONSIDERS HER RULING AND REDUCES THE RESTITUTION TO $5,083.48, SAVING CLIENT $14,469.09.
Defendant, a Bridgewater man, was convicted of multiple counts of Malicious Destruction of Property (G.L. c. 266, §127) for causing malicious damage to an expensive piece of machinery owned by a corporation. At a restitution hearing, the judge ordered the Defendant to pay the corporation $19,552.57 in restitution for the damage he caused to the machinery.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Reconsider the Judge’s Ruling and presented additional evidence showing that the Judge’s findings were incorrect and the true value of the property damage was $5,083.48. After reviewing the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the Judge agreed and issued a new order based on the restitution amount proposed by Attorney Noonan, saving his client from paying $14,469.09 in restitution he was not responsible for.
September 12, 2017
Commonwealth v. R.C.
Brockton District Court
AFTER A HEARING, AND OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH, JUDGE ALLOWS PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING 3 COUNTS OF INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON A CHILD UNDER 14, ARE DISMISSED AGAINST 83-YEAR-OLD KOREAN WAR VETERAN
Back in 2011, a sixteen-year-old girl accused the Defendant of sexually abusing her, multiple times, over the course of several years, beginning when she was 6 years old. Based on the alleged victim’s allegations, Defendant was charged with 3 counts of Indecent Assault & Battery on a Child under 14 and 1 count of Indecent Exposure. During the pendency of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan became concerned with the client’s competency to stand trial based on his deteriorating mental condition. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained all of the client’s medical records and retained a forensic psychologist to conduct an evaluation of the client to determine whether he is legally competent to stand trial. After conducting an extensive evaluation, the forensic psychologist gave her opinion that the client is not competent to stand trial due to his mental condition.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss based on his forensic psychologist’s opinion that the Defendant is not legally competent to stand trial. At the Motion to Dismiss Hearing, the District Attorney’s Office objected and argued that the case should not be dismissed based on the seriousness of the allegations, among other things. At the Hearing, the Judge accepted the opinion of the forensic psychologist and made a ruling that the Defendant is not competent to stand trial. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Judge sided with Attorney Noonan and dismissed all charges.
September 8, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.M.
Attleboro District Court
MARIJUANA CHARGES ARE PERMANENTLY SEALED FROM COMPUTER PROGRAMMER’S CRIMINAL RECORD
Client is a 38 year-old computer programmer and information technology specialist. Client had a great job opportunity to work for a major financial company. However, client was worried that he would not get the job because of some old criminal charges on his record. When the client was 18 years old, he pled out to a charge of Possession of Marijuana. When the client was 19 years old, he pled out to another charge of Possession of Marijuana. Other than these two charges, from when the client was a teenager, client had no other criminal record.
Result: Worried about being denied a new employment opportunity due to his criminal record, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who was able to permanently seal all charges from his criminal record.
August 2017 Case Results
August 18, 2017
Commonwealth v. D.V.
New Bedford District Court
DA’S OFFICE ARGUES THAT DEFENDANT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO RELEASE AND SEEKS TO HOLD HIM IN JAIL AS HE AWAITS TRIAL BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE
Client, a 27 year-old lifelong resident of New Bedford, was arrested and charged with firearms offenses and evading police. At his arraignment, the DA’s Office moved the court to hold the Defendant in the House of Correction for 120 days or until his trial because the Commonwealth felt he was too dangerous to release. Fairhaven Police were called to the VWF for reports of an altercation involving members of a gang who were possibly armed with guns. When police arrived, Defendant fled the scene in his vehicle. Additional police units were dispatched to apprehend the fleeing Defendant. Eventually, police stopped the vehicle and ordered all the occupants out at gun point. Defendant admitted that he had a firearm in the glove compartment. Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (which carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 18 months), Improper Storage of a Firearm, and Failure to Stop for Police.
Result: As the client was sitting in jail, client’s mother contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to get her son out of jail. At a hearing to determine whether the Defendant was too dangerous to release, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence and convinced the judge that the Defendant did not pose a danger to the public. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant is a lifelong resident of New Bedford, is presently employed in New Bedford, has strong roots in the community, has family in New Bedford, and did not pose of flight risk. In addition, Attorney Noonan challenged the evidence presented by the Commonwealth that his client was involved in a physical altercation at the VWF, that his client was armed during the altercation, and that his client was a member of a gang. Attorney Noonan pointed out that altercation at the VFW was purely verbal and that no witnesses reported seeing any sort of fight. Also, nobody identified the Defendant as being involved in the altercation. Lastly, there was only one witness who reported that the parties at the VWF were armed and gang members and this lone witness was never identified. The judge released the Defendant on a GPS device and did not impose any bail.
August 18, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.C.
Taunton District Court
CLIENT SEEKING U.S. CITIZENSHIP WAS CONVICTED IN 1989 OF A DEPORTABLE OFFENSE BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE CONVICTION VACATED. CLIENT CAN NOW REPORT TO IMMIGRATION THAT HE HAS NO CONVICTIONS ON HIS RECORD.
Client, is a 47 year-old Brockton resident, a happily married man, and father of 5 children. He is college educated and has a successful business as a Certified Real Estate Appraiser. He was born in Cape Verde and came to the U.S. when he was 10 years old. His wife and children are U.S. citizens but he is not a U.S. citizen. He has been a permanent residence and green card holder. It has been his lifelong dream to become a U.S. citizen. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he was concerned about a prior felony conviction affecting his application for U.S. citizenship. In 1989, client was convicted of Burning Property with Intent to Defraud Insurance Company. It was alleged that the client burned his own vehicle in an attempt to recover money from his insurance company. According to federal law (8 U.S.C.A. §1227(2)(A)), Burning Property with Intent to Defraud an Insurance Company is considered a crime of moral turpitude and is a deportable offense. “Any alien who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is deportable.
Result: Client was concerned that his prior conviction for a deportable offense would affect his ability to become a U.S. citizen. Client had contacted other Attorneys who did not provide him with any confidence that anything could be done. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in desperation hoping that something could be done. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan told the client that he could try to get his felony conviction “vacated” and “dismissed” so that he could go into his immigration meeting with a record of no convictions. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained the court records and discovered that the court did not give him an alien warning when he pled guilty to the charge. Pursuant to G.L. c. 278, §29D, judge’s must warn a Defendant who is pleading guilty, or taking another disposition, of the immigration consequences of that plea. Failure to provide such a warning may provide grounds for a motion to vacate the conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dug deeper and tried to find as much evidence surrounding the crime as possible. It was discovered that the client made all his car insurance payments and the insurance company did not pay anything out to the client. Therefore, the client could not have had the intent to defraud the insurance company because the insurance company did not suffer any financial loss. The facts were more consistent with the crime of Malicious Burning of Personal Property, which does not involve fraud. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate his client’s conviction, which was allowed by the Judge and the case was dismissed. Now, the client has no conviction on his record.
August 14, 2017
Commonwealth v. G.P.C.
Brockton District Court
CLIENT, WITH A PENDING DRUG CASE, GETS ARRESTED FOR A NEW OFFENSE AND THE DA SEEKS TO LOCK HIM UP FOR 120 DAYS BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS CLIENT’S RELEASE
Client had a pending criminal case in the Brockton District Court where he was charged with two felony counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana. In that case, police conducted an investigation with a Confidential Informant who purchased drugs from the Defendant on two occasions. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s residence where they recovered large quantities of heroin and marijuana, along with other items indicative of a drug selling operation. While this drug case was pending, Defendant got arrested in Boston for Operating under the Influence of Liquor. When police searched his vehicle, they found 3 jars containing marijuana resulting in a new charge for Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana.
Result: The District Attorney’s Office moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail and have him locked up for 120 days (or until his Brockton case was disposed of) because the Defendant was arrested on new charges of OUI-Liquor and Possession with Intent to Distribute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to release the Defendant on conditions rather than locking him up. The judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s proposal of placing Defendant on a GPS device and having him submit to drug testing.
August 2, 2017
Commonwealth v. B.B.
Wareham District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL FOR CLIENT CONVICTED OF DRUNK DRIVING BECAUSE HER BREATHALYZER TEST PRODUCED SCIENTIFICALLY UNRELIABLE RESULTS
Defendant, a single mother, was arrested by Massachusetts State Police for Negligent Operation and Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. At the police station, Defendant agreed to have a Breathalyzer Test to determine her blood alcohol content. The breath test machine gave a blood alcohol content result of 0.11%, which is over the legal limit. Based on the breath test result of 0.11%, Defendant pled out to the OUI charge.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was hired to vacate the Defendant’s conviction and win her a new trial. Recently, in the case of Commonwealth v. Ananias, a District Court Judge ruled that a Breathalyzer Machine did not produce scientifically reliable Blood-Alcohol-Content results during the time period of June 2012 to September 2014. Relying on the Court’s recent decision, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client’s conviction should be vacated and she should be awarded a new trial because the Breathalyzer Machine used in her case did not produce scientifically reliable results. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting his client’s conviction vacated and a jury trial is now scheduled.
July 2017 Case Results
July 7, 2017
Commonwealth v. K.G.
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CHILD ENDANGERMENT CASE
At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence: An identified civilian called West Bridgewater Police to report an erratic operator, later identified as the Defendant. The witness was following directly behind Defendant’s vehicle and saw the Defendant’s vehicle swerve entirely off the road almost striking a fence then quickly swerve back crossing into the oncoming lane. The witness stated that the Defendant stopped at a traffic light, stuck her head out the window, and proceeded to vomit twice. The witness went to the police station and filled out a written statement. West Bridgewater Police were dispatched to locate the Defendant’s vehicle. The police officer observe the Defendant traveling on a residential street and saw the vehicle cross over the center line and travel a quarter-mile with its wheels in the oncoming lane. The officer stopped the vehicle and observed vomit all over the side door and on the Defendant’s clothing. Immediately, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and observed that her speech was very slow and deliberate. Defendant admitted to drinking at a party. The police officer administered 5 field sobriety tests. In the officer’s opinion, Defendant failed all 5 field sobriety tests. The officer testified as to Defendant’s poor performance on all field sobriety tests and gave his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant had her three young children in the car. Due to the fact that the Defendant was operating under the influence of alcohol with her three children in the car, she was charged with the aggravated felony offense of Child Endangerment, which carries an enhanced penalty.
Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan attacked the credibility of the arresting officer by showing that the officer rushed to judgment and did not conduct a fair investigation. Attorney Noonan argued that as soon as the officer observed the vomit he made up his mind to arrest the Defendant for OUI-Liquor. Attorney Noonan showed that: Before the officer conducted any investigation, he told the Defendant to call someone to come and pick up her kids because he had already made up his mind to arrest her for drunk driving. Attorney Noonan called the Defendant’s friend to testify as a witness. The friend testified that she received a phone call from the Defendant who stated that she had been pulled over and needed her to come and pick up the kids. The friend testified that the officer grabbed the phone and told her to get down here immediately. Attorney Noonan argued the phone call was made while the Defendant was still sitting in the driver’s seat before she was asked to exit the car and submit to field sobriety tests. Shortly after receiving the phone call, the friend arrived to the scene and the Defendant was already under arrest. Attorney Noonan introduced the footwear the Defendant was wearing, which were boots with 2 inch heels. Attorney Noonan argued that it was difficult for the Defendant to perform the field sobriety tests demanded of her in these heels. Specifically, Defendant was asked to balance on one foot for 30 seconds while wearing these heels. In addition, the officer had Defendant walk 9 steps, back and forth, on an invisible line and maintain her balance in these heels. With regards to the vomit, Attorney called two witnesses to testify. These witnesses testified that they attended a funeral reception with the Defendant prior to her arrest. These witnesses testified that they ate the same food as the Defendant, chicken broccoli Alfredo. These witnesses testified that the chicken broccoli Alfredo was not cooked properly, smelled weird, and had a funky taste. They testified that they tasted the food and stopped eating it because it was gross. They testified to having conversations with the Defendant and others at the reception about the funky tasting food. They testified that the Defendant tasted the food and remarked that it tasted funky. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant vomited because of the bad food. The most compelling evidence came from the testimony of the owner and operator of a day care facility. Prior to getting pulled over, Defendant had picked up her kids at a day care facility and was on her way home when she was arrested. This witness testified that the Defendant dropped her three children off in the early morning while she attended the funeral. This witness testified that the Defendant came to pick up her three kids. This witness testified that they had a 10-minute conversation. This witness testified that she did not observe any signs to suggest that the Defendant may have been impaired by alcohol. This witness gave her opinion that the Defendant was not impaired by alcohol in any way. The witness testified that, as a licensed day care provider and a mandated reporter, she would have stopped the Defendant from driving away with her kids if she had any suspicion that Defendant was impaired by alcohol. After a two day trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all counts.
July 3, 2017
Commonwealth v. D.L.
Taunton District Court
GUN CHARGE AGAINST FREETOWN TRUCK DRIVER, WHICH CARRIED A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE OF 18 MONTHS, WAS DISMISSED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE GUN CHARGE
Freetown Police were called to a residence after receiving 911 calls reporting that the Defendant retrieved a firearm and threatened to shoot his brother and then kill himself. Others in the house reported that the Defendant was mentally ill and a drug addict. Everyone had evacuated the home when police arrived. Defendant was arrested and brought to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Defendant admitted that he did not have a license to possess the firearm and further stated that the bought the gun off the street.
Result: Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License, which carries a mandatory jail sentence of 18 months. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of probable cause. Specifically, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that it was not illegal for the Defendant to unlawfully possess a firearm, so long as the firearm was under his “exclusive control” and possessed by him “in or on his residence.”
June 2017 Case Results
June 21, 2017
Commonwealth v. A.C.
Hingham District Court
CLIENT CHARGED WITH THREE FELONY SEX OFFENSES HIRES ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN AND WALKS AWAY WITH ONLY ONE CONVICTION FOR A MISDEMEANOR THAT IS NOT A SEX OFFENSE.
Client, a 62-year-old Engineer from Fall River, was charged with three counts of Open and Gross Lewdness, which are felony sex-offenses. The charges stem from allegations that the Defendant was seen, by a witness, naked from the waist down on a trail in Hanover that is open to the public. A witness reported to police that she observed the Defendant, on two occasions, naked from the waist down, as she was walking her dog on a trail in a public park. Police installed trail cameras in the area where the witness saw the Defendant naked from the waist down. The police viewed the video footage, which showed the defendant, on two other occasions, walking on the trail wearing nothing from the waist down. Police conducted a stake-out where they hid in the woods in the area where the defendant was previously seen naked from the waist down. The officers saw the defendant walk by their location naked from the waist down. The police arrested the defendant. According to the Commonwealth, the Defendant, on at least 5 separate occasions, committed the offense of Open and Gross Lewdness.
Result: Defendant was charged with 3 counts of Open and Gross Lewdness. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got 2 of the charges dismissed for lack of evidence leaving only 1 count of Open and Gross Lewdness remaining. On June 21, 2017, a jury trial was scheduled for the 1 remaining count of Open and Gross Lewdness. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appeared ready to try the case. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the felony Open and Gross Lewdness to the misdemeanor offense of Indecent Exposure, which is not a sex offense. The Client agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanor. The client is only convicted of a misdemeanor and it is not a sex offense. The client was facing three felony sex offenses, which carried jail time and possible sex offender registration.
May 2017 Case Results
May 19, 2017
Commonwealth v. V.P.
Orleans District Court
CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF A FELONY AFTER A TRIAL IN 1980 BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE CONVICTION VACATED AND DISMISSED.
The Client is a 63-year-old former carpenter from Dennis who remains disabled from a bad work-related accident. In 1980, when the Client was 26 years-old, he was charged with felony larceny for allegedly stealing trees and shrubs from a Nursery in Dennis. The Client went to trial and was found guilty of the felony larceny. The client, an avid hunter, has been a gun owner since he was 17 years-old. He has had a Firearms Identification Card (FID Card) since age 17 and has renewed his FID Card for the past 46 years with no issues. The Client was concerned that his FID Card would be denied for renewal because of the old felony conviction.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate his client’s Conviction arguing that: there was insufficient evidence that the larceny was a felony because the value of the stolen property was not clearly proven, the client had a viable Motion to Dismiss because the stolen property was never recovered despite police executing a search of the client’s home, and trial judge may have committed error in permitting the client to be represented at trial by his co-defendant who was acting pro se. Prior to any hearing on the Motion to Vacate Conviction, Attorney Noonan had a conversation with the District Attorney’s Office who agreed to vacate the client’s conviction and enter a dismissal. Attorney Noonan then filed a new Motion to Vacate Conviction that was agreed to by the parties. The Judge allowed the Motion to Vacate and entered a dismissal, as requested by both parties.
May 5, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.S.
Brockton District Court
DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF 2 OUT OF 4 FELONIES FOR CAUSING MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ON 4 SEPARATE OCCASIONS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE VICTIMS, EXCEEDED $101,000 IN DAMAGES.
Defendant, a 50-year-old resident of West Bridgewater, was charged with 4 counts of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250. Defendant worked for a company for 30 years and he was fired. After his termination, Defendant, on four separate occasions, intentionally inflicted damage to the company’s out-door industrial air chiller. The company claimed that the damage caused by the Defendant exceeded $101,000 dollars. After each act of vandalism, the company reported it to West Bridgewater Police. The company suspected that it was the Defendant who caused the damage. The company installed cameras to catch the Defendant in the act. The Defendant was caught on video causing damage to the air chiller and was arrested the following day. Prior to trial, the District Attorney’s Office offered the Defendant the following deal: Plead Guilty to all 4 felony charges of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250, be placed on probation for two years, and to pay restitution to be later determined at a hearing. Despite the evidence showing the Defendant was caught on videotape causing damage to the air chiller, and other strong evidence showing his guilt, Defendant opted to go to trial.
Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the Commonwealth’s evidence that each act of vandalism caused at least $250 in damage even though the alleged victim’s claimed that the damage exceeded $100,000. With regards to 2 of the acts of vandalism, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the jury that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the damage exceeded $250. Instead of taking the Commonwealth’s deal to plead guilty to all 4 felony counts, Defendant was acquitted and found Not Guilty of 2 of the felony counts. Attorney Noonan was weary to have his client plead guilty to all 4 counts because the company could use his admissions against him when they seek $101,000 in restitution from the Defendant. The Defendant was given a suspended sentence with probation for two years, a sentence not all that much different from what the Commonwealth was asking for prior to trial.
April 2017 Case Results
April 25, 2017
Commonwealth v. E.B.
Taunton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS A NOT GUILTY ON A SECOND-OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.
The client is a 33 year-old financial consultant from Easton, MA. The police officer testified that he was stopped at a gas station when his attention was drawn to the sound of a car horn beeping for about 5 seconds. The officer followed the vehicles as they approached an intersection. The police officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut off the other driver causing the other vehicle to slam on its brakes and swerve to avoid a collision. The officer pulled over the Defendant’s car. When he approached the Defendant’s window, the officer observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot and he could smell an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The officer testified that the Defendant initially stated that he did not consume any alcohol but later admitted to drinking at a strip club. The officer testified that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test. The officer testified that the Defendant failed the Alphabet Test twice, the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn Test, and the Defendant failed the One-Leg Stand after attempting it twice.
Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the police officer and pointed out the inconsistencies in his testimony. Attorney Noonan pointed out everything the Defendant did well on the field sobriety tests, which the officer left out in his direct examination. Attorney Noonan introduced photos of the Defendant’s shoes to show how difficult it would be for someone to perform these field sobriety tests with this type of footwear, which had no ankle support. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the other driver and pointed out that the other driver had been speeding and he lost his patience when following the Defendant because the Defendant was not driving fast enough. Attorney Noonan called as a witness the police officer who booked the Defendant at the police station. Attorney Noonan established that the booking officer had booked the Defendant, in a small booking room, for about an hour. In a critical line of questioning, Attorney Noonan got the booking officer to testify that he could not formulate an opinion about the Defendant’s sobriety even though he had booked him for about an hour. After Attorney Noonan’s closing argument, the judge immediately found the Defendant Not Guilty. This was the Defendant’s second offense for drunk driving and he was facing possible jail time, a three year loss of license, and mandatory inpatient treatment.
April 13, 2017
Commonwealth v. J.L.
Hingham District Court
JUDGE DISMISSES CASE WITH PREJUDICE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE OFFICER LIED TO THE COURT.
The Defendant, a resident of Hull, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. A civilian witness reported to Hull Police that the Defendant’s vehicle crossed into his lane, struck the side of his vehicle, and continued driving without pulling over. The witness approached the Defendant at a stop sign and asked him to pull over but the Defendant continued driving for over a mile before pulling into a plaza to pick up a pizza he had ordered. The witness called the police to report the hit and run. When the police arrived to the parking lot, the officer observed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet and appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked the Defendant to perform a series of field sobriety tests. From the start, the Defendant, in the officer’s words, was defiant, uncooperative, and argumentative. The Defendant insulted the officer. The officer found that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test that he performed and placed him under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. Back at the police station, when the Defendant was being booked, the arresting officer stated that the Defendant continued to be defiant, uncooperative, and argumentative. The officer stated that the Defendant claimed that he was not the operator of the vehicle when he previously admitted that he was the operator. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the Booking Officer to testify as a witness. Attorney Noonan called the Booking Officer to impeach the testimony of the arresting officer. During booking, the Booking Officer observed that the Defendant’s speech was “fair,” which contradicted the arresting officer’s observation that the Defendant’s speech was thick-tongued and slurred. More importantly, the Booking Officer observed that the Defendant’s “attitude was indifferent” and there were “no unusual actions” by the Defendant, which contradicted the arresting officer’s repeated assertions that the Defendant was defiant, argumentative, uncooperative, and insulting. As the trial started, the District Attorney received word that the Booking Officer could not appear to the trial because he was “sick.” Attorney Noonan asked for a continuance of the trial because the Booking Officer was an important witness for the defense. When the Defendant left the courthouse and was driving home, he saw the Booking Officer performing a detail and directing traffic. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice on the grounds that the Booking Officer lied to the court when he represented that he was out sick when, in actuality, he was not sick but performing a paid detail. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained documentation showing that the Booking Officer performed a paid detail on the day of trial from 7:00 AM to 8:30 PM for 13.5 hours.
Result: After Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence to show that the booking officer lied to the court, the Judge dismissed the OUI-Liquor charge, with prejudice, and found that the booking officer’s conduct was egregious. The case was dismissed with prejudice meaning that the Commonwealth cannot charge the Defendant with the same offense in the future. This is a rare case where a Judge dismissed a criminal charge with prejudice as a sanction for egregious police misconduct.
April 4, 2017
Commonwealth v. D.M.
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE STATE POLICE UNLAWFULLY DETAINED HIS CLIENT AT A DRUNK-DRIVING ROADBLOCK, WHICH RESULTED IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE EVEN THOUGH HIS CLIENT HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT OF 0.81%.
On May 28, 2016, the State Police were conducting an OUI Roadblock, as referred to as a Sobriety Checkpoint, on Route 18 in Abington. The Client, who was returning from a wedding, approached the checkpoint in his vehicle. At the checkpoint, the State Trooper believed that the Client was exhibiting signs of intoxication so he had the client get out of his car and submit to field sobriety tests. The State Trooper found that the client failed three of the field sobriety tests. The State Trooper had the client blow into a portable breath test device, which showed that the client had a blood alcohol content of 0.81%, which is above the legal limit in Massachusetts. The State Trooper then arrested the client and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his Client was unlawfully detained by the State Trooper. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to order his Client to get out of his vehicle and submit to the field sobriety tests. At a Hearing in which the State Trooper testified, Attorney Noonan proved that the only evidence of possible intoxication that led the Trooper to detain his client was the Trooper’s observation that the Client’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Attorney Noonan introduced a color copy of the Client’s booking photo, which clearly showed that his Client did not have glassy or bloodshot eyes. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to detain his client. Therefore, the Judge suppressed all evidence that was obtained as a result of his Client’s unlawful detention, which included all field sobriety tests and the breath test result of 0.81%. Because the majority of the evidence was suppressed, the District Attorney was forced to dismiss the case.
March 2017 Case Results
March 31, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.M.
Quincy District Court
FELONY LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST MECHANIC FROM CARVER IS REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR UPON PROOF BY THE DEFENSE THAT THE VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY WAS UNDER $250.
Client, a 48-year-old Mechanic from Carver, was arrested at the Sears Department Store in the Braintree Mall for allegedly stealing merchandise with his wife. The Loss Prevention Department at Sears observed the Client and his Wife conceal merchandise in a shopping bag. The Security Guard observed the wife try on a Lands End Jacket and hand it to the Client who then walked out of the store without paying for the Lands End Jacket. The Client’s wife walked out of the store with stolen merchandise in her shopping bag. According to the Police Report, the value of all the stolen items was $346.98. The Client was charged with Larceny over $250, which is a felony. What distinguishes a felony larceny from a misdemeanor larceny is the value of the stolen items. If the value of the stolen items is over $250, it is a felony.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and contacted the Loss Prevention Department at Sears and discovered that the value of the Lands End Jacket, stolen by the client, was $169.00. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the felony Larceny over $250 charge on the grounds that the evidence discovered by the defense showed that the value of the stolen item was under $250. The District Attorney agreed to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor
March 27, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.D.
Brockton District Court
Docket No.: 1315 CR 5197
CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN FOR HITTING VICTIM IN THE HEAD WITH A BASEBALL BAT ARE DISMISSED AS THE TRIAL WAS UNDERWAY.
On 09/09/13, Brockton Police were called to Panorama Pizza in Brockton for a report of a male bleeding profusely from his head after being struck in the head with a baseball bat. Upon arrival, police observed trails of blood in the parking lot and large pools of blood inside Panorama Pizza. The Defendant, a 29 year-old pizza delivery man, admitted to police that he struck the victim in the head with a baseball bat but that it was in self-defense. Due to the severity of the head injury and the amount of blood loss, the victim was taken by helicopter to the hospital in Boston where he stayed for almost one week.
The Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), a felony offense punishable up to 10 years in state prison.
The Noonan Defense Team thoroughly prepared the case for trial where they intended to assert that the Defendant was justified in using deadly force in self-defense. The Defendant and the victim were employees at Panorama Pizza in Brockton. The Noonan Defense Team interviewed the other employees at the pizza shop and intended to have all three employees testify at trial. At the trial, the Commonwealth moved to introduce a surveillance video, which showed the Defendant strike the victim in the head with the baseball bat.
Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to introduce the following evidence at trial: The pizza shop employees would testify that the victim had a reputation for being a violent and quarrelsome person. The employees would testify that the victim would show up to the pizza shop on a regular basis highly intoxicated and would act aggressively toward the employees. The employees would testify to approximately 10 instances where the victim would threaten to cause bodily harm to the Defendant. The employees would testify to an incident where the victim threatened a police officer and was almost arrested. Finally, the employees would testify to an incident that occurred at 8:00 p.m. just one hour before the assault in question where the victim showed up to the pizza shop highly intoxicated and made threats to the manager and the Defendant. Despite the efforts of the manager and the Defendant, the victim refused to leave and go home. The victim remained outside the pizza shop where he proceeded to stare at the Defendant in a threatening manner. At the top of his lungs, the victim screamed threats to cause bodily harm to the Defendant. The victim leaned against the Defendant’s car and waited for him to come outside knowing that the Defendant would eventually have to go to his car to deliver pizzas. Fearing that the victim would physically attack him, the Defendant called the police to have the victim removed from the premises. The police arrived and removed the victim from the premises.
One hour after being removed from the premises by the police, the victim returned to the pizza shop where he confronted the Defendant in the parking lot. As the Defendant was exiting his car, he observed the victim quickly approaching him in an aggressive manner. Fearing that the victim was about to attack him, the Defendant grabbed a miniature-sized baseball bat that he kept in his car for protection. The victim got in the Defendant’s face and made threats to “kill him.” Prior to using the bat in self-defense, the Defendant pushed the victim back and yelled for him to “back up” but the victim continued with his threats to kill him. With no other alternative and having a legitimate fear that the victim would seriously harm him, the Defendant struck the victim in the head with the baseball bat. The victim was completely unfazed by the blow to the head and continued to pursue the Defendant who then ran inside the pizza shop for safety.
Attorney Patrick J. Noonan intended to call an expert witness in Toxicology and Physiology. The expert witness would testify that the victim had a blood alcohol level of 0.24 when he showed up to the pizza shop at 8:00 p.m. and that the victim had a blood alcohol level of 0.22 when he showed up an hour later and confronted the Defendant in the parking lot. The expert witness would also testify as to the signs and symptoms that a person exhibits in this state of intoxication, which include: exaggerated emotional states (such as rage), emotional instability, loss of critical judgment, and increased pain threshold.
At the start of the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion in Limine to introduce evidence of the victim’s violent character and to introduce six specific instances of violence committed by the victim. The DA objected and moved to exclude each of the six instances of violence committed by the victim. After a hearing, the trial judge ruled that Attorney Noonan could introduce 4 of the 6 instances of violence committed by the victim. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to introduce testimony from his expert as to the level of the victim’s intoxication along with the mental state and behavior associated with such a high level of intoxication. Again, the DA objected and moved to exclude the expert from testifying. After a hearing, the trial judge ruled that Attorney Noonan could introduce the proposed testimony from his expert.
Result: After the hearing in which the trial judge ruled that Attorney Patrick J. Noonan could introduce evidence of the victim’s violent character, the four specific instances of violence committed by the victim, and the expert testimony as to the victim’s high level of intoxication, the DA moved to dismiss the case before the jury was empaneled.
“Man beaten with baseball bat outside Brockton pizza shop.” http://www.wcvb.com/article/man-beaten-with-baseball-bat-outside-brockton-pizza-shop/8188389
March 17, 2017
Commonwealth v. N.A.
Fall River District Court
Docket No.: 1632 CR 5402
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES DA TO DISMISS ALL CHARGES SO LONG AS THE DEFENDANT CONTINUES WITH HIS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.
The Defendant was a 24 year-old Lakeville man who was an Analyst for a medical technology company and had no criminal record. The Defendant’s employer contacted the Defendant’s father and reported that the Defendant abruptly left work and left a picture on his desk of loaded firearm. Later that day, police responded to a residence in Freetown due to the home’s alarm system being activated. Upon arrival, Defendant answered the front door holding a bottle of wine and he admitted that he did not live there.
Police arrested the Defendant and charged him with: Breaking and Entering in the daytime with the intent to commit a felony under G.L. c. 266, §18, a felony punishable up to 10 years in state prison. Due to the damage caused throughout the home, police charged the Defendant with Vandalism under G.L. c. 266, §126A, a felony offense punishable up to 3 years in state prison and a mandatory one year loss of driver’s license.
Back at the Freetown Police Station, the Defendant’s behavior became increasingly bizarre. In his jail cell, Defendant stripped naked and proceeded to exercise and do push-ups. Defendant made statements that made no sense and would freak out whenever officers approached him. It turned out that the home the Defendant broke into was his childhood home. Defendant had not lived there since he was very young and gave no explanation as to why he decided to break in.
Due to his bizarre, unusual, and erratic behavior, police had the Defendant taken to hospital for an evaluation. The emergency room physician made out an Application for Temporary Involuntary Hospitalization pursuant to Section 12(a), as he believed that the Defendant was suffering from a mental illness and posed a likelihood of serious harm to himself or others.
The Defendant was committed to an impatient mental health facility where he exhibited manic psychotic-type behaviors. He believed he worked at the hospital as an entrepreneur. He also stated that he was a member of the hospital’s staff. He was seen dancing in the hallways. He believed messages were being communicated to him through the television set and he even attempted to escape from the facility by posing as a hospital employee. Defendant was diagnosed as suffering from Major depressive disorder, severe, with psychotic features and possibly Schizophrenia.
At his first court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested that the District Attorney’s Office place his client on Pretrial Probation for one-year with certain conditions. At first, the DA’s Office refused Attorney Noonan’s proposal and stated that the Defendant was not an appropriate candidate for Pretrial Probation.
Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented a package to the DA in support of his request for Pretrial Probation, which included the following: First, Attorney Noonan spoke to the homeowners who knew the Defendant and his family and the homeowners stated that they had no desire to press charges and they did not seek any restitution for the damage to their home. Second, Attorney Noonan provided the DA with documentation regarding the Defendant’s mental health treatment. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with a letter from the Defendant’s Psychiatrist who stated that the Defendant’s mental condition has stabilized and he was doing very well with the medications he was prescribed. In addition, Attorney Noonan provided the DA with a letter from the Defendant’s mental health counselor who stated that the Defendant’s mental condition has stabilized and he was doing very well with weekly therapy sessions. The psychiatrist and mental health counselor believed that the incident was due to the sudden onset of an untreated mental illness and not due to any criminal intent. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with documentation showing that the Defendant signed a one-year contract to work as an Analyst for a very reputable company. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that the incident was caused by a sudden, acute mental illness and not the result of any criminal intent.
Result: After reviewing all the information and documentation provided by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the DA’s Office changed its position and agreed that the Defendant was not a criminal but a person who suffered from a legitimate mental illness, which was the cause of the whole incident. The DA’s Office agreed with Attorney Noonan’s terms that all charges would be dismissed outright after one-year so long as the Defendant continues with his present course of treatment. With Pretrial Probation, the Defendant did not have to admit that he committed a crime.
March 8, 2017
Commonwealth v. L.A.
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES A JUDGE TO VACATE AN OLD CONVICTION FOR A CRIME AGAINST THE PUBLIC JUSTICE AND THEN SUCCESSFULLY PETITIONS THE COMMISSIONER OF PROBATION TO SEAL IT FROM HIS CLIENT’S RECORD.
Client is a 70 year-old accountant, grandmother, and former drug-addict who had an old felony conviction from 1984 for smuggling drugs into a prison. The client had turned her life around but was always haunted by her past. Back in the 1980s, client had a terrible drug addiction. In 1984, she was arrested for attempting to smuggle cocaine into a prison for an inmate. She was convicted of the serious felony offense of Giving a Prisoner a Controlled Substance. That was the last time the client ever had any involvement with police or the court system. She committed herself to treatment and lived a life of sobriety ever since. She went back to school and earned a degree in Accounting and graduated at the top of her class with Highest Honors. She has been employed as an Accountant for over 30 years and has held the same job for nearly 15 years. Despite the remarkable turnaround in her life, she was always haunted by her old felony conviction, which was a constant reminder of her past. She petitioned the Commissioner of Probation in Boston to seal the felony conviction from her record. Regrettably, she was informed that the conviction was non-sealable because it was a Crime against the Public Justice. Her only hope was to have the felony conviction vacated, which she believed was impossible. Other attorneys told her that convincing a judge to vacate a conviction for this charge would be very difficult. In a leap of faith, she contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who agreed to take on the case.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan made a compelling argument to a Judge of the Brockton District Court to vacate his client’s felony conviction. In a rare case, the Judge entered an order and vacated a conviction for a Crime against the Public Justice. With the conviction vacated, the Commissioner of Probation agreed to seal the charge from the client’s record.
February 2017 Case Results
February 24, 2017
Commonwealth v. Matt Murphy
Brockton District Court
Docket No.: 1515 CR 0403
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO ORDER DRUG TREATMENT INSTEAD OF JAIL TIME FOR MAN WHO OVERDOSED ON HEROIN WITH AUTISTIC CHILD IN CAR.
Brockton Police were dispatched to the Mobile Gas Station in Brockton for a report of a male who had overdosed in his car with a small child in the backseat. When officers arrived, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel with the engine running, the car in gear, and the car in reverse. Officers had to smash the window to gain access to the Defendant who was unconscious. Defendant had overdosed after injecting himself with heroin. Officers had to administer two separate doses of the overdose-reversing drug Narcan in order to revive the Defendant. The Defendant’s 10 year-old severely autistic son was in the backseat. The child was unable to speak due to his severe autism. Police found heroin and syringes in the car. The heroin was tested and found to contain the highly volatile substance Fentanyl. The Defendant admitted to police that he drove to the gas station and that he consumed heroin. Defendant was charged with: Operating under the Influence of Drugs, Child Endangerment, and Possession of Fentanyl.
Result: The case was un-triable, as the Commonwealth would have little difficulty proving its case. Attorney Noonan had no alternative but to plea his client out. The District Attorney asked the Judge to lock the Defendant up for 90 days. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested that his client be given a suspended sentence, instead of jail time, and placed on probation for three years with conditions aimed at treating his drug addiction. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and imposed a suspended sentence of 6 months with three years of probation and conditions of drug treatment.
“Brockton overdosed driver avoids jail time in favor of treatment.” http://saugus.wickedlocal.com/news/20170224/brockton-overdosed-driver-avoids-jail-time-in-favor-of-treatment
January 2017 Case Results
January 13, 2017
TAUNTON MAN’S APPLICATION TO RENEW HIS LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO A PRIOR CONVICTION FOR A FIREARM’S OFFENSE BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RENEW CLIENT’S LTC.
Client is a 51-year-old Electrical Engineer from Taunton who is married with three children. Client has been an avid hunter and shooter and a big believer in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Guns have been a part of his life since he was a young kid. At age 16, he was issued a Firearms Identification Card. Client has had a License to Carry since 1995. He had been an active member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts (GOAL), and Taunton Rifle and Pistol Club. He has advanced training in firearms. He is a member of Team Glock a competitive team of shooting professionals.
Since 1995, the client has had a License to Carry (LTC) but in 2016 the Police Department denied his Application to Renew his LTC because he had a conviction for a firearms offense. Specifically, the Client pled guilty to the offense of Leaving a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. According to the Police Department, the conviction disqualified the client from getting an LTC.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the Chief of Police to renew his client’s license to carry firearms. Under the law, a conviction for a violation of any firearms law disqualifies an applicant from getting an LTC. Here, Client’s LTC renewal was denied because he had a conviction for violating a firearms law. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that: in order for a firearms violation to be a disqualifier, the firearms violation must carry a penalty of imprisonment. In his client’s case, the only punishment his client received for the firearms violation was a fine of $125.00. After considering Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s arguments, the client’s license to carry firearms was renewed.
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