Result

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION IS SEALED FROM THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

The client currently serves in the United States Navy. He enlisted when he turned 18 years-old. He is an aspiring police officer. He applied for the position of a full-time police officer with a police department in another state. Although the police department was willing to hire the client, a criminal background check showed that the client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The police department stated that they were willing to hire the client as a police officer, so long as the charge of Negligent Operation was sealed from his criminal record. The client contacted the Noonan Law Offices. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Seal the criminal charge from the client’s record pursuant to G.L. c. 276, §100C. After a hearing, the court entered an order sealing the criminal charge from the client’s record. As a result, the client is in an excellent position to get hired as a police officer.

Taunton District Court

DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON ON A CHILD AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS THE DEFENSE OF PARENTAL DISCIPLINE TO THE JURY.

The Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Child under 14 pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A, which carries a maximum state prison sentence of 15 years. The evidence presented at trial was as follows: Defendant had several children, including the alleged victim, who was his 11 year-old son. The alleged victim testified that the Defendant became angry, pushed him, and struck him seven times in the buttocks with a wooden spoon. The Defendant struck the child so hard that the wooden spoon broke. At the police station, police took photographs of the injuries to the child, including numerous linear marks and bruises on the child’s buttocks, and a mark on his left shoulder. When questioned by police, Defendant stated that he spanked the child with his hand, and never used an object or wooden spoon.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented the defense of parental discipline. In 2015, the Massachusetts Court recognized the defense of parental discipline in Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 472 Mass. 1 (2015), which provides that a parent, stepparent or guardian may use reasonable force against a minor child, under his care, if it is reasonable and reasonably related to a legitimate purpose. At trial, the defense introduced evidence that the child had a history of misbehavior. All disciplinary methods failed and the child’s misbehavior continued to escalate. On the weekend in question, the child was beating up his siblings on several occasions. The defendant placed the child in time-out and took away his privileges, which proved unsuccessful. In addition, the child’s grandmother attempted to correct his behavior with time-outs, but the child continued to act up. The defendant warned the child that if he continued to misbehave he would be spanked. The child continued to be rough with his younger siblings, and the Defendant took a wooden spoon and spanked him on the buttocks, over the child’s thick sweatpants. After the spanking, the child went upstairs and spoke with his grandmother. Although the child was initially upset and crying in the immediate aftermath, after his conversation with the grandmother, he was fine, no longer crying, and went to play with his sister, laughing along the way. Attorney Noonan argued that the marks to the child’s buttocks, and the pain from the spanking, was only temporary. The jury found the Defendant not guilty.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MAN CHARGED WITH IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM.

Police were conducting an investigation into drug distribution and executed a search warrant at the Defendant’s home. The target of the search warrant was the son of the Defendant’s girlfriend who resided in the Defendant’s home. Police searched the home for drugs and weapons. Defendant’s girlfriend told the police that the Defendant had a valid LTC and that he had a firearm in the house. Police searched the home and located the Defendant’s firearm, which was not secured. As a result, the Defendant was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint for Improper Storage of a Firearm dismissed. Defendant is 35 year-old with no criminal record. He works three jobs to support his disabled girlfriend.

CHARGES FOR THREATENING TO SHOOT TEACHERS AND SHOOT UP THE SCHOOL, AGAINST A JUVENILE, DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

The client, a 13-year-old juvenile, made statements to teachers at his school threatening to shoot teachers and shoot up the school. Understandably, the statements were extremely concerning and the school expelled the student and brought criminal complaints against him for Threats to Commit a Crime pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the child had various disabilities, such as Oppositional Defiance Disorder, ADHD, and socio-emotional disorders. The child had a history of acting impulsively, inability to control his behavior, difficulty responding to authority, and not understanding the full picture of the long-term consequences of his actions. Part of the child’s Individual Education Plan provided instructions for teachers in addressing the child’s behavior, which included giving the child time and space to calm down. Attorney Noonan argued that the child’s statements were not legitimate threats to commit harm and the juvenile had no intention of committing any harm to anyone. Rather, the child was acting impulsively and made statements without understanding the significance or seriousness of the statements. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate decided to keep the matter on file for three months and, so long as the child behaves, the criminal complaints will be dismissed.

IN A RARE DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN OBTAINS A COURT ORDER FOR THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT TO UNDERGO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

Defendant was charged with Assault to Rape (G.L. c. 265, §24) and Indecent Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265,§13H). Defendant is facing serious penalties if convicted. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation into the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had falsely accused another man of rape. Police investigated the prior rape allegation and obtained video footage showing that no sexual assault occurred and the accused was never charged. Attorney Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had accused another man of sexual assault, but during the prosecution of the accused, the alleged victim dramatically changed her story and exhibited concerning behavior while being interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office leading to the charges being dropped. Attorney Noonan obtained various police reports showing that the alleged victim had some sort of mental disorder, which was not fully understood by investigators. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion seeking a court order to have the alleged victim psychologically evaluated pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §19. In a rare decision, the court ordered the psychological evaluation of the alleged victim. At the present time, Defendant is awaiting trial.

Brookline District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE OF ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON DISMISSED AGAINST GREEK IMMIGRANT.

The client is a 54 year-old man with no criminal record. In 1988, he emigrated to the U.S. from Greece. He never applied for U.S. citizenship. He is married and has two adult children. He owns and operates his own landscaping and snow plow company. On the incident in question, Defendant was performing a fall clean up at a residence in Brookline. He was using a leaf blower to gather and remove the leaves. He had blown some leaves into the street. The alleged victim confronted the Defendant and asked him not to blow leaves into the street, but the Defendant continued blowing the leaves into the street. The alleged victim became upset and started to take pictures of the Defendant’s landscaping truck with his cell phone. The Defendant knocked the cell phone out of the victim’s hands and waved the hose of the leaf blower at him. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A, a felony offense, which would result in possible deportation if the Defendant was convicted.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the felony charge dismissed. Had the client been convicted of the felony offense, he faced possible deportation from the United States.

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED PROBATION BY FAILING A DRUG TEST, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE LAB TESTING WAS INCONCLUSIVE AND UNRELIABLE.

The client was on probation after having pled guilty to a multitude of crimes. As a condition of his probation, the client was required to submit to random drug testing by appearing at an independent laboratory and providing a urine sample. The client was notified that he violated his probation when the laboratory reported that the client tested positive for opiates. For violating probation, the client was facing potential incarceration and other significant consequences. The client was adamant that he was clean and didn’t use drugs. He had been sober for 17 months. He was on track to complete his probation because he was doing extremely well. The client retained the Noonan Law Offices to represent him at the probation violation hearing.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the laboratory report of the failed test and was suspicious because the laboratory report did not identify the particular opiate detected in the urine. Attorney Noonan believed that the preliminary urine test was unreliable and a confirmatory test should be done. The lab performed a confirmatory test, which was inconclusive. Attorney Noonan contacted the laboratory to obtain information about the confirmatory test. The lab informed Attorney Noonan that the confirmatory test was neither a positive nor a negative result. At the violation hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that probation failed to meet its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated probation by testing positive for drugs. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client, on his own, obtained a hair follicle test with a negative result for drugs. Attorney Noonan argued that the hair follicle test was more reliable because it detects previous drug use for up to three months. After the hearing, the Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant violated probation. The client is now on track to successfully complete his probation.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE MARIJUANA ARRESTS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE AN LTC TO THE CLIENT.

The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the application was denied because the Police Department alleged that the client was an unsuitable person for failing to disclose marijuana arrests on his application. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the denial to the district court. Attorney Noonan argued that the client did not deliberately conceal the marijuana arrests because the arrests were very old. When he applied for the LTC, the client did not obtain a copy of his criminal record and he did not have the benefit of reviewing his criminal record in order to accurately disclose his past marijuana arrests. After reviewing Attorney Noonan’s appeal, the police department agreed to issue the client a License to Carry Firearms.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT DISMISSED AGAINST 54 YEAR-OLD PROFESSIONAL WOMAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

The alleged victim called the police to report that the Defendant struck her car on the highway and fled the scene. After interviewing the alleged victim, Massachusetts State Police charged the Defendant with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Property Damage pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a 1/2 )(1)

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. The Defendant was stopped in traffic on the highway when the alleged victim exited her vehicle and confronted the Defendant accusing her of striking her vehicle. Frightened by this person, the Defendant did not exit her vehicle and continued driving when the traffic cleared. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant immediately called the Massachusetts State Police to report the fact that this person was falsely accusing her of striking her vehicle. Defendant never struck the other vehicle and Attorney Noonan introduced photos showing no damage to his client’s car. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim had a disturbing criminal record and was not credible. Defendant is a 54 year-old woman with no criminal record, she is happily married with three adult children and she is the director of a rehabilitation facility.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HAITAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record. A State Trooper observed the Defendant operating erratically on Route 495 South. The Trooper observed the Defendant swerving and crossing the fog line. When signaled to pull over, Defendant continued traveling at a slow rate of speed and almost came to a complete stop in the right-hand travel lane. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper noticed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test, the One Leg Stand, and found that the Defendant failed this test. The Trooper recovered a Fireball nip bottle in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Negligent Operation (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan affectively attacked the Trooper’s testimony that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan excluded evidence regarding one particular field sobriety test. As to the other field sobriety test, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant recently suffered an ankle injury, which affected his ability to perform satisfactorily on the test. Through cross-examination, the Trooper admitted that he did not know whether the liquor bottle was opened or that any contents had been consumed. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not demonstrate any noticeable signs of impairment during the booking process. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or that he operated his vehicle negligently. Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.