Case Results
Commonwealth v. Peter P. – Brockton District Court
AT TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS 5 ASSAULT CHARGES, INCLUDING 3 FELONY CHARGES FOR ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, DISMISSED AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT FACING POTENTIAL DEPORTATION.
Brockton Police were dispatched to a gas station for a reported fight in progress. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant being held on the ground by two males. An investigation showed that the Defendant had a dispute with gas station employees over payment of gas. The employees were claiming that the Defendant was trying to steal gas without paying. The employees claimed that the Defendant retrieved a tire jack from his vehicle and began swinging it wildly trying to injure the employees. Defendant was charged with 3 counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 165, §15B) for attempting to strike three employees with the tire jack. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery for allegedly pushing a female employee and another count of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) for hitting a male employee.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought the case to trial. With a court order, Attorney Noonan obtained a video that one employee took on her cell phone of an argument taking place inside the gas station office. Attorney Noonan learned that another employee took a video on his cell phone of the entire incident that occurred outside. Attorney Noonan sought a court order for the employee to produce this video, which he never did. Attorney Noonan was prepared to argue that the employee took a video of the entire incident but deliberately choose not to produce it under court order. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed this person but he failed to appear at trial. Attorney Noonan notified the Commonwealth that he would be arguing self-defense at trial. Attorney Noonan claimed that the Defendant acted in self-defense when he grabbed the tire jack because the two male employees attacked him. Defendant did not hit anyone with the tire jack; he only swung it to get his attackers to back away. Attorney Noonan sought to introduce evidence that one of the male employees, who attacked the Defendant, had prior convictions for violent offenses, which supported his case that the male employee was the aggressor. Defendant was prepared to take the stand in his own defense and testify that the male employees were aggressive, had attacked him, and preventing him from leaving the gas station. One employee even made a racial slur against the Defendant who was black. Attorney Noonan obtained evidence that his client did not attempt to steal any gas. Rather, his client had sufficient funds on his debit card, which for some reason did not process on the gas station’s machine. After two trial dates, the alleged victims (gas station employees) failed to appear and the case was dismissed. Defendant was in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen and, if convicted for these serious criminal offenses, he was facing deportation.
Commonwealth v. E.Z. – Wrentham District Court
GRAFFITI AND TRESPASSING CHARGES DISMISSED AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
Foxboro Police were dispatched to a building in town for reports of vandalism to the property. Police spoke to the owner of the property who reported that the property had been broken into. The owner pointed out all new fresh graffiti spray-painted on the building. Police found a posting on social media from the Defendant’s account showing tagging’s he made to the property. Another photo showed the Defendant’s vehicle parking on the property. Defendant admitted to police that he had vandalized the property. Foxboro Police charged Defendant with Vandalism of Property also known as Defacement of Real or Personal Property (G.L. c. 266, §126A). He was also charged with Criminal Trespassing (G.L. c. 266, §120).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that his client only made three very small tagging’s that were less than 6 inches in size. Attorney Noonan also presented evidence showing that many youths have vandalized this property repeatedly over a lengthy period of time whereas his client only did it once and made very small tagging’s. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that there were no signs posted on the property for no trespassing and the property looked abandoned.
Commonwealth v. Joe D. – Lawrence District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS GUN CHARGE DISMISSED AGAINST UNITED STATES POSTAL WORKER FOR NEGLIGENTLY LOSING HIS SHOTGUN.
Defendant, a resident of Methuen, was going hunting with his son in Methuen. When he was loading his hunting equipment into his truck, he forgot that he placed his shotgun on the top of his trunk cover. He drove to the hunting site with the shotgun still lying on his trunk cover. When he arrived to the hunting location, he realized that he mistakenly left the shotgun on his trunk cover. Defendant was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client made an innocent mistake. It was purely accidental. He had no malicious intent and wasn’t grossly negligent. This was something that could happen to anybody. When he discovered that the shotgun was missing, his client acted responsibly by immediately reporting it to the police. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client has been a responsible gun owner his entire life. Finally, Attorney Noonan argued that his client has been employed as a United States Postal Worker for nearly 15 years and a criminal charge on his record had the potential to affect his employment. After hearing, the clerk dismissed the criminal complaint.
Commonwealth v. Peter L. – Boston Municipal Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN ASSAULT & BATTERY CASE AFTER PROVING HIS CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.
Boston Police responded to the parking lot at the Logan Airport for a report of an Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) stemming from a dispute between two limo drivers. At the scene, police spoke to the alleged victim, a female limo driver. She reported that the Defendant confronted her in the parking lot because her vehicle was parked too close to his vehicle. She claimed that the Defendant demanded that she move her vehicle. When she refused, the Defendant became irate; he forcefully opened her car door, and continued yelling at her. She claimed that the Defendant cornered her and backed her up against her vehicle so she couldn’t escape. She claimed that the Defendant violently pushed her, causing her to fall down and strike her head against the pavement. On scene, police observed a fresh abrasion to her head. At trial, Commonwealth introduced photos showing the physical injuries to her head.
Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented compelling evidence convincing the judge that his client acted in self-defense. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the victim was the aggressor. Attorney Noonan called an independent witness who testified that he saw the victim yelling in the Defendant’s face and she was pointing her finger in his face several times. The Defendant testified that the victim’s finger made physical contact with his nose. The Defendant asked the victim several times to stop pointing her finger in his face. When she continued yelling and pointing her finger in his face, Defendant acted reasonably in pushing her back. He made it clear to the court that his only intent was to get her to back up out of his face. He had no intention of hurting her. Attorney Noonan thoroughly discredited the victim by showing that she was motivated by money. Within a week of the incident, she hired an Attorney to sue the Defendant to get money from him. By the time of trial, she retained another civil attorney to sue the Defendant. She embellished her injuries so she could sue him for even more money. She even went so far as to claim that she suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. By the time Attorney Noonan was done with her, her credibility was destroyed. The Judge found that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant did not act in self-defense.
Commonwealth v. D.R. – Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS THREATS CHARGE AGAINST NURSE SO LONG AS SHE NO LONGER CONTACTS THE ALLEGED VICTIM.
Brockton Police were dispatched to a parking lot in response to a 911 call. Upon arrival, police spoke to the victim who was very upset. She reported that the defendant had been harassing her, claiming that the victim was sleeping with her husband. Defendant had gone to her house on several occasions and pounded on the door. Defendant followed the victim in her car and confronted her in a parking lot where she yelled and threatened her. Defendant was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. c. 275, §2).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the clerk-magistrate to dismiss the charges. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant never threatened the victim on any occasion. Although her former husband was having a relationship with the victim, Defendant could care less because she wanted nothing to do with her ex-husband. In fact, Defendant was doing the victim a service by warning her about her ex-husband’s ways. When police spoke to the Defendant at the scene, she was calm and provided a credible account of what transpired. Attorney Noonan convinced the magistrate to dismiss the complaint, so long as the Defendant did not contact the victim in the future.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Boston Municipal Court
CONVICTIONS FOR ASSAULT & BATTERY ON POLICE OFFICER AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT ARE SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.
Client had convictions out of the Boston Municipal Court where he pled guilty to Assault & Battery on a Police Officer (G.L. c. 265, §13D) and Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53).
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully petitioned to have his client’s criminal convictions sealed from his record. Now, when the client is asked on job applications and other documents if he has ever been convicted of a crime, he may answer “no.”
Commonwealth v. R.L. – Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE COURT TO DISMISS CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN WHO ALLEGEDLY PUT A LOADED GUN TO THE VICTIM’S HEAD AND THREATENED TO KILL HIM.
Brockton Police received a 911 call from a male victim who reported that the defendant threatened to kill him with a pistol. The victim reported that the Defendant pulled out a loaded pistol, cocked the hammer, and put the gun to his head and threatened to shoot him. Defendant was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. c. 275, §2).
Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the victim was not credible and was lying about what happened. The victim had a grudge and an axe to grind against the Defendant. The victim was a former boyfriend of the Defendant’s daughter. The victim was very abusive to Defendant’s daughter, inflicting injuries to her on numerous occasions, and was sentenced to serve jail time for assaulting Defendant’s daughter. Attorney Noonan argued that his client had threatened to call the police on the victim and have him charged for assaulting his daughter. Attorney Noonan argued, in retaliation for the Defendant’s threats to have him arrested for beating his daughter, the victim made this false allegation against him. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of the victim’s lengthy criminal record. The Clerk Magistrate declined to issue any charges against Attorney Noonan’s client.
Commonwealth v. T.M. – Wareham District Court
SHOPLIFTING CHARGES DISMISSED AGAINST TOWN CONSERVATION AGENT, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE THE INTENT TO STEAL FROM THE STORE.
Lakeville Police were dispatched to CVS Pharmacy for a suspected shoplifter. The Store Manager reported seeing the Defendant placing items into a plastic shopping bag. The officer approached the Defendant and asked her if she placed any items into her shopping bag that she did not pay for. Defendant stated that she did place some items in her shopping bag but she intended to pay for them when she finished shopping. The officer believed the Defendant was being untruthful and charged her with Shoplifting by Concealing Merchandise (G.L. c. 266, §30A).
Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully argued that his client did not have the intent to steal any items from the store. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant placed some items into her plastic shopping bag while she was still shopping. She placed the items in the bag because her hands were full and she needed some place to put them. She had no intention of stealing. When she finished shopping, she intended to bring all her items to the check out and pay for them. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client had no criminal record and has spent her career working for various towns as a Conservation Agent and Environmental Planner. This was not the type of person who would be shoplifting items. The Clerk Magistrate credited Attorney Noonan’s argument and decided not to issue the criminal complaint.
Commonwealth v. Mark S. – Brockton District Court
AFTER JUDGE ORDERS DEFENDANT TO PAY $19,552.57 IN RESTITUTION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND JUDGE RECONSIDERS HER RULING AND REDUCES THE RESTITUTION TO $5,083.48, SAVING CLIENT $14,469.09.
Defendant, a Bridgewater man, was convicted of multiple counts of Malicious Destruction of Property (G.L. c. 266, §127) for causing malicious damage to an expensive piece of machinery owned by a corporation. At a restitution hearing, the judge ordered the Defendant to pay the corporation $19,552.57 in restitution for the damage he caused to the machinery.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Reconsider the Judge’s Ruling and presented additional evidence showing that the Judge’s findings were incorrect and the true value of the property damage was $5,083.48. After reviewing the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the Judge agreed and issued a new order based on the restitution amount proposed by Attorney Noonan, saving his client from paying $14,469.09 in restitution he was not responsible for.
Plaintiff v. Client – Quincy District Court West Roxbury District Court
IN 2013, CLIENT’S EX-GIRLFRIEND OBTAINED A YEAR LONG RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST HIM FOR HARASSMENT. IN 2017, CLIENT’S EX-GIRLFRIEND SOUGHT A PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER ALLEGING MORE HARASSMENT BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS THE RESTRAINING ORDER VACATED
In 2013, Client had a bad break up with a woman he had been dating for a few months. After the break-up, the woman obtained a restraining order against the defendant for harassment. After a hearing in which the woman presented evidence, the judge found evidence of harassment and issued a restraining order against the defendant for one year to end in 2014. After one year, the woman did not seek to extend the restraining order and it was terminated. In 2017, the woman sought a permanent restraining order against the defendant. The woman wrote a very lengthy affidavit detailing many instances of alleged harassment dating back to 2013.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the judge to vacate the permanent restraining order after he discredited many of the allegations in the woman’s new affidavit. In her new affidavit, the woman alleged that, back in 2013, the defendant tried running her over in his car. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the woman never mentioned this incident in her prior restraining order and she is now bringing this up for the first time 4 years later. In her new affidavit, the woman alleged that the defendant threatened to disseminate a nude picture of her to her employer and others. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the woman took this nude picture of herself and gave it to the defendant when they were dating. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the defendant never disseminated this picture to anyone. Finally, in her new affidavit, the woman alleged that the defendant mailed her a threatening letter. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the letter was unsigned and there was no proof that the letter was written by the defendant. After hearing, the judge vacated the permanent restraining order.