Commonwealth v. G.B.

Hingham District Court

DA’S OFFICE DROPS FELONY CASE AGAINST HANOVER MAN FOR POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVE DEVICE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS PROOF THAT THE DEVICE DID NOT CONTAIN ANY EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL.

Hanover Police were called to the Defendant’s residence after his wife reported that the Defendant was intoxicated and making threats to commit suicide. Upon arrival, police observed that the Defendant had been consuming alcohol, and the Defendant confirmed that he had made suicidal threats. Police sectioned the Defendant and had him involuntarily committed due to substance abuse and mental health issues. After his arrest, Police seized firearms and ammunition from his residence. Police noticed a hand-grenade, and immediately contacted the Bomb Squad who believed that the grenade was a live explosive and contained explosive material. A K-9 alerted to the grenade as containing explosives. The Bomb Squad detonated and exploded the grenade. As a result, Defendant was charged with Possession of an Incendiary Device (G.L. c. 266, §102(c)), which carries a potential State Prison sentence of not less than five (5) years.

Result: Defendant had purchased the grenade on gunbroker.com. The grenade was shipped to him by a company in Florida. Our investigator contacted the vendor who sold the grenade to the Defendant. The vendor stated that these grenades were shipped to them from Poland, and the grenades were screened by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs before the grenades entered the U.S. The vendor stated that the grenades were dummy grenades used by law enforcement for training purposes. The vendor stated that the grenades typically have a white stripe, which indicates that it is a dummy grenade used by law enforcement for teaching purposes. Photographs of the Defendant’s grenade showed that it had a white stripe. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, which was denied by the Judge. Attorney Noonan made several requests to the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the case, and provided proof from the vendor that the grenade was not live. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was a collector of old military memorabilia, which he used to decorate his home office. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant purchased the grenade, believing it was fake, to decorate his home office, which contained many old military collectables. After three requests, the District Attorney’s Office finally dismissed the case.

Commonwealth v. S.J.

Brockton District Court

SHOPLIFTING CHARGE DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING. CLIENT HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD RESULTING FROM THE INCIDENT.

Defendant was arrested by Abington Police and charged with shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, §30A) stemming from an incident at Walmart where she allegedly stole a flat screen TV; claiming to Walmart employee’s that she had already purchased the TV but had forgotten her receipt. Defendant made her way out of the store with the TV and she never came back to return the TV.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the theft was a sudden, impulsive decision by the Defendant, and not a premediated theft. Attorney Noonan presented evidence regarding the client’s background as a college graduate, and she had been gainfully employed for the same company for over seven years. Attorney Noonan presented letters attesting to the client’s character to demonstrate that this incident was an aberration. Defendant expressed extreme remorse for the incident and she immediately paid restitution for the stolen item. The Clerk decided to dismiss the criminal complaint, saving the client from having a criminal record.

Commonwealth v. S.S.

Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY AGAINST RETIRED STATE EMPLOYEE DISMISSED ON FIRST COURT DATE

Defendant, a Brockton man and retired Massachusetts State employee, was charged with domestic Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13M). Brockton Police responded to the Defendant’s home in response to a 911 call from his wife who reported that the Defendant had been drinking and pushed her. Upon arrival, Defendant admitted that he pushed his wife.

Result: After the Defendant was arraigned, he hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately requested a trial date. On the trial date, the wife invoked her marital privilege and elected not to testify against her husband and the case was dismissed.

Commonwealth v. J.M.

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST IS ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE OFFENSE.

Stoughton Police arrested and charged the Defendant with Resisting Arrest pursuant to G.L. c. 268, §32B. Police were called to a parking lot for a male party sitting in a vehicle “who was reported to be not acting right.” Officer approached the vehicle, and spoke to the Defendant who was mumbling and argumentative. Police observed several empty alcoholic nips bottles in the vehicle. Officers asked him about his drinking, and Defendant was argumentative. Police observed that he was very intoxicated. Police asked him to step out of the vehicle. As he exited the vehicle, Defendant lost his balance and the officer reached out to grab him to prevent him from falling, but the Defendant pulled away and tried to get away from the officers, causing officers to grab the Defendant and take him to the ground. While on the ground, Defendant continued to resist the officers, causing officers to deliver knee strikes to his body.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Resisting Arrest for lack of probable cause arguing that: Defendant was not placed under arrest at the time he resisted officers, Officers did not have probable cause to arrest the Defendant for any crime at the time the Defendant resisted officers, and the officers never communicated to the Defendant their intent to arrest him. After a hearing, the Judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss.

Commonwealth v. Gregory Pierre-Charles

Massachusetts Court of Appeals

98 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2020)

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY DRUG OFFENSES AFTER A TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT OF APPEALS TO REVERSE HIS CONVICTIONS AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS ARE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANT

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented this client since he was arrested in 2016 on two-counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana. In this case, a Confidential Informant (CI) provided Brockton Police with information that the Defendant was selling heroin in Brockton. The CI engaged in two controlled buys for drugs with the Defendant under the supervision of Brockton Police. In the two controlled buys, Police observed the Defendant meet the CI and engaged in a drug transaction. After each controlled buy, the drugs were field tested as positive for heroin. As a result of the information supplied by the CI, and the two controlled buys, police obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Brockton for drugs. When executing the search warrant, police found 37 bags containing a half-ounce of heroin, and glass jars containing over 3 lbs. of marijuana. As a result of the search, Brockton Police charged the Defendant with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, and Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C(a)).

Result: In the Brockton District Court, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, which was denied. Attorney Noonan filed an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals appealing the denial of his Motion to Suppress, which was also denied. Attorney Noonan also represented the Defendant at his jury trial in the Brockton District Court, which ended in guilty verdicts. This time, Attorney Noonan was successful in his appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, which resulted in the reversal of his convictions, and Not Guilty findings were entered for the Defendant.

Boston Police vs. R.D.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED BY BOSTON POLICE FOR BEING UNCOOPERATIVE DURING A POLICE INVESTIGATION, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED.

Client is a 30 year-old Boston man with no record of criminal convictions. He was issued a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) by the Boston Police. Client was employed in armed security, which required him to have an LTC. In 2020, client was the victim of a drive-by shooting in Hyde Park where he was shot in the leg. While in the hospital, police proceeded to question him, but the officer found that the client was being “uncooperative.” As a result, Boston Police suspended his LTC alleging that he was an “unsuitable person” to be issued an LTC because he was uncooperative with the police.

Result: The client’s livelihood depended on him having an LTC. Because his LTC was denied, he lost his job in armed security and was unemployed. The client’s career in armed security seemed bleak because his LTC was suspended. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Complaint in the Boston Municipal Court seeking judicial review and appealing the decision of the Boston Police in suspending his LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that: There is no reasonable nexus between the Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation with police and a risk to public safety – and the Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation with police was not reasonably related to the statute’s goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of persons who would cause a risk to public safety. Shortly after the filing of the Complaint and the Appeal, the Boston Police rightly decided to reinstate the client’s LTC. Now the client can return to work in armed security.

Commonwealth v. O.A.

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.

Plaintiff v. Defendant

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.

Commonwealth v. P.F.

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.

Plaintiff v. Defendant

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.

Case Results