Hingham District Court

IN PERHAPS THE FIRST CASE DECIDED BY THE COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS, A DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES IS EXPUNGED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF DEMONSTRABLE ERRORS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A LIVE EXPLOSIVE DEVICE.

Expungement of a criminal record is extremely rare in Massachusetts. Recently, in October of 2018, the Legislature passed new legislation regarding the expungement of criminal records. G.L. c. 276, §100K states that the Court may order the expungement of a criminal record if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that the record was created as a result of demonstrable errors by law enforcement. As of the date of this case, Attorney Noonan has not found one reported case in Massachusetts in which a Court has expunged a criminal record due to errors committed by law enforcement.

Result: Police were called to the Defendant’s home after wife reported that the Defendant was intoxicated and making suicidal threats. Upon arrival, police sectioned the Defendant and had him transported to the hospital for an evaluation. As the Defendant was committed for mental illness and substance abuse, his License to Carry Firearms was suspended and the police went to his home to seize all his firearms. In the Defendant’s home, they recovered a hand grenade in a gun locker. The police incorrectly concluded that it was a live grenade. Defendant told the police that he purchased the grenade online and that the grenade was “fake.” A K-9 alerted to the presence of explosives in the grenade. The Bomb Squad inspected the grenade and erroneously concluded that it was a live grenade and contained explosive material. The Bomb Squad brought the grenade to a site where they detonated the grenade. According to the Bomb Squad, the grenade detonated as designed; another incorrect conclusion. It was the opinion of the Bomb Squad that this was a live grenade with explosive material in it. Laboratory testing showed that the grenade did not contain any explosives. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had the evidence reviewed by an explosives expert, who formed an expert opinion that the Bomb Squad should have known that this was not a live grenade. The grenade had a distinctive marking, which indicated that it was a practice grenade and not live. The Bomb Squad could have scraped any explosive material out of the grenade and tested it. If the grenade did contain explosives, any explosive material would have a very distinct odor readily identifiable to an expert. The detonation of the grenade was unnecessary because a trained explosives expert would have been able to conclude that it was not a live grenade. When the Bomb Squad detonated the grenade, they introduced their own explosive material to cause the explosion and the grenade did not detonate, as designed. After the hearing, the Court found that Attorney Noonan met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Defendant was charged with this crime due to demonstrable errors committed by law enforcement.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS SHOPLIFTING CHARGE AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT AND IMMIGRANT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING

Defendant was charged with Shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, §30A) stemming from an incident at Walmart where the Defendant took printer ink, placed it in his waistband, and exited the store without paying for it.

Result: At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the Defendant took the printer ink because he needed it for school, as he was attending a local college, and he didn’t have enough money to pay for the item, and this was a split-second decision where the Defendant impulsively took the printer ink without thinking and instantly regretted it. Defendant was working full-time while attending college and he played on the college’s soccer team. He was having difficulty with his finances and difficulty paying bills and he was struggling to pay his rent, pay his student loans, and make ends meet. After the hearing, the clerk decided to dismiss the criminal complaint. As a result, Defendant does not have a criminal record due to this incident.

Norfolk Superior Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT’S USE OF A POLE CAMERA AIMED AT THE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Defendant was under investigation by the Massachusetts State Police for the crimes of Possession of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29C) and Dissemination of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29B). Police obtained evidence that an IP address associated with a residence, a large apartment building, was used to commit the crimes of possession and dissemination of child pornography. Police installed a pole camera across the street from the apartment building to conduct surveillance. After viewing the pole camera footage, State Police obtained a search warrant to search apartments within the apartment building. After executing the search warrant, police seized electronic devices containing illegal evidence.

Result: At the time of the Defendant’s arrest, there were no reported court cases in Massachusetts dealing with the government’s use of pole cameras because this kind of technology was new. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan found a recent case in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, United States vs. Moore-Bush, 381 F. Supp. 3d 139 (D. Mass 2019) in which Judge Young found that the government’s use of a pole camera was a search in violation of the 4^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant on the grounds that law enforcement’s use of the pole camera was an illegal search. At the suppression hearing, nearly 100 exhibits were introduced and numerous witnesses testified. After the hearing, the U.S. District Court reversed Judge Young’s decision, holding that the use of the pole camera was not a violation of the Federal Constitution. However, Attorney Noonan argued that the use of the pole camera was a search in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. After the hearing, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a new decision in Commonwealth v. Mora, 485 Mass. 360 (2020) where the SJC held that the government’s use of pole cameras was a search in violation of the State Constitution. After the SJC’s decision in Mora, the Superior Court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the government’s use of the pole camera was an illegal search in violation of the State Constitution. Presently, this case is still being litigated on the issue of whether the illegal search should result in the suppression of evidence. Stay tuned.

BOSTON POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO SUIDICAL THREATS AND INTOXICATION BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HER LTC REINSTATED

Client is a Boston Police Officer. Client requires a valid license to carry firearms in order to work as a police officer. The client’s license to carry was suspended because the police were called to her home for a report that the client was making suicidal statements and she was intoxicated. The police sectioned the client for mental health and substance abuse and she was transported to the emergency room for an evaluation. Because her license to carry was suspended, the client could not return to work as a police officer and her career was placed in jeopardy. If she could not have a valid LTC, she would lose her job as a police officer.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately had the client evaluated by a licensed psychologist who reviewed the police report, discharge paperwork from the hospital, and he spoke with the officers involved in the case. The psychologist performed an extensive psychological evaluation and gave his expert opinion that the client was not suicidal and she did not have substance abuse addiction. He opined that the client was stable, she was fit for duty, she was fit to return to work as a police officer, and she did not pose any danger if she were to possess firearms. The psychological evaluation, coupled with other evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, resulted in the police department reinstating and activating her LTC. Now the client can return to work as a police officer.

Brockton District Court

Plymouth Superior Court

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FINDS DEFENDANT DANGEROUS AND ORDERS HIM HELD IN JAIL UNTIL HIS TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN APPEALS AND CONVINCES THE SUPERIOR COURT TO REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT. ON APPEAL, DEFENDANT IS FOUND “NOT” DANGEROUS AND HE IS RELEASED ON $1,500 BAIL AND CONDITIONS.

Defendant, a Brockton resident, was a passenger in a vehicle. The vehicle was wanted for being involved in a drive-by shooting in Boston on January 2, 2021. State Police attempted to stop the vehicle in Boston, but the operator of the vehicle fled resulting in a car chase. The car chase went all the way from Boston into Brockton. The fleeing vehicle, traveling at a high rate of speed, crashed in Brockton. The vehicle was heavily damaged entrapping the Defendant, the passenger, and the co-defendant, operator. A team of officers ordered the defendant and co-defendant out of the vehicle by gunpoint. The co-defendant refused the officers’ commands, and police used a taser to subdue him. Police searched the glove compartment and found two handguns and large capacity ammunition. At the floor of the gas pedal, at the operator’s feet, police found a magazine. The co-defendant operator was wearing body armor underneath his jacket. Upon his arrest, Defendant had two warrants. Defendant was charged with: Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B), Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(a)), Carry a Loaded Firearm without a License, Possession of a Firearm without an FID Card (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Unlawful Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device (G.L. c. 140, §131M), and Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). The arrest was featured in the news.

Result: In the Brockton District Court, the prosecutor moved to have the Defendant held in jail until his trial on the grounds that he was “dangerous” and there were no conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public or to assure his appearance in court. A 58A Dangerousness Hearing was held in the Brockton District Court. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had three (3) witnesses prepared to testify. The witnesses would testify that the Defendant was not involved in the drive-by shooting in Boston on January 2, 2021 because the Defendant was at home in his father’s house in Brockton on that date. Essentially, Attorney Noonan had alibi evidence showing that the Defendant was not involved in the Boston shooting. Moreover, the witnesses would testify about the circumstances which led him to be a passenger in the vehicle on the night in question; and the proposed evidence suggested that the Defendant did not know the co-defendant-operator, and that the Defendant was a passenger in his car because he asked for a ride home. Lastly, Defendant’s father would testify that the Defendant has roots in the community and has lived with his father at the same address in Brockton for some period of time and the Defendant had a record of employment. If released, Defendant would continue to reside with his father, as he has always done. The District Court Judge did not allow Attorney Noonan’s witnesses to testify. The District Court Judge found that the prosecution proved that the Defendant was “dangerous,” and found that there were no conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed to the Superior Court. A new 58A Dangerousness Hearing was held in the Superior Court. After the hearing, the Superior Court Judge found that the Defendant was “not” dangerous; effectively reversing the decision of the District Court. Further, the Superior Court found that there were conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public and his appearance in court; effectively reversing the decision of the District Court. The Superior Court released the Defendant from jail on $1,500 cash bail and the conditions recommended by Attorney Noonan. Attorney Noonan is now preparing the case for trial.

See https://whdh.com/news/police-2-arrested-guns-and-ballistic-vest-seized-after-chase-ends-in-brockton-crash/

See https://www.boston25news.com/news/brockton-pursuit-leads-multiple-charges-arrests/LG3NGKLSLJB7HKBZHNA3C4REZY/

See https://wbznewsradio.iheart.com/content/two-arrested-on-firearms-charges-after-fleeing-police-in-brockton/

See https://www.wcvb.com/article/three-police-departments-investigating-brockton-crash/35223556#

See https://www.masslive.com/boston/2021/01/2-men-accused-of-leading-massachusetts-state-police-on-chase-before-crashing-mercedes-into-pole-found-with-armored-vest-guns-ammo-authorities-say.html

See https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/car-crashes-in-brockton-after-police-chase/2281107/

Wrentham District Court

CHARGES OF POSSESSION OF HEROIN / FENTANYL AND ANABOLIC STEROIDS ARE DISMISSED AGAINST RECOVERING DRUG ADDICT.

 Defendant is a young man who has been struggling with drug addiction since high school. Defendant’s parents obtained a court order under Section 35 to have him involuntarily committed to a hospital due to his severe substance abuse issues. Foxboro Police went to the Defendant’s gym to execute the Section 35 order. When they arrived in the locker room, officers observed the Defendant wiping fresh blood from his forearm. Officers placed him in custody and conducted a pat-frisk finding a bag containing heroin and fentanyl in his pant pocket. Officers searched his gym bag and found anabolic steroids. Defendant was charged in the Wrentham District Court with Possession of Class A Substance (Heroin / Fentanyl) and Possession of Anabolic Steroids under G.L. c. 94C, §34.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to secure a favorable deal from the prosecution called Pretrial Probation. So long as the Defendant passed drug tests and stayed out of trouble, his case would be dismissed. However, Defendant failed two drug tests and the prosecution moved to revoke the deal. Attorney Noonan was able to convince the prosecutor to reinstate the deal and give his client another chance. However, while on pretrial probation, Defendant was arrested in Quincy for Possession of Heroin. As a result, the prosecution revoked the deal and the case was placed back on the trial list. After more than a year of litigation, Attorney Noonan was able to convince the prosecution to give his client one more chance – if he could prove that he had a prolonged period of sobriety and was undergoing drug treatment. The Defendant had undergone opiate treatment with a licensed physician. Through a suboxone treatment program, Defendant was able to stay off heroin, fentanyl and opiates, and he passed drug tests. He re-enrolled in school and he is finishing his final credits to obtain a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering. He got married, purchased a home, and was working two jobs. After considering all the evidence, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the charges, and the Defendant is doing very well.

Brockton District Court

FALSE INSURANCE CLAIM:                              DISMISS

FILING FALSE POLICE REPORT:                    DISMISS

ATTEMPTED LARCENY:                                    DISMISS

After an investigation conducted by the Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts, Defendant was charged with the felony offense of filing a False Motor Vehicle Insurance Claim (G.L. c. 266, §111B), Falsely Reporting a Crime to Police (G.L. c. 269, §13A), and Attempts to Commit the Crime of Larceny (G.L. c. 274, §6). According to the investigation, Defendant falsely reported to the police that, while she was parked in a vehicle, she was struck by another vehicle, which fled the scene. Further, she claimed that she sustained injuries as a result of the hit-and-run accident. She filed a claim with the car insurance company for the injuries she sustained in the car accident. The insurance company conducted an examination of her vehicle, which concluded that the property damage sustained to her vehicle was inconsistent with her report of the incident. Specifically, the vehicle damage showed that her vehicle was traveling, and in motion, when it collided with another vehicle – which was inconsistent with her story that her vehicle was parked at the time she was struck by another vehicle. Further, Defendant was examined under oath by the insurance company and they concluded that her testimony and version of events was inconsistent and not truthful.

Result: After Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was hired by the Defendant, Attorney Noonan got all charges dismissed immediately. Attorney Noonan made arrangements whereby restitution was paid to the insurance company. Attorney Noonan persuaded the prosecutor to dismiss all charges based on the payment of restitution. The client has always worked in the medical field. Currently, she is finishing school to earn a degree in Nursing. A criminal conviction would have prevented her from getting employed as a nurse. This was a great victory for the client, as she will have no guilty finding, conviction, or adverse adjudication against her, and she will be able to pursue her career in nursing.

Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED

STALKING: DISMISSED

VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER: DISMISSED

Defendant is a 26 year-old man with no criminal record, an electrical apprentice, and small business owner. Defendant is a resident of Halifax. He was in a dating relationship with his girlfriend for several years. After she broke up with him, she went to the Pembroke Police Station to report that she had been verbally and physically abused, and stalked by the Defendant. She recounted three instances of disturbing conduct by the Defendant. In the first incident, Defendant showed up to her birthday party, uninvited and unannounced, got into physical fights with her friends, was ejected from the party and the police were called. In the second incident, Defendant showed up to a bar and confronted her, as she was on a date with another guy. She got into her truck to leave, but the Defendant jumped on the back of her truck while yelling and screaming. Defendant slammed the car door on her leg. Defendant pulled her out of the truck and proceeded driving, as she was in the passenger seat screaming. She videotaped the incident and gave it to police. In the third incident, Defendant showed up at her friend’s house, parked outside and waited for her and followed her home and she called 911, but the Defendant fled before police arrived. She also provided police with photographs showing bruises on her as a result of the Defendant slamming a door on her arm. As a result, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with: (1) Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a), (2) Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b), and Stalking pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §43(a). The girlfriend obtained a restraining order against him known as an Abuse Prevention Order under G.L. c. 209A. After she obtained the restraining order, Defendant violated the restraining order on three separate occasions by calling her, texting her, and showing up to her place of work. As a result, Defendant was charged with three counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order pursuant to G.L. c. 209A, §7.

Result: Immediately, Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation to defend his client. He obtained evidence to contest the stalking charges showing that the evidence was insufficient to establish three separate instances of stalking, as required by the stalking statute. The girlfriend claimed that the Defendant stalked her after she broke up with him. However, the defense obtained text messages showing that they were still dating and were very much together and a couple when the alleged incidents of stalking occurred. Although the girlfriend claimed that the police were called to remove the Defendant from her birthday party, the defense obtained evidence showing that nobody ever called the police. To contest the charge of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon charge, Counsel viewed the video of this incident showing that the Defendant never slammed the car door (i.e., dangerous weapon) on her leg, as she claimed. Finally, the defense obtained evidence of prior criminal conduct by the girlfriend to attack her credibility, as well as her efforts to change her name to conceal her criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan came to trial ready to attack the case, but the Commonwealth decided to dismiss all charges.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST MARINE CORP. VETERAN AND REGISTERED NURSE DISMISSED UPON PROOF THAT SHE DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME.

While the Defendant was in a relationship with her boyfriend, her boyfriend placed an advertisement online for the sale of a kitchen table and chair set. An older couple responded to the advertisement, they paid the boyfriend for the furniture and when they arrived to pick up the furniture the boyfriend did not provide the furniture. Defendant had broken up with her boyfriend and she had no knowledge of the incident. The older couple (understandably) was upset because they paid for the furniture and never received it. The older couple filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Larceny under $1,200 by False Pretense pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant did not commit any crime at all – it was her boyfriend who committed the crime. The boyfriend was the person who sold the furniture to the victims, failed to deliver the furniture, and kept the proceeds of the sale. There was no probable cause to charge the Defendant, as she committed no crime.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTIONS FOR BREAKING & ENTERING, MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO A VEHICLE, AND LARCENY. 

The client is a 38 year-old lifelong resident of New Bedford. He has been gainfully employed as a contractor. He has been happily married with three step-children. He even became the legal guardian of his wife’s teenaged son. He is the grandfather of two children. He dropped out of high school, but obtained a G.E.D. at the age of 38. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the police department denied his application because he had been convicted, as a juvenile, of several offenses, including: Breaking & Entering, Malicious Damage to a Vehicle, and Larceny from a Person. Because of his convictions, the client was automatically disqualified from ever obtaining a License to Carry Firearms.

Result: Regarding the conviction for Larceny from a Person, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction on grounds that his prior lawyer was ineffective. Sixteen (16) days after his arraignment, his prior attorney wrongly advised him to plead guilty without conducting any investigation into the case. Attorney Noonan conducted an investigation and found that the evidence was insufficient to charge him with that offense. Specifically, the client was walking with another juvenile on the sidewalk when the other juvenile decided to steal a wallet from an older man who walking on the sidewalk. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence did not establish that the client was an accessory or joint-venturer in the larceny because the client did not participate, in any way, in the larceny. Rather, the evidence merely showed that the Defendant was present when the larceny happened, which is not enough to convict him as an accessory. The Commonwealth reviewed the evidence provided by the defense and decided to vacate and dismiss the charge. After numerous court appearances, Attorney Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to vacate the client’s other convictions, citing the client’s young age at the time of the offenses, and compelling evidence showing that the client completely turned his life around. After the convictions were vacated, the client was able to obtain a License to Carry Firearms.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HVAC WORKER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING IN A CASE INVOLVING A HIGH-SPEED CRASH INTO A TREE.

Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle was operating at a high rate of speed, lost control on the bend of the road, and crashed into a tree causing the vehicle to flip and spin out of control. Police observed serious damage to the Defendant’s vehicle with enough force to completely tear off the right wheel and axel. The Defendant was bleeding from his arm. The officer conducted a crash investigation and determined that the Defendant was negligent and caused the crash due to his excessive speed on a dangerous roadway. The police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint on a charge of Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a), speeding, and marked lanes violation.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was unfamiliar with the roadway and the roadway lacked warnings, signage, and appropriate lighting alerting motorists as to the dangerousness of the curve in the road. Attorney Noonan presented photographs of the roadway showing no lighting, no marked lanes, no speed limit signs, or any warnings signs about the dangerous curve up ahead. These were mitigating circumstances. Defendant admitted that he was operating negligently, but asked the Court to exercise its discretion based on the Defendant’s lack of criminal record, character evidence, history of gainful employment, supporting his family, and the fact that the Defendant was genuinely remorseful for the accident. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the Defendant’s employer showing his excellent driving record. The Defendant took and completed a safe driving course and a Brains at Risk program. After the Clerk’s Hearing, the complaint was dismissed.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR DRUG POSSESSION.

The client is a 39 year-old Brockton resident and a longtime union employee; working as a glass installer for commercial buildings. The client was issued a License to Carry Firearms. However, the client attempted to purchase a firearm, but the gun shop informed him that the sale was denied by the FBI because the client had been convicted in Massachusetts of Unlawful Possession of Class D-Marijuana. Under federal law, a conviction of simple possession of marijuana disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm. Specifically, a person falling into the category of a Federally Prohibited Person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and 18 U.S.C. §922(g) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition, including: Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year – or any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. §802). The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug and a conviction for simple possession of marijuana renders the person a Federally Prohibited Person. The client was convicted in the Quincy District Court for Simple Possession of Class D Substance to wit: Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §34 and the marijuana conviction made him a Federally Prohibited Person rendering him ineligible from purchasing a firearm under federal law. Therefore, the client must have the marijuana conviction vacated.

Result: In the police report, the police stopped the client’s vehicle due to a civil motor vehicle infraction. Defendant was placed under arrest because his driver’s license was suspended. The client told the police that he had some marijuana in a pack of cigarettes and he was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and was later convicted in 2006. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction because the evidence showed that the quantity of marijuana, within the pack of cigarettes, was less than one ounce making this a civil offense under present day Massachusetts law. In 2008, the Massachusetts Legislature decriminalized the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. See G.L. c. 94C, §32L. Attorney Noonan showed that it would be physically impossible to package more than one ounce of marijuana in a pack of cigarettes. Based on the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the conviction was vacated and dismissed.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORM UNTRUTHFULLY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE HIS CLIENT AN LTC AFTER AN APPEAL.

The client is a 55 year-old professional truck driver. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied, because the police department determined that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. The police department alleged that the client was untruthful when answering questions about his criminal history. The police department alleged that the client failed to disclose criminal charges on his criminal record in his application.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the police department’s denial of the client’s application for an LTC arguing that the client did not deliberately conceal his criminal record, but simply misunderstood the question. The client and his wife submitted statements explaining how they misunderstood the question when completing the application. During the appellate proceedings, through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the police department allowed the client to resubmit a new application and to disclose everything pertaining to his criminal record. The client resubmitted a new application and the police department issued him a License to Carry Firearms.

Chicopee District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL AND OBTAINS A COURT ORDER REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS FOR BEING AN UNSUITABLE PERSON.

The client was issued a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions. The Chicopee Police Department suspended his LTC alleging that he was an unsuitable person to possess a license stemming from an incident in which the police were called to his residence. Upon arrival, the client was outside his residence, intoxicated, and he was about to operate his vehicle until police intervened. The client’s wife told the police that the client had been drinking at the casino, was intoxicated, and she was concerned about him driving. The client wanted to take his firearm and leave the house prior to the police being called. The police went into the client’s home to retrieve his firearm while the client remained outside. The firearm was kept in a locked safe. The wife escorted police to the gun safe, she unlocked the safe, and the police seized the firearm. The client’s wife, who did not have an LTC, knew the combination to the gun safe and she was able to access the firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he was an unsuitable person because his wife knew the combination to the gun safe, she was able to access his firearm, and she did not have a gun license, and the police department was concerned that the client was going to access his firearm while intoxicated and drive away while under the influence.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the Chicopee District Court disputing that his client was an unsuitable person. At the hearing, the Judge entered an order reversing the police department’s decision to suspend the LTC. The Court entered an order directing the police department to issue the client a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC ASSAULT AND BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT DISMISSED.

The police were called to the Defendant’s residence in Bridgewater in response to a call from a neighbor reporting loud yelling coming from the Defendant’s apartment. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s husband who stated that the Defendant lunged at him, grabbed his neck and shoved him. Defendant admitted to police that she lunged forward and shoved her husband, but she denied grabbing his neck. The police charged the Defendant with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a). Defendant is a Certified Nursing Assistant with no criminal record.

Result: Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with background information about his client. The client is a 33 year-old woman with no criminal record. She is not a U.S. citizen, but she had a Green Card. She was born in Haiti and immigrated to the U.S. Despite her difficulties in speaking English, she took English language classes and eventually earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing. She worked at a nursing home as a Certified Nursing Assistant. She moved to Georgia where she obtained a job as a patient care technician assisting patients in dialysis treatment. She reconciled with her husband. They lived happily together in Georgia with their new baby. Her husband did not wish to pursue the charges. The husband wished to invoke his marital privilege and refused to testify against his wife. On the day of trial, the case was dismissed.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED.

Client is a 52 year old truck driver and Taunton resident. Police were called to the Defendant’s residence for a reported domestic dispute. Upon arrival, the girlfriend told police that the Defendant became angry, grabbed her by both arms, and shoved her against the wall. The girlfriend showed police bruises to her arms, claiming that the bruises were from his fingertips when grabbing her. Defendant denied the allegations. Defendant was charged in the Taunton District Court with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan scheduled the case for trial and provided the Commonwealth with evidence that the girlfriend was intoxicated and had been drinking liquor while also taking psychiatric medications and the Defendant called the police because she was argumentative. The girlfriend became upset with the Defendant because he called the police on her and she was concerned that she would get into trouble. In fact, the girlfriend never called the police, the defendant did. Defendant contended that the girlfriend made up the allegations because she was upset that the Defendant called the police on her and was worried that she would get into trouble. Defendant contended that the marks on the girlfriend’s arms were old marks that she sustained while performing physical labor at work. The Commonwealth dismissed the case.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS REINSTATED DESPITE SUSPENSION FOR MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF INTOXICATION.

The client is a 54 year-old automobile mechanic and owner of a pet grooming business. Since 1995, the client has been issued a License to Carry Firearms with no incidents. However, the police department suspended his LTC due to multiple incidents occurring at his home. In one incident, the police were called to his home due to a verbal argument with his wife wherein the client became upset and threw a glass fruit bowl. During this incident, the wife told the police that her husband had a drinking problem and he spouts off at the mouth when he’s been drinking. In a second incident, the police were called to the client’s house in response to domestic incident between the client and his adult son, which became physical. Upon arrival, police observed that the client was intoxicated. Witnesses in the home reported that the Defendant had been drinking all day and was causing problems leading to a heated exchange with his adult son. Based on the two incidents, the police department suspended the client’s LTC finding him to be an unsuitable person to possess a firearm.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the district court challenging the suspension. Attorney Noonan and legal counsel for the town engaged in extensive discussions, and Attorney Noonan provided additional information regarding his client’s background and the circumstances surrounding the incidents. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of his client’s successful substance abuse treatment. Through negotiations with town counsel, the police department reconsidered its decision and agreed to grant the client an LTC subject to the completion of certain conditions.

CHARGES OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS, DISTURBING THE PEACE, AND POSSESSION OF FAKE I.D. AGAINST RECENT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE AND MILITARY APPLICANT DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Police received several reports of loud fireworks being lit off from a parking lot at 3:00 a.m. in Cape Cod. Witnesses called reporting that they were all woken up around 3:00 a.m. by the sound of many fireworks. Upon arrival, police observed a male, holding something in his hand, walking away from the parking lot and jogging away from police. Police approached the Defendant who was concealing fireworks. Defendant produced three Roman candle fireworks. He admitted to setting off the fireworks. Upon a pat-frisk search of the Defendant, police recovered additional fireworks. Officer asked the Defendant for identification and the Defendant produced a fake ID. Upon examination of the identification, police determined that it had been forged. As a result, the police sought criminal complaints against the Defendant for Unlawful Possession of Fireworks pursuant to G.L. c. 148, §39, Disturbing the Peace pursuant to G.L. c. 272, §53, and Possession of a Forged RMV Document pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24B.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. The client is 19 years old. He had no criminal record. He was a recent high school graduate and member of the National Honor Society. He was the captain of the varsity hockey team. He scored very high on the SAT. He was offered college scholarships to play hockey. The client started the process of enlisting in the military. The client is a young man with his whole life ahead of him and a lot on the horizon. He was young and made a mistake. It was an isolated incident. Criminal charges on his criminal record would adversely affect his ability to enlist in the military. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all charges dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate saving this young man from having a criminal record.

CHARGE OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENT DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING AS A RESULT OF ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION. 

Easton Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident wherein the Defendant’s vehicle allegedly fled the scene. Upon arrival, police observed extensive damage to the other vehicle, and the other operator stated that the Defendant fled the scene. Other witnesses reported that the Defendant fled the scene. Police were provided with the license plate of the fleeing vehicle, and responded to the Defendant’s home where he was living with his mother. The Defendant denied causing the accident, and officers did not believe him. Defendant stated that he fled the scene because he didn’t know what to do. As a result, the Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. He presented evidence that the victim’s vehicle damage had been paid by insurance, and that the Defendant completed Safe Driving Courses. Defendant was a juvenile with no criminal record. He is a junior in high school with a great G.P.A., and he is a standout athlete on the varsity hockey team. Attorney Noonan presented character evidence. Attorney Noonan argued that his client, a young kid, was scared after the accident and went directly to his home, only two-miles away, where he told his parents what happened. Defendant and his mother were planning on returning to the scene to exchange information with the other driver, but the police had arrived to their home before they could do so. As the criminal complaint was dismissed, Defendant will have no record. He is planning on attending college.

Ayer District Court

IN A CASE FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE POLICE WITH VALID CONSENT TO SEARCH HER HOME BASED ON EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DEFENDANT’S LANGUAGE BARRIERS.

Police were dispatched to the Weston Academy High School for a report that a student sent text messages to other students with pictures of a firearm while making suicidal statements. The student admitted to the police that he sent the text messages. The student told police that he took the firearm from his parents and sent pictures of the firearm to his friends. The student told the police that the firearm was currently located in his bedroom at his parents’ home in Westford. Police went to the student’s home where they encountered his mother (defendant) in the driveway. The police showed the mother a Consent to Search Form and they asked her to sign the form giving her consent to allow the police to search her home. After she signed the Consent Form, police searched the home and found the firearm in the son’s bedroom closet. The police proceeded to search the entire home where they recovered additional firearms and ammunition – none of which were properly stored or secured, including an AR-15 assault rifle. As a result of home search, the mother and father were charged with Possession of a Large Capacity Firearm and Possession of a Large Capacity Feeding Device pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(m), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. Card pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1) and Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L. The mother and father were not U.S. citizens and they faced possible deportation if convicted.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained an expert witness specializing in English Language Proficiency. The expert interviewed the mother and performed a number of tests to determine her English proficiency, including her ability to speak, read, comprehend, and understand English. The parents were from China and moved to the U.S. four years prior to this incident. The expert determined that the mother met the definition of an LEP (Limited English Proficiency Person), which is defined as an individual who does not speak English as their primary language and who has limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. The expert administered a Basic English Skills Test and a Reading Comprehension Test and testified regarding the results. The expert went through the Consent to Search Form signed by the Defendant. The expert determined that the Defendant could not understand the majority of the words on the Consent Form, including: waive, search warrant, constitutional, right, refuse, and voluntary. The expert provided his expert opinion that the Defendant was incapable of reading and understanding the Consent Form. Through cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the officer did not read or explain the Consent Form to the Defendant, but merely asked her to sign the form and she acquiesced and signed the form, as she was told. The Court agreed with the Noonan Defense Team and determined that the Defendant was unable to provide valid consent for the search of her home, and the Court suppressed all evidence (all firearms and ammunition) obtained as a result of the search of the home. As a result of the suppressed evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case. The case was featured in a publication of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AGAINST SHEET METAL WORKER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

Police received a report that an adult male, parked in a vehicle in the school parking lot, was in possession of a firearm. A teacher observed that the Defendant had a firearm tucked in his waistband, which became visible when the Defendant was rummaging through tools in the back of his truck. The Defendant was parked in the student pick-up line waiting to pick his daughter up from school. Police arrived and spoke with the Defendant, as he was parked in the student pick-up line. Defendant was polite and cooperative. Defendant had a valid License to Carry Firearms. He admitted to the police that he had a firearm on his person. He apologized and stated that he was unaware of the regulation around a firearm on school grounds. The police seized his firearm and filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for the offense of Carrying a Dangerous Weapon on School Grounds pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(j).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing resulting in no criminal charges against the client. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant had his firearm holstered on his waistband and he never intended to exit his vehicle, or walk on school grounds, while picking up his daughter at school. Defendant briefly exited his vehicle to rearrange tools in the back of his vehicle when the firearm on his waistband became visible. Defendant was extremely apologetic and cooperative. Attorney Noonan showed that this was a simple mistake with no criminal intentions. Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client is a 53 year-old man with no criminal record who has never been in any trouble in his life. For 34 years, he has worked as a union sheet metal worker. Attorney Noonan presented letters from several persons attesting to the Defendant’s character. After hearing Attorney Noonan’s evidence and arguments, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint and the client was never charged with a crime. Additionally, the client’s License to Carry Firearms was not suspended.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN JURY TRIAL FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

The Defendant, a Brockton resident, received a phone call from her boyfriend who was in custody at the police station in Middleboro following his arrest for drunk driving. She was asked to come to the police station to bail him out. When she arrived to the police station to bail out her boyfriend, the police immediately suspected that she was under the influence of alcohol. They asked whether she had been drinking, and she admitted to consuming two beers several hours ago. While in the front lobby, the police officer testified that he was immediately overwhelmed by the odor of alcohol flooding the lobby. The Trooper testified that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy. The Trooper testified that the Defendant was argumentative and uncooperative. She stated that she knew a State Trooper and implied that they should let her go. She stated that she would agree not to drive a car. At trial, the Trooper testified that she was drunk. After a vigorous and effective cross-examination of the State Trooper by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict within 10 minutes.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS SUSPENDED FOR IMPROPERLY STORING AND LOSING HIS FIREARM, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS BACK HIS CLIENT’S LTC.

The client is 46 years-old and a resident of Fall River. He married his high school sweetheart and they have two children. He works as a commercial truck driver. His LTC was suspended because he reported his firearm as missing. He stated that he brought his firearm with him to the bank, as he was withdrawing a large sum of money for a down payment on his home, and he left the firearm in his glove compartment while he was inside the bank. When he left the firearm inside the glove compartment, he affixed a lock on the firearm. He was in the process of moving and forgot that his firearm was in the glove compartment. When he went to retrieve his firearm from the glove compartment, he noticed that it was missing, and he contacted the police department to report the disappearance of his firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he failed to store his firearm properly as required by G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the suspension of the LTC and presented evidence that his client stored his firearm in his glove compartment properly by using a “tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device,” which is recognized as a proper means to secure a firearm under the statute (G.L. c. 140, §131L.) The client purchased a Ruger lock for his Ruger firearm. He used the Ruger lock to lock his firearm by removing the magazine and fitting the lock through the empty magazine and empty chamber. Attorney Noonan argued that the Ruger lock was sufficient because it rendered the firearm inoperable by an unauthorized user. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the firearm was outside the client’s control for a short period of time and he immediately reported it missing to the police as soon as he discovered its disappearance. Through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the suspension status was removed from the database.

Brockton District Court

CHARGE OF MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM COMMITTED A CRIME BY ILLEGALLY RECORDING A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT.

The alleged victim called the police to report that the Defendant damaged her car; scratching the car and carving a derogatory word on the car. Police came to the scene and observed the damage. The alleged victim reported to the police that she (alleged victim) had audiotaped a telephone conversation wherein the Defendant admitted to damaging the car. In the recording, the Defendant does not actually admit to causing the damage. Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Malicious Damage to a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §28(a).

Result: Based on the alleged victim’s report to the police in which she stated that she recorded her telephone conversation with the Defendant, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought a criminal complaint against the alleged victim for violating the Wiretapping Statute [under G.L. c. 272, §99], which strictly prohibits the secret electronic recording by a private individual of any oral communication. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the prosecutor that if the alleged victim testifies, she would incriminate herself for violating the wiretapping the statute. After consulting with the alleged victim, the prosecutor stated that the alleged victim would not take the witness stand and the case was dismissed.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN 2ND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, as he had been previously convicted of drunk driving. Defendant was also charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). With a second offense OUI, Defendant was facing stiff penalties, including a two-year suspension of her driver’s license. In this case, Defendant refused the Breathalyzer test. She had previously refused the Breathalyzer test in her prior OUI case, and her driver’s license was suspended for three-years. A Raynham Police Officer was stationed on Route 44 when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling on Route 44 and the Defendant abruptly swerved over a raised median and did a U-turn on Route 44 and started heading in the opposite direction. While following the Defendant, he observed that she grazed construction barrels and swerved over the fog line multiple times. The officer activated his lights to affect a stop, but the Defendant continued driving and got onto the Route 24 onramp. After a quarter-mile, Defendant finally pulled over. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was slurred and she stated that she was coming from “West Bridgewater” and she was going to “West Bridgewater.” Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. She admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. The officer administered a Field Sobriety test known as the One-Leg Stand; the Defendant attempted to perform the test, but later stated that she did not want to perform any tests and she stopped. The officer testified that the Defendant was extremely argumentative, she was swearing at him, and calling him names. During the booking process, Defendant was asked to remove her earrings, which she did. Later on, Defendant did not remember removing her earrings. The officer formed the opinion that she was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to exclude from evidence the fact that the Defendant was instructed to perform the One Leg Stand Test; the Defendant attempted the test, and later stopped performing the test and refused any other tests. Therefore, no evidence was presented at trial regarding any Field Sobriety Tests. Attorney Noonan conducted an effective cross-examination of the police officer and requested a Not Guilty verdict from the Judge. The Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. On the Negligent Operation charge, Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a disposition not resulting in a conviction. After the acquittal, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order to restore her driver’s license. She had been without a driver’s license since her arrest.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST MECHANICAL ENGINEER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Police were dispatched to the scene of an accident in which the client’s vehicle struck a telephone pole. The officer observed that the client’s pupils were constricted, his speech was thick and slow, and his responses were delayed. Defendant admitted to taking Lorazepam and other medications for his anxiety. The client was unsteady on his feet. Two witnesses told police that the Defendant’s vehicle was swerving over the double yellow line several times before swerving into the telephone pole without ever coming to a stop. Police noted that the client has a history of incidents involving prescription medications and alcohol abuse. Client’s wife told the police that he was recently discharged from the hospital and he had recently made suicidal statements. Defendant was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client took a safe driving course and another course known as Brains at Risk. Attorney referenced the client’s impressive resume as a mechanical engineer and his clean driving record. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the client was legally prescribed anxiety medication and he had taken the medication in the proper dosage.

Taunton District Court

CHARGES OF ASSAULT AND MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AGAINST 18 YEAR OLD DEFENDANT DISMISSED UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Defendant is an 18 year-old kid with no prior criminal record. He was residing with his girlfriend, at her parents’ home, when they had an argument and he left the home. The police were called to the girlfriends home in response to a call that the Defendant kicked the front door of the home, and punched a car in the driveway; damaging the property. Defendant was yelling and screaming while causing the property damage. The girlfriend provided police with text messages from the Defendant in which he expressed suicidal ideations. The police located the Defendant; the police sectioned him and brought him to the hospital for treatment. Defendant was charged with Assault on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Malicious Destruction of Property under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested a bench trial. At the first scheduled bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready to prosecute, Attorney Noonan asked for the case to be dismissed, the Commonwealth objected, but the court granted a continuance. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth offered a deal which would require the Defendant to admit guilt, which the Defendant declined. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready, and Attorney Noonan again asked for a dismissal, which the Court denied. Attorney Noonan persuaded the Court to schedule the trial to be heard later in the day. At the second calling of the case, the Commonwealth was unable to go forward and Attorney Noonan’s third request for a dismissal was allowed.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST U.S. POSTAL WORKER FOR THREATENING TO SHOOT HIS GIRLFRIEND’S FATHER DISMISSED AT A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.

The parents of the Defendant’s girlfriend did not like him. The parents believed that the Defendant was abusive to their daughter. The parents claimed that the Defendant beat their daughter with a phone charger. The father went to the Defendant’s home to confront him. The father observed a firearm on the kitchen counter. The father alleged that the Defendant threatened to shoot him with the firearm on the kitchen counter. The father claimed that the Defendant threatened him should the father call the police. As a result, the police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for two counts of Threats to Commit a Crime pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing. The girlfriend’s parents wanted the Defendant charged with the crimes. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the parents’ belief that the Defendant was abusive to their daughter was unfounded. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the girlfriend that the Defendant was never abusive towards her – seriously undermining the abuse complaints by her parents. The parents had an axe to grind against the Defendant. They did not like him and they did not want him dating their daughter and they had a strong motive to have the Defendant charged with a crime. Attorney Noonan attacked the credibility of the parents, and showed that the Defendant never abused their daughter, contrary to their claims. After a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, the complaint was dismissed.

CHARGE OF NEGLIENT OPERATION AND UNLICENSED OPERATION STEMMING FROM ROLL-OVER CRASH ON ROUTE 495 DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Police were dispatched to the scene of a roll-over crash on Route 495. Witnesses called 911 to report that the client’s vehicle was driving erratically, the vehicle lost control, rolling three times, and striking the guardrail. The client told the police that he had a mechanical issue with his vehicle. The client had an expired driver’s license and his vehicle was not inspected. The client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §10), No Inspection Sticker (G.L. c. 90, §20B), and Marked Lanes Violation (G.L. c. 89, §4A). The Defendant was scheduled to be arraigned on the criminal charges in the District Court:

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to dismiss the criminal complaints prior to the Defendant’s arraignment saving his client from having a criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing prior to an arraignment on the charges. When a criminal complaint is dismissed prior to arraignment, and where a criminal complaint is dismissed prior to arraignment at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, the client is not formally charged with a crime and the client will not have a criminal record.

CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST GOVERNMENT WORKER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Fall River Police were dispatched for a report of a stolen firearm. Upon arrival, Police spoke with the Defendant, who was distraught, and he reported that his firearm was missing from his vehicle. Defendant stated that he had his firearm in his vehicle and placed it in his center console while doing Christmas shopping. When he returned home from shopping, he could not locate his firearm in his vehicle, so he reported the missing firearm to police. As a result, Defendant was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk Magistrate Hearing. Defendant has no criminal record and he has been employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for many years. Defendant and his wife are both social workers. Attorney Noonan presented six letters attesting to the Defendant’s character. The client has had a License to Carry Firearms for many years and has always been a responsible gun-owner. In this case, the Defendant made a mistake by leaving his firearm unattended in his vehicle for a short period of time, but he reported the disappearance of the firearm immediately upon his discovery. Although there may have been probable cause to support the criminal charge, the Clerk-Magistrate agreed with Attorney Noonan’s request to dismiss the charge.

Hingham District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS IN HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE IS ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE. 

In a case publicized in the media, the Defendant was arrested and charged with Trafficking of a Person for Sexual Servitude pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §50(a). Defendant (along with four other Defendants) was arrested for Sex Trafficking in connection with an undercover investigation wherein police posted an advertisement online advertising sexual services in exchange for money. Allegedly, Defendant responded to the advertisement by contacting the phone number listed in the advertisement and exchanged text messages with an undercover officer (posing as a prostitute) and the Defendant offered money in exchange for sex acts. Defendant agreed to meet the undercover officer at a hotel room for the exchange. Upon arrival to the hotel room, Defendant was arrested. Four other Defendants were also charged for responding to the same advertisement, agreeing to an exchange of sex for money, and showing up to the hotel.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Sex Trafficking in the Hingham District Court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause to support that charge. The Commonwealth objected to a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss in the District Court, as they were planning on indicting all Defendants in the Superior Court. Attorney Noonan insisted on having a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Noonan researched the case-law and Legislative intent behind the Sex Trafficking statute and argued that the Sex Trafficking statute was entirely inapplicable to the facts of this case. The District Court Judge agreed and allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss. The charge was dismissed in the District Court for lack of probable cause. Subsequently, the Commonwealth indicted all Defendants in the Superior Court. In Superior Court, Attorney Noonan intends to file another Motion to Dismiss for lack of probable cause.

Taunton District Court

SECOND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CHARGE AGAINST COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN ARGUED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.

Defendant has been a longtime commercial truck driver. He resides in North Carolina. He is a long haul commercial truck driver, driving an 18-wheeler, transporting items for Amazon. He hauls throughout the United States. In this case, Defendant was driving across country to deliver items to Massachusetts. He pulled into a parking lot in Easton, Massachusetts. While attempting to park his tractor-trailer, he struck a parked car. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant and they detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant refused any field sobriety tests and was arrested. He refused the Breathalyzer test resulting in serious consequences for a commercial truck driver. He had an old drunk driving charge in North Carolina, but was not convicted. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). As a commercial truck driver, his entire livelihood was at stake. If convicted, he would undoubtedly lose his commercial driver’s license and was facing the possibility of a lifetime suspension of his commercial driver’s license.

Result: On the day of the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the Commonwealth of his intention to introduce a video of the Defendant’s booking at the police department. The booking video was exculpatory, as it showed that the Defendant did not exhibit any signs of intoxication or impairment. The evidence of intoxication was very slim. The only sign suggestive of intoxication was an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath, and nothing more. Attorney Noonan discussed the weakness of the case with the Commonwealth and argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to meet its burden to obtain a conviction at trial. The Commonwealth reviewed the booking video, interviewed witnesses, and evaluated the case, and agreed that it would have considerable difficulty proving this case at trial. All charges were dismissed at trial.

A POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO INTOXICATION AND SUICIDAL THREATS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS BACK HIS LTC.

The client was a police officer. His License to Carry Firearms (LTC) was suspended due to an incident wherein the client’s wife called the police to report that the client was intoxicated and threatened to shoot himself. Police located the client and brought him to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. As a result of this incident, the client’s LTC was suspended and he was forced to resign from his position as a full-time police officer. The LTC suspension, if upheld, would ruin his career in law enforcement. The client requested that the police department reinstate his LTC, but the police department denied the request and they were standing by their decision. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in hopes of getting his LTC back and resuming his career in law enforcement.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan started building a case to get his client’s LTC back. First, Attorney Noonan retained a highly reputable and credible psychiatrist to review all the records and to conduct an evaluation of the client. The psychiatrist reviewed all the pertinent records, including the police report concerning the incident resulting in the suspension and the medical records regarding the client’s hospitalization. After reviewing the records and evaluating the client, the psychiatrist formed an opinion that the client does not suffer from any substance abuse or mental health disorders and the client does not pose any danger is issued an LTC. Second, upon further investigation, the wife’s report to the police showed that the client did not actually threaten to shoot himself. Third, Attorney Noonan provided all information regarding the client’s personal background and career in law enforcement and security. After reviewing the materials provided by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the police department reconsidered its decision and issued the client an LTC. The client can now resume his career in law enforcement.

New Bedford District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SEX FOR A FEE CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN DISMISSED.

Defendant is a 27-year-old man from New Bedford with no criminal record. He has been employed as a Union electrician for several years. He is married. He has six children. Police were conducting surveillance in an area known for prostitution. Police observed a woman walking up and down the sidewalk when a vehicle (operated by the Defendant) pulled up to her, they engaged in a brief conversation, she entered the Defendant’s vehicle, and drove away. Police followed the vehicle, which parked a short distance away. Police approached the vehicle where they observed the Defendant with his pants down and the woman motioning into his lap. Defendant was ordered to exit the vehicle and he admitted to police that he paid the woman for oral sex in exchange for several cartons of cigarettes.

Result: The client, who had no criminal record at all, was so distraught over the incident that he required psychiatric treatment at a hospital and follow-up treatment with a therapist and was prescribed medication for severe depression over the incident. On the second court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the case dismissed.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR BEING UNTRUTHFUL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE HIS CLIENT AN LTC.

Client is a retired 65 years-old resident of Rehoboth. He applied for a License to Carry Firearms (LTC), which was denied because the police department determined that the client was untruthful about disclosing his criminal history in the application process.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the denial in the District Court. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client did not deliberately conceal his criminal history. Rather, the client disclosed that he had been arrested in the past, but he could not recall the specifics about his prior criminal cases because they were very old. In particular, the client had been arrested for minor offenses; some offenses dating back over 40 years ago. Prior to submitting his application, the client did not obtain his criminal record making it very difficult to recall specific information about his old, prior criminal cases. After negotiations with legal counsel for the town, the police department reconsidered its decision and allowed the client to submit a new application. Attorney Noonan assisted the client in filling out the application to make sure the information was accurate. This time, we obtained his criminal record and accurately disclosed all the information regarding his prior cases. After reviewing the new application, the police department issued the client an LTC.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTIONS FOR RECEIVING A STOLEN VEHICLE, MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, AND ATTEMPTED ESCAPE AGAINST 47 YEAR-OLD PLUMBER.

The client is a 47 year-old with no adult record of convictions and a resident of Cape Cod. He has been happily married for 20 years. For over 25 years, client has been a licensed union Plumber. He has been recognized for his volunteer charitable activities. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied because he had been convicted as a juvenile for the following offenses: Receiving a Stolen Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §28, Malicious Destruction of Property pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127, and Attempted Escape pursuant to G.L. c. 268, §16. Because of his juvenile convictions, client was automatically disqualified from obtaining a License to Carry Firearms. Therefore, he needed to have all his juvenile convictions vacated, so he called Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the client’s juvenile convictions. Attorney Noonan argued that the offenses occurred a long time ago (approximately 32 years ago) when the client was at the tender age of 15 years old. Attorney Noonan cited research dealing with the development of the juvenile brain substantially affecting the child’s reasoning and judgment. At the tender age of 15, the client should have been treated as a child in need of rehabilitation instead of being treated as a criminal and punished. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client is now 47 years-old, happily married, a Union Plumber of 25 years, and has never been in any trouble since his youthful mistakes occurring over 30 years ago. The Commonwealth agreed that the client’s juvenile convictions should be vacated in the interests of justice. All convictions were vacated and all charges were dismissed. The client is now eligible to apply for an LTC.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST FED-EX DRIVER DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.

Police were dispatched in response to a call that a Fed-Ex truck had struck a fire hydrant and left the area. A witness told the police that she took a photo of the Fed-Ex truck, as he left the scene of the accident. The officer observed that the fire hydrant was cracked and a valve had broken off. Police queried the license plate and spoke with the business owning the truck. Police spoke with the Defendant who admitted to striking the fire hydrant. As a result of the incident, police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Leaving the Scene of an Accident Causing Property Damage pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the client immediately reported the accident to his manager who instructed him to continue making his deliveries. His manager informed him that the business would report the accident to the police. The client relied on the representations of his employer and did not report the accident to police because he had been told that the business would report the accident. His manager told the police that he advised the Defendant to continue with his deliveries. The manager told the Defendant that the company would pay for the damage to the fire hydrant. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of his client’s stellar driving record, as well as character letters from his employer describing him as a hard-working and trustworthy employee. As the client was a professional delivery driver, a criminal complaint for Leaving the Scene of an Accident would potentially ruin his career. However, Attorney Noonan was able to ensure that no criminal charges issued and his driving record remained intact and he was able to continue his employment as a professional delivery driver.

New Bedford District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL IS ALLOWED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THE POLICE VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S STATUTORY RIGHT TO A BAIL HEARING.

The Dartmouth Police Department arrested and charged the Defendant with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1); this being his second offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Defendant’s statutory right to an out-of-court bail hearing under G.L. c. 276, §58 was violated because the Defendant was unreasonably and unnecessarily held in custody for an excessive amount of time without ever being provided the opportunity to be bailed out by a Bail Clerk. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence showing that the Defendant was held in custody for approximately 11 hours without ever being afforded the opportunity to be bailed out and released from custody by a Bail Clerk. The Court agreed and dismissed the criminal complaint. The client was a long-time commercial truck driver.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR FELONY DRUG OFFENSE AGAINST ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

Defendant is a 39 year-old man and aspiring police officer. Defendant took the civil service exam to become a police officer and scored very high on the exams. However, Defendant’s ability to become a police officer was adversely affected by an old felony conviction for Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §32C. Defendant’s prior attorney did not conduct an investigation or challenge the case, but advised his client to plead guilty to the felony offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the conviction. When the Defendant was 18 years-old, he was a student at Brockton High School. An undisclosed source reported to the school that one of four students sitting at a table in the cafeteria was in possession of marijuana. Defendant, one of those students sitting at the table, was searched. In his book-bag, there was marijuana. A search of his car was performed where additional marijuana was found. In total, the school recovered 17 bags containing marijuana and $400 in cash. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s prior attorney was ineffective in failing to file a Motion to Suppress Evidence to challenge the lawfulness of the search of the Defendant’s person, his book-bag, and automobile. Defendant introduced evidence that he never distributed or sold marijuana to anybody. The $400 in cash was not the proceeds of drug sales, but was earned by two jobs the Defendant was working. A witness who attended Brockton High School with the Defendant, and has known him for 25 years, attested to the fact that the Defendant never sold marijuana. The marijuana in the Defendant’s possession was not intended for any distribution, but was for the Defendant’s personal use. Based on all the evidence presented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the Court vacated the Defendant’s conviction in the interests of justice.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY IN TRIAL FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

The Easton Police were dispatched to the scene of a car accident. Upon arrival, police observed a traffic pole in the middle of an intersection. When speaking with the Defendant, he admitted that he was distracted and struck the traffic pole. The pole was knocked down and dragged into the middle of the intersection. Police took photographs of the Defendant’s vehicle showing damage caused by the collision with the traffic pole. Officers detected an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. Defendant admitted that he had consumed one beer. Defendant failed the field sobriety tests administered to him, including the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One-Leg Stand. A booking photo was introduced showing that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. In the Defendant’s vehicle, officers observed nip liquor bottles. At the police station, Defendant was administered a Breathalyzer test showing a blood-alcohol-concentration of 0.09%, over the legal limit of 0.08%. At trial, the officer testified that the Defendant, in his opinion, was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s testimony concerning the Defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests because the Defendant admitted that he was very anxious when performing the tests, and the Defendant weighed 300 lbs., factors unrelated to alcohol use, which can explain his poor performance. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant did not have any slurred speech and the officer was able to understand everything the Defendant was saying without any difficulty. Upon his arrival, the officer observed the Defendant safely pull into a parking lot and park his vehicle. Defendant did not attempt to flee the scene. The officer observed that the Defendant did not have any difficulty or any unsteadiness when he exited his vehicle. Attorney Noonan highlighted exculpatory portions of the booking video showing that the Defendant did not exhibit certain signs of impairment. After the trial, the Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. Unfortunately, the Judge found the Defendant guilty of Negligent Operation where the Defendant admittedly was negligent in striking the traffic pole. The client’s License to Carry Firearms was suspended due to this arrest. However, after his acquittal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s LTC reinstated.

Plymouth District Court

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES DISMISSED UPON EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAD A 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.

Defendant’s longtime girlfriend called the police reporting that the Defendant physically assaulted her by punching her in the face multiple times. On the 911 call, the girlfriend was highly emotional, crying, and hysterical. She stated that the Defendant fled the home in his car. Upon arrival to the home, the girlfriend told the police that the Defendant pushed her into a wall. Police took photographs of a damaged wall. The girlfriend had an abrasion with dried blood on her elbow, but she did not have any marks to her face. Police located the Defendant at his place of work. Defendant stated that he never punched or struck his girlfriend. In fact, the girlfriend assaulted him, and he pushed her while attempting to escape from her. The girlfriend admitted that she pushed the Defendant first. The Defendant had visible injuries corroborating his claim that the girlfriend attacked him. Police took photos of the Defendant showing scratches on his chest, arms, neck, and back. Based on the statements of the girlfriend, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately scheduled the case for a bench trial. Attorney Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice of his intent to raise self-defense and to introduce evidence that the girlfriend was the initial aggressor. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim would incriminate herself were she to testify at trial because the evidence showed that she attacked the Defendant and inflicted injuries to his body, as evidenced by the injuries to the Defendant depicted in the photos. On the day of the bench trial, the Commonwealth dismissed all charges.

COLLEGE STUDENT INVESTIGATED FOR VIDEOTAPING ANOTHER STUDENT IN THE BATHROOM RETAINS THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE FILED.

A College student was being investigated by university police for allegedly videotaping another student using the bathroom in a campus building. University Police obtained a search warrant for the client’s cell phone. Police obtained evidence showing, in their opinion, that the Defendant was in the building where the incident occurred during the time of the incident. Police contacted the Defendant and requested that he come into the police station for an interview. The client contacted the Noonan Defense Team. After dealing with the investigator on the case, no criminal charges were brought against our client.

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST COLLEGE FRESHMAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION.

Quincy Police were dispatched to Walmart for a shoplifting incident by an employee, the Defendant who admitted to the police that he had stolen various items. It was alleged that the Defendant, and other employees, were part of a scheme of stealing and hiding items. As a result, Defendant was charged with Larceny under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30C.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client should have been charged as a juvenile, as he was under the age of 18 at the time of the offenses. The client graduated from high school with a great G.P.A. and was a member of the Chess Team and was on the varsity Track Team. Defendant is presently a freshman in college majoring in Computer Technology. He also obtained his real estate license and worked for a real estate agency while attending college, which he used to pay his tuition. Evidence showed that the other employees were more culpable in the thefts. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing, and his client will have no criminal record, as a criminal record would have seriously affected this young man’s life.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST ENGINEER DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION.

Abington Police were dispatched to a residence for a reported domestic violence incident. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s wife who alleged that the Defendant punched her in the face. Police observed an open wound to the alleged victim’s eyes, and observed that she was visibly upset and crying. Photographs were taken of the injuries to the alleged victim’s face. As a result, Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing where Attorney Noonan asserted that the alleged victim had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and that she would be invoking her Marital Privilege by refusing to testify against her husband at trial. Attorney Noonan argued that, without the alleged victim’s testimony, there was insufficient evidence to prove that his client committed the Assault and Battery. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed as a Distribution Manager with a career goal of obtaining a professional engineering license. The issuance of a criminal complaint would have affected the Defendant’s ability to obtain a professional engineering license, and his ability to obtain future employment, all necessary to support his wife and two children. Attorney Noonan presented numerous character letters. After considering all the evidence, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.