Case Results
Plaintiff v. Police Department
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS REINSTATED DESPITE SUSPENSION FOR MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF INTOXICATION.
The client is a 54 year-old automobile mechanic and owner of a pet grooming business. Since 1995, the client has been issued a License to Carry Firearms with no incidents. However, the police department suspended his LTC due to multiple incidents occurring at his home. In one incident, the police were called to his home due to a verbal argument with his wife wherein the client became upset and threw a glass fruit bowl. During this incident, the wife told the police that her husband had a drinking problem and he spouts off at the mouth when he’s been drinking. In a second incident, the police were called to the client’s house in response to domestic incident between the client and his adult son, which became physical. Upon arrival, police observed that the client was intoxicated. Witnesses in the home reported that the Defendant had been drinking all day and was causing problems leading to a heated exchange with his adult son. Based on the two incidents, the police department suspended the client’s LTC finding him to be an unsuitable person to possess a firearm.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the district court challenging the suspension. Attorney Noonan and legal counsel for the town engaged in extensive discussions, and Attorney Noonan provided additional information regarding his client’s background and the circumstances surrounding the incidents. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of his client’s successful substance abuse treatment. Through negotiations with town counsel, the police department reconsidered its decision and agreed to grant the client an LTC subject to the completion of certain conditions.
Commonwealth v. D.M.
Taunton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED.
Client is a 52 year old truck driver and Taunton resident. Police were called to the Defendant’s residence for a reported domestic dispute. Upon arrival, the girlfriend told police that the Defendant became angry, grabbed her by both arms, and shoved her against the wall. The girlfriend showed police bruises to her arms, claiming that the bruises were from his fingertips when grabbing her. Defendant denied the allegations. Defendant was charged in the Taunton District Court with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan scheduled the case for trial and provided the Commonwealth with evidence that the girlfriend was intoxicated and had been drinking liquor while also taking psychiatric medications and the Defendant called the police because she was argumentative. The girlfriend became upset with the Defendant because he called the police on her and she was concerned that she would get into trouble. In fact, the girlfriend never called the police, the defendant did. Defendant contended that the girlfriend made up the allegations because she was upset that the Defendant called the police on her and was worried that she would get into trouble. Defendant contended that the marks on the girlfriend’s arms were old marks that she sustained while performing physical labor at work. The Commonwealth dismissed the case.
Commonwealth v. V.L.
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC ASSAULT AND BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT DISMISSED.
The police were called to the Defendant’s residence in Bridgewater in response to a call from a neighbor reporting loud yelling coming from the Defendant’s apartment. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s husband who stated that the Defendant lunged at him, grabbed his neck and shoved him. Defendant admitted to police that she lunged forward and shoved her husband, but she denied grabbing his neck. The police charged the Defendant with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a). Defendant is a Certified Nursing Assistant with no criminal record.
Result: Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with background information about his client. The client is a 33 year-old woman with no criminal record. She is not a U.S. citizen, but she had a Green Card. She was born in Haiti and immigrated to the U.S. Despite her difficulties in speaking English, she took English language classes and eventually earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing. She worked at a nursing home as a Certified Nursing Assistant. She moved to Georgia where she obtained a job as a patient care technician assisting patients in dialysis treatment. She reconciled with her husband. They lived happily together in Georgia with their new baby. Her husband did not wish to pursue the charges. The husband wished to invoke his marital privilege and refused to testify against his wife. On the day of trial, the case was dismissed.
Plaintiff v. Police Department
Chicopee District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL AND OBTAINS A COURT ORDER REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS FOR BEING AN UNSUITABLE PERSON.
The client was issued a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions. The Chicopee Police Department suspended his LTC alleging that he was an unsuitable person to possess a license stemming from an incident in which the police were called to his residence. Upon arrival, the client was outside his residence, intoxicated, and he was about to operate his vehicle until police intervened. The client’s wife told the police that the client had been drinking at the casino, was intoxicated, and she was concerned about him driving. The client wanted to take his firearm and leave the house prior to the police being called. The police went into the client’s home to retrieve his firearm while the client remained outside. The firearm was kept in a locked safe. The wife escorted police to the gun safe, she unlocked the safe, and the police seized the firearm. The client’s wife, who did not have an LTC, knew the combination to the gun safe and she was able to access the firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he was an unsuitable person because his wife knew the combination to the gun safe, she was able to access his firearm, and she did not have a gun license, and the police department was concerned that the client was going to access his firearm while intoxicated and drive away while under the influence.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the Chicopee District Court disputing that his client was an unsuitable person. At the hearing, the Judge entered an order reversing the police department’s decision to suspend the LTC. The Court entered an order directing the police department to issue the client a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions.
Plaintiff vs. Police Department
CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORM UNTRUTHFULLY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE HIS CLIENT AN LTC AFTER AN APPEAL.
The client is a 55 year-old professional truck driver. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied, because the police department determined that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. The police department alleged that the client was untruthful when answering questions about his criminal history. The police department alleged that the client failed to disclose criminal charges on his criminal record in his application.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the police department’s denial of the client’s application for an LTC arguing that the client did not deliberately conceal his criminal record, but simply misunderstood the question. The client and his wife submitted statements explaining how they misunderstood the question when completing the application. During the appellate proceedings, through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the police department allowed the client to resubmit a new application and to disclose everything pertaining to his criminal record. The client resubmitted a new application and the police department issued him a License to Carry Firearms.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR DRUG POSSESSION.
The client is a 39 year-old Brockton resident and a longtime union employee; working as a glass installer for commercial buildings. The client was issued a License to Carry Firearms. However, the client attempted to purchase a firearm, but the gun shop informed him that the sale was denied by the FBI because the client had been convicted in Massachusetts of Unlawful Possession of Class D-Marijuana. Under federal law, a conviction of simple possession of marijuana disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm. Specifically, a person falling into the category of a Federally Prohibited Person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm.
The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and 18 U.S.C. §922(g) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition, including: Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year – or any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. §802). The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug and a conviction for simple possession of marijuana renders the person a Federally Prohibited Person. The client was convicted in the Quincy District Court for Simple Possession of Class D Substance to wit: Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §34 and the marijuana conviction made him a Federally Prohibited Person rendering him ineligible from purchasing a firearm under federal law. Therefore, the client must have the marijuana conviction vacated.
Result: In the police report, the police stopped the client’s vehicle due to a civil motor vehicle infraction. Defendant was placed under arrest because his driver’s license was suspended. The client told the police that he had some marijuana in a pack of cigarettes and he was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and was later convicted in 2006. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction because the evidence showed that the quantity of marijuana, within the pack of cigarettes, was less than one ounce making this a civil offense under present day Massachusetts law. In 2008, the Massachusetts Legislature decriminalized the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. See G.L. c. 94C, §32L. Attorney Noonan showed that it would be physically impossible to package more than one ounce of marijuana in a pack of cigarettes. Based on the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the conviction was vacated and dismissed.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HVAC WORKER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING IN A CASE INVOLVING A HIGH-SPEED CRASH INTO A TREE.
Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle was operating at a high rate of speed, lost control on the bend of the road, and crashed into a tree causing the vehicle to flip and spin out of control. Police observed serious damage to the Defendant’s vehicle with enough force to completely tear off the right wheel and axel. The Defendant was bleeding from his arm. The officer conducted a crash investigation and determined that the Defendant was negligent and caused the crash due to his excessive speed on a dangerous roadway. The police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint on a charge of Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a), speeding, and marked lanes violation.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was unfamiliar with the roadway and the roadway lacked warnings, signage, and appropriate lighting alerting motorists as to the dangerousness of the curve in the road. Attorney Noonan presented photographs of the roadway showing no lighting, no marked lanes, no speed limit signs, or any warnings signs about the dangerous curve up ahead. These were mitigating circumstances. Defendant admitted that he was operating negligently, but asked the Court to exercise its discretion based on the Defendant’s lack of criminal record, character evidence, history of gainful employment, supporting his family, and the fact that the Defendant was genuinely remorseful for the accident. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the Defendant’s employer showing his excellent driving record. The Defendant took and completed a safe driving course and a Brains at Risk program. After the Clerk’s Hearing, the complaint was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTIONS FOR BREAKING & ENTERING, MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO A VEHICLE, AND LARCENY.
The client is a 38 year-old lifelong resident of New Bedford. He has been gainfully employed as a contractor. He has been happily married with three step-children. He even became the legal guardian of his wife’s teenaged son. He is the grandfather of two children. He dropped out of high school, but obtained a G.E.D. at the age of 38. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the police department denied his application because he had been convicted, as a juvenile, of several offenses, including: Breaking & Entering, Malicious Damage to a Vehicle, and Larceny from a Person. Because of his convictions, the client was automatically disqualified from ever obtaining a License to Carry Firearms.
Result: Regarding the conviction for Larceny from a Person, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction on grounds that his prior lawyer was ineffective. Sixteen (16) days after his arraignment, his prior attorney wrongly advised him to plead guilty without conducting any investigation into the case. Attorney Noonan conducted an investigation and found that the evidence was insufficient to charge him with that offense. Specifically, the client was walking with another juvenile on the sidewalk when the other juvenile decided to steal a wallet from an older man who walking on the sidewalk. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence did not establish that the client was an accessory or joint-venturer in the larceny because the client did not participate, in any way, in the larceny. Rather, the evidence merely showed that the Defendant was present when the larceny happened, which is not enough to convict him as an accessory. The Commonwealth reviewed the evidence provided by the defense and decided to vacate and dismiss the charge. After numerous court appearances, Attorney Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to vacate the client’s other convictions, citing the client’s young age at the time of the offenses, and compelling evidence showing that the client completely turned his life around. After the convictions were vacated, the client was able to obtain a License to Carry Firearms.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST MARINE CORP. VETERAN AND REGISTERED NURSE DISMISSED UPON PROOF THAT SHE DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME.
While the Defendant was in a relationship with her boyfriend, her boyfriend placed an advertisement online for the sale of a kitchen table and chair set. An older couple responded to the advertisement, they paid the boyfriend for the furniture and when they arrived to pick up the furniture the boyfriend did not provide the furniture. Defendant had broken up with her boyfriend and she had no knowledge of the incident. The older couple (understandably) was upset because they paid for the furniture and never received it. The older couple filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Larceny under $1,200 by False Pretense pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30.
Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant did not commit any crime at all – it was her boyfriend who committed the crime. The boyfriend was the person who sold the furniture to the victims, failed to deliver the furniture, and kept the proceeds of the sale. There was no probable cause to charge the Defendant, as she committed no crime.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Plymouth District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED
STALKING: DISMISSED
VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER: DISMISSED
Defendant is a 26 year-old man with no criminal record, an electrical apprentice, and small business owner. Defendant is a resident of Halifax. He was in a dating relationship with his girlfriend for several years. After she broke up with him, she went to the Pembroke Police Station to report that she had been verbally and physically abused, and stalked by the Defendant. She recounted three instances of disturbing conduct by the Defendant. In the first incident, Defendant showed up to her birthday party, uninvited and unannounced, got into physical fights with her friends, was ejected from the party and the police were called. In the second incident, Defendant showed up to a bar and confronted her, as she was on a date with another guy. She got into her truck to leave, but the Defendant jumped on the back of her truck while yelling and screaming. Defendant slammed the car door on her leg. Defendant pulled her out of the truck and proceeded driving, as she was in the passenger seat screaming. She videotaped the incident and gave it to police. In the third incident, Defendant showed up at her friend’s house, parked outside and waited for her and followed her home and she called 911, but the Defendant fled before police arrived. She also provided police with photographs showing bruises on her as a result of the Defendant slamming a door on her arm. As a result, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with: (1) Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a), (2) Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b), and Stalking pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §43(a). The girlfriend obtained a restraining order against him known as an Abuse Prevention Order under G.L. c. 209A. After she obtained the restraining order, Defendant violated the restraining order on three separate occasions by calling her, texting her, and showing up to her place of work. As a result, Defendant was charged with three counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order pursuant to G.L. c. 209A, §7.
Result: Immediately, Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation to defend his client. He obtained evidence to contest the stalking charges showing that the evidence was insufficient to establish three separate instances of stalking, as required by the stalking statute. The girlfriend claimed that the Defendant stalked her after she broke up with him. However, the defense obtained text messages showing that they were still dating and were very much together and a couple when the alleged incidents of stalking occurred. Although the girlfriend claimed that the police were called to remove the Defendant from her birthday party, the defense obtained evidence showing that nobody ever called the police. To contest the charge of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon charge, Counsel viewed the video of this incident showing that the Defendant never slammed the car door (i.e., dangerous weapon) on her leg, as she claimed. Finally, the defense obtained evidence of prior criminal conduct by the girlfriend to attack her credibility, as well as her efforts to change her name to conceal her criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan came to trial ready to attack the case, but the Commonwealth decided to dismiss all charges.