Result

The client is a 41 year-old, happily married, father of three children. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms with the police department in his place of residence. The police department denied his application for LTC because of two prior criminal cases on his record, which disqualified him.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented the police department with evidence that the two prior criminal cases should not disqualify his client from obtaining an LTC. One of the prior criminal cases, a felony drug conviction, was later vacated by the court and should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. The other prior criminal case, a charge of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, resulted in a Not Guilty verdict, which should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. Attorney Noonan also presented evidence showing that his client was a suitable person to possess a firearm. After considering Attorney Noonan’s evidence, the police department changed its mind and issued the client a license to carry firearms.

IN A RARE CASE WHERE A DEFENDANT CONFESSES TO A CRIME ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES HIS CLIENT’S INNOCENCE AND WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING.

On December 31, 2016, there was a New Year’s Eve party at a home on Orchard Ave. in Brockton. Police received several 911 calls reporting multiple gunshots fired at the home. One call reported that six gunshots were fired. One bullet traveled through a bedroom where a young child had been sleeping. Upon arrival the home, police interviewed several witnesses who lived in the home and were present for the party. Two of the witness immediately informed police that they had Snapchat videos posted by the person who committed the shooting. The Snapchat videos were posted from the account of Ritch Dorce, the Defendant in the case. One video physically showed Dorce present at the party. Another video showed Dorce sitting in the car, holding a firearm, and confessing the shooting. Dorce states: “I just got jumped, but, ayy, it’s OK. I just emptied all my shells. I ain’t got no more shells. But, ayy, I’m about to go back and get some more.” Dorce is then seen releasing the magazine to the firearm. Police interviewed approximately nine individuals who were present at the party. Some witnesses told police that Dorce got into a physical altercation with others at the party over marijuana. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was in the company of approximately 4-5 other males who were also involved in fights with others at the party. Some witnesses reported that Dorce, and the males with him, retrieved baseball bats and damaged a vehicle with bats. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was seen holding a taser. Some witnesses reported that Dorce threatened to come back and shoot the house up. Two witnesses stated that they were outside when they observed two vehicles drive by and fire shots at the house. One witness identified Dorce as sitting in one of the vehicles, which was involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s Snapchat account, which confirmed that Dorce had in fact posted the incriminating videos on his Snapchat account. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, GPS, and tower locations for his cell phone, which allowed police to locate Dorce and arrest him. Dorce agreed to videotape interview with police. In the interview, Dorce admitted that he posted the video but Dorce maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce admitted that he got jumped at the party but he maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce was charged with: 1) Carrying a Firearm without a License, 2) Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, 3) Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, 4) Malicious Destruction of Property, and 5) Malicious Damage to a Vehicle.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that somebody else committed the shooting. In his interview, Dorce told police that he attended the party with three other males, one of whom was named Jeff. Dorce stated that he left the party and his cousin gave him a ride to his apartment in Brockton where he met his girlfriend and daughter. While he was in his Brockton home, Dorce received a phone call from Jeff who instructed Dorce to come outside and meet him in his car. While in the car, Jeff told Dorce that he (Jeff) “took care of it” because he didn’t want Dorce “to get his hands dirty.” Jeff then showed Dorce the handgun. At that point, Dorce foolishly decided to post a video on Snapchat of himself holding the handgun and taking credit for the shooting. Dorce stated that he posted the video to let people know not to mess with him. Attorney Noonan presented evidence with regards to Jeff’s true identity and the fact that police did not conduct any investigation into Jeff. Attorney Noonan had his private investigator testify that he was able to locate Jeff’s public Facebook page, which contained posts where Jeff appeared to feel guilty over the fact that Dorce was in jail for something he did not do and Jeff posted that he would take responsibility. The private investigator testified that he confronted Jeff with his posts but Jeff did not deny that he was involved in the shooting. Attorney Noonan argued that the police had evidence that would show Dorce’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting but the police did not bring this evidence to trial. Specifically, Dorce voluntarily handed over his cell phone to police and gave them the password to his phone. Dorce even asked the police to search his phone records, as the records would show that he was not involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, including his GPS and cell tower locations for the night of the shooting. Dorce’s cell phone records would show his whereabouts at the time of the shooting. If Dorce’s phone records showed that he was in the vicinity of the shooting at the time the shooting occurred, Attorney Noonan argued, the police would have brought that evidence to trial and showed it to the jury. Attorney Noonan argued that the police could have tested the fingerprints from the shell casings found at the scene in order to prove that Dorce handled the bullets that fired the gun. Attorney Noonan argued that Dorce’s Snapchat video was one of hundreds of videos where Dorce is playing a character as part of an online persona where he tried to look tough and sound tough. Dorce held himself out to be somebody he wasn’t. There was the real Dorce and his online persona. The Snapchat video was simply another example of Dorce trying to sound tough. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Mr. Dorce was not the shooter and they acquitted him of all charges except one charge. The jury found Dorce guilty of only holding the firearm in the Snapchat video but they found that Dorce was not the shooter and was not involved in the shooting. In a rare case where a Defendant confesses to committing a crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proves his client’s innocence.

Media about the case:

A Snapchat split decision – Brockton ‘poser’ both guilty and acquitted.

Also:

Click HERE or on the image above to view larger.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE, AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE “WHO” OPERATED THE VEHICLE.

Bridgewater Police received a call from a resident stating there was a disabled vehicle parked in the street and the driver appeared to be sitting in the vehicle with his head back. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the shoulder of the road with two tires blown out. The officer approached the driver’s side of the vehicle where the Defendant had been seated. The officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. The officer asked how the tires were blown out and the Defendant stated that he must have hit something back there and pointed down the road. Defendant admitted that he had smoked a roach while attempting to change his tires prior to Defendant calling for a tow truck. Defendant claimed that he had a medical marijuana card but stated that it had been “responded” when he meant to say “expired.” Defendant admitted to drinking two Budweiser beers about three hours ago. There was a female sitting in the front passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle. She told police that Defendant had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol earlier in the night but she felt he was fine to drive. There were two empty nip bottles on the ground outside the vehicle. The female passenger initially stated that the bottles belonged to her but later stated that the Defendant told her to throw out the nip bottles. The officer testified that the Defendant failed several field sobriety tests, such as the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. At the police station, police found a plastic bag containing marijuana in the Defendant’s pant pocket. At the police station, Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test, which shows that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%, above the legal limit.

Result: In order to prove the Defendant guilty of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was the “operator” of the vehicle. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove that the Defendant, and not the female, was the operator of the vehicle, as there was evidence tending to show that the female could have driven the vehicle. Even though the Defendant had admitted to being the operator, that alone, was insufficient to convict the Defendant unless there was evidence to corroborate that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that, besides the Defendant’s admission to operating the vehicle, there was no other evidence to corroborate that he was the driver.

PARENTAL KIDNAPPING CHARGE AGAINST FLORIDA MAN IS DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS CASE LAW SHOWING HIS CLIENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME

Defendant had a young child with his girlfriend. Defendant, his girlfriend, and the child all lived together in Florida, where the Defendant is from. They recently moved to Plymouth where they lived together in an apartment. The girlfriend and the Defendant had an argument one afternoon. Defendant told the girlfriend that he was taking the child to Florida for a few days to see his family. Defendant told the girlfriend that he would return to Massachusetts with the child after seeing his family. The girlfriend went to the police station to report that the Defendant had kidnapped the child. The police contacted the Defendant, as he was traveling to Florida. Defendant told the police that he had a right to take his child and he was doing nothing illegal. Police continued to contact the Defendant but he did not answer his phone. As the Defendant was in Florida, the girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant in the Plymouth Probate and Family Court, which granted her immediate custody of the child. The Probate and Family Court issued an Order ordering the Defendant to immediately return the child to the girlfriend in Massachusetts. With the assistance of Plymouth Police, the girlfriend filed a Missing Person’s Report. The Plymouth Police Department obtained an Arrest Warrant for the Defendant’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Plymouth Police contacted the Tampa Police seeking their assistance in apprehending the Defendant and returning the child to Massachusetts.

Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan from Florida and explained that he had a warrant for his arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Attorney Noonan made arrangements for the Defendant to come to Massachusetts to remove the Arrest Warrant. Attorney Noonan brought the Defendant into court and reached an agreement with the prosecution that they would remove the arrest warrant and they hold off on charging the Defendant for one week. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecution with case law showing that the Defendant could not be charged with the crime of Parental Kidnapping because there were no court orders regarding child custody at the time the Defendant took the child to Florida. See Commonwealth v. Beals, 405 Mass. 550 (1989)(where SJC held: parent who has taken his or her children from the other parent before there was any court proceeding cannot be convicted of parental kidnapping.) The prosecution agreed with Attorney Noonan and they dismissed the Parental Kidnapping charge prior to arraignment.

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST FORMER MARINE AND RETIRED BUSINESS OWNER FOR OPERATING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE

Client is a 77 year-old retired business owner who owned commercial real estate in a shopping center he operated for decades. He was a former special police officer in Natick and Framingham. He was very active in the community. Unfortunately, he amassed a series of motor vehicle offenses, and received three prior tickets for speeding, improper passing, and marked lanes violations. Due to the multitude of driving violations, the client’s license was suspended and he was required to driving classes in order to get his license reinstated. While his license was suspended, client drove his vehicle to do some errands and was pulled over for speeding and was charged with Operating after Suspended License.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint so long as the client completes a driving course.

FELONY THEFT CHARGE AGAINST UNITED STATES POSTAL WORKER FOR STEALING MAIL IS DISMISSED AFTER A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING

A named victim called the Wareham Police to report that a Best Buy gift card that he purchased and mailed to his son had been stolen. Police found that the Defendant had stolen and used the Best Buy card. Specifically, police obtained surveillance video showing the Defendant using the stolen Best Buy Card at a Best Buy store. It was learned that the Defendant, a United States Postal Worker, had stolen the Best Buy card from the envelope that it had been mailed in. The intended recipient’s mailing address for the Best Buy gift card was on the Defendant’s assigned route. The U.S. Postal Service conducted a sting investigation to catch the Defendant in the act of stealing mail. They placed a red envelope, containing cash, in the mail for the Defendant’s mailing route. They put an address on the green envelope, which was not on the Defendant’s assigned route. Per procedure, the Defendant was supposed to have returned the green envelope to the Post Office, as it was not in the Defendant’s assigned route. Undercover postal investigators observed the Defendant preparing to leave in her personal vehicle. The postal investigators recovered the red envelope in the Defendant’s personal vehicle.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint not to issue against his client. Attorney Noonan argued that his client did not have the intent necessary to commit the larceny of the red envelope, as it did not appear as though the Defendant knew what was inside the red envelope and the Defendant did not have a sufficient opportunity to return the envelope pursuant to postal procedure. This was a very serious charge because it dealt with a theft of federal proportions from the United States Mail by a United States Postal Worker.

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST PARAMEDIC AND BRIDGEWATER STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT DISMISSED AFTER CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to Auto Zone for a reported larceny. Upon arrival, police spoke to the calling party who was an employee working at the cash register. The employee reported that the Defendant came to this register and attempted to purchase three items on his credit card. The cashier told the Defendant that his credit card was declined at which time the Defendant grabbed the items and quickly headed for the door. The cashier yelled to the Defendant, approximately six times, for him to stop and come back into the store. The Defendant fled the store in his vehicle but the cashier wrote down his license plate. The cashier was able to identify the Defendant through the information on his Auto Zone reward card. The officer ran the license plate, which came back to the Defendant. The officer showed a picture of the Defendant’s driver license to the cashier, who immediately identified him as the suspect.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint upon the Defendant’s payment of restitution to Auto Zone for the stolen items. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saves his client, a paramedic and college student at Bridgewater State University, from having a criminal record.

IN A MANSLAUGHTER INVESTIGATION FOR A DRUG OVERDOSE, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, INCLUDING: SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S HOME, AND INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT. LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION DID A FEATURE ON THE CASE FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

Police responded to a private residence for a drug overdose. Upon arrival to the scene, police found a male lying on the floor of his living room dead of a drug overdose. Police searched the deceased’s pockets and found a rolled up $20 bill with brown residue on the tip of it. Police also found on the deceased’s pocket a folded $20 bill and Keno ticket containing brown powder. The brown powder tested positive for heroin. Police searched the deceased’s cell phone and found text messages with the Defendant showing that the two had met the night before the overdose. Police used the deceased’s cell phone, posing as the deceased, and contacted the Defendant by text message and asked to buy some drugs from the Defendant. Police instructed the Defendant to bring the drugs to a parking lot. Upon Defendant’s arrival to the parking lot, Defendant is immediately arrested as soon as he exits his vehicle. Police search the Defendant’s vehicle and find heroin. Defendant is brought to the Stoughton Police Station where he is interrogated by police. In the interrogation, Defendant tells police that he has heroin and pills in his bedroom. The Defendant signed a form giving police permission to search his home. The Defendant also signs another form giving police permission to search his cell phone. Subsequently, police searched the Defendant’s home where they found heroin and pills. Police intended to use the Defendant’s cell phone records to prove that the Defendant sold the heroin, which caused the deceased to die from a drug overdose. Police intended to use the evidence they obtained from the Defendant to charge him with Manslaughter for having caused the death of the deceased.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence in which he sought to suppress the following evidence: statements made by Defendant to police during the interrogation, defendant’s consent for police to search his home, and defendant’s consent for police to search his cell phone. After four hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the evidence was illegally obtained by police. Attorney Noonan proved that the statements made by the Defendant during the police interrogation should have been suppressed because he clearly invoked his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney but the police continued to question him anyway in violation of his constitutional rights. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the Defendant’s consent for the police to search his home and cell phone was invalid because the Defendant’s consent was not given freely or voluntarily. Specifically, Defendant had never been arrested before, he had no prior involvement with police, and he was unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. On top of that, Defendant had been tasered by police prior to the interrogation and Defendant remained handcuffed during the interrogation. Officers admitted that the interrogation was aggressive, at times, and involved yelling. The Defendant’s consent to search his home was not voluntary, as there was evidence that police used the Defendant’s mother as a way to coax him into consenting to a search of his home. Defendant lived with his mother and he was concerned for his mother’s well-being should the police show up at her house, unannounced, and start searching throughout the home. In essence, police told the Defendant that things would be easier for his mother if he simply consented to a search of his bedroom.

See Lawyer’s Weekly Article about the case, “Search results from residence, cell suppressed (.pdf)”

CHARGES DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING FOR ACCIDENT CAUSING INJURIES TO PEDESTRIANS

Our client was charged with Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Marked Lanes Violation as a result of a car accident. Witnesses reported to police that our client’s vehicle turned into a parking lot, drove through a parking space, struck a wooden pillar, went through some bushes, and struck two pedestrians before crashing into a building.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, the injured pedestrians appeared and wanted additional criminal charges brought against the client. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client was responsible for causing the accident but she should not be charged criminally because the case was being resolved through his client’s car insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client’s insurance accepted fault for the accident and his client’s insurance policy had ample coverage to compensate the victims for their injuries.

CHARGES OF USING A FAKE I.D. AND UNDERAGE DRINKING ARE DISMISSED AGAINST EMERSON COLLEGE STUDENT

Boston Police went to The Tam, a bar on Tremont Street in Boston, to conduct a licensed premises inspection. While surveilling the crowd of patrons drinking at the bar, police noticed a patron (our client), who looked underage, drinking a Rolling Rock beer. Police approached our client and asked him for proof of his age. Our client handed the officer an I.D. that was fake. Our client admitted to the officers that it was a fake I.D. and provided his real driver’s license showing that he was under the age of 21.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented character evidence showing that his client was a good kid, who made a stupid mistake, and should be given a break. Attorney Noonan introduced his client’s transcript at Emerson College showing that he was a Dean’s List student. Attorney Noonan presented a letter from one of our client’s professors at Emerson College attesting to his good character, work ethic, and how great of a student he was. Our client is majoring in Sports Communications and wishes to someday become a sport’s broadcaster.