Result

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: NOT GUILTY

A woman (alleged victim) walked into the police station to report an incident that just happened in the parking lot of TJ Maxx. The alleged victim claimed that she parked her vehicle in the parking lot of the TJ Maxx. She stated that she parked next to the Defendant’s vehicle and their driver’s side doors were facing each other. The Defendant was sitting in his vehicle with the driver’s side window down. She claimed that she exited her vehicle and walked past the Defendant’s driver’s side window. She claimed that she looked down into the Defendant’s window and saw that he had an erect penis exposed through the zipper of his pants. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discredited the alleged victim. The alleged victim testified that she went immediately into the TJ Maxx to report the incident to the manager. She testified that she provided the manager with the make, model, and license plate to the Defendant’s vehicle. She testified that she provided the manager with a physical description of the Defendant. She testified that the manager offered to escort her to her vehicle but she refused. She testified that the manager offered to call the police but she refused. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the TJ Maxx manager as a witness. The manager testified that he had no knowledge of receiving such a report and that he would remember receiving such a report. The manager testified that he had never met the alleged victim. This impeachment testimony discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan thoroughly attacked the investigation conducted by police. The arresting officer testified that he interviewed the alleged victim for approximately 30 minutes. After interviewing the alleged victim, the arresting officer spoke with the Defendant in the lobby of the police station. The Defendant arrived to the police station before the alleged victim to report that a crazy woman falsely accused him of exposing his penis in the TJ Maxx parking lot. The arresting officer testified that he spoke to the Defendant for about 1-2 minutes and placed him under arrest. The arresting officer did not conduct any investigation other than speaking to the alleged victim. The arresting officer did not listen to what the Defendant came to the police station to report. The arresting officer made up his mind that the Defendant committed the crime after he spoke with the alleged victim. Because he rushed to judgment, the arresting officer did not conduct any investigation. Lastly, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the Defendant to testify on his own behalf. Defendant worked for the Department of Corrections for 37 years. Defendant was a veteran of the Air Force. Defendant testified that he went to the TJ Maxx to do some shopping. After shopping, Defendant went back to his vehicle and sat in the driver’s seat. Defendant drank a large ice coffee and ate a coffee roll while sitting in his driver’s seat. While eating and drinking in the driver’s seat, the alleged victim walked past his window and said, “Pull up your pants, you creep.” Defendant was shocked by the alleged victim’s accusation because he didn’t do anything wrong. Defendant went directly to the police station to report the false accusation. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant’s actions showed consciousness of innocence.

Result: After a two day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict on the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness. Attorney Noonan’s client was a 65 year-old retired state employee and a military veteran with no criminal record.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT of CHILD: DISMISSED

The alleged victim walked into the police station to report that the Defendant assaulted him and endangered the life of his two year-old son. The Defendant’s sister had a two year-old child with the alleged victim. The alleged victim claimed that he was pushing his two year-old son in a baby stroller for an afternoon walk. When he was crossing the street, the alleged victim claimed that the Defendant accelerated his high-performance vehicle at him and the baby. The alleged victim claimed that the vehicle came inches from hitting him and the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that he had to push the baby stroller out of the way or else the vehicle would strike the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant and two other males got out of the vehicle and approached him. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant got in his face, yelled at him, threatened him, and pushed him into the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that an unidentified neighbor threatened to call the police and the Defendant fled the scene. Defendant had two open criminal cases. When he was charged with this offense, probation moved to find him in violation for committing a new offense while on probation and while he had two criminal cases pending. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan refused to have his client stipulate to violating probation by committing a new offense. Attorney Noonan requested a hearing to challenge probable cause that the Defendant committed a new crime.

Result: At the probation violation hearing, the alleged victim appeared and recanted his statements to police. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to dismiss the criminal complaints because the alleged victim recanted his statement to police. The judge dismissed the criminal complaints and the Defendant was not found in violation of probation.

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness. The allegations were that the Defendant, a senior in high school, was sitting on the school bus on the way home from school when another student observed him expose his penis and masturbate on the school bus. There was evidence that the Defendant had previously masturbated on the school bus on approximately three prior occasions. One student told police that she observed the Defendant masturbate on the school bus on two separate occasions. Another student told police that she observed the Defendant masturbate on the school bus on at least one occasion. Prior to this incident, one student reported to the school that the Defendant masturbated in class. Defendant admitted to school officials that he did masturbate in class as reported. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the trial judge to exclude these “prior bad acts” from evidence. As a result, the Commonwealth was prohibited from introducing any evidence of the prior instances in which the Defendant allegedly masturbated on the school bus and in class. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim who claimed that she saw the Defendant’s penis exposed on the school bus, and that she observed the Defendant masturbating on the school bus. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan introduced into evidence a videotape of the actual bus ride and highlighted all the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony in comparison to what was shown on the videotape. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the victim did not look over at the Defendant during the bus ride, which was contrary to her trial testimony. Attorney Noonan established that the victim looked out the window or looked straight ahead during the bus ride and didn’t look over at the Defendant as she claimed. The victim testified that she looked over at the Defendant and saw him masturbate when a student behind her tapped her on the shoulder. When she was tapped on the shoulder she turned her head to say hello to the student behind her and that’s when she observed the Defendant masturbating. Attorney Noonan impeached the victim by pointing out that the student behind her pulled her hair and didn’t tap her on the shoulder. Attorney Noonan established that the only time she looked over at the Defendant was when the student behind her pulled her hair and she reacted by turning her head in the Defendant’s direction. Attorney Noonan established that it was in a split-second (when she turned her head in reaction to her hair being pulled) that she allegedly saw the Defendant masturbating. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the victim did not tell anybody on the bus that she saw the Defendant’s penis or him masturbating. Defendant got off the school bus before the victim yet the victim did not report the incident to anyone on the school bus after the Defendant got off the bus. The victim testified that she was offended by what she saw. However, as Attorney Noonan pointed out, the videotape did not show any reaction from the victim after she allegedly saw another student expose his penis and masturbate.

Result: At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved the judge for a Required Finding of Not Guilty arguing that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to support each element of the offense. The trial judge agreed and entered a required finding of Not Guilty on the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness.

IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Defendant, the president of a company with no prior criminal record, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm when police searched his apartment and found a fully loaded handgun in the drawer to his nightstand in his bedroom. The fully loaded handgun was not equipped with a trigger lock and was not secured in any locked container. At his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss Prior to Arraignment successfully argued that the Defendant was denied his statutory right to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing prior to the issuance of any criminal charges. The case was remanded for a Clerk’s Hearing.

Result: After getting the case dismissed prior to arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police prosecutor and the clerk magistrate to hold the matter open for a period of one year. If the Defendant stays out of trouble for one year, the charge will be dismissed prior to arraignment and he will not have any criminal charges on his record.

OUI-THIRD OFFENSE: REDUCED TO SECOND OFFENSE

Defendant was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor this being his third offense. The Defendant was operating his vehicle when he struck two parked cars. Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol and failed all field sobriety tests. Defendant had been previously convicted of two prior OUI offenses. A third offense OUI is a felony. With this offense, there is a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 150 days or five months.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to reduce the third offense OUI to a second offense OUI thus saving his client from serving a mandatory jail sentence of five months. The Defendant was placed on probation and ordered to undergo alcohol treatment in lieu of a jail sentence. If convicted, Defendant would have lost his job. If convicted, Defendant’s family would have suffered greatly, as they would have no other means of financial support.

OPEN & GROSS LEWNDESS: IDENTIFICATION SUPPRESSED

An identified civilian witness called 911. She called to report that she was driving home when her vehicle was cut off and blocked in by another vehicle. She claimed that the male operator in the vehicle pulled out his penis and motioned for her to follow him. She claimed that the male operator turned on the interior light, thrust his hips upward, opened his pants, exposed his penis, and proceeded to masturbate. She provided police with the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle. She provided police with a physical description of the suspect as being: a white male, in his late 30s / early 40s, with a long strawberry colored beard, and heavy up top. Police conducted an RMV query of the vehicle, which was registered to the Defendant. The Defendant’s RMV photograph matched the witness’s description in that the Defendant’s picture showed that he had a long strawberry colored beard. The police presented a photo array of potential suspects to the victim. She identified the Defendant’s photograph and stated that she was 100% certain that the Defendant was the suspect. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police conducted the photo array. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant’s photo “stood out” from the other photos. First, there were substantial disparities in the age of the suspects. The victim described the suspect as being in his late 30s / early 40s. The Defendant was 34 years old. The majority of the photos were of males that were in their early to mid-twenties. Second, several of the suspects had skinny builds unlike the Defendant’s build, which was heavier. Third, the most striking point of suggestion was that only two of the eight suspects had long facial hair. Fourth, the photos that were presented to the victim were in black and white, not in color. In addition to the Defendant’s photo standing out, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police presented the photos to the victim. Originally, police generated an 8-person photo array. However, when the police presented the photos to the victim, they mistakenly left out two photos, and the photo array only consisted of 6 photos. The victim went through the six photos and stated that the suspect was not in the 6 photos. Police realized that they mistakenly left the two missing photos at the police station. Police generated the same 8 person photo array and conducted a second showing to the victim. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police re-used the same 6 filler photos, which were already shown to the victim. Contrary to standard practice, the police did not shuffle the photos and presented them in the same order as they did the first time. The victim breezed through the first 6 photos because she had already looked at these same six photos in the first presentation. The suspects in the first six photos did not have facial hair. When the victim got to the seventh photo, she identified the Defendant, as his picture showed that he had long facial hair. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police did not show the victim the eighth and final photo. The last photo showed a suspect with a long beard. Other than the Defendant’s photo, the suspect pictured in the last photo had a long beard, and this photo should have been shown to the victim.

Result: At the conclusion of the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge that the photo array procedure used by police was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and therefore violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights. As a result, the judge suppressed the out of court identification from evidence and precluded the Commonwealth from presenting the victim’s positive identification of the Defendant at trial.

OUI-LIQUOR (0.124% BAC): NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: NOT GUILTY

On January 17, 2013, at approximately 1:30 a.m., a police officer claimed he was traveling on West Main Street when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling in front of him. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding and that the Defendant’s vehicle took an abrupt right hand turn into a parking lot. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle then exited the parking lot at an excessive rate of speed. The officer then claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle was traveling erratically and failed to use a turn signal. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan established that the officer’s observations of the Defendant’s operation were incredible. First, the officer was in no position to observe that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding and he was in no position to see the Defendant’s vehicle make an abrupt turn into the parking lot. Attorney Noonan established that this officer was not traveling behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the officer was traveling in the oncoming direction / lane when he happened to observe the Defendant’s vehicle. Second, the officer had no basis upon which to determine that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding or traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. The officer simply believed that the Defendant’s was speeding when he passed him in the oncoming direction. The officer turned around to follow the Defendant’s vehicle. When the officer turned around, he was not traveling directly behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the officer was several cars behind the Defendant and was in no position to make any observations of erratic operation. It was established that this officer was not the officer that conducted the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. A different officer made the stop based on the other officer’s observations. Attorney Noonan established that the stopping officer made no observations that would warrant a stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the stopping officer relied on the observations of the first officer. The stopping officer did not even write a police report with regards to the case. Attorney Noonan argued that the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle was pre-textual. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the officer pre-determined that he would stop the Defendant’s vehicle because it was seen exiting a bar at 1:30 a.m. Defendant admitted to consuming “four beers” at the bar but the officer omitted the Defendant’s statements that he consumed the beverages over course of several hours. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy. Attorney Noonan introduced a color photo of the Defendant’s booking photograph, which contradicted the officer’s testimony in that the color booking photo did not show that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot, or glassy. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s speech was thick and slurred. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle smelled strongly of alcohol. The officer claimed that the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Legged Stand Tests. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant was not a very coordinated individual. Defendant had poor posture with a hunched back. Defendant was bow-legged and walked with his feet facing outward. Defendant had difficulty walking in a straight line and balancing not because he was intoxicated but because he was not a very coordinated person. Prior to trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan suppressed from evidence the results of the Defendant’s breathalyzer test, which was 0.124%.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan won Not Guilty Verdicts on all charges, including OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation.

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAWS: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED

Three 17-year-old juveniles were arrested on a theory of joint venture to distribute marijuana. A police officer conducting patrol observed three males standing in the middle of the street and the police officer detected a “strong, distinctive odor of marijuana.” The officer stopped and questioned the three juveniles. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client (Juvenile #1) had his backpack searched, which contained: a gallon zip lock bag containing marijuana, a marijuana blunt inside another zip lock bag, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and cash. The officer searched the backpack of another Juvenile #2, which contained: liquor bottles, a zip lock bag containing marijuana, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and a glass pipe with marijuana inside. The officer searched the person of Juvenile #3 and recovered four plastic baggies of marijuana. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress the physical evidence seized from his client’s backpack. Upon examining the arresting officer, Attorney Noonan established that: the officer seized the juveniles immediately upon approaching them; the officer exceeded the scope of the threshold inquiry because possession of less than one-ounce of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and social sharing of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and most importantly, that the search of Juvenile #1’s backpack was not justified as a lawful pat and frisk for weapons. The officer testified that he searched Juvenile #1’s backpack for weapons because Juvenile #1 had a knife on him. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would not fear for his safety – as to justify a pat-frisk of the backpack for weapons.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was allowed. The judge found that the search of the Juvenile’s backpack was unlawful. As a result, the judge suppressed all evidence seized from the Juvenile’s backpack. With all the drugs suppressed from evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss all charges.

ASSAULT & BATTERY on PREGNANT WOMAN: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Juvenile was a high school student. In class, his teacher disciplined him repeatedly causing the Juvenile to become upset. After class, the Juvenile grabbed the teacher’s hand for a hand shake. During the handshake, the Juvenile twisted her arm in an unnatural way causing the teacher “extreme pain” in her wrist and arm. The handshake pulled the teacher’s body downward. The teacher called out in pain and the Juvenile ran away. The Juvenile admitted to the Dean of Students what the teacher had reported. The teacher was visibly five and one-half months pregnant. The Juvenile was aware that the teacher was pregnant. The Dean of Students suspended the Juvenile for 10 days. The Juvenile had an extensive disciplinary record, including a violation physical altercation with school staff. At the time of this incident, the Juvenile had an open criminal case for being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the prosecutor to place the Juvenile on pretrial probation for six-months with the condition that the Juvenile enroll in and complete the Bridging the Gap Youth Program. Upon the successful completion of probation, the aggravated felony charge of Assault & Battery on a Pregnant Woman, and the misdemeanor charge of Minor in Possession of Alcohol will be dismissed.

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Randolph Police were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle striking a utility pole. Upon arrival, Defendant stated that something ran into the roadway and he swerved to avoid hitting the object and he could not recall what happened after that. Police observed that there was extensive damage to the utility police – specifically, the utility pole had been completely snapped in half, electrical wires were down, and traffic had to be shut down. Police also observed that there was heavy front-end damage to the Defendant’s vehicle. Based on the extent of the damage to the utility pole and the Defendant’s vehicle, police charged him with Negligent Operation. Defendant is 21 years-old. He has no criminal record. He is currently in college studying criminal justice with aspirations of becoming a police officer. For over three years, Defendant has worked security at the Harvard Vanguard Hospital.

Result: At the clerk magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinces the clerk-magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint due to insufficient probable cause.