Case Results
Commonwealth v. John Doe
CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST MECHANICAL ENGINEER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.
Police were dispatched to the scene of an accident in which the client’s vehicle struck a telephone pole. The officer observed that the client’s pupils were constricted, his speech was thick and slow, and his responses were delayed. Defendant admitted to taking Lorazepam and other medications for his anxiety. The client was unsteady on his feet. Two witnesses told police that the Defendant’s vehicle was swerving over the double yellow line several times before swerving into the telephone pole without ever coming to a stop. Police noted that the client has a history of incidents involving prescription medications and alcohol abuse. Client’s wife told the police that he was recently discharged from the hospital and he had recently made suicidal statements. Defendant was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client took a safe driving course and another course known as Brains at Risk. Attorney referenced the client’s impressive resume as a mechanical engineer and his clean driving record. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the client was legally prescribed anxiety medication and he had taken the medication in the proper dosage.
Commonwealth v. M.D.
Brockton District Court
CHARGE OF MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM COMMITTED A CRIME BY ILLEGALLY RECORDING A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT.
The alleged victim called the police to report that the Defendant damaged her car; scratching the car and carving a derogatory word on the car. Police came to the scene and observed the damage. The alleged victim reported to the police that she (alleged victim) had audiotaped a telephone conversation wherein the Defendant admitted to damaging the car. In the recording, the Defendant does not actually admit to causing the damage. Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Malicious Damage to a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §28(a).
Result: Based on the alleged victim’s report to the police in which she stated that she recorded her telephone conversation with the Defendant, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought a criminal complaint against the alleged victim for violating the Wiretapping Statute [under G.L. c. 272, §99], which strictly prohibits the secret electronic recording by a private individual of any oral communication. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the prosecutor that if the alleged victim testifies, she would incriminate herself for violating the wiretapping the statute. After consulting with the alleged victim, the prosecutor stated that the alleged victim would not take the witness stand and the case was dismissed.
Plaintiff v. Police Department
CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS SUSPENDED FOR IMPROPERLY STORING AND LOSING HIS FIREARM, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS BACK HIS CLIENT’S LTC.
The client is 46 years-old and a resident of Fall River. He married his high school sweetheart and they have two children. He works as a commercial truck driver. His LTC was suspended because he reported his firearm as missing. He stated that he brought his firearm with him to the bank, as he was withdrawing a large sum of money for a down payment on his home, and he left the firearm in his glove compartment while he was inside the bank. When he left the firearm inside the glove compartment, he affixed a lock on the firearm. He was in the process of moving and forgot that his firearm was in the glove compartment. When he went to retrieve his firearm from the glove compartment, he noticed that it was missing, and he contacted the police department to report the disappearance of his firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he failed to store his firearm properly as required by G.L. c. 140, §131L.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the suspension of the LTC and presented evidence that his client stored his firearm in his glove compartment properly by using a “tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device,” which is recognized as a proper means to secure a firearm under the statute (G.L. c. 140, §131L.) The client purchased a Ruger lock for his Ruger firearm. He used the Ruger lock to lock his firearm by removing the magazine and fitting the lock through the empty magazine and empty chamber. Attorney Noonan argued that the Ruger lock was sufficient because it rendered the firearm inoperable by an unauthorized user. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the firearm was outside the client’s control for a short period of time and he immediately reported it missing to the police as soon as he discovered its disappearance. Through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the suspension status was removed from the database.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AGAINST SHEET METAL WORKER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.
Police received a report that an adult male, parked in a vehicle in the school parking lot, was in possession of a firearm. A teacher observed that the Defendant had a firearm tucked in his waistband, which became visible when the Defendant was rummaging through tools in the back of his truck. The Defendant was parked in the student pick-up line waiting to pick his daughter up from school. Police arrived and spoke with the Defendant, as he was parked in the student pick-up line. Defendant was polite and cooperative. Defendant had a valid License to Carry Firearms. He admitted to the police that he had a firearm on his person. He apologized and stated that he was unaware of the regulation around a firearm on school grounds. The police seized his firearm and filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for the offense of Carrying a Dangerous Weapon on School Grounds pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(j).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing resulting in no criminal charges against the client. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant had his firearm holstered on his waistband and he never intended to exit his vehicle, or walk on school grounds, while picking up his daughter at school. Defendant briefly exited his vehicle to rearrange tools in the back of his vehicle when the firearm on his waistband became visible. Defendant was extremely apologetic and cooperative. Attorney Noonan showed that this was a simple mistake with no criminal intentions. Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client is a 53 year-old man with no criminal record who has never been in any trouble in his life. For 34 years, he has worked as a union sheet metal worker. Attorney Noonan presented letters from several persons attesting to the Defendant’s character. After hearing Attorney Noonan’s evidence and arguments, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint and the client was never charged with a crime. Additionally, the client’s License to Carry Firearms was not suspended.
Investigation
IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVESTIGATION, COMMONWEALTH SEEKS TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE THE PASSWORD TO HIS CELL-PHONE. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN OPPOSED THE MOTION TO COMPEL. AFTER A HEARING, COURT DENIED THE MOTION COMPELLING THE DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE HIS PASSWORD.
Defendant was being investigated for a variety of crimes, including Trafficking of a Person for Sexual Servitude pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §50(a). The police obtained the Defendant’s cell phone through a search warrant. During the investigation, the Commonwealth filed a motion requesting the court to compel the Defendant to provide the password to his cell phone. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected and requested a hearing before the Judge. Attorney Noonan submitted a written opposition arguing that the Commonwealth has not satisfied its burden of proof to compel the password. After a hearing, and considering the arguments, the Judge denied the Commonwealth’s motion to compel the Defendant to produce the password to his cell phone.
Commonwealth v. Z.S. and T.X.
Ayer District Court
IN A CASE FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE POLICE WITH VALID CONSENT TO SEARCH HER HOME BASED ON EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DEFENDANT’S LANGUAGE BARRIERS.
Police were dispatched to the Weston Academy High School for a report that a student sent text messages to other students with pictures of a firearm while making suicidal statements. The student admitted to the police that he sent the text messages. The student told police that he took the firearm from his parents and sent pictures of the firearm to his friends. The student told the police that the firearm was currently located in his bedroom at his parents’ home in Westford. Police went to the student’s home where they encountered his mother (defendant) in the driveway. The police showed the mother a Consent to Search Form and they asked her to sign the form giving her consent to allow the police to search her home. After she signed the Consent Form, police searched the home and found the firearm in the son’s bedroom closet. The police proceeded to search the entire home where they recovered additional firearms and ammunition – none of which were properly stored or secured, including an AR-15 assault rifle. As a result of home search, the mother and father were charged with Possession of a Large Capacity Firearm and Possession of a Large Capacity Feeding Device pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(m), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. Card pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1) and Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L. The mother and father were not U.S. citizens and they faced possible deportation if convicted.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained an expert witness specializing in English Language Proficiency. The expert interviewed the mother and performed a number of tests to determine her English proficiency, including her ability to speak, read, comprehend, and understand English. The parents were from China and moved to the U.S. four years prior to this incident. The expert determined that the mother met the definition of an LEP (Limited English Proficiency Person), which is defined as an individual who does not speak English as their primary language and who has limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. The expert administered a Basic English Skills Test and a Reading Comprehension Test and testified regarding the results. The expert went through the Consent to Search Form signed by the Defendant. The expert determined that the Defendant could not understand the majority of the words on the Consent Form, including: waive, search warrant, constitutional, right, refuse, and voluntary. The expert provided his expert opinion that the Defendant was incapable of reading and understanding the Consent Form. Through cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the officer did not read or explain the Consent Form to the Defendant, but merely asked her to sign the form and she acquiesced and signed the form, as she was told. The Court agreed with the Noonan Defense Team and determined that the Defendant was unable to provide valid consent for the search of her home, and the Court suppressed all evidence (all firearms and ammunition) obtained as a result of the search of the home. As a result of the suppressed evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case. The case was featured in a publication of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
CHARGE OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENT DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING AS A RESULT OF ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION.
Easton Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident wherein the Defendant’s vehicle allegedly fled the scene. Upon arrival, police observed extensive damage to the other vehicle, and the other operator stated that the Defendant fled the scene. Other witnesses reported that the Defendant fled the scene. Police were provided with the license plate of the fleeing vehicle, and responded to the Defendant’s home where he was living with his mother. The Defendant denied causing the accident, and officers did not believe him. Defendant stated that he fled the scene because he didn’t know what to do. As a result, the Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. He presented evidence that the victim’s vehicle damage had been paid by insurance, and that the Defendant completed Safe Driving Courses. Defendant was a juvenile with no criminal record. He is a junior in high school with a great G.P.A., and he is a standout athlete on the varsity hockey team. Attorney Noonan presented character evidence. Attorney Noonan argued that his client, a young kid, was scared after the accident and went directly to his home, only two-miles away, where he told his parents what happened. Defendant and his mother were planning on returning to the scene to exchange information with the other driver, but the police had arrived to their home before they could do so. As the criminal complaint was dismissed, Defendant will have no record. He is planning on attending college.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
CHARGES OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS, DISTURBING THE PEACE, AND POSSESSION OF FAKE I.D. AGAINST RECENT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE AND MILITARY APPLICANT DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.
Police received several reports of loud fireworks being lit off from a parking lot at 3:00 a.m. in Cape Cod. Witnesses called reporting that they were all woken up around 3:00 a.m. by the sound of many fireworks. Upon arrival, police observed a male, holding something in his hand, walking away from the parking lot and jogging away from police. Police approached the Defendant who was concealing fireworks. Defendant produced three Roman candle fireworks. He admitted to setting off the fireworks. Upon a pat-frisk search of the Defendant, police recovered additional fireworks. Officer asked the Defendant for identification and the Defendant produced a fake ID. Upon examination of the identification, police determined that it had been forged. As a result, the police sought criminal complaints against the Defendant for Unlawful Possession of Fireworks pursuant to G.L. c. 148, §39, Disturbing the Peace pursuant to G.L. c. 272, §53, and Possession of a Forged RMV Document pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24B.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. The client is 19 years old. He had no criminal record. He was a recent high school graduate and member of the National Honor Society. He was the captain of the varsity hockey team. He scored very high on the SAT. He was offered college scholarships to play hockey. The client started the process of enlisting in the military. The client is a young man with his whole life ahead of him and a lot on the horizon. He was young and made a mistake. It was an isolated incident. Criminal charges on his criminal record would adversely affect his ability to enlist in the military. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all charges dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate saving this young man from having a criminal record.