Result

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED

Defendant was an employee at a retail store. Defendant was alleged to have made two fraudulent transactions totaling over $250. Defendant admitted to Loss Prevention and Police that she made the two fraudulent transactions.

Result: At the arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal charge dismissed.

IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED

Defendant called the police to report that someone broke into his apartment and stole his shotgun and ammunition from his gun case. Upon arrival, the police inspected the gun case. The gun case had been tampered with and some of the latches were missing. The officer believed that the Defendant did not have a lock on his gun case and charged him with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Police took fingerprints from the gun case. The only identifiable fingerprints on the gun case belonged to the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Preserve the gun case. At trial, the Commonwealth did not have the gun case. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the police dispatcher because the Defendant called the police and reported to the police dispatcher that he had a lock on his gun case. Attorney Noonan intended to call the Defendant’s father to testify. Defendant’s father would go shooting with the Defendant every other weekend. Defendant would bring his gun case when shooting with his father. Defendant’s father was willing to testify that the Defendant always had the same lock on his gun case every time they went shooting together. Defendant’s father was willing to give a description of the Defendant’s lock. Defendant’s father was willing to testify that they went shooting together 2 weeks before this incident and that the Defendant’s gun case had the same lock on it. In addition, Attorney sought to elicit testimony that the Defendant identified the suspect to police who he believed broke into his apartment and stole his firearm and ammunition. Attorney Noonan sought to show that the Commonwealth never investigated the suspect believed to have stolen the Defendant’s firearm. Police did not test the gun case for the suspect’s fingerprints. Attorney Noonan also intended to call the Defendant’s sister who lived in the same apartment with him and she was willing to testify that she told police that the same suspect stole money from her apartment the same day that the Defendant reported his firearm stolen.

Result: The day before trial, the Commonwealth informed Attorney Patrick J. Noonan that they would be dismissing the case on the day of trial.

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

A department store employee called police to report that the Defendant left the store without paying for items. Police apprehended the Defendant outside the store. A search of the Defendant’s purse showed 13 items that she shoplifted from the store, totaling $379.88. Store security informed police that the Defendant shoplifted from the store on five other occasions in the past month. Store security provided police with surveillance videos showing that the Defendant shoplifted from the store on five previous occasions. The total amount of items shoplifted on the five previous occasions amounted to $862.04. Defendant was charged with Larceny over $250 stemming from the incident in which she shoplifted amounting to $379.88. The police were seeking to bring 5 additional counts of Larceny over $250.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the felony charge of Larceny over $250 upon the payment of restitution. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth not to charge the Defendant with 5 additional felony charges of Larceny over $250. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan facilitated the payment of restitution to the department store for all 6 shoplifting incidents. As a result, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saved his client from having 5 felony charges on her record.

209A RESTRAINING ORDER: VACATED

Defendant’s ex-fiancé obtained a temporary restraining order against him pursuant to Chapter 209A alleging that: Defendant abused her, Defendant stalked her, and Defendant threatened her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan contested the restraining order and requested a two-party hearing such that Attorney Noonan could cross-examine the Plaintiff and present evidence on the Defendant’s behalf. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan attacked the Plaintiff’s credibility by introducing evidence that she had prior restraining orders issued against her by an ex-boyfriend. Attorney attacked her credibility by presenting evidence that the Plaintiff had criminal complaints lodged against her by an ex-boyfriend for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (hammer), Domestic Assault & Battery, Breaking & Entering, and Malicious Destruction of Property. Attorney Noonan argued that the Plaintiff had a pattern of volatile behavior in dating relationships and that she was repeating such behavior in the aftermath of her relationship with this Defendant. At the hearing, the Plaintiff did not contest the prior restraining orders or criminal charges. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not abuse the Plaintiff during or after their relationship. Attorney Noonan introduced letters and e-mails sent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff in which she thanks the Defendant for getting her gifts. Attorney Noonan showed that the Defendant bought a Jeep for the Plaintiff and when the Defendant broke off the relationship he demanded the return of the Jeep and she refused. Defendant threatened to call the police if the Plaintiff did not return the Jeep.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly attacked the credibility of the alleged victim and established that the Defendant did not “abuse” the Plaintiff. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge vacated the restraining order.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: PRETRIAL DIVERSION
DISTURBING THE PEACE: PRETRIAL DIVERSION
MINOR IN POSS. OF ALCOHOL: PRETRIAL DIVERSION

At 1:00 a.m., Bridgewater Police received a complaint reporting a loud house party. This house had issues with prior disturbances over the past several months. Upon arrival, police heard loud music playing, people yelling inside, and glass shattering. The people inside refused to open to the door for police. Upon entering the house, police observed numerous alcoholic containers, marijuana residue, and the people inside appeared to be under 21. Several youths fled from the house. Subsequently, the fire department and building inspector condemned the house as unsafe. The renter of the home was uncooperative. It was alleged that the party had been going on for 3 days before police broke it up. Neighbors reported seeing teenagers urinating in the yard. Police arrested everyone present in the home. In total, police arrested 41 people, including the Defendant. Prior to the arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan met with the District Attorney’s Office. Attorney Noonan explained that his client was a sophomore at Bridgewater State University. Attorney Noonan explained that his client worked in Wellesley from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Attorney Noonan explained that his client went to the house party after work for the purpose of driving her three friends home who had been drinking. Defendant was acting as the designated driver. Shortly after the Defendant arrived to the house to pick up her three friends, the police arrived and arrested everybody. Attorney Noonan’s client was 19 years-old, she had no criminal record, and she was a Dean’s List student. The case received national media attention.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to enter his client into the Pretrial Diversion Program. Upon the client’s successful completion of community service and having not committed any new offenses, the Commonwealth will dismiss all criminal charges against the Defendant prior to arraignment on 05/23/16. Therefore, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client will have no criminal charges on her record.

This case in the news:

• 41 arrested at Massachusetts House Party. NBC News, February 22, 2016
• 41 arrested at “out of control” Bridgewater house party. Boston Globe, February 21, 2016
• More than 40 partygoers arrested at “loud out of control house party” near Bridgewater State University, police say. New York Daily News, February 22, 2016
• Bridgewater police arrest 41 after house party. Washington Times, February 22, 2016.
• 41 arrested at house party in Bridgewater, Mass. Providence Journal, February 21, 2016
• Bridgewater police arrest 41 after house party. New Jersey Herald, February 21, 2016
• House condemned after 41 arrested at Bridgewater party. Enterprise News, February 22, 2016
• Bridgewater Police bust party, arrest 41. Fox25, February 22, 2016
• Police arrest 41 people at Bridgewater party. WCVB, February 22, 2016

LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED

Client was alleged to have written a check in the amount of $136.00 to pay for groceries. The check was returned due to the account being closed. The grocery store filed an application for criminal complaint for larceny by check. Defendant did not receive notice of the criminal complaint, as he moved to a different address. As a result, a default warrant issued. Several years later, Defendant was arrested on the warrant and arraigned in court on the Larceny by Check charge. After his arraignment, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the Larceny by Check charge by agreement of all the parties.

POSS. INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED
POSS. CLASS B: PERCOCET: DISMISSED
POSS. CLASS C: ADDERALL: CWOF (Admin. Probation)

The DEA, Bristol County Drug Task Force, and Mansfield Police conducted a 6 year investigation into the Defendant’s drug activities. In 2009, police had a confidential informant engage in two controlled buys with the Defendant for Percocet and Oxycodone. The investigation re-launched in 2015 with another confidential informant. This informant provided police with information concerning the Defendant’s selling of prescription pills. This confidential informant engaged in two controlled buys with the Defendant for Oxycodone. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s apartment and motor vehicle. At the Defendant’s apartment, police recovered 48 blue pulls, 2 white pills, and 114 orange pills. $5,000 in cash was found in the Defendant’s vehicle. During questioning, Defendant admitted that he had Adderall pills in his storage locker. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed an extensive discovery motion seeking pointed information into the confidential informant’s used by the police in this 6-year investigation. When Attorney Noonan appeared for a hearing on the Discovery Motion, the Commonwealth offered to dismiss the felony Intent to Distribution charge and the Possession of Class B Percocet charge. The Commonwealth offered the Defendant a continuance without a finding on the Possession of Adderall charge, the least serious of all the charges. The Defendant was placed on administrative probation with no terms or conditions for one-year.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony Intent to Distribute charge and misdemeanor Possession of Class B Percocet charges dismissed. Defendant receives a continuance without a finding on the least serious charge of Possession of Adderall. Defendant was placed on administrative probation for one-year with no terms or conditions. Client was very pleased with the outcome of his case.

LEAVING SCENE OF ACCIDENT: DISMISSED

A victim went into the police station to report that her vehicle was damaged in the parking lot of a supermarket. An identified witness left a note of the victim’s windshield stating that the Defendant’s vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle and left the scene without leaving a note. The witness provided the make, model, and license plate of the Defendant’s vehicle. The witness stated that the Defendant’s vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle, as the Defendant was attempting to park. After striking the victim’s vehicle, Defendant backed out and parked in a different parking spot. Defendant did not exit her vehicle to assess the damage she caused to the victim’s vehicle. Defendant did not leave a note on the victim’s vehicle reporting what happened and providing the victim with her information. Defendant admitted to police that she hit the vehicle and left the scene. Defendant appeared at a Show Cause Hearing without representation. The clerk magistrate found probable cause to issue the criminal complaint. After her arraignment, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney to dismiss the criminal charge and provided documentation showing that the Defendant’s car insurance paid for all the damage to the victim’s vehicle.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant’s boyfriend called 911 and he reported that the Defendant bit him and that the Defendant had a knife in her hand. The boyfriend stated that they were having an argument over finances when the Defendant bit him and retrieved a knife at which point the victim left the apartment and called 911. Police were dispatched to the residence and they placed the Defendant under arrest for Domestic Assault & Battery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. At trial, the alleged victim failed to appear. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would not be able to introduce the 911 call into evidence, as the 911 call did not meet the necessary rules of evidence. Without the victim’s testimony and without the 911 call, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case.

LEWD & LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT: NOT GUILTY

A woman (alleged victim) called 911 to report that a woman in a second story apartment building was exposing her vagina and masturbating. The alleged victim was driving her teenaged daughter and her teenaged daughter’s friends to school. They went to the Dunkin Donuts drive thru. While placing their order in the drive-thru line, the alleged victim’s daughter directed her attention to the second story window in the apartment adjacent to the Dunkin Donuts. The alleged victim looked up into the window and saw a heavyset woman standing in the window naked from the waist down with her vagina exposed. The alleged victim beeped her horn so that the woman in the window would leave. When she beeped her horn, the alleged victim saw the woman in the window insert her fingers into her vagina and masturbate. The alleged victim immediately called 911. Upon arrival, police looked into the apartment window and a saw a heavy-set woman naked from the waist down. Police gained entry into the apartment. The Defendant was in the apartment. When speaking with the Defendant, police identified the Defendant as the person in the window naked from the waist down. Police observed that the Defendant matched the description given by the alleged victim. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the alleged victim withheld the names and identities of percipient witnesses. That is, there were two other girls in the alleged victim’s vehicle that the alleged victim decided not to disclose to the police. At trial, the prosecutor introduced a photograph that one of the girls in the car had taken of the person in the window. The photo showed a leg propped up on the window sill. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that this photograph was provided to police shortly after the alleged incident and that it was not disclosed to the defense until the day of trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth made the decision to introduce a black and white copy of the photo when they should have introduced a color copy of the photo. The color copy was the best evidence and may have been exculpatory to the defense. Attorney Noonan questioned the government’s decision to introduce the black and white photo when they had the ability to introduce a color copy. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have the intent to expose herself to the public. Attorney Noonan showed that the shades to the window were pulled down so the only thing visible was below the person’s waist. Attorney Noonan showed that the window had red curtains on both sides. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant desired privacy and took steps to ensure her privacy. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s exposure was negligent, not reckless.

Result: After a two-day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the jury that the Defendant did not commit a sexual act in the apartment window and that the Defendant did not masturbate in the apartment window. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict on the offense of Lewd, Wanton, and Lascivious Conduct.