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.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Barnstable District Court

PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN CASE OF CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.

The client, a longtime restaurant manager and resident of Yarmouth, was charged with Carrying a Firearm While Intoxicated (G.L. c. 269, §10H) in the Barnstable District Court. The police received a call for a wellness check. Defendant’s father reported to the police that the Defendant made suicidal statements and was in the possession of a firearm while parked in his car outside the father’s house. Upon arrival, the police officer observed the Defendant parked in a vehicle with his firearm located on the passenger seat. The officer observed numerous empty nip bottles of liquor in the vehicle. The officer determined that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and charged him with Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the prosecution’s evidence that the Defendant was intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol. The Commonwealth’s case rested on the testimony of the police officer and his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The case was won on Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of the police officer. After his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and that his consumption of alcohol affected his ability to safely carry a firearm.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

JUVENILE CHARGES SEALED FROM CRIMINAL RECORD OF MILITARY SERVICEMAN AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

Client is a 29 year-old member of the United States Navy and aspiring police officer. Client applied for the position as a full-time police officer for a police department in another state. Although he was more than qualified, the police department told him that he needed to seal juvenile charges on his criminal record. The police department was willing to hire him subject to his juvenile record being sealed. Client had charges on his juvenile record including Breaking & Entering and Larceny. The client needed the juvenile charges sealed immediately because he was close to getting hired. Therefore, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to seal the juvenile charges quickly such that the client could proceed with the application process.

Commonwealth v. O.A.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN DRUNK-DRIVING CASE AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti. He is not a U.S. citizen. Client attended a wedding on Cape Cod. He was driving home to Brockton. As he was driving on Route 24, State Troopers were parked in the breakdown lane. The Trooper observed the Defendant speeding, his vehicle crossed the fog line, and he came close to striking the police cruiser. Troopers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle, as it exited the highway. Police located the Defendant’s vehicle parked in a Gas Station. It was almost 2:00 a.m., and the gas station was closed, but the Defendant approached the gas pump thinking the gas station was open. Officers observed that the Defendant’s pants were unbuttoned and there was liquid on his crotch area. Troopers administered two Field Sobriety Tests and the Trooper testified that the Defendant failed the tests. The Trooper testified that the Defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes, his speech was slurred, and there was an odor of alcohol on his breath. Police found a liquor bottle in his car. As a result, Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol, Negligent Operation, Speeding, Marked Lanes Violation, Obstructing an Emergency Vehicle, and Open Container of Alcohol.

Result: After a bench trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan aggressively cross-examined the State Trooper and challenged his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated and attacked his testimony concerning the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle. After the trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all charges, but was found response of committing a marked lanes violation.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Brockton District Court

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

The client is an immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record. A State Trooper observed the Defendant operating erratically on Route 495 South. The Trooper observed the Defendant swerving and crossing the fog line. When signaled to pull over, Defendant continued traveling at a slow rate of speed and almost came to a complete stop in the right-hand travel lane. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper noticed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test, the One Leg Stand, and found that the Defendant failed this test. The Trooper recovered a Fireball nip bottle in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Negligent Operation (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan affectively attacked the Trooper’s testimony that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan excluded evidence regarding one particular field sobriety test. As to the other field sobriety test, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant recently suffered an ankle injury, which affected his ability to perform satisfactorily on the test. Through cross-examination, the Trooper admitted that he did not know whether the liquor bottle was opened or that any contents had been consumed. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not demonstrate any noticeable signs of impairment during the booking process. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or that he operated his vehicle negligently. Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

Case Results