Result

Mass. Appeals Court

Docket No.: 2022-J-0555

Commonwealth v. M.T.

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A TRIAL AND SENTENCED TO SERVE 6 MONTHS IN JAIL. DEFENDANT WAS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES APPEALS COURT TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF HIS SENTENCE PENDING APPEAL. CLIENT IS RELEASED WHILE HIS APPEAL IS PENDING. 

Defendant was found guilty, after a bench trial, of Larceny over $1,200 by False Pretense (G.L. c. 266, §30), a felony offense. The judge sentenced the Defendant to serve six (6) months in jail, and the Defendant was immediately taken into custody when he was sentenced. Defendant’s incarceration seriously affected his life, his business, and the custody of his minor children. Attorney Noonan requested that the Trial Judge stay the execution of his sentence, which was denied. Attorney Noonan appealed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion in the Appeals Court to stay the client’s sentence and release him from custody while he appeals his conviction. After a hearing, the Appeals Court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the Defendant did not present any security precautions (if released) and the Defendant had solid grounds to appeal his conviction. The client has been released. Attorney Noonan has appealed the conviction and we are awaiting a hearing in the Appeals Court.

Brockton District Court

IN A LANDMARK DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICERS LACK AUTHORITY TO STOP THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE, SEARCH HIM, AND SEIZE HIM. THIS CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE. 

Defendant was operating his vehicle in the town of Whitman. Two Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) were stationed in marked police cruisers conducting radar patrol. The APOs clocked the Defendant’s speed as 53 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. The APOs stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. The APOs suspected that the Defendant had been drinking and questioned him regarding his alcohol consumption. The APOs looked into the vehicle and observed alcoholic beverages in plain view. The APOs detained the Defendant at the scene while they contacted a sworn police officer to arrive to the scene. The sworn police officer arrived, conducted an investigation, questioned the defendant, and administered field-sobriety tests. The sworn police officer arrested the Defendant for Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion-to-suppress evidence resulting from the stop of the Defendant’s motor vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that the Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) did not have authority to effectuate motor vehicle stops, to seize or detain citizens, or to conduct searches. After conducting exhaustive research, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there was no legal authority, which authorizes APOs to conduct traffic stops. Attorney Noonan made a request to the Whitman Police Department and the Town of Whitman for any written policies and procedures regarding APOs, but the Police Department and the Town did not produce any written policies defining the scope, duties, responsibilities, or powers of APOs. The Brockton District Court agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that the APOs lacked this authority and suppressed all evidence derived from the motor vehicle stop. This was a huge decision because many Police Departments, as part of a longstanding practice, have utilized APOs who play active roles in police investigations, but their powers were never examined. This case was featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. “Defense duo shines light on renegade auxiliary cops.”

Plymouth District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-DRUGS CASE ARGUING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS THE RESULT OF HIS CONSUMPTION OF MUSHROOMS. 

Defendant, a paramedic with no criminal record, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs. At trial, the police officer testified that he noticed the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the middle of a residential street. Defendant was found asleep in the backseat of the vehicle. Defendant admitted to the officer that he consumed “mushrooms,” a hallucinogenic drug. Defendant was acting erratically. Defendant’s mood would dramatically fluctuate from being claim to highly emotional; randomly blurting out obscenities. The officer was very concerned about the Defendant’s state and requested an ambulance. Defendant was sent to the hospital. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained a pretrial order preventing the officer from forming an opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs. The officer did not have any training regarding the drug (mushrooms) and the specific effect of mushroom use on the human body. Therefore, the officer could not testify that the Defendant’s mushroom use was the cause of his impairment. Specifically, the officer could not testify that the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant were the result of mushroom use. The officer could not connect any displayed signs of impairment to the Defendant’s consumption of mushrooms. Therefore, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty. 

Department of Children & Families

Fair Hearing

THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) FOUND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT SEXUALLY ABUSED A CHILD UNDER HIS CARE. ON APPEAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES DCF TO REVERSE ITS DECISION.

A mandated reporter made a report to the Department of Children and Families accusing the Defendant of sexually abusing a child under his care. After conducting an investigation, DCF found that the allegations of sexual abuse were supported. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision by DCF. At DCF the hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of sexual abuse. After presenting his evidence at the hearing, DCF agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that there was insufficient evidence of sexual abuse and reversed its decision.

Brockton District Court

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION AND HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN ISSUED AN LTC. 

The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms. The police department denied the application because the client was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from a domestic violence incident. On appeal, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim of the domestic violence incident recanted and changed the story she provided to the police. Further, the alleged victim submitted an Affidavit in support of the client’s application for an LTC. The criminal charges were later dismissed. The police department never interviewed the alleged victim. After a hearing in which the Firearm Licensing Officer and the Client testified, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the decision to deny the application was arbitrary and without reasonable ground and the court issued an order for the Police Department to issue his client a License to Carry Firearms.

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.