Result

OUI-SERIOUS BODILY INJURY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)

Defendant was alleged to have caused a major motor vehicle accident resulting in serious injuries to his passenger and himself. Defendant was driving a vehicle on Route 24 South with a female passenger in the front seat. Witnesses told police that they saw the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed and abruptly swerve into the Burger King rest area and then crash into the rear of a parked 18-wheel tractor-trailer. The vehicle was completely crushed and lodged underneath the rear of the tractor-trailer. Upon arrival, Defendant and the passenger were unconscious and unresponsive. As the Defendant was unconscious in the driver’s seat, police officers detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The Defendant and the female passenger were taken by helicopter to the Rhode Island Hospital. The female passenger remained in the hospital for nearly one month. She sustained serious bodily injuries, including: partial blindness in one eye, head trauma, broken bones (especially in the legs), and internal injuries. Police interviewed the Defendant’s wife who stated that the Defendant had issues with alcohol and cocaine use. Police interviewed the Defendant who admitted to consuming beer prior to the accident.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan examined a civilian witness who was the first responder. Prior to any police arriving to the scene, this witness went over to the vehicle, looked in, and checked on the status of the Defendant and passenger. This witness attempted to speak to them but received no response. This witness physically went inside the vehicle and physically extricated the female passenger from the vehicle. The witness was unable to extricate the Defendant. During Attorney Noonan’s examination, the witness stated that he did not detect any odor of alcohol inside the vehicle and he did not detect any odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant – which was inconsistent with the reports of police that they detected an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant, as he lay unconscious in the driver’s seat. The Commonwealth sought to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records from the Rhode Island Hospital. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected to the Commonwealth’s request to subpoena the hospital records – but a Brockton District Court Judge issued a court order for the Defendant’s hospital records. In order to lawfully obtain a person’s medical records from the Rhode Island Hospital, the requesting party must comply with the laws of Rhode Island. Here, the Commonwealth obtained a Massachusetts Court Order, but did not comply with Rhode Island law. Attorney Noonan pressed hard for a trial date. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth was unable to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records. The Commonwealth requested a continuance in order to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected to the continuance and stated that he was ready for trial. The Commonwealth was unable to proceed without any medical evidence. As a result, the case was dismissed on the trial date. Had the client been convicted, he faced a minimum mandatory jail sentence of six-months and an automatic 2-year loss of license. The Defendant owned and operated a professional truck driving business and his business would have been ruined if he were convicted.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)

Client was a junior in high school. A female student reported to the police that she had been receiving sexually charged and sexually inappropriate text messages from the client. The female students provided the sexually explicit text messages to the police. The client was not charged in connection with the text messages but police informed him that he was the prime suspect. The client denied the allegations and protested, repeatedly, that he did not send the text messages.

The police instructed the client to have no contact with the female student or else he would be charged with Intimidation of a Witness. Several weeks later, the female student reported to the police that the client had been staring at her in school and would strike her with his arm, shoulder, and backpack when passing her in the school hallway. The police officer pulled video footage from the hallway and, based on the officer’s opinion, the video showed the client intentionally striking the female student with his backpack. Based on the physical contact in the hallway, the police charged the Client with Assault & Battery. In addition, the police charged the Client with Witness Intimidation for staring and striking the female in the hallway on several different occasions.

Result: In conducting his pre-trial investigation, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained evidence that another student (not the client) was the person that sent the sexually inappropriate text messages to the female student. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained text messages in which this other student admitted to sending the sexually inappropriate text messages to the female student. In his police report, the officer states that he paused the video on a specific minute and second where the client’s backpack made physical contact with the female’s left shoulder. Attorney Noonan blew up a picture of the minute and second where the officer claims he saw physical contact. In Attorney Noonan’s opinion, the image did not show any physical contact. If there was any contact, it was a slight brush and purely incidental as a result of students navigating their way to class in a crowded, narrow hallway. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan extracted and developed large photographs breaking down the sequence and movements of the client and the female student in the hallway. These images showed that the female student displayed absolutely no physical or emotional reaction in response to the so-called contact. On the day of trial, the District Attorney moved to dismiss the criminal complaints due to the mountain of evidence showing that the client did not commit any criminal offenses.

MINOR POSSESSING ALCOHOL: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client #1 (19 years old) and Client #2 (18 years old) were pulled over for driving without any headlights. The officer observed alcohol scattered throughout the interior of the vehicle including: an open and empty 30 pack of beer, two full 12 pack of beer, an empty cup containing alcohol residue, and empty 12 oz. can under the passenger seat. Although the driver (Client #1) emitted an odor of alcohol from his breath, he passed all field sobriety tests. The passenger (Client #2) was clearly intoxicated. Due to their signs of intoxication and the large quantity of alcohol found in the vehicle, both clients were placed under arrest and charging with being minors in possession of alcohol.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan entered into an agreement with the District Attorney’s whereby the clients’ cases would be dismissed prior to arraignment, so long as they completed community service. On 07/07/16, both criminal cases against both clients were dismissed prior to arraignment. The clients’ were freshmen in college and had no prior criminal records. With this outcome, no criminal charges will appear on the clients’ criminal records.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL
A & B with DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL

Defendant’s girlfriend called 911 to report that she had been assaulted by the Defendant and she was bleeding. The girlfriend told police that the Defendant started a verbal argument and he pushed her into a fish-tank causing the glass from the fish-tank to shatter. The girlfriend told police that pieces of the shattered glass were lodged in her body. She attempted to call 911 but the Defendant threw her cell phone to the ground and fled the apartment. Police observed the Defendant running in the area and they arrested him. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery, Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Malicious Destruction of Property. Defendant was arraigned on these charges and released on personal recognizance.

While his case was pending, Defendant was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery (subsequent offense) and Malicious Destruction of Property stemming from a completely separate incident with his family. Police were dispatched to the residence of the Defendant’s parents for an Assault & Battery. Upon arrival, Defendant’s brother told police that the Defendant had punched him in the face. Police observed redness and swelling to the brother’s face. Defendant’s mother told police that the Defendant attacked her by grabbing her hair and attempting to push her down. Defendant’s father told police that the Defendant wrestled him to the ground. Police observed that the father had redness to his back and neck. The new offenses were eventually dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Because the Defendant committed these new offenses while his previous case was pending, the Commonwealth moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail. On 04/20/16, the Court revoked the Defendant’s bail and the Defendant was placed in custody. Defendant was facing 90 days in the house of correction because his bail was revoked by virtue of the new offenses.

Result: Defendant retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan while he was in custody at the house of correction. Immediately, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan marked the original case for trial. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained exculpatory text messages sent to the Defendant’s cell phone by his ex-girlfriend, the alleged victim – as well as exculpatory voice mails left on the Defendant’s cell phone by the alleged victim. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan located a witness who had been in a relationship with the alleged victim. This witness was willing to testify that the alleged victim had made threats to falsely accuse of him of crimes if she didn’t receive certain things in return from the witness. That is, if the witness did not comply with her demands, she would call the police and falsely accuse him of a crime. This was precisely the situation in the Defendant’s case. In the Defendant’s case, the alleged victim called 911 and falsely accused the Defendant of these crimes because the Defendant was unwilling to give in to the alleged victim’s demands. The evidence obtained by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented Fifth Amendment issues for the alleged victim because she would have incriminated herself when testifying against the Defendant at trial. On the day of trial, all criminal charges were dismissed and the Defendant was released from custody.

STABBING CASE: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Brockton Police were dispatched to the emergency room at the Good Samaritan Hospital for a report of a patient-victim who had been stabbed. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim. The alleged victim stated that he attended a family party at a residence in Brockton. The alleged victim and members of the party were hanging out in the street outside the party. The alleged victim reported that he saw a few guys fighting in the street and he went over to break it up. One of the male parties involved in the fight confronted the alleged victim and threatened him. The male party left the scene. Minutes later, the male party returned to the scene and again confronted the alleged victim by getting in his face. The male party then stabbed the alleged victim and fled the scene. The alleged victim gave a physical description of the male suspect who stabbed him. Police spoke to a witness of the stabbing who happened to be a friend of the alleged victim. The witness told police that he witnessed the male party stab the alleged victim. The witness told police that the suspect was the Defendant. The witness knew the Defendant because the Defendant lived down the street from the witness. The witness provided police with the suspect’s name and address. Police went to the Defendant’s residence where they observed people in the street arguing about the stabbing. Police observed that the Defendant matched the description given to police by the alleged victim. After briefly speaking with the Defendant, police placed him under arrest for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon to wit: knife.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asserted that the Defendant acted in self-defense. The Defendant told police that he had been jumped by five guys. The Defendant showed police bruises and abrasions that he sustained to his back, which were consistent with the Defendant being the victim of an attack. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan subpoenaed the emergency physician who treated the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to present medical evidence showing that the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with the accounts given by the alleged victim and the witness. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to present medical evidence showing that the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with a deliberate stabbing based upon the depth, size, and nature of the stab wound. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan also subpoenaed the emergency room nurse. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to introduce evidence that the emergency room nurse called Brockton Police because the alleged victim and his friends were being loud and causing a disturbance in the waiting area. Specifically, the emergency room nurse heard the alleged victim and his crew talk about “strapping up” and going out to get the Defendant. This evidence tended to show that the alleged victim and his crew were the aggressors in the conflict and they were acting violent. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, the Commonwealth requested a continuance over the Defendant’s objection. On the second trial date, the criminal charge was dismissed.

DANGEROUSNESS HEARING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

Fall River Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle crash involving two vehicles. Officers observed front-end damage to the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers observed rear-end damage to the second vehicle. The operator of the second vehicle told police that he pulled over to the right-hand side of the road to take a phone call when he was rear-ended by the Defendant’s vehicle. The other operator had to assist the Defendant from his vehicle. The other operator told police that he believed the Defendant to be intoxicated. Upon speaking with the Defendant, police immediately observed a strong odor of alcohol, glazed eyes, and slurred speech. Defendant agreed to participate in field sobriety tests. Defendant failed all the field sobriety tests. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor, Negligent Operation, and Marked Lanes Violation. During booking, police discovered that the Defendant had three prior convictions for OUI-Liquor with the most recent conviction being in 2015. Defendant was arraigned on the charge of OUI-Liquor Subsequent Offense. Because this was the Defendant’s fourth offense for OUI-Liquor, the Commonwealth moved to have the Defendant held in custody during the pendency of his case under the Dangerousness Statute. The Commonwealth argued that: based upon the nature of the offense and the Defendant’s criminal history, no conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community. If successful, the Defendant could be held in custody for up to 180 days.

Result: At the conclusion of the dangerousness hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in persuading the court to release the Defendant from custody. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there were conditions that the court could impose that would reasonably assure the safety of the community. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan advocated that the court impose certain strict conditions that would reasonably assure the safety of the community. The Judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s recommendation and released the Defendant upon certain strict conditions. As a result, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saved his client from serving considerable jail time (up to 180 days), as his case was pending.

OPEN & GROSS: DISMISSED upon MOTION
OPEN & GROSS: DISMISSED upon MOTION

A woman approached Hanover Police Officers at Forge Pond Park and reported two incidents where she observed a man walking on the trail and the man was naked from the waist down. The woman provided police with a physical description of the male suspect. The police placed a trail camera in the area where the witness reported seeing the male naked from the waist down. According to the police report, the camera showed a male party (matching the witness’s description) walking on the trail wearing no pants on two separate occasions on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16. Subsequently, police conducted a stakeout where they hid in the woods in the area where the male party was seen walking naked from the waist down. According to the police report, one officer observed a male party (later identified as the defendant) walking on the trail wearing no pants or underwear with his penis and testicles completely exposed and the male suspect was swinging his penis side to side with his right hand. The officers emerged from the woods and arrested the Defendant at gun point. At the police station, officers showed the defendant two pictures from the trail camera and the defendant acknowledged that he was the person depicted in the photos. The police charged the defendant with 3 counts of Open and Gross Lewdness. Two of the charges stemmed from the two separate occasions where the trail camera showed the defendant naked from the waist down on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the two counts that were based on the camera footage of 03/28/16 and 03/30/16. Attorney Noonan argued that the offense of Open and Gross Lewdness requires that the defendant “expose his genitals to one or more persons” and the law requires that the illegal conduct occur “in the presence of another person.” Attorney Noonan argued that the two charges should be dismissed because there were no human being(s) present to observe the illegal conduct. Attorney Noonan argued that the only witness to the alleged offenses on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16 was the trail camera (an inanimate object) and not a human being. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan’s argument and dismissed the two counts that were based on the camera footage.

This Case in the News

Is public nudity lewd is no one sees it? Hingham judge says no. August 2, 2016 by Neal Simpson, The Patriot Ledger via The Enterprise. Excerpt: “The law requires that the person expose himself to a person – that there be a person present to see it,” Noonan told the Ledger. “What we have here is an inanimate object – a camera – and no human being there to see it.” “Judge Bradley agreed…”

Patrick Noonan Defends Man Caught Jogging Without Pants (Fox 25 News Video)

DISTURBING THE PEACE: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
TRESPASSING: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Boston police were dispatched for a large fight in progress outside a night club. Upon arrival, officers had to immediately intervene to break up the large fight. Defendant was involved in the large fight. Police broke up the large fight and ordered that everyone disperse from the area. An officer specifically told the Defendant to leave the area. Defendant ran around the officer and attacked another party who he had been fighting with prior to police arriving. Defendant was placed under arrest. The Defendant was born, raised, and permanently resides in Saudi Arabia. This incident occurred when the Defendant was in the United States visiting friends. Defendant was a full time college student at the time attending a University in Canada majoring in Bilingual Business Economics.

Result: Prior to the Defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan amassed a wealth of evidence attesting to his client’s outstanding character and submitted it to the DA’s Office requesting that the criminal charges be dismissed prior to arraignment. Attorney Noonan provided the DA’s Office with letters from three different companies where the Defendant had completed internships. Defendant completed internships with worldwide marketing companies. All letters attested that the Defendant was a very responsible, loyal, and hard-working intern. Attorney Noonan submitted the Defendant’s college transcripts showing that he was an honor student. After considering all the favorable information provided by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the DA’s Office agreed to dismiss the criminal complaints prior to arraignment. This was a considerable victory because the Defendant was a college student with a great future ahead of him and these criminal charges will not appear on his record.

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant called 911 to report that her husband had taken her revolver and threatened to shoot himself with it. Defendant was able to take the revolver away from her husband. Upon arrival, police spoke with the husband who stated that he had taken his wife’s revolver from her gun safe, which was unlocked, and threatened to shoot himself with it. The husband was taken to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Defendant told police that she had locked her gun safe and that her husband must have known the combination in order to access the firearm.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan was prepared to argue that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the firearm in question was a working firearm and capable of discharging a shot or bullet. The Commonwealth failed to have the firearm examined and test fired by a ballistician in order to prove that the firearm was operable. In addition, Defendant’s husband invoked his marital privilege not to testify against his wife, the Defendant. Without the husband’s testimony, the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the Defendant did not properly secure the firearm. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth moved to dismiss the criminal complaint.

OPERATING to ENDANGER (sub. offense): DISMISSED

Defendant had a lengthy record of criminal driving offenses. In 2014, Defendant was convicted of Operating to Endanger after a trial. In 2013, Defendant pled to the charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident. In 2011, Defendant pled to the charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident. In this case, witnesses observed the Defendant’s vehicle peel out of a Bar parking lot at a high rate of speed. The vehicle lost control and went off the roadway into the woods. Defendant’s vehicle struck the guide wire to a telephone pole ripping the guide wire off the telephone pole. Defendant left his motor vehicle in the woods and did not report the incident to police. The following day, police contacted the Defendant. Defendant admitted to driving his vehicle off the road, into the woods, and leaving the vehicle in the woods without reporting it.

Result: If convicted of Operating to Endanger, Defendant faced a year-long revocation of his driver’s license because this was a subsequent offense. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to persuade the Commonwealth to dismiss the case saving his client a year-long revocation of his driver’s license. Defendant worked full-time as a construction worker. Defendant would have lost his job if his driver’s license was revoked for one-year.