Case Results
Commonwealth v. John Doe
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC ASSAULT AND BATTERY CHARGES DISMISSED AGAINST HIGH-RANKING OFFICER IN MILITARY.
Defendant has been in the military for 20 years and is a highly decorated officer. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M. If the Defendant was convicted, his military career would be ruined. Defendant retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, who prepared the case for trial. At trial, Attorney Noonan was able to get the charge dismissed and the Defendant can continue his service in the Air Force.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Plymouth Superior Court
CLIENT WAS FACING A MINIMUM-MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE OF 5 YEARS ON AN INDICTMENT FOR SEX-TRAFFICKING BUT WALKS AWAY WITH A MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION, 2 YEARS OF PROBATION, AND NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.
Defendant was charged with Trafficking of a Person for Sexual Servitude pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §50(a), which carries a minimum-mandatory prison sentence of 5 years. Defendant posted an advertisement on Craig’s List expressing interest in meeting a woman for sex. An undercover responded to the advertisement and posed as a woman who was willing to engage in sex with him for money. They exchanged emails and text messages where the Defendant offered the undercover officer money in exchange for sex. The undercover instructed the Defendant to meet at an apartment complex for the exchange. When the Defendant arrived to the apartment complex, he was arrested. The Commonwealth indicted the Defendant and charged him in Superior Court with sex-trafficking. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan aggressively attacked the case by way of a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Suppress Evidence, which were unsuccessful. Because the Commonwealth was unwilling to reduce the sex-trafficking charge, Attorney Noonan prepared the case for trial, and was prepared to argue to the jury that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to the misdemeanor offense of sex-for-a-fee and his conduct did not constitute sex-trafficking. A final pretrial conference was scheduled in which the parties represented that they were ready for trial. Two-days before the trial, mindful that Attorney Noonan was ready, willing, and able to try the case, the Commonwealth offered to drop the sex-trafficking charge and have the Defendant pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense of sex-for-a-fee and give him probation for two years. Defendant accepted the deal. Sexual Conduct for a Fee (G.L. c. 272, §53A) is a misdemeanor offense, which does not carry any sex-offender registration requirements. Once the Defendant completes his probation, he is entitled to have this charge automatically sealed from his record.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Plymouth District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN LARCENY TRIAL WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF DEFRAUDING AN INVESTOR OF $10,000 AND 10% OWNERSHIP IN HIS COMPANY.
Defendant and a business partner owned a business and they each owned a 50% share of the business. It was alleged that there was a meeting with the Defendant, his business partner, and an employee where the employee offered to invest $10,000 in the business in exchange for a 10% ownership interest in the business and that Defendant would refund his $10,000 within one calendar year. It was alleged that the Defendant took the $10,000 for personal use and never put any of the money into the business. It was also alleged that the Defendant never paid back the $10,000 to the employee. Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Larceny over $1,200 by False Pretense pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30. As a result of the charges, Defendant lost his job as a firefighter and EMT. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that there was no fraudulent inducement by the Defendant because it was the victim who offered to invest the money in the business. Attorney Noonan argued that this not a criminal case by any stretch of the imagination, and there was a civil dispute amongst business owners and an employee. Defendant’s 50/50 business partner testified against him at trial. Attorney Noonan argued that the business partner was equally liable because he was a 50/50 partner, owned 50% of the business, was part of this business deal, and approved the deal. The 50/50 partner had the authority to make good on any debts or liabilities of the business. Defendant did not enter into this transaction personally, but on behalf of the business. The defendant was found not guilty and the charge was sealed from his record.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
FELONY OFFENSE OF OBTAINING DRUGS BY FRAUD AGAINST STATE EMPLOYEE DISMISSED.
Defendant has been employed for a state governmental agency. Her ex-boyfriend accused her of picking up his prescription medication at the pharmacy by fraud. The victim went to the CVS pharmacy to pick up his prescription medication where he was told that his prescription had already been picked up. The victim suspected the Defendant. Police obtained surveillance video of the suspect picking up the medication. The victim was not 100% certain that the person in the video was the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence, in which he sought to preclude the victim from testifying at trial that the suspect in the video was the Defendant. After reviewing the Motion to Suppress, the prosecution agreed that this identification testimony should not be introduced at trial. Without any positive identification of the Defendant as the suspect, Attorney Noonan proceeded to trial. On the day of trial, with the victim present to testify, the Commonwealth offered us a sweetheart deal where the charge would be dismissed after 12 months, resulting in a straight dismissal, with no admission to any wrongdoing by our client. The charge will be dismissed and the Defendant’s employment will not be affected.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – North Hampton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR CARRYING A LOADED SHOTGUN IN A MOTOR VEHICLE. CASE DISMISSED.
In the 1980s, Defendant went hunting with a friend. A wildlife / environmental police officer observed the Defendant holding a shotgun, while sitting in the passenger seat of a moving vehicle. The vehicle was stopped. The officer observed that the Defendant had a shotgun in the passenger seat with him. The officer removed the shotgun, which was loaded, and cleared the ammunition from the shotgun. Defendant was charged with Loaded Shotgun in Automobile (G.L. c. 131, §63). Defendant pled guilty and was issued a fine. Defendant applied for a license to carry firearms, which was denied because of a conviction for a firearms offense. With a firearms conviction, Defendant would be federally prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to vacate the conviction so he would no longer be prohibited from obtaining a firearms license or purchasing a firearm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the judge to throw out the conviction. Defendant is no longer disqualified from possessing an LTC, or purchasing a firearm.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Boston Municipal Court
CHARGES OF STRANGULATION AND ASSAULT & BATTERY AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT DISMISSED.
My Defendant is a college student. He lived with three college roommates in an off-campus apartment. One of his roommates called 911 and reported that the Defendant physically assaulted him and placed him in a chokehold. Defendant denied the allegations. Defendant was charged with Strangulation (G.L. c. 265, §15D) and Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). The client and his parents hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, who immediately moved to dismiss the Strangulation charge for insufficient evidence, as there was no evidence to support the essential elements of the offense, and there was no statement by the victim that the Defendant applied substantial pressure to his neck which interfered with the normal course of his breathing. The prosecution, to their immense credit, reviewed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss and agreed to drop the Strangulation charge. Attorney Noonan prepared for trial on the remaining Assault & Battery and provided the prosecution with statements from the two other roommates who were present for the altercation. The witness statements were highly exculpatory and undermined the government’s case. After producing these witness statements, the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss the case outright, after 6 months.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
AFTER A HEARING, AND OPPOSITION BY THE PROSECUTION, JUDGE ALLOWS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO SEAL CHARGES OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION, ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, AND CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.
In 2016, Defendant was charged with Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B), Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §13A, and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated (G.L. c. 269, §10H.) The charges were dismissed. Even though the charges were dismissed, Defendant was not entitled to have the charges automatically sealed from his record. Rather, the Defendant had to file a Motion to Seal, present evidence, and persuade a judge to seal his record. At the record-sealing hearing, the prosecution did not want his record sealed and objected. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented specific grounds, with supporting exhibits, showing that the Defendant presented good cause for record-sealing. Even though the prosecution objected, the judge agreed with Attorney Noonan, and all charges were sealed from his record.
Plaintiff v. Milton Police
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.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
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.
Plaintiff v. Lunenburg Police
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.