Mass. Appeals Court

Docket No.: 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2023)

Commonwealth v. C.M.

APPEALS COURT AGREES WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN THAT A NEW HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE.

Defendant, represented by prior counsel, was charged with two-counts of Assault & Battery stemming from two separate incidents in which his ex-wife accused of him physically assaulting her. The case was scheduled for trial. On the advice of his prior attorney, Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to two years of probation with the condition to complete the batterer’s program. Defendant instantly regretted pleading guilty and admitting to the allegations that he physically assaulted his ex-wife. While represented by new counsel, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, Defendant alleged that his prior attorney made certain representations to him, which caused him to plead guilty. The issue was whether the prior attorney’s representation to the Defendant amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, which would invalidate the Defendant’s plea. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Pleas and requested a new trial, which was denied by the plea judge. Attorney Noonan appealed the plea judge’s decision to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, who found that it was error to deny the Defendant’s motion. The Appeals Court vacated the denial of the Defendant’s motion and ordered a new hearing in the District Court to determine whether prior counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. It is important to note that the Defendant has not yet proven that prior counsel was ineffective, but the Appeals Court found that the Defendant raised enough of an argument to mandate an evidentiary hearing, with testimony, to determine whether prior counsel was, in fact, ineffective..

Commissioner of Probation

CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL CONDUCT FOR A FEE IS SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD. 

In 2009, the client pled guilty to the offense of Sex for a Fee (G.L. c. 272, §53A). The client was placed on probation for one-year. The client contacted the Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan to have this criminal conviction sealed from his record. Our office was successful in sealing this criminal conviction from our client’s record.

Plymouth Superior Court

CLIENT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL OF RAPE AND INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. 

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at a trial in the Plymouth Superior Court on indictments charging him with Rape of Child and Indecent Assault & Battery. The jury found the Defendant guilty on all charges. One-week after the guilty verdict, Attorney Noonan came into possession of newly discovered evidence and immediately filed a Motion for New Trial. Attorney Noonan argued that the newly discovered evidence casts serious doubt on the justice of the conviction and this newly discovered evidence would have played a real factor in the jury’s deliberations. After a hearing, the trial judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and granted the Defendant a new trial. Attorney Noonan was able to secure his client’s release pending his new trial.

Taunton District Court

FIREFIGHTER PLEADS GUILTY TO ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT MADE INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY.

In 2018, Defendant pled guilty to two-counts of Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M. As a result of his guilty plea, the Defendant lost his job as a firefighter. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan for the purpose of withdrawing his plea, vacating his conviction, and awarding him a trial. Attorney Noonan interviewed the Defendant regarding his decision to plead guilty, and obtained a transcript of the plea hearing. Whenever a Defendant enters a plea of guilty, the judge is required to follow certain rules to ensure that the Defendant’s plea is made intelligently and voluntarily. After thoroughly reviewing the transcript of the plea hearing, Attorney Noonan believed that the judge did not follow the proper procedure in conducting the plea. The prosecution argued that the plea hearing was properly conducted. After a hearing, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the plea hearing was not conducted properly, and the court vacated the convictions. The Defendant is now entitled to a trial.

Stoughton District Court

IN 2013, DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA ON A CHARGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A BREATHALYZER TEST. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WON A NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE ONGOING LITIGATION REGARDING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF BREATHALYZER TESTS AND THE MISCONDUCT BY THE OFFICE OF ALCOHOL TESTING. AT THE NEW TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES.

In 2012, Defendant was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Liquor. At the police station, Defendant consented to a Breathalyzer test, which produced results showing that the Defendant’s blood-alcohol-concentration was 0.14%, over the legal limit. Defendant felt that he would be found guilty at trial based on the results of the Breathalyzer test showing that he was well-above the legal limit. Defendant felt that a trial was a lost cause because the Breathalyzer results would most definitely result in his conviction. The Breathalyzer test was the biggest factor in the Defendant’s decision to enter a plea. There has been a lot of litigation in Massachusetts regarding the scientific reliability of Breathalyzer tests. Further, as part of this ongoing litigation, it was discovered that the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence regarding Breathalyzer tests from defendants and their attorneys. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Plea and for New Trial on the basis that the client’s decision to enter his plea was primarily due to the results of the Breathalyzer tests, but the client was unaware (at the time of his plea) that the results of his Breathalyzer test were inadmissible as being scientifically unreliable and the client was unaware of the extensive misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing. The client’s plea and conviction were vacated, and the case will now be proceeding to trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at his new trial on charges of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation and won not guilty verdicts.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR LARCENY CHARGES DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

The client is a 26 year-old woman with no criminal record. It was alleged that she had taken three American Eagle packages that were delivered to an apartment complex, addressed to another resident of the apartment building. Upon investigation, the client admitted to the police that she had stolen the packages. The client was charged with the felony offense of Larceny from Building (G.L. c. 266, §20) and misdemeanor Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30).Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to convince the prosecutor’s office to grant his client Pretrial Diversion, something the Commonwealth will only do in special circumstances. With Pretrial Diversion, the Defendant is not arraigned on the offenses. With an arraignment, the charges are entered onto the client’s criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in postponing the arraignment and, if the client satisfied certain terms and conditions, the prosecutor’s office would dismiss the charges prior to arraignment. The client fulfilled all the terms and conditions, and the charges were dismissed prior to arraignment. Therefore, this 26 year-old, new mother, health-care worker, and person with no prior criminal record, will not have any criminal charges on her record.

New Bedford District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ELECTRICIAN FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Defendant, an electrician, was operating his vehicle when he was involved in a single-car accident in which his vehicle struck a curb and striking a street light, knocking over the street light. The officer believed that the client was operating at a high rate of speed and lost control over his vehicle. The officer found that the road conditions did not contribute to the accident. At the scene, the client could not recall how the accident happened. The client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The client’s case was scheduled for an arraignment. With an arraignment, the criminal charge would be entered onto the client’s criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, saving him from having a criminal record.

Brockton District Court

CRIMINAL CHARGES OF FAILURE TO STOP FOR POLICE AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION TO BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT UPON THE CLIENT’S COMPLETION OF PRETRIAL PROBATION AND SAFE-DRIVING COURSE. 

Client is a 20 year-old college student with no criminal record. He works in the manufacturing department, cutting leather, for a local leather production company, while attending college. He is in the process of obtaining his helicopter’s license. On this occasion, Defendant passed by a police cruiser, while operating his motorcycle, at a high rate of speed, estimated to be 100 M.P.H. When the officer attempted to pull him over, the Defendant fled, continued to travel at a high-rate of speed, and never pulled over. The officer was able to obtain the client’s license plate. The officer went to the client’s home where he admitted to seeing the officer and admitted to not pulling over and fleeing from the officer. Client was charged with Failure to Stop for Police (G.L. c. 90, §25), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), and civil infractions for speeding, passing violation, and marked lanes violation. Concerned that a conviction, or an admission to sufficient facts, would affect his ability to become a helicopter pilot, the client hired the Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan, who ensured that all charges would be dismissed outright, so long as the client completes a safe-driving course.

Stoughton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH 41 COUNTS OF SECRETLY VIDEOTAPING MEN USING THE URINAL AND BATHROOM IN THE MEN’S LOCKER OF A FITNESS CENTER. DEFENDANT WALKS AWAY WITH NO CONVICTION, NO JAIL TIME, AND NO SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION.

Defendant, a 24 year-old with no criminal record, was charged with 41 counts of Photographing Sexual Intimate Parts without Consent pursuant to G.L. c. 272, §105. Defendant was an employee for a fitness center. Employees discovered a recording device in a shower-caddy that was positioned at the base of the urinal in the men’s locker room. Employees suspected that the Defendant was the person to have installed the camera. Whenever the cleaning crew went into the men’s locker room to conduct cleaning, Defendant would rush into the locker room and was seen removing the shower-caddy. Police obtained the Defendant’s personal emails to Amazon indicating that the camera he purchased was mechanical issues and he requested a new camera. The camera identified in the Defendant’s emails matched the make and model of the camera found in the locker room. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s residence and recovered numerous electronic devices, including cameras matching the camera found in the locker room. The electronic devices contained videos of men using the urinals in the bathroom. The case was indefensible, impossible to defend, and was unwinnable at trial. The issue for Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was to seek the best resolution possible for the client, which would not include a conviction, jail time, or sex-offender registration. This was a case where the goal of sentencing was aimed at treating the root cause of the criminal conduct (underlying mental health issues) and to concentrate on treating and rehabilitating the defendant, as opposed to incarcerating him, which would not get at the root of the problem.

Quincy District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST 62 YEAR-OLD BANKER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Client is a 62-year old woman with no criminal record. She has been working for the same bank for 42 years. On the incident in question, client was driving to her friend’s house in Weymouth. It was dark out. When she attempted to negotiate a sharp turn in the road, she struck another vehicle, causing minor damage to the vehicle. Shaken up over the minor collision, she did not stop on the dark road, but proceeded to her friend’s house who lived a short distance away. She immediately reported the incident to her insurance company. She received a phone call from a Massachusetts State Trooper where she admitted to hitting the other car and not pulling over to exchange any information with the other driver. She was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Property Damage (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with information from the client’s car insurance company, showing that the damage to the other vehicle was very minor, and confirmation that the other driver was compensated through insurance. Attorney Noonan was able to convince the Commonwealth to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, meaning that the client will not have any criminal record resulting from this incident.

Wareham District Court

CHARGE OF OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE AGAINST NON-U.S. CITIZEN DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Client is a 34 year-old immigrant from Honduras where he lived in poverty and worked on a farm. He came to the U.S. and cannot speak any English. He is not a U.S. citizen. He was hired by a company as a physical laborer. The majority of the money he earns, he sends back to his family in Honduras. He has been living in a hotel with many other immigrants. On this occasion, as an isolated incident, the client drove his employer’s vehicle, because another employee was a no-show for work. He was pulled over. He did not have a driver’s license. He was charged with Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Client was scheduled to be arraigned on this criminal offense. If arraigned, the criminal offense would be entered on his criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss this case prior to arraignment, saving the client from having any criminal record.

Stoughton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES A CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY FROM 1963 AGAINST 83 YEAR-OLD KINGSTON MAN.

Defendant was convicted in 1963 after having pled guilty to committing an Assault & Battery on his then-wife. Defendant, now 83 years-old, applied for a License to Carry Firearms but was automatically disqualified due to the domestic violence conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to vacate the conviction in the interests of justice, and the Court agreed. Now that the conviction is vacated, the client is eligible to apply for a License to Carry Firearms.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN IS SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OBTAINED PURSUANT TO AN ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANT RESULTING IN THE DISMISSAL OF 20 CRIMINAL CHARGES.

A multi-department investigation was conducted utilizing the services of a Confidential Informant (CI) – who alleged that the Defendant had sold cocaine to him in the past on numerous occasions in the town of Norwood. The Confidential Informant participated in five (5) controlled buys with the Defendant for the purchase of cocaine. In each buy, the CI claimed that it had purchased cocaine from the Defendant. Based on the information supplied by the CI and in conjunction with the five (5) controlled buys, the police applied for, and obtained, a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Easton. When the police executed the search warrant, they found numerous large-capacity firearms, large-capacity ammunition, narcotics, cocaine, plastic baggies, scales, and large sums of cash, and some counterfeit money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained in connection with the execution of the search warrant – arguing that the information in the Search Warrant Affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that drugs would be located in the target premises. In particular, Attorney Noonan argued that the information supplied by the CI, and the five controlled-buys, did not establish a nexus between the Defendant’s drug-selling activities and the target premises. The Court agreed and allowed the Motion to Suppress. As all evidence has been suppressed, all criminal charges, 20 criminal charges, will be dismissed.

Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGES AGAINST FATHER AND SON ARISING OUT OF A GROUP FIGHT ON A PARTY BUS. 

Defendants, father and son, were on a party bus. They were celebrating the birthday of their mother / wife by treating her to an evening on a bus, which visits local restaurants and drinking establishments. There were other people on the party bus. The other group members were very intoxicated; they were loud, and disruptive. The son asked the group to refrain from using profanities and vulgarities because they were trying to have a nice evening with the family. The other group members were shouting at the driver to turn up the music. An argument, which turned physical, ensued between the two groups. During this altercation, members of the other group alleged that both defendants were aggressive, and started a fight, and threw punches. A female member of the other group was punched in the face and she sustained a bloody nose. Defendants denied starting the fight and denied punching the female. Both defendants were charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). Attorney Gerald J. Noonan represented both clients at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, but despite his zealous advocacy the clerk found that there was sufficient evidence to charge them. The clerk found that the issues raised by Attorney Noonan were trial issues. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. On the day of trial, all charges were dismissed against the Defendants.

Quincy District Court

FELONY LARCENY DISMISSED UPON WITNESS AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT DEFENDANT RETURNED THE ALLEGEDLY STOLEN ITEM TO THE POLICE.

Defendant went to Walmart. When entering the store, there was a person sitting at a table soliciting charitable donations, and Defendant observed a cell phone on the floor in the vicinity of this person. Surveillance video shows the Defendant picking up the phone, looking at it, putting it in his pocket, and leaving the store after finishing his shopping. Defendant was called by a police officer who instructed him to return the cell phone to the police station. If he returned the cell phone to the police station, the officer stated that he would not charge the Defendant with a crime. The officer alleged that the Defendant never returned the cell phone and the officer charged him with Larceny from Person (G.L. c. 266, §25(b)).Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with an affidavit from a witness attesting to the fact that the Defendant returned the cell phone to the police station. The witness was present with the Defendant when he returned the cell phone to the police station. Based upon the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

Commissioner of Probation

CONVICTIONS FOR ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION ARE SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.

Our client was convicted for Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), and Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B). The client contacted our law office to have the convictions sealed from his record. Our law office was able to seal all criminal convictions from the client’s record.

Taunton District Court

FELONY OFFENSE OF OBTAINING DRUGS BY FRAUD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT FOR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Obtaining Drugs by Fraud (G.L. c. 94C, §33(b)). Defendant’s ex-boyfriend called the police to report that the Defendant went to the CVS pharmacy and fraudulently obtained medication in his name. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the evidence, and conducted legal research, and learned that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove an essential element of the offense. To prove this offense, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the substance in question is a “controlled substance.” Attorney Noonan provided the prosecutor with evidence that the substance in question was NOT a controlled substance. As such, the Commonwealth would be unable to prove this charge at trial. The Commonwealth dismissed the felony offense prior to arraignment, and the Defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor offense of Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30(1)). Attorney Noonan is in the process of preparing this case for trial.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS ASSAULT & BATTERY COMPLAINT UPON PROOF THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS THE AGGRESSOR WHO INITIATED THE CONFRONTATION. 

Defendant is a man with no criminal record. He was having dinner and some drinks at his favorable pub where he was a regular. On prior occasions, pub employees complained about the conduct of another patron. In particular, a female employee had complained about this patron before. On this occasion, the client happened to be seated next to this troublesome patron. The client began to videotape the patron to send to the female employee. Enraged at being recorded, the patron grabbed the client’s cell phone, causing both men to fall off their bar stools, knocking over a female patron in the process. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient probable cause to charge the client with Assault & Battery because the evidence showed that the other patron was the aggressor who initiated the confrontation, and the client merely acted reflexively in response to the other patron grabbing and pulling at his cell phone. The client had no intent to commit any touching, as his actions were purely reactionary to having his cell phone grabbed and pulled out of his hand. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue any criminal complaint against our client. Therefore, the client does not have any criminal record arising out of this incident.

Lawrence District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SERIOUS FIREARMS CHARGES CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES. 

Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 269, §10(b)), and Operating a Vehicle with a Suspended License (G.L. c. 90, §23). If convicted of Carrying a Firearm without a License, Defendant faced a minimum-mandatory jail sentence of 18 months, and another minimum-mandatory sentence of 2.5 years in jail if convicted of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License.

Result: Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire. He left his home in New Hampshire to visit a friend in Lawrence. While returning home to New Hampshire, after visiting his friend, Defendant was stopped by a State Trooper in Methuen because of a non-working headlight. Upon the stop, the Trooper learned that the Defendant had a suspended Massachusetts driver’s license and placed him under arrest. While arresting him, the Trooper located a loaded handgun in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Under a new decision announced by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, in order to prove the firearm offenses, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license. Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023) At trial, the Commonwealth called a witness from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), which is responsible for maintaining a database of all persons issued firearm licenses in Massachusetts. This witness testified that she was provided with the Defendant’s name and his Date of Birth. When the witness entered the Defendant’s first name, last name, and DOB, into the database, the results disclosed that there was no record of the Defendant having ever been issued a firearm license in Massachusetts. In a surprise attack at trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the Commonwealth did not provide CJIS with the proper name for the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license in Massachusetts because CJIS was not provided with the correct name for the Defendant. Under cross-examination, the witness from CJIS testified that she did not enter the Defendant’s correct name into the database. Further, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire, had a New Hampshire address, had a New Hampshire driver’s license, and had his motor vehicle registered in New Hampshire. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth did not conduct any record-searches to determine whether the Defendant had any firearm licenses issued to him in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant’s firearm was registered in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant was legally permitted to own and possess this firearm in New Hampshire. After two-hours of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of all charges, and the Defendant was free to leave.

Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OUI-DRUGS CASE DISMISSED AFTER CONVINCING THE COURT THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS CAUSED BY METHAMPHETAMINE FOUND IN HIS VEHICLE. 

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)). Police received a report of an erratic operator. Police received another report of a person slumped over the steering wheel of the same vehicle in a parking lot. Upon arrival, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel and was unresponsive. The officer believed that the Defendant was experiencing the effects of drug use. Defendant denied taking any drugs. In the Defendant’s vehicle, they found plastic bags containing Methamphetamine and glass pipes used to smoke this substance. Defendant was transported to the hospital. Defendant was also charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained the Defendant’s certified medical records, which lacked any laboratory or toxicology tests to show that the Defendant had any drugs in his system. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant’s impairment was caused by the methamphetamine found in the Defendant’s vehicle. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the Methamphetamine caused the Defendant’s impairment because none of the officers at the scene were qualified to render any such opinion to connect the effects of this drug use to the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant. As a result, all charges against the Defendant were dismissed.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SIX FIREARM CHARGES, CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES, AND ANOTHER COUNT OF RESISTING ARREST.

Defendant was charged with seven criminal offenses, including: Two-counts of Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), two-counts of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Possession of Firearm without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1), Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L), and Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B). If convicted, Defendant was facing serious minimum-mandatory jail time and deportation from the United States.

Result: Defendant was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle, which was wanted in connection with a drive-by shooting in Boston. About a week after the shooting, State Troopers observed the suspect vehicle and attempted to pull it over, but a high-speed chase ensued from Milton to Brockton, which ultimately ended with the suspect vehicle crashing into an intersection in Brockton. Police observed a loose pistol magazine at the feet of the operator. In the glove compartment, located in the passenger side area where the Defendant had been seated, police found two firearms, a large capacity firearm, and ammunition. Police alleged that the Defendant resisted arrest when they commanded him to exit the passenger side of the vehicle. The operator and defendant-passenger were charged with a multitude of firearm offenses and resisting arrest. At a suppression hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan elicited evidence from the State Trooper, which would prove to be vital to the Defendant’s case at trial. The glove-compartment, where the firearms were stored, was locked and the Defendant did not have possession of the key. Troopers admitted that they did not observe the Defendant reach for or touch the glove-compartment, and Troopers did not see the Defendant attempt to hide or conceal evidence. Although they claimed that the Defendant resisted arrest, Attorney Noonan was able to get that charge dismissed for insufficient evidence. No fingerprints were lifted from the firearms or ammunition. On the day of trial, the co-defendant (operator of the vehicle) pled guilty to most of the charges, but Attorney Noonan remained steadfast that his client was innocent and refused to enter into any plea negotiations. Recognizing that Attorney Noonan was prepared, ready, willing and able to try this case, the prosecutor dismissed all charges against the Defendant.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), and Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Defendant was a 25 year-old with no criminal record. Police were called to the scene of a single-car accident. An off-duty EMT testified at trial that he observed the Defendant travel through an intersection, at a high rate of speed, and strike a curb and telephone pole. Upon arrival, the officer spoke with the Defendant, who was the operator of the vehicle. The officer detected an odor of alcohol on her breath. The officer testified that the Defendant was unable to recall how the accident happened. The officer observed that her eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. Police recovered an empty bottle of liquor in the center console. Defendant was administered the Nine-Step Walk & Turn and One Leg Stand field-sobriety test, and the officer testified that she failed these tests. Defendant admitted to consuming three glasses of champagne about two hours ago.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan emphasized that the Defendant’s poor performance on the field-sobriety tests were very understandable considering the circumstances. For example, Defendant was involved in a serious car accident. The airbag deployed striking her in the face, causing injuries to her nose and lip, which were bleeding. Defendant was emotional, crying, and was repeatedly expressing concern for her passenger, who was injured in the crash. Defendant was asked to perform these field-sobriety tests with four police officers on scene, three police cruisers on scene, and a fire truck surrounding her. The officer admitted that she was shook-up and frazzled by the accident. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant went to the emergency room after her arrest complaining of chest pain and rib pain. Despite all this, Defendant still performed relatively well on the field-sobriety tests, under these harsh circumstances. Attorney Noonan was able to suppress the empty liquor bottle from coming into evidence at trial because the prosecutor was unable to bring in the police officer who located the bottle in the vehicle, and they would be unable to authenticate this piece of evidence. Attorney Noonan aggressively argued that the Police Department was grossly negligent because they lost the video recording of the Defendant’s booking at the police station following her arrest. Attorney Noonan persuaded the trial judge to instruct the jury that they could infer that the lost booking video would have been favorable to the Defendant’s case. Attorney Noonan was successful in dismissing the unlicensed operation charge because the Commonwealth’s RMV records did not contain the date in which her license was suspended. After one-hour of deliberations, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of all charges and her driver’s license was restored.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGES OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT, UNREGISTERED VEHICLE, AND UNINSURED VEHICLE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AGAINST MEMBER OF THE AIR FORCE. 

Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), Unregistered Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §9), and Uninsured Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §34J). Police alleged that the Defendant struck a telephone and did not report the accident. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was traveling on an unfamiliar dangerous road when he struck a telephone. Attorney Noonan provided photographs showing that the Defendant merely grazed the pole, with extremely minor damage. Defendant immediately called his insurance company and reported the accident. Defendant even remained on scene until the tow truck arrived. Defendant told the police that he did not think that he had to report the accident because another vehicle was not involved in the accident and he immediately reported it to his insurance company. Attorney Noonan provided information from witnesses to corroborate the Defendant’s version.

Brockton Juvenile Court

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUES FOR BREAKING & ENTERING, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THAT THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE. 

The Client, a 16 year-old high school student and non-U.S. citizen, was charged with Breaking and Entering, after police caught him and others inside a vacant building. At a clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was legally insufficient evidence to support the offense, including insufficient evidence that the juvenile “broke” into the building because the building was vacant, abandoned, the doors were open, there were no obstructions to access, and the juvenile did not have to exert any physical force to enter the building. Going through an unobstructed entrance such as an open door does not constitute “breaking.” After considering all arguments and evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the clerk-magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint. This was a significant victory because the client is not a U.S. citizen, and the client will not have any criminal record as a result of this case.

Fitchburg District Court

CLIENT’S LTC DENIED WAS DUE TO FELONY CONVICTION AND UNTRUTHFULNESS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL, REVERSING THE DENIAL, AND AN LTC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CLIENT. 

Client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the police department denied his application on the grounds that the client had a disqualifying felony conviction from Florida, and THAT the client was untruthful on the application when he denied that he had ever been convicted of a felony. On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained all records relating to the client’s criminal case in Florida. In the Florida case, client was charged with Grand Theft and received a disposition known as Adjudication Withheld. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted legal research showing that a disposition of Adjudication Withheld does not constitute a conviction under Florida law or Massachusetts law. Attorney Noonan argued that his client was not untruthful on the application because he correctly disclosed that he had not been convicted of a felony because, legally, the disposition in his Florida case did not constitute a conviction. After a hearing, including testimony, and after consideration of Attorney Noonan’s legal arguments, the judge reversed the decision denying the client’s LTC and ordered the police department to issue him a License to Carry Firearms.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AND OPERATING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE IS ALLOWED.

Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)) and Operating with a Suspended License Subsequent Offense (G.L. c. 90, §23), stemming from a hit-and-run car accident, which resulted in injuries to the operator and occupants of another vehicle. A witness reported to the police that he had witnessed the accident and was actively following the vehicle, which fled the scene. The witness later sent photographs to police of the fleeing vehicle. Police circulated pictures of the vehicle amongst various police departments. One police department reported being familiar with the suspect vehicle as belonging to the Defendant based on prior interactions. Police went to the Defendant’s home and observed damage to a vehicle in his driveway. Defendant denied operating the vehicle. The police noted that the Defendant had multiple prior convictions for operating with a suspended driver’s license. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges for lack of probable cause, arguing that the police report did not contain sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. After considering the arguments, the court allowed Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO UNTRUTHFULNESS IN DISCLOSING HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WON APPEAL, REVERSING THE DENIAL, AND AN LTC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CLIENT.

In 2016, client had his License to Carry Firearms suspended because he was arrested and charged with domestic violence, which was later dismissed. The criminal case was later sealed. Client, with another attorney, appealed the 2016 LTC suspension, and lost. In 2023, client reapplied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied. Client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to appeal the denial. At the hearing, the officer testified that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. On the application, client was asked whether he had ever been arrested or appeared in court for any criminal case, and the client answered “yes.” However, the application form required the applicant to provide the details and circumstances of the criminal case, but the client did not provide any description of the criminal case. The officer believed that the client was being untruthful because he did not provide any description of the criminal case. After submitting the application, the client was interviewed by the police officer. When asked about his criminal history, the client told the officer that the criminal case was “sealed,” a truthful statement. The officer was able to obtain a copy of the police report on his criminal case. When asked about the incident resulting in his arrest, the client was truthful, not evasive and answered all the officer’s questions. Attorney Noonan argued that the client fulfilled his obligation by answering in the affirmative, on the application, regarding his criminal history. Attorney Noonan argued that the application form was vague because the application form did not state that the applicant was required to provide information on “sealed” criminal cases. To prove that the client was truthful, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the officer that, during the interview, the client was truthful when questioned about his arrest. The court agreed with Attorney Noonan, reversed the decision denying his LTC, and issued an order for the police department to issue him an LTC.