Case Results
Commonwealth v. John Doe
NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST SUSPECT IN HIT-AND-RUN ACCIDENT
Defendant was suspected of striking a parked car on a cul-de-sac and fleeing the scene. The victim located the Defendant’s license plate next to the damaged vehicle. The victim reported the hit-and-run accident to the police who were investigating the incident. The client was facing a potential criminal charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Property Damage (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). The client immediately contacted our firm for representation. After contacting our firm, we were able to ensure that the client was not charged with any crimes.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Roxbury District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES FELONY CONVICTION FOR DRUG DISTRIBUTION.
In 1997, when the client was 23 years old, he was arrested and charged with Distribution of Marijuana (Distribution of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §32A), an offense carrying a punishment of 10 years in state prison. The charge stems from an incident in which the police were conducting surveillance in a high-crime area. Police observed a vehicle occupied by the Defendant (the operator), a front seat passenger (co-defendant), and a backseat passenger. Police observed the vehicle pull into a McDonald’s parking lot. Police observed a white male, standing on the side walk next to the McDonald’s, continuously pacing back and forth while looking at the parked vehicle. Police observed a passenger in the vehicle, exit the vehicle, and approach the white male. Police observed the two men exchange money and an object. After the alleged drug transaction, police stopped the vehicle where they found some cash and beepers. Defendant pled guilty to the felony offense of Drug Distribution.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the Defendant’s conviction for felony drug distribution pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure 30(b). Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant, as the driver, was an accessary, accomplice, or a joint venturer in the drug transaction. Further, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant shared the mental intent of the person who committed the crime of drug distribution. After reviewing the Motion to Vacate, and the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the District Attorney’s Office agreed to vacate the conviction. Once the conviction was vacated, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi, a statement by the prosecution that they will no longer prosecute the case. In their Nolle Prosequi, the Commonwealth stated: “Following a review of the facts and circumstances of the above case, and in an effort to proceed in the interests of justice, the Commonwealth respectfully enters this Nolle Prosequi.”
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
Quincy District Court
CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF HEROIN IS VACATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED THE DEFENDANT’S HOME.
The client, with another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on the criminal charge unlawful possession of heroin (Possession of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §34) and she was placed on probation. State Police and Local Police arrived to the client’s residence in Randolph. The client resided in the residence with her son. Her son was the subject of a homicide investigation. Her son had been arrested for drug distribution, which resulted in an overdose death. The son was in the police station where he was being interrogated by the police. While the son was in the police station, the son signed a form granting the police permission to search his bedroom for illegal narcotics. Police arrived at the residence where they informed the client that her son had given police permission to search his bedroom. When they executed the search, police did not find any drugs in the son’s bedroom. The police proceeded to question the client, as she was sitting on a couch in the living room. Police observed that the client was making movements, as if she was hiding something under the couch. Police searched underneath the couch and found heroin. The client admitted to the police that she was hiding the drugs to protect her son.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the son. In the son’s case, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence, including statements made by the son while he was being interrogated by police. Most importantly, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence of the son’s consent to allow police to search the residence. Thus, the police search of the home was found to be illegal. Because the search of the home was ruled to be illegal, Attorney Noonan filed a motion to vacate the mother’s conviction, as her arrest stemmed from the illegal search of the home by police. As a result, the client’s conviction of illegal possession of heroin was vacated, and dismissed.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
Quincy District Court
CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF HEROIN IS VACATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED THE DEFENDANT’S HOME.
The client, with another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on the criminal charge unlawful possession of heroin (Possession of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §34) and she was placed on probation. State Police and Local Police arrived to the client’s residence in Randolph. The client resided in the residence with her son. Her son was the subject of a homicide investigation. Her son had been arrested for drug distribution, which resulted in an overdose death. The son was in the police station where he was being interrogated by the police. While the son was in the police station, the son signed a form granting the police permission to search his bedroom for illegal narcotics. Police arrived at the residence where they informed the client that her son had given police permission to search his bedroom. When they executed the search, police did not find any drugs in the son’s bedroom. The police proceeded to question the client, as she was sitting on a couch in the living room. Police observed that the client was making movements, as if she was hiding something under the couch. Police searched underneath the couch and found heroin. The client admitted to the police that she was hiding the drugs to protect her son.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the son. In the son’s case, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence, including statements made by the son while he was being interrogated by police. Most importantly, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence of the son’s consent to allow police to search the residence. Thus, the police search of the home was found to be illegal. Because the search of the home was ruled to be illegal, Attorney Noonan filed a motion to vacate the mother’s conviction, as her arrest stemmed from the illegal search of the home by police. As a result, the client’s conviction of illegal possession of heroin was vacated, and dismissed.
Jane Doe vs. John Doe
Falmouth District Court
A VICTIM OF HARASSMENT HIRES ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WHO SUCCESSFILLY OBTAINS A HARASSMENT PREVENTION RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE PERPETRATOR.
The client, a stay at home mom and resident of Falmouth, was the subject of harassment from a neighbor. The client reported the incidents of harassment to the police, but the police declined to charge the neighbor with any crimes. It was a she-said he-said scenario and her word against his. The client was the victim of the neighbor’s continuous acts of harassment and she did not feel safe from him. The client would encounter the neighbor regularly and did not feel safe around him.
Result: The client hired Attorney Gerald J. Noonan to obtain a Harassment Prevention Restraining Order against the neighbor. In order to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order under G.L. c. 258E, the Plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence of at least three incidents of harassment. The statute defines harassment as “3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.” After conducting an investigation, Attorney Noonan gathered sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof. Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order, which ordered the neighbor to not contact her, to stay away from her, and to refrain from abusing or harassment her.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGE PERMANENTLY SEALED FROM THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF SCIENTIST.
Client is a 29 year-old. He had a Ph.D in Chemistry and he was employed as a Senior Scientist for a major, worldwide research laboratory. The client was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct stemming from an incident outside a bar in Boston where he, and his friends, were assaulted and injured by bouncers of the bar. When the police arrived, the client and his friend were suffering from injuries as a result of the bouncers’ assault. The client was in a highly emotional state, he was upset about being attacked for no reason, and he demanded that the police arrest the bouncers for assaulting them. The client was disorderly, argumentative, and combative with police, so he was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53(b)).
Result: The criminal charge on his record posed a very serious threat to his current employment and future employment. In order to get hired, the client was required to pass a very rigorous background check, including a thorough criminal background investigation. After being hired, every employee is subject to recurring criminal background checks. If his employer were to conduct a new background check, they would see that the client was charged with Disorderly Conduct, and he would most likely be terminated. Moreover, the client was considering applying for jobs with other employers in his chosen field. All prospective employers would see the charge of Disorderly Conduct when conducting a background check and the client would be prevented from obtaining future employment opportunities due to this charge. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to swiftly seal the client’s criminal record (under G.L. c. 276, §100C) preserving the client’s current employment, and giving him a clean record in applying for future jobs.
Commonwealth v. B.C.
Brockton District Court
DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHILE ON BAIL FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN ANOTHER COURT. THE COMMONWEALTH REVOKED HIS BAIL AND THE CLIENT WAS BEING HELD FOR AT LEAST 60 DAYS. AFTER CONTACTING OUR FIRM, THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND THE CLIENT WAS IMMEDIATELY RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.
Defendant had an open criminal case in Suffolk County for Breaking & Entering (G.L. c. 266, §16), (2) Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), (3) Assault & Battery with Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), and (4) Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7). While on bail for his criminal cases in Suffolk County, Defendant was arrested in Brockton for Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265,§13M); the alleged victim being his girlfriend. As a result, the Commonwealth revoked his bail, and the Defendant was ordered to be held in custody for at least 60 days under G.L. c. 276, §58A – for committing a new offense.
Result: While in jail, client hired our firm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation into the Brockton case. Our private investigator interviewed the witness who called the police to report the assault. The witness told our investigator that he did not witness the incident, but called the police because he heard yelling from the Defendant’s residence. Thus, there was no viable witness who would testify to the incident at trial. We were able to get the case dismissed quickly. Even though the case was dismissed, the Judge could still hold the Defendant in custody for at least 60 days. Our office convinced the judge to release the Defendant prior to the expiration of the 60 days, and the Defendant was immediately released from jail.
Commonwealth v. E.O.
Plymouth Superior Court
DEFENDANT WAS FACING A MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE OF 8 YEARS FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING, BUT THE INDICTMENT WAS REDUCED TO A LOWER LEVEL OF DRUG TRAFFICING, AND THE DEFENDANT WAS SPARED FROM SERVING AN ADDITIONAL 4 ½ YEARS IN PRISON.
Defendant was the target of operating a large scale drug trafficking operation in Brockton. The investigation consisted of information provided to the police by two (2) separate confidential informants. A confidential informant participated in several controlled buys. Under the supervision of police, the informant purchased cocaine from the Defendant, several times, at the Defendant’s residence in Brockton. Police obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s residence. When the police executed the search warrant, they recovered the following evidence from the Defendant’s residence, 92.5 grams of cocaine in a closet, 19 grams of cocaine in a bureau, 503 grams of marijuana, 16 Vicodin pills, 5 Percocet pills, over $60,000 in cash, and distribution materials. Defendant was charged with: (1) Trafficking Cocaine (over 100 grams) under G.L. c. 94C, §32E(b), (2) Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana under G.L. c. 94C, §32C, and (3) Possession of Class B substance.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to suppress the evidence seized from the Defendant’s residence pursuant to the search warrant. The police obtained a No-Knock search warrant, which allowed them to enter the residence without having to knock and announce their presence. Attorney Noonan argued that, when the police arrived to the residence at 4:00 am to execute the warrant, there were no exigent circumstances present because all the occupants in the house were sleeping – and the police were required to knock and announce their presence because there was no evidence that the occupants of the home presented a threat to officer safety. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan discovered that there was conflicting evidence as to whether the police served the Defendant, in-hand, with a copy of the search warrant, which is required by law. The lead investigating officer testified that he did not have a copy of the search warrant in his possession when he executed the search warrant. The lead officer did not personally serve a copy of the search warrant on the Defendant, and the lead officer did not see any other officers serve the warrant on the Defendant. Rather, the lead officer testified that another officer had a copy of the search warrant, but the officer did not see him serve the warrant on the Defendant. Despite his efforts, Attorney Noonan’s suppression motion was unsuccessful. The indictment for trafficking 100 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory prison sentence of eight (8) years. Attorney Noonan hired an expert chemist who reviewed all the drug evidence, and Attorney Noonan was prepared to present evidence at trial that the Commonwealth would have difficulty proving that the police seized at least 100 grams of cocaine. The Commonwealth deserves a lot of credit because they reviewed the evidence and determined that they might have difficulty in proving that the Defendant trafficking 100 grams or more of cocaine – so the Commonwealth agreed to reduce the indictment to trafficking under 100 grams. Trafficking in cocaine under 100 grams carries a mandatory prison sentence of 3 ½ years. The Defendant pled guilty to the reduced offense, and he was spared from serving 4 ½ years in prison.
Commonwealth v. Juvenile
Brockton Juvenile Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST AN INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED JUVENILE DISMISSED AT A CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING
The client was a 14 year-old boy from Brockton who punched a security guard while in the emergency room at the Brockton Hospital. The juvenile’s parents received a court summons on a criminal complaint charging their son with an Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan conducted an intensive interview of the juvenile’s parents to obtain all the information regarding the juvenile’s behavioral and mental health history, which was extensive. The juvenile was transferred from the Brockton Hospital emergency room to an inpatient behavioral hospital. Attorney Noonan interviewed the juvenile’s mental health counselor, and obtained hundreds of pages of the juvenile’s treatment records. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was diagnosed as being Intellectually Disabled and suffered from a brain injury. Attorney Noonan argued that his client was not competent to stand trial, and was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental condition. After the hearing, the criminal complaint did not issue.