Result

ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT WITH ASPERGER’S SYNDROME DISMISSED

 Defendant, a Plymouth resident, is a young man with Asperger’s Syndrome, which is a developmental disorder affecting the ability to effectively socialize and communicate. Defendant was adopted and lived in a large household with his adopted parents and the adult children of his adopted parents. On one evening, an argument ensued between the Defendant and his brother. During the course of the argument, there was some pushing, shoving and punches were exchanged. Other members of the household had to intervene to break up the altercation. When the police were called, the Defendant had visible injuries from the altercation, which the police ignored and chose not to photograph or document in their police report. The police also chose to ignore statements and information provided to them that the Defendant was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. After things cooled off, Defendant and his brother reconciled and the brother did not want to proceed with any criminal charges against the Defendant. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M).

Result: After being retained, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan provided documentation to the Commonwealth showing that his client was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. Attorney Noonan also provided the Commonwealth with photographs of his client’s injuries, which suggested that his client was not the primary aggressor but was on the receiving end of the assault. Defendant had no criminal record or any involvement with police or the court system. The Commonwealth saw that this was an altercation between two brothers who have since reconciled and the alleged victim did not wish to proceed with any criminal charges against the Defendant. One the day of trial, the criminal charge was dismissed.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO A SHOPLIFTING ARREST BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINSTATE HIS LTC.

Client obtained a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) for his job as an armed security guard where he provided armed security for federal buildings in Boston. Client was arrested for shoplifting from the Lord & Taylor department store in the Braintree Mall. As a result of his arrest, the client’s license to carry firearms (LTC) was suspended by the police department finding him to be an “unsuitable” person to possess an LTC and firearms. Due to the suspension of his LTC, the client lost his job in armed security. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to have his LTC reinstated.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the Police Department who suspended the client’s LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s LTC should be reinstated because the basis for the suspension (the shoplifting arrest) was dismissed. Even if a criminal charge is dismissed, the police department may still suspend an applicant’s LTC if the police department determines that the applicant is “unsuitable” to possess an LTC. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client was a “suitable person” and that his shoplifting arrest was a stupid mistake. The client earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing and graduated with high honors. Attorney Noonan presented letters from the client’s co-workers in armed security attesting to his character and suitability. After the shoplifting case was dismissed, the client got a job as a health care provider at a residential facility treating of people with mental illness. The client received an award for providing life-saving assistance to a patient suffering from a medical emergency. Since the suspension, the client satisfactorily completed a firearm’s safety course. In sum, although the client was deemed to be unsuitable for his shoplifting arrest, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s suitability and the police department changed its mind and reinstated the LTC.

IN A CASE FEATURED ON THE NEWS, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN ACCUSED OF BEATING AN ELDERLY MAN AFTER A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT

The Defendant is a Brockton man with no criminal record. He has never been in trouble before. On January 2, 2019, Defendant was at a stop light in Easton. According to police, Defendant attempted to pass another vehicle when the two cars hit one another. The other driver, however, did not pull over so the Defendant followed him. The other driver eventually pulled into the parking lot of a bank. A verbal argument ensued. Defendant was accused of punching the elderly man in the face several times. Photographs were taken showing lacerations and bleeding to the alleged victim’s face. Defendant was arrested by Easton Police and charged with the felony offense Assault & Battery on Elderly or Disabled Person pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13K. On the second trial date, all charges against our client were dismissed.

“Man Accused of Punching 71-Year-old After Road Rage Incident in Easton.” https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/01/03/road-rage-brockton-man-assault-71-year-old-man-easton-police-arraignment/

“Police: Brockton man beats senior citizen in Easton road rage attack.” https://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20190103/police-brockton-man-beats-senior-citizen-in-easton-road-rage-attack

CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST TAUNTON MAN FOR RECKLESSLY CAUSING A CAR ACCIDENT IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Raynham Police were dispatched to the scene of a two-vehicle car accident. On the scene, police spoke to the Defendant who stated that the vehicle traveling in front of him gave him a “brake job,” e.g., applying the brakes as the Defendant was traveling behind him. Defendant admitted that he accelerated and passed the other vehicle and, while the Defendant was traveling in front of the other vehicle, the Defendant reciprocated by giving that vehicle a “brake job.” However, the other vehicle crashed into the rear of the Defendant’s vehicle as a result of the Defendant’s “brake job,” causing significant front end damage to the other vehicle. The other driver told the police that the Defendant recklessly passed him and “locked up his brakes” causing the crash. Based on the Defendant’s incriminating statements and the significant vehicle damage, the police filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan secured a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal complaint giving his client an opportunity to save himself from having a criminal record before a decision was made to issue formal criminal charges. In preparation for the hearing, Attorney Noonan had his client complete a safe driving course. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the victim’s motor vehicle damage had been paid for by insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing his client’s good character, including a character letter from the Defendant’s employer where the Defendant had worked for six-years. Attorney Noonan argued that his client made a foolish mistake but took responsibility for his actions. At the conclusion of the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, no criminal complaint issued against the client and the client has no criminal record as a result of this incident.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT FROM HAITI FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A LICENSE IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Client is a 23 year-old woman who emigrated from Haiti. She attended Massasoit Community College and later became a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and she is currently employed as a CNA for a nursing home. She obtained a Learner’s Permit to operate a motor vehicle, but she had failed her driving test. She did not have a valid driver’s license when she was pulled over by police for a motor vehicle infraction and she was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). She did not have any criminal record.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. Usually, the client would have her aunt drive her to and from work. On this occasion, the client made a poor mistake in judgment and drove without a license.

MBTA WORKER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED AFTER CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR UNLAWFULLY CARRYING A FIREARM OUTSIDE HIS RESTRICTION BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED

The client has a License to Carry Firearms (“LTC”) with a restriction for target shooting purposes only. The client was criminally charged in Boston with unlawfully carrying a firearm outside his target shooting restriction. At 2:41 a.m., Boston Police were patrolling a high crime area, which had been the scene of recent shootings. Officers were suspicious that the Defendant’s vehicle and another vehicle were parked in close proximity to each other (in this high-crime area) and the vehicles took off in separate directions. Officers followed the Defendant’s vehicle and their suspicious increased because the vehicle’s windows were tinted and the license plate was obstructed by some plastic covering. Officers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and asked him if he had a firearm in his possession. Defendant was truthful and stated that he had a firearm underneath his seat. His LTC was restricted to target shooting only and the police felt that the Defendant had possessed the firearm outside his restriction and charged him criminally. Following the criminal charge, the client’s LTC was suspended.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully petitioned the Police Department to reinstate his client’s LTC for the following reasons: First, the criminal charge was dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing. He was only issued warnings for the civil infractions for the tinted windows and license plate obstruction. Second, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was in that specific area in Boston because he was visiting his grandmother. The client was not doing anything suspicious. Third, the client had gone target shooting that day at the Braintree Rifle and Pistol Club with co-workers of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Fourth, Attorney Noonan presented strong character evidence. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed by the MBTA for six years. Several respectable members of the community offered letters attesting to the client’s character. Finally, the client completed a firearm’s safety course. After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the police department reinstated the client’s license to carry firearms.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS 209A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST BROCKTON MAN, ACCUSED OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT WITH A MINOR, TERMINATED.

The Plaintiff brought a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant on behalf of his sixteen year-old daughter pursuant to G.L. c. 209A. Defendant resided on the first-floor of a multi-family home in Brockton. The Plaintiff resided on the second-floor with his two daughters who were minors. The Plaintiff-Father alleged that the Defendant engaged in some inappropriate behavior with his two minor daughters. The father alleged that the Defendant was giving money to his daughters for some inappropriate purpose, but the daughters refused to tell their father why the Defendant had given them the money, or if there was any inappropriate behavior. The father believed that something inappropriate happened with his daughters, but he didn’t know what.

Result: At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the father who admitted that he was unsure about the Defendant’s alleged misconduct because his daughters did not make actual disclosures to him. After some questioning, the father agreed to withdraw his request for a restraining order. The restraining order has been vacated.

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH FELONY 4^TH OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS THE CHARGE REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR 2^ND OFFENSE, SAVING THE CLIENT FROM A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE OF 2 YEARS.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24M) and Negligent Operation. This was his 4^th offense for drunk driving carrying a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 2 years in the house of correction. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle almost strike a telephone pole and nearly struck trash barrels. Police observed the vehicle swerving all over the road. The vehicle was driving in the opposite travel lane for over 20 yards. The officer approached the Defendant’s vehicle and observed a strong odor of alcohol. His eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Defendant’s speech was slurred. The officer was unable to understand some of the Defendant’s statements due to his slurred speech. Defendant admitted to have a “few too many” drinks. Officers administered Field Sobriety Tests, including the One Leg Stand and the Walk and Turn, and determined that he had failed the tests.

Result: Immediately after getting hired, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested to have his client evaluated by the Veteran’s Court because his client was a highly decorated combat veteran. This was the first time in the client’s life that he had ever been evaluated by a clinician for the effects caused by his combat experience. For the first time in his life, the client was diagnosed and treated for the effects caused by his horrific combat experience. He was diagnosed with PTSD, Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety, which led to his substance abuse and alcoholism. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan provided the District Attorney’s Office with a breakdown of the client’s entire military service, awards, and decorations. In the Veteran’s Court, the clinicians dug deep into the client’s military experience, which included combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. The client was a Platoon leader and two of his closest friends were killed in combat. Attorney Noonan provided numerous character letters, records of his 20 years of employment, and records of his substance abuse treatment. After reviewing all the evidence provided by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the Commonwealth agreed to reduce the 4^th offense OUI down to a 2^nd offense OUI. With a 4^th offense OUI, a felony offense, the client was facing a mandatory 2 years in jail. With a reduction to a 2^nd offense, the client is now charged with a misdemeanor. Ultimately, the client was placed on probation, on the reduced charge, with conditions to continue treatment. Client avoided having to serve a mandatory 2 years in jail.

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT TERMINATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH COMMITTING VIOLENT OFFENSES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR VIOLATING THE RESTRAINING ORDER ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

The Plaintiff is the former girlfriend of the Defendant. Defendant was charged with many serious crimes against his ex-girlfriend, including Stalking (G.L. c. 265, § 43), Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, § 15A), and Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). The Plaintiff provided police with a cell phone video showing that the Defendant had jumped on her car, gained access to the inside of her car, and began driving her car, while the Plaintiff was seated in the passenger seat screaming out in fear. She provided police with photographs of injuries to her arm that were inflicted by the Defendant. She told police that she broke up with the Defendant but he continually stalked her. When the Defendant was arraigned on those criminal charges, the girlfriend obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which ordered him to stay away from her, not contact her, and not abuse her. While the Restraining Order was in effect, the Defendant violated the restraining order because he had contacted the girlfriend several times and showed up to her workplace. As a result of the violations, Defendant was criminally charged with three-counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209, §7).

Result: A hearing was scheduled on the Plaintiff’s request to extend the restraining order against the Defendant. The Plaintiff had a very good chance of prevailing in her request to extend the restraining order because the Defendant was currently charged with a multitude of violent crimes against her, and he had violated the restraining order three different times. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to represent him on the criminal charges. Attorney Noonan is aggressively defending him on the criminal charges, he filed a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge, he has retained an expert witness, he has conducted his own investigation into the allegations, and he has been pressing for more evidence. The Plaintiff obtained an temporary extension of the 209A Order with the Court by telephone, but Attorney Noonan demanded an evidentiary hearing on her request to extend the restraining order. The Plaintiff had shown all indications that she would be pursuing an extension of the restraining order. She has been heavily involved in the Defendant’s prosecution, provided police with evidence of his crimes, including videos, photos, e-mails, and text messages. It was expected that she would appear at the hearing to request an extension of the Order, but she did not appear and the Order was vacated.

AFTER HEARING, JUDGE ALLOWS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRESPASSING CHARGE BASED ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO BE ON THE PROPERTY. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT MEANING THAT THE DEFENDANT (WHO IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN) WILL HAVE NO RECORD.

 Brockton Police responded to the parking lot of an apartment complex in response to 911 calls reporting that a vehicle in the parking lot was firing gunshots. Upon arrival, Police found the Defendant in the parking lot, standing by his vehicle. The Police demanded that the Defendant leave the property, or they would arrest him for Trespassing. According to police, Defendant refused law enforcement’s demands to leave the property immediately. Defendant was charged with criminal Trespassing (G.L. c. 266, §120). Defendant was not a U.S. citizen. Certain criminal convictions against non-U.S. citizens may result in deportation.

Result: Upon hiring Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, Attorney Noonan conducted an immediate investigation and learned that the Defendant’s cousin, who lived in the apartment complex, had given him permission to be on the property. Attorney Noonan provided the District Attorney’s Office with an Affidavit from the cousin stating that he had given the Defendant permission to be on the property. As a result, Defendant did not commit a Trespass because he had lawful authority to be on the property. Moreover, Attorney Noonan argued that there was no probable cause for the offense because the police had no authority to demand that the Defendant leave the property, because the police did not have lawful control over the premises, as they were not residents of the apartment complex. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed, and the case was dismissed prior to arraignment, meaning that the Defendant (who is not a U.S. citizen) will have no record as a result of this case.