Case Results
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Plymouth Superior Court
INDICTMENT CHARGING DRUGGING A PERSON FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
Our client was indicted for Rape and Drugging a Person for Sexual Intercourse (G.L. c. 272, §3). The client met a woman on social media, and they got together for a date. They went to a bar for a few drinks. The woman was insistent that the client placed something in her drink at the bar and she had no memory of what occurred thereafter. Upon leaving the bar, they went to the woman’s apartment. She awoke the next morning and believed that she had been raped. She went to the hospital. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause because, absent her allegation, there was no evidence to show that she had been drugged. The indictment was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Plymouth Superior Court
INDICTMENT CHARGING DRUGGING A PERSON FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
Our client was indicted for Rape and Drugging a Person for Sexual Intercourse (G.L. c. 272, §3). The client met a woman on social media, and they got together for a date. They went to a bar for a few drinks. The woman was insistent that the client placed something in her drink at the bar and she had no memory of what occurred thereafter. Upon leaving the bar, they went to the woman’s apartment. She awoke the next morning and believed that she had been raped. She went to the hospital. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause because, absent her allegation, there was no evidence to show that she had been drugged. The indictment was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Brockton District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
The client had a heated dispute with a contractor. The client hired the contractor to build him a new front porch. As part of the agreement, the contractor was required to remove all debris. However, the contractor never removed the debris, material, or trash, so the client paid to have the debris removed. When the contractor requested payment, the client stated that he would pay the bill, minus the money he paid to have the debris removed. The contractor and his son showed up to the client’s house at 9:00 p.m. unannounced, demanding full payment. In this heated confrontation, the contractor called the police and reported that the defendant pushed him. The police charged the client with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the contractor and his son were the aggressors. When they were banging on his front door, at 9:00 p.m. at night, they startled and scared the client’s young children. When the client refused to pay the entire bill, the contractor and his son attempted to barge into the house, but the client pushed them away. The client took out his phone and said that he was calling the police at which time the contractor grabbed his phone and threw it. The contractor and his son committed an assault on the client. During this contentious hearing, the clerk decided to dismiss the complaint. The client had no record.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Brockton District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
The client had a heated dispute with a contractor. The client hired the contractor to build him a new front porch. As part of the agreement, the contractor was required to remove all debris. However, the contractor never removed the debris, material, or trash, so the client paid to have the debris removed. When the contractor requested payment, the client stated that he would pay the bill, minus the money he paid to have the debris removed. The contractor and his son showed up to the client’s house at 9:00 p.m. unannounced, demanding full payment. In this heated confrontation, the contractor called the police and reported that the defendant pushed him. The police charged the client with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the contractor and his son were the aggressors. When they were banging on his front door, at 9:00 p.m. at night, they startled and scared the client’s young children. When the client refused to pay the entire bill, the contractor and his son attempted to barge into the house, but the client pushed them away. The client took out his phone and said that he was calling the police at which time the contractor grabbed his phone and threw it. The contractor and his son committed an assault on the client. During this contentious hearing, the clerk decided to dismiss the complaint. The client had no record.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
AFTER VIGOROUS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY NOONAN, JUDGE TOSSES ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER.
The client’s wife took out an emergency abuse prevention order against him, also known as a 209A order. A two-party hearing was held on the Plaintiff’s request to extend the restraining order for one year. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an effective cross-examination of the Plaintiff, discrediting her allegations, undermining her credibility, and highlighting the absurdity of her claims. Attorney Noonan had three witnesses prepared to testify to impeach the Plaintiff’s allegations. These witnesses were also prepared to testify regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health issues. However, after Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination, the judge heard enough the terminated the restraining order.
Plaintiff v. Police Department
SUSPENSION OF LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS FOR ALLEGED MENTAL ILLNESS REVERSED.
The client was venting during a therapy session and made certain statements that her therapist found alarming. The therapist, knowing that the client had a license to carry firearms and owned a firearm, reported the client’s statements to the police. The police then sectioned the client, and she was brought to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. The police immediately suspended her LTC. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the client’s statements were taken out of context, were blown out of proportion, and she was simply venting over a stressful family situation. The records from the hospital indicated that the client’s statements were not meant to be taken seriously, and she was quickly discharged upon a finding that the client did not have any mental health issues and did not pose a danger to anyone. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had the client evaluated by a reputable psychiatrist who provided his expert opinion that the client did not suffer from any mental health issues, and she did not pose any danger if allowed to possess a firearm. Upon presenting this proof, the police department activated her license to carry firearms.
Commonwealth v. J.S. – Massachusetts Court of Appeals
Commonwealth v. J.S.
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
104 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 (2024)
AFTER THE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DRUNK DRIVING AND WAS CONVICTED, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF EGREGIOUS GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT. THE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION IS VACATED. WE ARE NOW MOVING FOR TRIAL.
The defendant, represented by another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts and tendered a plea on an offense charging him with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. Defendant took a breath test showing that his blood-alcohol-content was three times over the legal limit. Because there was no chance of winning at trial with such a high breathalyzer result, Defendant pled out to the OUI charge. The plea resulted in the client’s termination from a government position. The client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Scott Martin to vacate his conviction. We filed a motion to withdraw his plea based on the recent litigation surrounding the government’s misconduct in withholding exculpatory breath test records, as well as a recent decision finding that breath test results, generated within a particular timeframe, were inadmissible due to issues of scientific reliability and the government’s misconduct in handling breath test records. The judge denied our motion, finding that there was no evidence of egregious government misconduct. The judge also found that – even if the breath test result was excluded from evidence – the Defendant would not have gone to trial because the evidence of his intoxication was overwhelming. We won on appeal. The Appeals Court found that there was a conclusive presumption that the Commonwealth engaged in government misconduct at the time of the Defendant’s breath test. Further, the Appeals Court found that we established a reasonable probability that the Defendant would have gone to trial had he known that the breath test evidence would not have been introduced against him. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that there was no reasonable probability that the Defendant would have insisted on a trial because the police report contained overwhelming evidence that the client was intoxicated. We argued that a person’s decision to insist on a trial is a unique, individualized decision. Here, the Defendant would have insisted on a trial because an acquittal would allow him to keep his government job. Most attorneys would not try an OUI case if a police report contains strong evidence of intoxication. However, Attorney Noonan and Attorney Martin are not your typical attorneys because we try difficult cases all the time and win acquittals despite there being strong evidence of our client’s guilt. The client’s plea and conviction were vacated. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. At this point, we are intending to try the case in hopes of an acquittal.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Taunton District Court
DRIVING OFFENSES AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
Our client recently emigrated to the U.S. from Haiti. He has been employed as a warehouse worker. The client was driving a friend’s vehicle and was pulled over because the car had no inspection sticker and the windshield was heavily cracked. Upon the stop, the client only had a learner’s permit with no authorized driver in the vehicle. As a result, the client was charged with Operating without a License, No Inspection, and a violation of the Code of Massachusetts Regulation for the defective windshield. The client did not have much money, so we took the case at a discounted rate and persuaded the clerk to drop all charges.