Case Results
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.
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.