Commonwealth v. Juvenile

Brockton Juvenile Court

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUES FOR BREAKING & ENTERING, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THAT THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE.

The Client, a 16 year-old high school student and non-U.S. citizen, was charged with Breaking and Entering, after police caught him and others inside a vacant building. At a clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was legally insufficient evidence to support the offense, including insufficient evidence that the juvenile “broke” into the building because the building was vacant, abandoned, the doors were open, there were no obstructions to access, and the juvenile did not have to exert any physical force to enter the building. Going through an unobstructed entrance such as an open door does not constitute “breaking.” After considering all arguments and evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the clerk-magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint. This was a significant victory because the client is not a U.S. citizen, and the client will not have any criminal record as a result of this case.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGES OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT, UNREGISTERED VEHICLE, AND UNINSURED VEHICLE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AGAINST MEMBER OF THE AIR FORCE.

Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), Unregistered Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §9), and Uninsured Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §34J). Police alleged that the Defendant struck a telephone and did not report the accident. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was traveling on an unfamiliar dangerous road when he struck a telephone. Attorney Noonan provided photographs showing that the Defendant merely grazed the pole, with extremely minor damage. Defendant immediately called his insurance company and reported the accident. Defendant even remained on scene until the tow truck arrived. Defendant told the police that he did not think that he had to report the accident because another vehicle was not involved in the accident and he immediately reported it to his insurance company. Attorney Noonan provided information from witnesses to corroborate the Defendant’s version.

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), and Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Defendant was a 25 year-old with no criminal record. Police were called to the scene of a single-car accident. An off-duty EMT testified at trial that he observed the Defendant travel through an intersection, at a high rate of speed, and strike a curb and telephone pole. Upon arrival, the officer spoke with the Defendant, who was the operator of the vehicle. The officer detected an odor of alcohol on her breath. The officer testified that the Defendant was unable to recall how the accident happened. The officer observed that her eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. Police recovered an empty bottle of liquor in the center console. Defendant was administered the Nine-Step Walk & Turn and One Leg Stand field-sobriety test, and the officer testified that she failed these tests. Defendant admitted to consuming three glasses of champagne about two hours ago.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan emphasized that the Defendant’s poor performance on the field-sobriety tests were very understandable considering the circumstances. For example, Defendant was involved in a serious car accident. The airbag deployed striking her in the face, causing injuries to her nose and lip, which were bleeding. Defendant was emotional, crying, and was repeatedly expressing concern for her passenger, who was injured in the crash. Defendant was asked to perform these field-sobriety tests with four police officers on scene, three police cruisers on scene, and a fire truck surrounding her. The officer admitted that she was shook-up and frazzled by the accident. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant went to the emergency room after her arrest complaining of chest pain and rib pain. Despite all this, Defendant still performed relatively well on the field-sobriety tests, under these harsh circumstances. Attorney Noonan was able to suppress the empty liquor bottle from coming into evidence at trial because the prosecutor was unable to bring in the police officer who located the bottle in the vehicle, and they would be unable to authenticate this piece of evidence. Attorney Noonan aggressively argued that the Police Department was grossly negligent because they lost the video recording of the Defendant’s booking at the police station following her arrest. Attorney Noonan persuaded the trial judge to instruct the jury that they could infer that the lost booking video would have been favorable to the Defendant’s case. Attorney Noonan was successful in dismissing the unlicensed operation charge because the Commonwealth’s RMV records did not contain the date in which her license was suspended. After one-hour of deliberations, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of all charges and her driver’s license was restored.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SIX FIREARM CHARGES, CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES, AND ANOTHER COUNT OF RESISTING ARREST.

Defendant was charged with seven criminal offenses, including: Two-counts of Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), two-counts of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Possession of Firearm without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1), Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L), and Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B). If convicted, Defendant was facing serious minimum-mandatory jail time and deportation from the United States.

Result: Defendant was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle, which was wanted in connection with a drive-by shooting in Boston. About a week after the shooting, State Troopers observed the suspect vehicle and attempted to pull it over, but a high-speed chase ensued from Milton to Brockton, which ultimately ended with the suspect vehicle crashing into an intersection in Brockton. Police observed a loose pistol magazine at the feet of the operator. In the glove compartment, located in the passenger side area where the Defendant had been seated, police found two firearms, a large capacity firearm, and ammunition. Police alleged that the Defendant resisted arrest when they commanded him to exit the passenger side of the vehicle. The operator and defendant-passenger were charged with a multitude of firearm offenses and resisting arrest. At a suppression hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan elicited evidence from the State Trooper, which would prove to be vital to the Defendant’s case at trial. The glove-compartment, where the firearms were stored, was locked and the Defendant did not have possession of the key. Troopers admitted that they did not observe the Defendant reach for or touch the glove-compartment, and Troopers did not see the Defendant attempt to hide or conceal evidence. Although they claimed that the Defendant resisted arrest, Attorney Noonan was able to get that charge dismissed for insufficient evidence. No fingerprints were lifted from the firearms or ammunition. On the day of trial, the co-defendant (operator of the vehicle) pled guilty to most of the charges, but Attorney Noonan remained steadfast that his client was innocent and refused to enter into any plea negotiations. Recognizing that Attorney Noonan was prepared, ready, willing and able to try this case, the prosecutor dismissed all charges against the Defendant.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OUI-DRUGS CASE DISMISSED AFTER CONVINCING THE COURT THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS CAUSED BY METHAMPHETAMINE FOUND IN HIS VEHICLE.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)). Police received a report of an erratic operator. Police received another report of a person slumped over the steering wheel of the same vehicle in a parking lot. Upon arrival, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel and was unresponsive. The officer believed that the Defendant was experiencing the effects of drug use. Defendant denied taking any drugs. In the Defendant’s vehicle, they found plastic bags containing Methamphetamine and glass pipes used to smoke this substance. Defendant was transported to the hospital. Defendant was also charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained the Defendant’s certified medical records, which lacked any laboratory or toxicology tests to show that the Defendant had any drugs in his system. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant’s impairment was caused by the methamphetamine found in the Defendant’s vehicle. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the Methamphetamine caused the Defendant’s impairment because none of the officers at the scene were qualified to render any such opinion to connect the effects of this drug use to the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant. As a result, all charges against the Defendant were dismissed.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Lawrence District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SERIOUS FIREARMS CHARGES CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES.

Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 269, §10(b)), and Operating a Vehicle with a Suspended License (G.L. c. 90, §23). If convicted of Carrying a Firearm without a License, Defendant faced a minimum-mandatory jail sentence of 18 months, and another minimum-mandatory sentence of 2.5 years in jail if convicted of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License.

Result: Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire. He left his home in New Hampshire to visit a friend in Lawrence. While returning home to New Hampshire, after visiting his friend, Defendant was stopped by a State Trooper in Methuen because of a non-working headlight. Upon the stop, the Trooper learned that the Defendant had a suspended Massachusetts driver’s license and placed him under arrest. While arresting him, the Trooper located a loaded handgun in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Under a new decision announced by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, in order to prove the firearm offenses, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license. Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023) At trial, the Commonwealth called a witness from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), which is responsible for maintaining a database of all persons issued firearm licenses in Massachusetts. This witness testified that she was provided with the Defendant’s name and his Date of Birth. When the witness entered the Defendant’s first name, last name, and DOB, into the database, the results disclosed that there was no record of the Defendant having ever been issued a firearm license in Massachusetts. In a surprise attack at trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the Commonwealth did not provide CJIS with the proper name for the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license in Massachusetts because CJIS was not provided with the correct name for the Defendant. Under cross-examination, the witness from CJIS testified that she did not enter the Defendant’s correct name into the database. Further, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire, had a New Hampshire address, had a New Hampshire driver’s license, and had his motor vehicle registered in New Hampshire. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth did not conduct any record-searches to determine whether the Defendant had any firearm licenses issued to him in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant’s firearm was registered in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant was legally permitted to own and possess this firearm in New Hampshire. After two-hours of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of all charges, and the Defendant was free to leave.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS ASSAULT & BATTERY COMPLAINT UPON PROOF THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS THE AGGRESSOR WHO INITIATED THE CONFRONTATION.

Defendant is a man with no criminal record. He was having dinner and some drinks at his favorable pub where he was a regular. On prior occasions, pub employees complained about the conduct of another patron. In particular, a female employee had complained about this patron before. On this occasion, the client happened to be seated next to this troublesome patron. The client began to videotape the patron to send to the female employee. Enraged at being recorded, the patron grabbed the client’s cell phone, causing both men to fall off their bar stools, knocking over a female patron in the process. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient probable cause to charge the client with Assault & Battery because the evidence showed that the other patron was the aggressor who initiated the confrontation, and the client merely acted reflexively in response to the other patron grabbing and pulling at his cell phone. The client had no intent to commit any touching, as his actions were purely reactionary to having his cell phone grabbed and pulled out of his hand. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue any criminal complaint against our client. Therefore, the client does not have any criminal record arising out of this incident.

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe

Taunton District Court

FELONY OFFENSE OF OBTAINING DRUGS BY FRAUD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT FOR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Obtaining Drugs by Fraud (G.L. c. 94C, §33(b)). Defendant’s ex-boyfriend called the police to report that the Defendant went to the CVS pharmacy and fraudulently obtained medication in his name. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the evidence, and conducted legal research, and learned that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove an essential element of the offense. To prove this offense, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the substance in question is a “controlled substance.” Attorney Noonan provided the prosecutor with evidence that the substance in question was NOT a controlled substance. As such, the Commonwealth would be unable to prove this charge at trial. The Commonwealth dismissed the felony offense prior to arraignment, and the Defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor offense of Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30(1)). Attorney Noonan is in the process of preparing this case for trial.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Commissioner of Probation

CONVICTIONS FOR ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION ARE SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.

Our client was convicted for Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), and Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B). The client contacted our law office to have the convictions sealed from his record. Our law office was able to seal all criminal convictions from the client’s record.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Quincy District Court

FELONY LARCENY DISMISSED UPON WITNESS AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT DEFENDANT RETURNED THE ALLEGEDLY STOLEN ITEM TO THE POLICE.

Defendant went to Walmart. When entering the store, there was a person sitting at a table soliciting charitable donations, and Defendant observed a cell phone on the floor in the vicinity of this person. Surveillance video shows the Defendant picking up the phone, looking at it, putting it in his pocket, and leaving the store after finishing his shopping. Defendant was called by a police officer who instructed him to return the cell phone to the police station. If he returned the cell phone to the police station, the officer stated that he would not charge the Defendant with a crime. The officer alleged that the Defendant never returned the cell phone and the officer charged him with Larceny from Person (G.L. c. 266, §25(b)).Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with an affidavit from a witness attesting to the fact that the Defendant returned the cell phone to the police station. The witness was present with the Defendant when he returned the cell phone to the police station. Based upon the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

Case Results