Case Results
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.
Commonwealth v. Two Defendants
Quincy District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGES AGAINST FATHER AND SON ARISING OUT OF A GROUP FIGHT ON A PARTY BUS.
Defendants, father and son, were on a party bus. They were celebrating the birthday of their mother / wife by treating her to an evening on a bus, which visits local restaurants and drinking establishments. There were other people on the party bus. The other group members were very intoxicated; they were loud, and disruptive. The son asked the group to refrain from using profanities and vulgarities because they were trying to have a nice evening with the family. The other group members were shouting at the driver to turn up the music. An argument, which turned physical, ensued between the two groups. During this altercation, members of the other group alleged that both defendants were aggressive, and started a fight, and threw punches. A female member of the other group was punched in the face and she sustained a bloody nose. Defendants denied starting the fight and denied punching the female. Both defendants were charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). Attorney Gerald J. Noonan represented both clients at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, but despite his zealous advocacy the clerk found that there was sufficient evidence to charge them. The clerk found that the issues raised by Attorney Noonan were trial issues. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. On the day of trial, all charges were dismissed against the Defendants.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Taunton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN IS SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OBTAINED PURSUANT TO AN ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANT RESULTING IN THE DISMISSAL OF 20 CRIMINAL CHARGES.
A multi-department investigation was conducted utilizing the services of a Confidential Informant (CI) – who alleged that the Defendant had sold cocaine to him in the past on numerous occasions in the town of Norwood. The Confidential Informant participated in five (5) controlled buys with the Defendant for the purchase of cocaine. In each buy, the CI claimed that it had purchased cocaine from the Defendant. Based on the information supplied by the CI and in conjunction with the five (5) controlled buys, the police applied for, and obtained, a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Easton. When the police executed the search warrant, they found numerous large-capacity firearms, large-capacity ammunition, narcotics, cocaine, plastic baggies, scales, and large sums of cash, and some counterfeit money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained in connection with the execution of the search warrant – arguing that the information in the Search Warrant Affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that drugs would be located in the target premises. In particular, Attorney Noonan argued that the information supplied by the CI, and the five controlled-buys, did not establish a nexus between the Defendant’s drug-selling activities and the target premises. The Court agreed and allowed the Motion to Suppress. As all evidence has been suppressed, all criminal charges, 20 criminal charges, will be dismissed.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Stoughton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES A CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY FROM 1963 AGAINST 83 YEAR-OLD KINGSTON MAN.
Defendant was convicted in 1963 after having pled guilty to committing an Assault & Battery on his then-wife. Defendant, now 83 years-old, applied for a License to Carry Firearms but was automatically disqualified due to the domestic violence conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to vacate the conviction in the interests of justice, and the Court agreed. Now that the conviction is vacated, the client is eligible to apply for a License to Carry Firearms.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Wareham District Court
CHARGE OF OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE AGAINST NON-U.S. CITIZEN DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.
Client is a 34 year-old immigrant from Honduras where he lived in poverty and worked on a farm. He came to the U.S. and cannot speak any English. He is not a U.S. citizen. He was hired by a company as a physical laborer. The majority of the money he earns, he sends back to his family in Honduras. He has been living in a hotel with many other immigrants. On this occasion, as an isolated incident, the client drove his employer’s vehicle, because another employee was a no-show for work. He was pulled over. He did not have a driver’s license. He was charged with Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Client was scheduled to be arraigned on this criminal offense. If arraigned, the criminal offense would be entered on his criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss this case prior to arraignment, saving the client from having any criminal record.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
Quincy District Court
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST 62 YEAR-OLD BANKER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.
Client is a 62-year old woman with no criminal record. She has been working for the same bank for 42 years. On the incident in question, client was driving to her friend’s house in Weymouth. It was dark out. When she attempted to negotiate a sharp turn in the road, she struck another vehicle, causing minor damage to the vehicle. Shaken up over the minor collision, she did not stop on the dark road, but proceeded to her friend’s house who lived a short distance away. She immediately reported the incident to her insurance company. She received a phone call from a Massachusetts State Trooper where she admitted to hitting the other car and not pulling over to exchange any information with the other driver. She was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Property Damage (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with information from the client’s car insurance company, showing that the damage to the other vehicle was very minor, and confirmation that the other driver was compensated through insurance. Attorney Noonan was able to convince the Commonwealth to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, meaning that the client will not have any criminal record resulting from this incident.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Stoughton District Court
DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH 41 COUNTS OF SECRETLY VIDEOTAPING MEN USING THE URINAL AND BATHROOM IN THE MEN’S LOCKER OF A FITNESS CENTER. DEFENDANT WALKS AWAY WITH NO CONVICTION, NO JAIL TIME, AND NO SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION.
Defendant, a 24 year-old with no criminal record, was charged with 41 counts of Photographing Sexual Intimate Parts without Consent pursuant to G.L. c. 272, §105. Defendant was an employee for a fitness center. Employees discovered a recording device in a shower-caddy that was positioned at the base of the urinal in the men’s locker room. Employees suspected that the Defendant was the person to have installed the camera. Whenever the cleaning crew went into the men’s locker room to conduct cleaning, Defendant would rush into the locker room and was seen removing the shower-caddy. Police obtained the Defendant’s personal emails to Amazon indicating that the camera he purchased was mechanical issues and he requested a new camera. The camera identified in the Defendant’s emails matched the make and model of the camera found in the locker room. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s residence and recovered numerous electronic devices, including cameras matching the camera found in the locker room. The electronic devices contained videos of men using the urinals in the bathroom. The case was indefensible, impossible to defend, and was unwinnable at trial. The issue for Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was to seek the best resolution possible for the client, which would not include a conviction, jail time, or sex-offender registration. This was a case where the goal of sentencing was aimed at treating the root cause of the criminal conduct (underlying mental health issues) and to concentrate on treating and rehabilitating the defendant, as opposed to incarcerating him, which would not get at the root of the problem.