Case Results
Commonwealth v. R.A. – Wareham District Court
EASTON MAN WAS CAPTURED ON FILM COMMITTING THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF AN ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JURY TO FIND HIS CLIENT NOT GUILTY.
Defendant is a 69 year-old hairstylist from Easton who has owned his own business for 35 years. The victim worked for the Defendant and they developed a romantic relationship and dated for 5 years. The victim claimed that she ended the relationship with the Defendant due to his obsessive behavior and because he was stalking her. The victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order, known as a 209A Order, which the Court issued against the Defendant. The 209A Order ordered the Defendant not to contact the victim, not to abuse the victim, and to stay at least 100 yards away from the victim. Defendant was charged with Violation of Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) based on allegations that he followed the victim in violation of the Order, which ordered him to stay at least 100 yards away. On the day in question, the victim was driving her vehicle with her husband in the front passenger seat. They (victim and her husband) claimed to have seen the Defendant’s vehicle in Easton while they were on the way to breakfast. After breakfast, they went to Dunkin Donuts on Route 44 in Raynham where they claimed to have seen the Defendant’s vehicle drive by them. To get away from the Defendant, they drove into the Shaw’s parking lot on Route 44 and waited for the Defendant to leave. They pulled out of the Shaw’s parking lot and proceeded to drive on Route 44 when they observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving directly behind them and following them. The husband took out his cell phone and filmed the Defendant following directly behind them. The prosecution introduced the video at trial, which clearly showed the Defendant’s vehicle following directly behind the victim and at times following them very closely. The victim claimed that the Defendant was following them for 20-30 minutes. They went directly to the Middleboro Police Station to report the incident. At trial, the Commonwealth argued that the Defendant knowingly followed the victim through three different towns in violation of the restraining order.
Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that his client did not know that he was following the victim and that the encounter was accidental. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client left his business in Easton to go to Route 44 to do some errands for work. When the victim first saw the Defendant in Easton, she saw his vehicle three cars ahead of her. In Easton, Defendant was not following her and the victim saw him get onto Route 24 South. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was not following her in Easton, as the victim saw him three cars ahead of her. After the Defendant got onto Route 24 South, the victim went to West Bridgewater to eat breakfast. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant could not have known that the victim would be going to Route 44 because he had already gotten on the highway and was already on Route 44 doing errands while the victim was eating breakfast in West Bridgewater. When the victim was at Dunkin Donuts on Route 44, she claimed to have seen the Defendant but Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was on his way to a store called Salon Centric in the vicinity of Dunkin Donuts. Attorney Noonan introduced a receipt verifying that his client went to Salon Centric near the Dunkin Donuts. When the victim pulled out of Shaw’s she claimed to have seen the Defendant following her on Route 44 but Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was on this section of Route 44 because he had just finished having lunch at KFC and was on his way to Middleboro to watch the herring run. Attorney Noonan introduced a receipt from KFC verifying that his client had just eaten lunch, which explained why he was traveling on this section of Route 44. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that it was his client’s routine and regular practice to go to Route 44 to buy products at Salon Centric and get a bite to eat at KFC. Attorney Noonan introduced receipts showing that his client went to Salon Centric and the KFC on Route 44 at least once of week. Attorney Noonan presented witnesses who testified to the Defendant’s routine practice of going to Route 44. Attorney Noonan introduced a map of Route 44 highlighting the locations of Dunkin Donuts, Shaw’s, Salon Centric, and KFC showing the Defendant’s locations and routes of travel. The map explained why the victim saw the Defendant’s vehicle at these locations. After 10 minutes of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty.
January 10, 2019
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES NEWSPAPER TO CORRECT INACCURATE INFORMATION PUBLISHED ABOUT A CLIENT’S ARREST.
Client, a college student, was arrested and charged with drug possession, disorderly conduct, and other charges. A Newspaper published an online article about the client’s arrest. However, some of the information in the article was not accurate. Client was concerned about members of the public reading the inaccurate information in the article about his arrest. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan about getting the newspaper to change the article to include the correct information.
Result: After several negotiations, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the newspaper to correct the inaccurate information that had been published online about the client’s arrest. The newspaper updated the article and included the correct information at the very top of the article, so readers could see the correct information prior to reading the article.
Commonwealth v. G.B. – Lynn District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL CHARGES OF LARCENY FROM A BUILDING, POSSESSION OF CLASS D SUBSTANCE, AND POSSESSION OF CLASS E SUBSTANCE DROPPED AGAINST HIGHLY-DECORATED U.S. ARMY COMBAT VETERAN.
Defendant was charged with Larceny from a Building (G.L. c. 266, §20), Possession of Class D Substance (Prozac), and Possession of Class D Substance (Marijuana). See G.L. c. 94C. Back in 2005, when the Defendant was 17 years-old, Defendant was charged with these crimes stemming from allegations that he stole cash and Prozac pills from the home of a family friend in Marblehead, Massachusetts. While the charges were pending in the Lynn District Court, the client enlisted in the U.S. Army when he turned 18 years-old and left Massachusetts while his criminal case was still active. The client served 11 years in the U.S. Army. He served in combat in places, such as Afghanistan. He was honorably discharged with the rank of Staff Sergeant. He was medically retired due to permanent physical injuries he sustained in combat. He earned countless awards for his service. The client was happily married with a young son in Oklahoma. One day, the client went to the military base in Oklahoma where he was informed that he had a warrant and he was not permitted to enter the military base. The client realized that the old warrant was from his criminal case back in 2005 when he was 17 years-old. The client did not have the money to come back to Massachusetts to clear up the warrant because he was disabled and was trying to support his family. The client intended to get a job on the military base, as a firearm’s instructor, but he couldn’t get on the military base because of the warrant.
Result: The client tried, unsuccessfully, to clear up the warrant himself while living in Oklahoma. The client was told that he had to return to Massachusetts and appear in court in order to remove the warrant. Fearing that he was out of options, the client contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan obtained all the records from the client’s 2005 case. Attorney Noonan made a written request to the District Attorney’s Office to remove the warrant and to dismiss the criminal charges. In his request, Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client was only 17 years-old at the time of the charges and he would have been charged as a juvenile under today’s laws. Attorney Noonan explained the circumstances of his client’s failure to appear in court because he mistakenly believed that his court case was resolved. Lastly, Attorney Noonan described the client’s military service, in detail, and provided the District Attorney’s Office with all his awards and medals. After reviewing Attorney’s Noonan request and arguments, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi, a written statement to the court that they were dropping the case “in the interest of justice.”
Commonwealth v. J.A. – Suffolk Superior Court
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: NOT GUILTY
THREATS: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: GUILTY
Defendant, and five other Defendants, were employees at a juvenile detention center, which housed juveniles who had been adjudicated delinquent (or found guilty) for crimes and sentenced to serve sentences. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants would regularly threaten them, sexually abuse them, and physically abuse them. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants engaged in a ritualistic form of abuse known as “orange chicken” to punish or discipline them. The orange chicken assault involved the juvenile’s underwear being pulled down and getting smacked on the bare buttocks with an orange rubber sandal. If a juvenile complied with the orange chicken, the punishment would be less severe but if they resisted the assault would more severe. Defendants instructed other juveniles to participate in administering orange chicken assaults to other juveniles. The abuse was not limited to orange chicken assaults, as the juveniles described other forms of physical and sexual abuse by the Defendants. The Department of Children and Families and the Massachusetts State Police conducted an extensive investigation, which resulted in the juvenile facility being completely shut down. The District Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive grand jury investigation, which involved the testimony of juveniles, employees, law enforcement, and resulted in the production of thousands of pages of records and documents.
Result:
Defendant was charged with Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that the Defendants engaged in conduct designed to prevent the juveniles from reporting the abuse. Specifically, the Defendants threatened to put a “green light” on a juvenile if they reported the abuse. A “green light” meant that if a juvenile reported abuse they would be attacked at any other juvenile facility they went to because the Defendants had connections with other facilities. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had a Not Guilty finding entered on the Witness Intimidation charge because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence against his client.
Defendant was charged with Threats (G.L. c. 275, §2) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that Defendants threatened to give Victim #1 an orange chicken assault, if Victim #1 did not participate in orange chicken assaults on other juveniles. At trial, Attorney Noonan impeached Victim #1 with prior statements he made where he told police he didn’t recall being told that if he did not participate in orange chicken, he would be next. The most important piece of evidence that won an acquittal on the Threats charge was Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of Victim #1 where he got Victim #1 to admit that his client never made any such threat to him.
Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A) on Victim #2 based on Victim #2’s testimony that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room, forcibly pulled down his pants, and beat him on the bare buttocks with a sandal. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 had falsely accused another staff member of assaulting him in the laundry room during this same incident.
Specifically, Victim #1 testified at the grand jury that this other staff member assaulted him in the laundry and Victim #1 even sued this other staff member for assaulting him in the laundry room. However, when questioned about the incident in the laundry room, Victim #2 admitted that the other staff was not involved. Moreover, Attorney Noonan questioned the facility’s program director at trial who stated that she viewed surveillance video from the laundry room area on the date of the incident and there was no video to corroborate Victim #2’s allegations that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. The police even viewed the video, which did not show any evidence that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. Lastly, Victim #2 claimed that after the assault in the laundry room, he was discharged from the facility. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 met with his case worker shortly after the alleged assault in the laundry room and he did not say anything to his case worker about it.
Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on the testimony of a former employee who testified that he witnessed the Defendant beat Victim #3 with a sandal in the cafeteria. The Commonwealth gave this former employee immunity to testify against all defendants. This former employee testified that he personally participated in the assault on Victim #3 in the cafeteria and he witnessed the Defendant participating in the assault. However, during Victim #3’s trial testimony, he testified that the Defendant was present for the incident in the cafeteria but he could not recall if the Defendant participated. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan cited the law, which states that “no defendant…shall be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of…a person granted immunity.” G.L. c. 233, §20I. Attorney Noonan argued that the only evidence of the Defendant involvement in the assault and battery on Victim #3 came from the testimony of an immunized witness. Attorney Noonan argued and the Commonwealth failed to prove the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the Commonwealth did not present any other evidence to corroborate the testimony of its immunized witness.
Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on Victim #3’s testimony that the Defendant choked him with a wooden drumstick in the hallway. The jury convicted the Defendant on this one and only charge. However, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there were cameras that would have captured the incident in the hallway and the program director testified that she did not see any video footage of any assault on Victim #3 in the hallway. Moreover, Victim #3 testified that he assaulted the Defendant for no reason. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was legally entitled to use force to restrain juveniles in the course of his employment and he had a right to act in self-defense. Attorney Noonan cited the testimony of another employee who stated that “restraints” on juveniles’ are difficult to perform alone without any assistance from other employees. This employee testified that it is very difficult to perform a “restraint” in the manner they are trained to do where a juvenile violently attacks an employee and an employee has to do whatever he can to restrain the juvenile. In this case, Defendant was violently attacked by Victim #3 who was known to be violent and had previously attacked other juveniles and staff. The Commonwealth did not present evidence of the entire incident or the full picture of what happened. How can the Commonwealth say that the Defendant’s force to restrain Victim #3 was unreasonable when there were so many unanswered questions about what actually happened? How can it be said that the Defendant’s restraint was excessive when the Commonwealth did not any present evidence with regards to the severity of Victim #3’s assault on the Defendant? Defendant’s response would be appropriate if he was faced with a violent assault by a violent person.
At the end of this lengthy trial, the jury acquitted the Defendant on all charges, except for one.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – New Bedford District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS CHARGE AGAINST MEDICAL DOCTOR DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT, SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM HAVING THIS SERIOUS FELONY OFFENSE ON HIS RECORD.
Client, a medical doctor, went to a fitness center in Dartmouth to exercise. Another member of the gym reported to the gym’s manager that the Defendant exposed his genitals and masturbated in front of him in the sauna. The police were called to the gym. Police interviewed the alleged victim who again reported that the Defendant exposed his genitals and masturbated in front of him in the sauna. The alleged victim wrote a written statement of the incident. Police interviewed the Defendant who denied exposing his genitals or touching his penis in the sauna. Defendant provided a written statement to police denying the allegations.
Result: Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Open and Gross Lewdness (G.L. c. 272, §16). Defendant was summonsed to appear in the District Court for an arraignment on that charge. Had the Defendant been arraigned, the criminal charge would be entered on his criminal record and the matter would be prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed prior to arraignment on the grounds that the Defendant was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate before the criminal complaint issued. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s character. Client was a medical doctor in the Philippines where he was a member of a humanitarian organization that provided free medical care to the poor and victims who suffered horrific injuries. In particular, the client performed countless surgeries to those who had been horrifically disfigured. Attorney Noonan presented many letters from medical professionals attesting to the client’s humanitarian work and his good character. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint against the client. Open and Gross Lewdness is a felony offense that carries possible registration as a sex offender and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in ensuring that his client was not charged with this very serious offense.
Commonwealth v. B.S. – Brockton District Court
CHARGE OF ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER AGAINST MARINE CORPS VETERAN WITH SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS DISMISSED.
Defendant was committed to the Veteran’s Hospital in Brockton. Defendant physically assaulted another patient by punching him twice in the face. Defendant then stabbed a nurse in the neck with a ballpoint pen. Defendant suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type and presents with prominent symptoms of psychosis, including significant auditory hallucinations and delusions. Defendant hears voices telling him to do things. However, law enforcement took the position that the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions, knew exactly what he was doing, and that his mental illnesses did not play any factor in his attack on the nurse and other patient. Specifically, law enforcement alleged that the Defendant’s attack was premeditated and he planned the attack about an hour and half earlier. Defendant stated that the voices in his head did not tell him to attack the nurse. Defendant stated that he stabbed the nurse because he wanted to experience the feeling of killing someone. According to law enforcement, the attending physician could not say for certain whether the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions due to his mental illness. Defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder (G.L. c. 265, §15), Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), and Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53).
Result: Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial. The Commonwealth petitioned to have the Defendant committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital because he required the strict security of the facility while treating his mental illness. Defendant had been involuntarily committed for several years and periodically found incompetent to stand trial at the time that the Defendant’s father hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Defendant was transferred to the Worcester Recovery Center but still involuntarily committed. Attorney Noonan met with the Defendant, his father, and his treatment team. Defendant was doing well and progressing with his treatment. The treatment team wanted to progress the Defendant into his next stage of treatment, which was supervised community access where the Defendant would have limited exposure to the outside world. However, the treatment team could not advance the Defendant to this next level of treatment because the Defendant was “held without bail” and his bail status precluding him from leaving the hospital. The criminal case was greatly interfering with the Defendant’s treatment. Attorney Noonan successfully moved the Court to change the Defendant’s bail status so he could progress to his next level of treatment and have supervised community access. Defendant did very well with his next level of treatment and he had no incidents. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §16(f) because the Defendant has been held in the capacity of incompetent to stand trial for five (5) years, which is one-half of the maximum sentence of the most serious crime he was charged with: Assault with Intent to Murder. Attorney Noonan also argued that §16(f) grants the Court the discretion to dismiss such a case “in the interests of justice.” Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the Defendant’s treatment team stating how well the Defendant was doing and that the Defendant was temporarily scheduled to be discharged from the Hospital subject to an outpatient treatment plan. The Judge dismissed the case. With the criminal case dismissed, the Defendant has no restrictions on his ability to receive quality medical care.
Commonwealth v. G.D. – Stoughton District Court
CRIMINAL CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE’S HEARING.
Client’s wife obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against him. The wife went to the Canton Police Station to report that the Defendant violated the restraining order because he was taking pictures of her in the parking lot of the courthouse after their court hearing. As a result of the wife’s allegations, the Canton Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Violation of 209A Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk Magistrate Hearing. As a result, the client was never charged with this crime and has no criminal record from this incident.
Commonwealth v. G.P. – Boston Municipal Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO DISMISS FELONY DRUG CHARGE IN BOSTON AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS SERVING A JAIL SENTENCE FOR FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS IN BROCKTON – SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF SERVING SERIOUS JAIL TIME.
Defendant was charged, in the Brockton District Court, with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A-Heroin (G.L. c. 94C, §32) and Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C). While his Brockton District Court case was pending, Defendant was arrested in Boston and charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D (marijuana). In the Brockton District Court case, Defendant was convicted and was sentenced to serve time in jail while his drug case in Boston was still pending. As the Defendant was now previously convicted of Possession with Intent to Distribute in Brockton, he was facing serious penalties in his Boston case.
Result: In the Boston case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion a Dismiss the drug charge for lack of probable cause, which was denied by the Judge. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of an intent to distribute was insufficient because the officer did not make any findings with regards to the quantity of the drugs. After his Motion to Dismiss was denied, the Boston case was then scheduled for trial. On the trial date, this time before a different judge, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the drug charge based on the same argument he made before; that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute drugs because there was no evidence with regards to the quantity of drugs in the Defendant’s possession. This time, the judge agreed and dismissed the drug charge. This was a big victory because the client was facing serious penalties due to the fact that he had been previously convicted for Possession with Intent to Distribute.