Result

Client slipped and fell in a parking lot. She sustained an avulsion fracture of the right fibula which required surgical repair. She also suffered an anterior talo-fibular ligament tear which required surgical repair. Client also sustained serious nerve damage in ankle. Client underwent many rounds of many types of injections for pain management. Client underwent extensive therapy.

Case Results: The Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan settled the claim for $279,000.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR RECKLESS OPERATION OF A VEHICLE AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING

Boston Police responded to a car accident on Boylston Street. Defendant stated that he lost control of his vehicle while taking a sharp turn and crashed into three parked cars. Defendant admitted that he was speeding and trying to “show off” or impress his friends and lost control of his car. He was traveling at 55 mph in a 25 mph zone. Defendant admitted that he made a stupid mistake. The three vehicle sustained heavy damage. Police filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Reckless Operation of a Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Noonan ensured that the owners of the three damaged vehicles were fully compensated by insurance. Attorney Noonan had his client complete a driver’s safety course. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was an honor roll student at Curry College where he is studying criminal justice. Attorney Noonan introduced character letters from the client’s employer where he works as a Security Officer. The Clerk issued a civil citation for Speeding but dismissed the criminal charge.

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN FROM STOUGHTON DISMISSED AT TRIAL FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE

The client, an electrician from Stoughton, was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M) stemming from an incident with the mother of his child. The client was operating his vehicle. The child’s mother was in the passenger seat and his two year-old daughter in the backseat. An argument ensued where the child’s mother began to attack and punch the client, as he was driving the car. He pulled over and the child’s mother kicked him out of the car and drove off with the daughter in the backseat. The client, left abandoned on the street, called 911 to report that he had been assaulted and kicked out of his car. He was concerned about the safety of his child. The police went to the residence of the child’s mother and she told the police that the Defendant grabbed and twisted her hand during the car ride. Based on statement of the child’s mother, police arrested the Defendant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan marked the case for trial and advised the prosecutor that the Defendant was the victim of the attack. Attorney Noonan explained that the child’s mother would incriminate herself were she to testify against the Defendant at his trial. She had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for physically assaulting the client, kicking him out of the car, and taking off with their daughter. Attorney Noonan explained that, without the testimony of the child’s mother, there was insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. For example, the child’s mother did not call 911; the child’s mother did not have any physical injuries to corroborate her claim that the Defendant twisted her hand; there were no photographs of her hand to show any physical injuries; she did not seek any medical attention; she was not upset or emotional in speaking to police, and the Defendant never admitted to physically touching her (in fact, as evidenced from his 911 call, Defendant was adamant that he was the victim of an assault). On the day of trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FOR BREAKING & ENTERING AND LARCENY AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING

The alleged victim went to the Brockton Police Department reporting that the mother of his one year-old daughter (defendant) broke into his vehicle and stole his cell phone. Officers called the Defendant in an effort to obtain the victim’s cell phone but the Defendant was uncooperative and argumentative with officers. The Defendant eventually returned the victim’s phone but it was smashed and damaged. As a result of the victim’s allegations, Brockton Police sought criminal charges for Breaking and Entering in the Daytime with the intent to commit a felony (G.L. c. 266, §18) and Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there has been a contentious relationship between the Defendant and the alleged victim. Several years ago, Attorney Noonan’s client was the victim of an assault by the alleged victim, which resulted in the father being charged. There were contentious proceedings in the Probate and Family Court between the parties over custody of the child and child support. Defendant became upset over the father’s infidelity. Defendant was being harassed by the father’s current girlfriend. Defendant was further upset about the fact that she was working as a CNA and supporting the child without any support from the father. The alleged victim appeared at the Clerk’s Hearing and Attorney Noonan, along with the Clerk-Magistrate, mediated the dispute between them. The parties were able to mediate the dispute and the criminal complaints were dismissed.

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MILITARY VETERAN AND HEROIN ADDICT FOR POSSESSION OF FENTANYL

Undercover officers were in a high-crime area of Brockton conducting patrols for narcotics activity. Undercover officers ran a board of probation check for the registered owner of a vehicle (defendant) and found that the Defendant had charges for drug possession. Officers proceeded to follow the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers concluded that the Defendant was engaging in activity consistent with being the purchaser of narcotics. The Defendant made a U-turn and pulled into the parking lot of a grocery store. Officers observed someone approach the passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle and reach into the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers believed that the Defendant was purchasing narcotics from the person who approached and reached into his vehicle. After the alleged drug transaction, officers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. While stopping the Defendant’s vehicle, officers observed that the Defendant was engaging in furtive movements consistent with trying to hide or conceal evidence. Officers observed a syringe in the driver’s side door compartment. Officers observed a knotted baggie in the center console. Officers seized the knotted bag and the contents of the baggie tested positive for Fentanyl. Defendant was charged with Possession of Class A Substance to wit: Fentanyl (G.L. c. 94C, §32).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan secured a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal charge giving his client an opportunity to potentially have the criminal complaint dismissed before any criminal complaint was issued. At the hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client was honorably discharged from the military. During his military service, he became disabled and he was now a disabled veteran. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client developed a drug addiction / opiate addiction following his discharge from the military. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was actively undergoing psychological treatment and substance abuse treatment with the Department of Veteran Affairs to treat his severe drug addiction and mental health disorders. At the conclusion of the hearing, no criminal charges were issued saving this military veteran from having a criminal record.

2^ND OFFENSE OUI: REDUCED TO 1^ST OFFENSE OUI

Defendant was convicted of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) in 2012 in the Taunton District Court. In 2017, Defendant was charged with OUI (second offense) arising out of an arrest in West Bridgewater. In the new OUI, Defendant had a blood-alcohol-content of 0.27%, which is three times over the legal limit of 0.08%. On the scene, Defendant was described as “legless” and officers have to physically assist him into the police cruiser and they had to physically assist him into the police station. The booking process was videotaped and the Defendant was obviously intoxicated. He admitted to being an alcoholic and taking prescribed medication to treat his alcohol addiction.

Result: A second-offense OUI may be reduced to a first-offense OUI if the first-offense OUI occurred more than 10 years ago; this is known as a Cahill disposition, Commonwealth v. Cahill, 442 Mass. 127 (2004). In this case, the Defendant did not qualify, technically, for a Cahill disposition because his first-offense OUI did not occur more than 10 years ago. In fact, the first-offense OUI occurred approximately five years ago. Even though the Defendant did not technically qualify for a Cahill disposition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to reduce the second-offense OUI down to a first-offense OUI and the Judge imposed a first-offense OUI sentence instead of a second-offense sentence. With a second-offense OUI, a Defendant faces more severe penalties. In this case, Defendant received the benefit of a first-offense sentence.

INDECENT EXPOSURE:               SEALED

OUI-LIQUOR:                                 SEALED

NEGLIGENT OPERATION:         SEALED

Defendant, a 66 year-old real estate agent, contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he was encountering difficulties obtaining employment due to criminal offenses on his record, including Indecent Exposure (G.L. c. 272, §53), Operating under the Influence of Liquor (G.L. c. 90, §24), and Operating to Endanger (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).  After contacting Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, all charges on his criminal record were sealed within 30 days.

AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR (THIRD OFFENSE) AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION

Defendant, a construction worker from Hanover, was arrested by Massachusetts State Police and charged with OUI-Liquor (third offense), see G.L. c. 90, §24. A third-offense OUI is a felony, which carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of six-months and an 8-year suspension of driver’s license. State Police received a call from an off-duty police officer who reported that the Defendant was driving erratically on Route 3 in Rockland. Based on that report, State Troopers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 3. The Trooper approached the Defendant and noticed that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy. The Trooper observed an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had consumed alcohol and the Defendant stated that he consumed a few nips about an hour prior. Troopers searched the Defendant’s vehicle and found six empty nip bottles. The Trooper administered two field sobriety tests, the One-Leg Stand and the Nine-Step Walk and Turn, which, in the Trooper’s opinion, the Defendant failed. During the booking process at the police station, the Defendant fell asleep. The Trooper had to shout the Defendant’s name several times and had to physically jostle the Defendant in order to wake him up.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won not guilty verdicts on all charges. At trial, Attorney Noonan was able to exclude certain testimony related to the off-duty police officer’s observations of the Defendant’s so-called erratic operation on Route 3. Attorney Noonan introduced the Defendant’s booking photo and the Defendant’s driver’s license photo to show that the Defendant did not have red, bloodshot, and glassy eyes, as the Trooper claimed. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the police did not identify any nip bottles in the vehicle when they conducted an inventory search of property in the Defendant’s vehicle. Troopers did not photograph or seize the nip bottles as evidence. For the field sobriety tests, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant satisfactorily performed the Nine-Step Walk and Turn with some minor errors. The vehicle stop occurred in the evening, after the Defendant had worked a full-day in construction and he was wearing work boots during his sobriety tests. The Defendant’s drowsiness during booking could be explained by the fact that he worked a full-day in construction and was tired as a result. Lastly, Attorney Noonan highlighted a huge inconsistency in the prosecution’s case. During her opening statement, the prosecutor argued that the jury would hear evidence that the Defendant admitted to consuming “three nips,” which turned out to be inaccurate.

MANSLAUGHER:               NOT GUILTY

In 2015, Defendant was charged with Manslaughter (G.L. c. 265, §13) for allegedly selling heroin to a middle-man, the middle-man distributed the heroin to a victim, and the victim consumed the heroin and died of a drug overdose. Manslaughter requires proof that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin was wanton and reckless and that his act of selling heroin was the cause of the victim’s death. At this time in 2015, there was case law and precedent in Massachusetts finding that a Defendant’s sale of heroin was wanton and reckless so as to support a charge of Manslaughter.  In 2016, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin to a middle-man was not wanton and reckless and was insufficient to support the Manslaughter charge. Attorney Noonan argued that the case law in the Commonwealth was outdated. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is no per se rule finding that the sale of heroin, by itself, was sufficient to convict a Defendant of Manslaughter. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth must present evidence, in addition to the sale of heroin, to establish wanton and reckless conduct, such as: the potency of the heroin, the quantity of the heroin, and the Defendant’s knowledge regarding the victim (such as the victim’s prior drug use, prior overdoses, vulnerability, etc.) In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the Manslaughter charge because: the potency of the heroin was weak; the heroin was not laced with any other substances increasing the risk of overdose; the quantity of the heroin was small (consistent with personal use); and the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell directly to the victim. The Motion to Dismiss was denied.

At trial, Defendant was represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty; echoing the arguments that were raised in his pretrial Motion to Dismiss and applying the facts presented at trial. In his Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty, Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth merely presented evidence that the Defendant sold heroin which, by itself, was not sufficient to convict him of Manslaughter. First, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the heroin was of low-strength.  In particular, the heroin was only 24% pure and weaker than the average dose of heroin on the street. A DEA Chemist testified at trial that the average street level strength of heroin is between 20% – 60%, placing the Defendant’s heroin at the weak end of the spectrum. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the heroin was not laced with any other substances, such as Fentanyl, which would increase the risk of an overdose. Third, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant sold a small quantity of heroin consistent with personal use. Fourth, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell the heroin directly to her but instead sold the heroin to a middle-man. The trial judge denied Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Defendant was convicted of Manslaughter on April 6, 2018.

While the Defendant’s appeal was pending, there was a similar appeal pending before the Supreme Judicial Court where a Defendant had been convicted of Manslaughter for selling heroin to the victim. In this related appeal, (Commonwealth v. Jesse Carrillo), the Defendant (Carrillo) was raising the same arguments that the Noonan’s raised in their pretrial Motion to Dismiss and in their Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty at trial. The Defendant’s appeal was stayed (or put on hold) until the SJC made a decision in Carrillo. On October 3, 2019, the SJC in Carrillo held that: As an issue of first impression, evidence that the Defendant transferred heroin to the victim, without more, was insufficient to support a Manslaughter conviction. Given the SJC’s new decision, it was clear that the Defendant’s conviction should be overturned. The Defendant sought a highly skilled appellate attorney who fought hard on his behalf. Following the SJC’s decision in Carrillo, Defendant’s appellate attorney renewed Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty. The District Attorney’s Office assented to (or agreed) to the Renewed Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Trial Judge entered a finding of Not Guilty.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO AN INCIDENT WHERE HIS TEENAGE SON ACCESSED HIS FIREARM FROM AN UNLOCKED SAFE AND POSTED VIDEOS OF HIMSELF AND THE GUN ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINDTATE HIS LTC

Client, a Brockton resident, is a 54 year-old engineer and real estate agent with no criminal record whatsoever. The client and his wife (a certified nursing assistant) emigrated from Haiti and built a great life for their family in the United States. The police department suspended the client’s LTC due to an incident where his teenage son accessed his firearm from an unlocked safe and posted videos of himself posing with the gun on social media. The videos on social media were reported to the son’s school who, in turn, contacted the police department. As a result of this incident, the police department suspended the client’s License to Carry Firearms (LTC).

Result: The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in an effort to persuade the police department to reinstate his LTC. The firearms licensing officer told Attorney Noonan that the client was extremely remorseful for the incident and took full responsibility for the incident. The firearms licensing officer was open to considering an LTC reinstatement based, in large part, on the client’s truthfulness about the incident and his genuine remorse for what happened. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client made a poor mistake but something like this would never happen again. He left the unloaded firearm out of his sight for only a few minutes, which resulted in this incident. The client immediately completed a course in firearm’s safety. The main reason why the officer was willing to entertain a potential reinstatement was the client’s genuineness and truthfulness in speaking with police about the incident, his sincere expression of remorse, and his willingness to correct the mistake. After negotiations, the client’s LTC was reinstated.