Commonwealth v. John Doe

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.

Commonwealth v. Brian Dolan

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.”

Commonwealth V. M.T.

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.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION.

Client is a hard-working Haitian immigrant, a young man, newly married, who has never been in any trouble. Defendant was stopped by State Police based on the Trooper’s belief that the vehicle was being operated erratically. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he smelled of alcohol. The Defendant was nowhere near his intended destination. The Trooper requested that the Defendant submit to field sobriety tests. The Defendant attempted the first test, but stopped, and declined to participate in any other field sobriety tests, citing an old basketball injury. Defendant was placed under arrest. The passenger in the vehicle was free to leave.

Result: During the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the credibility of the Trooper’s testimony, particularly attacking his observations that the Defendant’s operation was erratic. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the Defendant committed a minor marked lanes violation, and pulled over into the breakdown lane when signaled to pull over. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant had no difficulty exiting the vehicle and no issues with his balance when standing at roadside while speaking to the officer. Attorney Noonan argued that the first field sobriety test should not be considered because the Defendant briefly attempted the test but declined to complete the test because of his basketball injury. Attorney Noonan argued that the minimal evidence regarding the Defendant’s performance of the field sobriety test did not establish that he was intoxicated or impaired. Attorney Noonan requested production of the Trooper’s body camera, which was never provided or introduced, and the defense argued that the body camera would have been helpful for his case. In addition, there was no video of the Defendant’s booking. The judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Plymouth Superior Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF SEX-TRAFFICKING INDICTMENT IN THE PLYMOUTH SUPERIOR COURT. THE PROSECUTION HAS APPEALED THE DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT TO THE APPEALS COURT.

The Defendant, along with four-other defendants, was indicted in the Plymouth Superior Court on charges of Trafficking a Person for Sexual (G.L. c. 265, §50) and Sexual Conduct for a Fee (G.L. c. 272, §53A). Sex-trafficking carries a serious penalty of five-years in State Prison. Law enforcement posted an advertisement online, posing as prostitutes, advertising sexual services in exchange for fees. The advertisement contained a phone number for the customer to call. Defendant responded to the advertisement and contacted the phone number and conversed with an undercover officer, who was posing as a prostitute, and the Defendant offered money in exchange for sex services. Defendant arrived at a hotel to meet the undercover officer and was arrested.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Sex-Trafficking charge in the Plymouth Superior Court arguing that there was no probable cause to support the offense. Attorney Noonan, citing a recently decided case by the Supreme Judicial Court, argued that the offense of sex-trafficking requires proof of an actual, human being victim. Here, there was no actual human being victim, as the Commonwealth identified the victim as “society.” There was no victim, but an undercover who was posing as a prostitute and no commercial sexual activity would ever occur. There was no human being victim, but an undercover officer posing as a fictitious person. Attorney Noonan argued that the Legislature, in enacting the Sex-Trafficking statute, did not intend to punish Johns who offer undercover officers money in exchange for sex. The Legislature intended to punish Johns under a different statute, the Sexual Conduct for a Fee statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the Legislature enacted the sex-trafficking statute to target “pimps” and those who enslave sex workers. The Superior Court allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss and the Commonwealth has appealed the allowance of the Motion to Dismiss to the Appeals Court.

Commonwealth v. Kaweesi Marvin

Mass. Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Kaweesi Marvin

Docket No.: 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 (2022)

CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF OUI-LIQUOR AFTER TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS THE CASE ON APPEAL, THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED, AND THE CLIENT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY. CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION.

The client is an immigrant and not a legal U.S. citizen. While represented by another highly-experienced and effective attorney, the client was found guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol after a bench-trial in the Waltham District Court. Prior counsel and the client sought Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s services in appealing the conviction.

Result: On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication was insufficient, as a matter of law, and he should have been found not guilty by the trial judge. There are very few appeals finding that evidence of intoxication was insufficient as a matter of law. In a rare case, Attorney Noonan was able to persuade the Appeals Court that the evidence of intoxication was insufficient requiring reversal of the conviction. The Appeals Court reversed the conviction and the client was subsequently found not guilty.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Wrentham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST BANKER AND FATHER OF THREE.

The client is a banker, father of three, and a resident of Mansfield with no criminal record. At approximately 2:00 a.m., a Wrentham Police Officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle exiting the parking lot of a drinking establishment in Wrentham. The officer observed that the Defendant exited the parking lot without activating his headlights. The officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and stopped the vehicle after noticing some improper operation. After conducting several field sobriety tests, the officer concluded that the Defendant was intoxicated and arrested him for Operating under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and Operating Negligently (G.L. c. 90, §24).The client was charged in the Wrentham District Court.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. The officer testified that the Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Attorney Noonan introduced medical evidence showing that the Defendant was obese and suffered from a knee injury. Attorney Noonan moved to introduce portions of the booking video at the police station. Attorney Noonan provided the court with a chart highlighting portions of the booking video, which were consistent with the Defendant’s sobriety and lack of impairment. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of negligent operation was insufficient, as the officer’s observations of the vehicle’s operation was limited due to the fact that the officer stopped the Defendant’s quickly. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges, and Attorney Noonan was able to have the client’s driver’s license reinstated the next day.

Plaintiff v. Police Department

District Court

AN ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED FOR IMPROPERLY STORING HIS FIREARM, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS REINSTATEMENT OF THE CLIENT’S LTC.

The client, a young man with no criminal record, was in the process of applying to become a police officer. The client was highly qualified for the position of police officer. The client progressed quite far in the application process. During the application process, a police officer interviewed the client at his residence. The interviewing officer requested to see where the client’s firearm was stored in his residence. The client escorted the officer to his bedroom. The officer observed that the client’s firearm was located in the drawer of his nightstand, but the firearm was not stored properly, as it was secured in a locked container or affixed with a trigger-lock. Due to the fact that the client failed to store his firearm properly in compliance with Massachusetts law, the client’s License to Carry Firearms was suspended, and his hopes of becoming a police officer was destroyed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the suspension of the LTC and eventually won the reinstatement of the client’s LTC restoring his hopes of becoming a police officer in the future.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Plymouth District Court

IN A HIGH PROFILE CASE, PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF STRANGULATION, ASSAULT & BATTERY, AND THREATS. CASE WAS FEATURED IN THE NEWS.

The client, a military veteran and retired pilot with no criminal record, was charged in the Plymouth District Court with criminal complaints of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), Strangulation (G.L. c. 265, §15D), and Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. 275, §2). The charges stem from an incident between the client and a teenager over a property dispute in Marshfield. The case was featured in Channel 7 News. The teenager reported to the police that the Defendant confronted him about trespassing on his property in Marshfield. The teenager reported that the Defendant grabbed him and threw him to the ground and proceeded to choke and strangle him by the neck while repeatedly threatening to kill him.

Result: At the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the alleged victim and thoroughly attacked his credibility and revealed a multitude of contradictory information and inconsistent statements. Attorney Noonan then called his client to the witness stand. The client denied assaulting, strangling, and threatening the alleged victim. After brief deliberations, the jury quickly returned not guilty verdicts on all charges.

https://whdh.com/news/marshfield-man-acquitted-in-assault-trial/

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Brockton District Court

CHARGES DISMISSED AT TRIAL UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE MISCONDUCT OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER.

Police responded to the scene of a grocery store upon receiving a report that the Defendant was disruptive, threatening an employee, and stealing from the store. Upon the arrival of police, Defendant was walking down the street. Police confronted the Defendant who provided a false name. Defendant did not want to engage with the police officers and turned his back to walk away from them. However, officers claimed that the Defendant grabbed hold of the officer’s jacket resulting in a physical altercation between the Defendant and the two police officers. The two officers used excessive force, punching the defendant numerous times in the face, and using a baton on him. The officers charged the Defendant with numerous crimes, including Assault & Battery on a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest.

Result: During his investigation and preparation of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the arresting officer had engaged in misconduct in connection with two, unrelated criminal cases. In the first case, the arresting officer testified at a hearing, in another criminal case. In that case, the Motion Judge found that the arresting officer’s testimony was very questionable and ruled in favor of the Defendant. In this Attorney’s opinion, the arresting officer’s testimony was not credible and very misleading. In the second case, the arresting officer testified at a hearing, in another criminal case, but his testimony was contradicted by video footage showing the officer’s actual encounter with the Defendant. Therefore, the arresting officer provided very questionable testimony in relation to two other criminal cases. Prior to this trial, Attorney Noonan notified the prosecution that he intended to introduce evidence of the arresting officer’s misconduct in the two other criminal cases. At trial, the prosecution stated that they did not intend to call the arresting officer as a witness and the case was dismissed.

Case Results