Case Results
Police Dept. v. L.S.
MBTA WORKER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED AFTER CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR UNLAWFULLY CARRYING A FIREARM OUTSIDE HIS RESTRICTION BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED
The client has a License to Carry Firearms (“LTC”) with a restriction for target shooting purposes only. The client was criminally charged in Boston with unlawfully carrying a firearm outside his target shooting restriction. At 2:41 a.m., Boston Police were patrolling a high crime area, which had been the scene of recent shootings. Officers were suspicious that the Defendant’s vehicle and another vehicle were parked in close proximity to each other (in this high-crime area) and the vehicles took off in separate directions. Officers followed the Defendant’s vehicle and their suspicious increased because the vehicle’s windows were tinted and the license plate was obstructed by some plastic covering. Officers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and asked him if he had a firearm in his possession. Defendant was truthful and stated that he had a firearm underneath his seat. His LTC was restricted to target shooting only and the police felt that the Defendant had possessed the firearm outside his restriction and charged him criminally. Following the criminal charge, the client’s LTC was suspended.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully petitioned the Police Department to reinstate his client’s LTC for the following reasons: First, the criminal charge was dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing. He was only issued warnings for the civil infractions for the tinted windows and license plate obstruction. Second, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was in that specific area in Boston because he was visiting his grandmother. The client was not doing anything suspicious. Third, the client had gone target shooting that day at the Braintree Rifle and Pistol Club with co-workers of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Fourth, Attorney Noonan presented strong character evidence. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed by the MBTA for six years. Several respectable members of the community offered letters attesting to the client’s character. Finally, the client completed a firearm’s safety course. After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the police department reinstated the client’s license to carry firearms.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT FROM HAITI FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A LICENSE IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING
Client is a 23 year-old woman who emigrated from Haiti. She attended Massasoit Community College and later became a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and she is currently employed as a CNA for a nursing home. She obtained a Learner’s Permit to operate a motor vehicle, but she had failed her driving test. She did not have a valid driver’s license when she was pulled over by police for a motor vehicle infraction and she was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). She did not have any criminal record.
Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. Usually, the client would have her aunt drive her to and from work. On this occasion, the client made a poor mistake in judgment and drove without a license.
Commonwealth v. S.H.
CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST TAUNTON MAN FOR RECKLESSLY CAUSING A CAR ACCIDENT IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING
Raynham Police were dispatched to the scene of a two-vehicle car accident. On the scene, police spoke to the Defendant who stated that the vehicle traveling in front of him gave him a “brake job,” e.g., applying the brakes as the Defendant was traveling behind him. Defendant admitted that he accelerated and passed the other vehicle and, while the Defendant was traveling in front of the other vehicle, the Defendant reciprocated by giving that vehicle a “brake job.” However, the other vehicle crashed into the rear of the Defendant’s vehicle as a result of the Defendant’s “brake job,” causing significant front end damage to the other vehicle. The other driver told the police that the Defendant recklessly passed him and “locked up his brakes” causing the crash. Based on the Defendant’s incriminating statements and the significant vehicle damage, the police filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan secured a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal complaint giving his client an opportunity to save himself from having a criminal record before a decision was made to issue formal criminal charges. In preparation for the hearing, Attorney Noonan had his client complete a safe driving course. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the victim’s motor vehicle damage had been paid for by insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing his client’s good character, including a character letter from the Defendant’s employer where the Defendant had worked for six-years. Attorney Noonan argued that his client made a foolish mistake but took responsibility for his actions. At the conclusion of the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, no criminal complaint issued against the client and the client has no criminal record as a result of this incident.
Commonwealth v. J.R.
IN A CASE FEATURED ON THE NEWS, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN ACCUSED OF BEATING AN ELDERLY MAN AFTER A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT
The Defendant is a Brockton man with no criminal record. He has never been in trouble before. On January 2, 2019, Defendant was at a stop light in Easton. According to police, Defendant attempted to pass another vehicle when the two cars hit one another. The other driver, however, did not pull over so the Defendant followed him. The other driver eventually pulled into the parking lot of a bank. A verbal argument ensued. Defendant was accused of punching the elderly man in the face several times. Photographs were taken showing lacerations and bleeding to the alleged victim’s face. Defendant was arrested by Easton Police and charged with the felony offense Assault & Battery on Elderly or Disabled Person pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13K. On the second trial date, all charges against our client were dismissed.
“Man Accused of Punching 71-Year-old After Road Rage Incident in Easton.” https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/01/03/road-rage-brockton-man-assault-71-year-old-man-easton-police-arraignment/
Police Dept. v. B.L.
CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO A SHOPLIFTING ARREST BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINSTATE HIS LTC.
Client obtained a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) for his job as an armed security guard where he provided armed security for federal buildings in Boston. Client was arrested for shoplifting from the Lord & Taylor department store in the Braintree Mall. As a result of his arrest, the client’s license to carry firearms (LTC) was suspended by the police department finding him to be an “unsuitable” person to possess an LTC and firearms. Due to the suspension of his LTC, the client lost his job in armed security. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to have his LTC reinstated.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the Police Department who suspended the client’s LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s LTC should be reinstated because the basis for the suspension (the shoplifting arrest) was dismissed. Even if a criminal charge is dismissed, the police department may still suspend an applicant’s LTC if the police department determines that the applicant is “unsuitable” to possess an LTC. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client was a “suitable person” and that his shoplifting arrest was a stupid mistake. The client earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing and graduated with high honors. Attorney Noonan presented letters from the client’s co-workers in armed security attesting to his character and suitability. After the shoplifting case was dismissed, the client got a job as a health care provider at a residential facility treating of people with mental illness. The client received an award for providing life-saving assistance to a patient suffering from a medical emergency. Since the suspension, the client satisfactorily completed a firearm’s safety course. In sum, although the client was deemed to be unsuitable for his shoplifting arrest, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s suitability and the police department changed its mind and reinstated the LTC.
Commonwealth v. T.L.
ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT WITH ASPERGER’S SYNDROME DISMISSED
Defendant, a Plymouth resident, is a young man with Asperger’s Syndrome, which is a developmental disorder affecting the ability to effectively socialize and communicate. Defendant was adopted and lived in a large household with his adopted parents and the adult children of his adopted parents. On one evening, an argument ensued between the Defendant and his brother. During the course of the argument, there was some pushing, shoving and punches were exchanged. Other members of the household had to intervene to break up the altercation. When the police were called, the Defendant had visible injuries from the altercation, which the police ignored and chose not to photograph or document in their police report. The police also chose to ignore statements and information provided to them that the Defendant was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. After things cooled off, Defendant and his brother reconciled and the brother did not want to proceed with any criminal charges against the Defendant. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M).
Result: After being retained, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan provided documentation to the Commonwealth showing that his client was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. Attorney Noonan also provided the Commonwealth with photographs of his client’s injuries, which suggested that his client was not the primary aggressor but was on the receiving end of the assault. Defendant had no criminal record or any involvement with police or the court system. The Commonwealth saw that this was an altercation between two brothers who have since reconciled and the alleged victim did not wish to proceed with any criminal charges against the Defendant. One the day of trial, the criminal charge was dismissed.
Police Dept. v. G.F.
CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO AN INCIDENT WHERE HIS TEENAGE SON ACCESSED HIS FIREARM FROM AN UNLOCKED SAFE AND POSTED VIDEOS OF HIMSELF AND THE GUN ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINDTATE HIS LTC
Client, a Brockton resident, is a 54 year-old engineer and real estate agent with no criminal record whatsoever. The client and his wife (a certified nursing assistant) emigrated from Haiti and built a great life for their family in the United States. The police department suspended the client’s LTC due to an incident where his teenage son accessed his firearm from an unlocked safe and posted videos of himself posing with the gun on social media. The videos on social media were reported to the son’s school who, in turn, contacted the police department. As a result of this incident, the police department suspended the client’s License to Carry Firearms (LTC).
Result: The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in an effort to persuade the police department to reinstate his LTC. The firearms licensing officer told Attorney Noonan that the client was extremely remorseful for the incident and took full responsibility for the incident. The firearms licensing officer was open to considering an LTC reinstatement based, in large part, on the client’s truthfulness about the incident and his genuine remorse for what happened. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client made a poor mistake but something like this would never happen again. He left the unloaded firearm out of his sight for only a few minutes, which resulted in this incident. The client immediately completed a course in firearm’s safety. The main reason why the officer was willing to entertain a potential reinstatement was the client’s genuineness and truthfulness in speaking with police about the incident, his sincere expression of remorse, and his willingness to correct the mistake. After negotiations, the client’s LTC was reinstated.
Commonwealth v. S.F.
MANSLAUGHER: NOT GUILTY
In 2015, Defendant was charged with Manslaughter (G.L. c. 265, §13) for allegedly selling heroin to a middle-man, the middle-man distributed the heroin to a victim, and the victim consumed the heroin and died of a drug overdose. Manslaughter requires proof that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin was wanton and reckless and that his act of selling heroin was the cause of the victim’s death. At this time in 2015, there was case law and precedent in Massachusetts finding that a Defendant’s sale of heroin was wanton and reckless so as to support a charge of Manslaughter. In 2016, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin to a middle-man was not wanton and reckless and was insufficient to support the Manslaughter charge. Attorney Noonan argued that the case law in the Commonwealth was outdated. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is no per se rule finding that the sale of heroin, by itself, was sufficient to convict a Defendant of Manslaughter. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth must present evidence, in addition to the sale of heroin, to establish wanton and reckless conduct, such as: the potency of the heroin, the quantity of the heroin, and the Defendant’s knowledge regarding the victim (such as the victim’s prior drug use, prior overdoses, vulnerability, etc.) In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the Manslaughter charge because: the potency of the heroin was weak; the heroin was not laced with any other substances increasing the risk of overdose; the quantity of the heroin was small (consistent with personal use); and the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell directly to the victim. The Motion to Dismiss was denied.
At trial, Defendant was represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty; echoing the arguments that were raised in his pretrial Motion to Dismiss and applying the facts presented at trial. In his Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty, Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth merely presented evidence that the Defendant sold heroin which, by itself, was not sufficient to convict him of Manslaughter. First, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the heroin was of low-strength. In particular, the heroin was only 24% pure and weaker than the average dose of heroin on the street. A DEA Chemist testified at trial that the average street level strength of heroin is between 20% - 60%, placing the Defendant’s heroin at the weak end of the spectrum. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the heroin was not laced with any other substances, such as Fentanyl, which would increase the risk of an overdose. Third, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant sold a small quantity of heroin consistent with personal use. Fourth, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell the heroin directly to her but instead sold the heroin to a middle-man. The trial judge denied Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Defendant was convicted of Manslaughter on April 6, 2018.
While the Defendant’s appeal was pending, there was a similar appeal pending before the Supreme Judicial Court where a Defendant had been convicted of Manslaughter for selling heroin to the victim. In this related appeal, (Commonwealth v. Jesse Carrillo), the Defendant (Carrillo) was raising the same arguments that the Noonan’s raised in their pretrial Motion to Dismiss and in their Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty at trial. The Defendant’s appeal was stayed (or put on hold) until the SJC made a decision in Carrillo. On October 3, 2019, the SJC in Carrillo held that: As an issue of first impression, evidence that the Defendant transferred heroin to the victim, without more, was insufficient to support a Manslaughter conviction. Given the SJC’s new decision, it was clear that the Defendant’s conviction should be overturned. The Defendant sought a highly skilled appellate attorney who fought hard on his behalf. Following the SJC’s decision in Carrillo, Defendant’s appellate attorney renewed Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty. The District Attorney’s Office assented to (or agreed) to the Renewed Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Trial Judge entered a finding of Not Guilty.
Commonwealth v. J.H.
AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR (THIRD OFFENSE) AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION
Defendant, a construction worker from Hanover, was arrested by Massachusetts State Police and charged with OUI-Liquor (third offense), see G.L. c. 90, §24. A third-offense OUI is a felony, which carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of six-months and an 8-year suspension of driver’s license. State Police received a call from an off-duty police officer who reported that the Defendant was driving erratically on Route 3 in Rockland. Based on that report, State Troopers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 3. The Trooper approached the Defendant and noticed that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy. The Trooper observed an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had consumed alcohol and the Defendant stated that he consumed a few nips about an hour prior. Troopers searched the Defendant’s vehicle and found six empty nip bottles. The Trooper administered two field sobriety tests, the One-Leg Stand and the Nine-Step Walk and Turn, which, in the Trooper’s opinion, the Defendant failed. During the booking process at the police station, the Defendant fell asleep. The Trooper had to shout the Defendant’s name several times and had to physically jostle the Defendant in order to wake him up.
Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won not guilty verdicts on all charges. At trial, Attorney Noonan was able to exclude certain testimony related to the off-duty police officer’s observations of the Defendant’s so-called erratic operation on Route 3. Attorney Noonan introduced the Defendant’s booking photo and the Defendant’s driver’s license photo to show that the Defendant did not have red, bloodshot, and glassy eyes, as the Trooper claimed. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the police did not identify any nip bottles in the vehicle when they conducted an inventory search of property in the Defendant’s vehicle. Troopers did not photograph or seize the nip bottles as evidence. For the field sobriety tests, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant satisfactorily performed the Nine-Step Walk and Turn with some minor errors. The vehicle stop occurred in the evening, after the Defendant had worked a full-day in construction and he was wearing work boots during his sobriety tests. The Defendant’s drowsiness during booking could be explained by the fact that he worked a full-day in construction and was tired as a result. Lastly, Attorney Noonan highlighted a huge inconsistency in the prosecution’s case. During her opening statement, the prosecutor argued that the jury would hear evidence that the Defendant admitted to consuming “three nips,” which turned out to be inaccurate.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
INDECENT EXPOSURE: SEALED
OUI-LIQUOR: SEALED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: SEALED
Defendant, a 66 year-old real estate agent, contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he was encountering difficulties obtaining employment due to criminal offenses on his record, including Indecent Exposure (G.L. c. 272, §53), Operating under the Influence of Liquor (G.L. c. 90, §24), and Operating to Endanger (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). After contacting Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, all charges on his criminal record were sealed within 30 days.