Commonwealth v. R.C. – Brockton District Court

AFTER A HEARING, AND OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH, JUDGE ALLOWS PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING 3 COUNTS OF INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON A CHILD UNDER 14, ARE DISMISSED AGAINST 83 YEAR-OLD KOREAN WAR VETERAN

Back in 2011, a sixteen-year-old girl accused the Defendant of sexually abusing her, multiple times, over the course of several years, beginning when she was 6 years old. Based on the alleged victim’s allegations, Defendant was charged with 3 counts of Indecent Assault & Battery on a Child under 14 and 1 count of Indecent Exposure. During the pendency of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan became concerned with the client’s competency to stand trial based on his deteriorating mental condition. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained all of the client’s medical records and retained a forensic psychologist to conduct an evaluation of the client to determine whether he is legally competent to stand trial. After conducting an extensive evaluation, the forensic psychologist gave her opinion that the client is not competent to stand trial due to his mental condition.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss based on his forensic psychologist’s opinion that the Defendant is not legally competent to stand trial. At the Motion to Dismiss Hearing, the District Attorney’s Office objected and argued that the case should not be dismissed based on the seriousness of the allegations, among other things. At the Hearing, the Judge accepted the opinion of the forensic psychologist and made a ruling that the Defendant is not competent to stand trial. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Judge sided with Attorney Noonan and dismissed all charges.

Commonwealth v. M.M. – Attleboro District Court

MARIJUANA CHARGES ARE PERMANENTLY SEALED FROM COMPUTER PROGRAMMER’S CRIMINAL RECORD

Client is a 38 year-old computer programmer and information technology specialist. Client had a great job opportunity to work for a major financial company. However, client was worried that he would not get the job because of some old criminal charges on his record. When the client was 18 years old, he pled out to a charge of Possession of Marijuana. When the client was 19 years old, he pled out to another charge of Possession of Marijuana. Other than these two charges, from when the client was a teenager, client had no other criminal record.

Result: Worried about being denied a new employment opportunity due to his criminal record, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who was able to permanently seal all charges from his criminal record.

Commonwealth v. M.C. – Taunton District Court

CLIENT SEEKING U.S. CITIZENSHIP WAS CONVICTED IN 1989 OF A DEPORTABLE OFFENSE BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE CONVICTION VACATED. CLIENT CAN NOW REPORT TO IMMIGRATION THAT HE HAS NO CONVICTIONS ON HIS RECORD.

Client, is a 47 year-old Brockton resident, a happily married man, and father of 5 children. He is college educated and has a successful business as a Certified Real Estate Appraiser. He was born in Cape Verde and came to the U.S. when he was 10 years old. His wife and children are U.S. citizens but he is not a U.S. citizen. He has been a permanent residence and green card holder. It has been his lifelong dream to become a U.S. citizen. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he was concerned about a prior felony conviction affecting his application for U.S. citizenship. In 1989, client was convicted of Burning Property with Intent to Defraud Insurance Company. It was alleged that the client burned his own vehicle in an attempt to recover money from his insurance company. According to federal law (8 U.S.C.A. §1227(2)(A)), Burning Property with Intent to Defraud an Insurance Company is considered a crime of moral turpitude and is a deportable offense. “Any alien who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is deportable.

Result: Client was concerned that his prior conviction for a deportable offense would affect his ability to become a U.S. citizen. Client had contacted other Attorneys who did not provide him with any confidence that anything could be done. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in desperation hoping that something could be done. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan told the client that he could try to get his felony conviction “vacated” and “dismissed” so that he could go into his immigration meeting with a record of no convictions. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained the court records and discovered that the court did not give him an alien warning when he pled guilty to the charge. Pursuant to G.L. c. 278, §29D, judge’s must warn a Defendant who is pleading guilty, or taking another disposition, of the immigration consequences of that plea. Failure to provide such a warning may provide grounds for a motion to vacate the conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dug deeper and tried to find as much evidence surrounding the crime as possible. It was discovered that the client made all his car insurance payments and the insurance company did not pay anything out to the client. Therefore, the client could not have had the intent to defraud the insurance company because the insurance company did not suffer any financial loss. The facts were more consistent with the crime of Malicious Burning of Personal Property, which does not involve fraud. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate his client’s conviction, which was allowed by the Judge and the case was dismissed. Now, the client has no conviction on his record.

Commonwealth v. D.V. – New Bedford District Court

DA’S OFFICE ARGUES THAT DEFENDANT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO RELEASE AND SEEKS TO HOLD HIM IN JAIL AS HE AWAITS TRIAL BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE

Client, a 27 year-old lifelong resident of New Bedford, was arrested and charged with firearms offenses and evading police. At his arraignment, the DA’s Office moved the court to hold the Defendant in the House of Correction for 120 days or until his trial because the Commonwealth felt he was too dangerous to release. Fairhaven Police were called to the VWF for reports of an altercation involving members of a gang who were possibly armed with guns. When police arrived, Defendant fled the scene in his vehicle. Additional police units were dispatched to apprehend the fleeing Defendant. Eventually, police stopped the vehicle and ordered all the occupants out at gun point. Defendant admitted that he had a firearm in the glove compartment. Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (which carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 18 months), Improper Storage of a Firearm, and Failure to Stop for Police.

Result: As the client was sitting in jail, client’s mother contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to get her son out of jail. At a hearing to determine whether the Defendant was too dangerous to release, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence and convinced the judge that the Defendant did not pose a danger to the public. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant is a lifelong resident of New Bedford, is presently employed in New Bedford, has strong roots in the community, has family in New Bedford, and did not pose of flight risk. In addition, Attorney Noonan challenged the evidence presented by the Commonwealth that his client was involved in a physical altercation at the VWF, that his client was armed during the altercation, and that his client was a member of a gang. Attorney Noonan pointed out that altercation at the VFW was purely verbal and that no witnesses reported seeing any sort of fight. Also, nobody identified the Defendant as being involved in the altercation. Lastly, there was only one witness who reported that the parties at the VWF were armed and gang members and this lone witness was never identified. The judge released the Defendant on a GPS device and did not impose any bail.

Commonwealth v. G.P.C. – Brockton District Court

CLIENT, WITH A PENDING DRUG CASE, GETS ARRESTED FOR A NEW OFFENSE AND THE DA SEEKS TO LOCK HIM UP FOR 120 DAYS BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS CLIENT’S RELEASE

Client had a pending criminal case in the Brockton District Court where he was charged with two felony counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana. In that case, police conducted an investigation with a Confidential Informant who purchased drugs from the Defendant on two occasions. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s residence where they recovered large quantities of heroin and marijuana, along with other items indicative of a drug selling operation. While this drug case was pending, Defendant got arrested in Boston for Operating under the Influence of Liquor. When police searched his vehicle, they found 3 jars containing marijuana resulting in a new charge for Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana.

Result: The District Attorney’s Office moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail and have him locked up for 120 days (or until his Brockton case was disposed of) because the Defendant was arrested on new charges of OUI-Liquor and Possession with Intent to Distribute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to release the Defendant on conditions rather than locking him up. The judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s proposal of placing Defendant on a GPS device and having him submit to drug testing.

Commonwealth v. G.U. – BMC Dorchester Court

PROSTITUTION CHARGE AGAINST UBER DRIVER AWAITING U.S. CITIZENSHIP DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING AFTER ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THE WEAKNESSES IN THE CASE

Defendant is a 46-year-old Brockton man who is married with two children. Defendant is a cab driver and Uber driver. Recently, he applied for U.S. citizenship and was awaiting a meeting with immigration on his application for citizenship. Defendant was charged with Sexual Conduct for a Fee. Boston Police were conducting a prostitution investigation. Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the side of the road in an area known to have high instances of prostitution. Police observed a female standing on the passenger side of the vehicle speaking to the Defendant. The female got into the vehicle and officers followed the vehicle, as it pulled into a parking lot. Officers observed Defendant’s vehicle bouncing up and down. Police approached the vehicle and saw the Defendant with his pants unzipped and his belt unbuckled. Police observed the female’s breasts partially exposed. The female told police that they agreed on $60 for sex but she stated that no money was ever exchanged.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there were probable cause issues with the case because no money was ever exchanged between the parties and the Defendant had no money on him. Usually, in a prostitution situation, money is exchanged beforehand and not after-the-fact. Attorney Noonan argued that, should the case proceed to trial, the Commonwealth would have difficulty proving the case because the female would likely not testify, as she had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Commonwealth v. B.B. – Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL FOR CLIENT CONVICTED OF DRUNK DRIVING BECAUSE HER BREATHALYZER TEST PRODUCED SCIENTIFICALLY UNRELIABLE RESULTS

Defendant, a single mother, was arrested by Massachusetts State Police for Negligent Operation and Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. At the police station, Defendant agreed to have a Breathalyzer Test to determine her blood alcohol content. The breath test machine gave a blood alcohol content result of 0.11%, which is over the legal limit. Based on the breath test result of 0.11%, Defendant pled out to the OUI charge.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was hired to vacate the Defendant’s conviction and win her a new trial. Recently, in the case of Commonwealth v. Ananias, a District Court Judge ruled that a Breathalyzer Machine did not produce scientifically reliable Blood-Alcohol-Content results during the time period of June 2012 to September 2014. Relying on the Court’s recent decision, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client’s conviction should be vacated and she should be awarded a new trial because the Breathalyzer Machine used in her case did not produce scientifically reliable results. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting his client’s conviction vacated and a jury trial is now scheduled.

Commonwealth v. J.L. – Salem District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST 32 YEAR-OLD BARTENDER FOR IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM SO LONG AS THE CLIENT DOES NOT GET INTO ANY TROUBLE

Defendant, a 32 year-old bartender from Manchester by the Sea, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Defendant was recently given a license to carry firearms (LTC). Shortly after getting licensed, Manchester by the Sea Police received an e-mail from a woman who had submitted a letter of recommendation on the Defendant’s behalf when he applied for his LTC. The e-mail stated that the woman wished to rescind her recommendation because the Defendant was abusing cocaine and alcohol and had dramatic mood changes and had bouts of severe aggression. After the e-mail, police were called to Defendant’s residence after receiving a call from different woman who reported that the Defendant was abusing substances and had “10 out of 10 rage.” This woman told police that she was concerned because the Defendant had a black handgun in his home. When police arrived, Defendant was not home. Later on, police went to the Defendant’s apartment when he was home. They asked him about his handgun and he denied having any handgun. Police told him that they received a report from a witness that he did have a handgun. Defendant changed his answer and admitted that he had a handgun. When police entered the apartment, they saw that the handgun was not properly secured or stored.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient probable cause to support the charge of Improper Storage of a Firearm because the handgun was within the Defendant’s “control.” In order to convict someone of Improper Storage of a Firearm, the Commonwealth must prove that the firearm was not under the Defendant’s control. Here, Attorney Noonan argued that the firearm was within his control because it was sufficiently nearby (only 18 feet away in his bedroom). Moreover, Attorney Noonan stated that his client had no intention of renewing his LTC or owning any firearms in the future. After hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate decided dismiss the criminal complaint after one-year so long as the Defendant does not get into any trouble.

Commonwealth v. F.A. – Wrentham District Court

A NURSE WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD WAS CHARGED WITH FELONY LARCENY BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES DA’S OFFICE TO DISMISS CASE PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AND SAVES HIS CLIENT FROM HAVING A CRIMINAL RECORD

Client is a 37 year-old mother of two with no criminal record. Client has been a Licensed Practical Nurse for 12 years and she performs Dialysis on patients with kidney failure.

Walpole Police were dispatched to Kohl’s Department Store for a report of two female shoplifters. Upon arrival, Police and Loss Prevention were watching the two females actively in the process of removing jewelry and concealing it in their purse. Police recovered several items on jewelry in the females’ possession and in their purse.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan acted quickly and was able to dismiss the criminal complaint prior to arraignment saving his client from having a felony charge on her record. This was a significant victory because the client was in the process of applying to a master’s program in nursing. Attorney Noonan provided proof that the client made civil restitution to Kohl’s. In addition, Attorney Noonan provided the DA with letters from his client’s employer attesting to her character.

Commonwealth v. K.G. – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CHILD ENDANGERMENT CASE

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence: An identified civilian called West Bridgewater Police to report an erratic operator, later identified as the Defendant. The witness was following directly behind Defendant’s vehicle and saw the Defendant’s vehicle swerve entirely off the road almost striking a fence then quickly swerve back crossing into the oncoming lane. The witness stated that the Defendant stopped at a traffic light, stuck her head out the window, and proceeded to vomit twice. The witness went to the police station and filled out a written statement. West Bridgewater Police were dispatched to locate the Defendant’s vehicle. The police officer observe the Defendant traveling on a residential street and saw the vehicle cross over the center line and travel a quarter-mile with its wheels in the oncoming lane. The officer stopped the vehicle and observed vomit all over the side door and on the Defendant’s clothing. Immediately, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and observed that her speech was very slow and deliberate. Defendant admitted to drinking at a party. The police officer administered 5 field sobriety tests. In the officer’s opinion, Defendant failed all 5 field sobriety tests. The officer testified as to Defendant’s poor performance on all field sobriety tests and gave his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant had her three young children in the car. Due to the fact that the Defendant was operating under the influence of alcohol with her three children in the car, she was charged with the aggravated felony offense of Child Endangerment, which carries an enhanced penalty.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan attacked the credibility of the arresting officer by showing that the officer rushed to judgment and did not conduct a fair investigation. Attorney Noonan argued that as soon as the officer observed the vomit he made up his mind to arrest the Defendant for OUI-Liquor. Attorney Noonan showed that: Before the officer conducted any investigation, he told the Defendant to call someone to come and pick up her kids because he had already made up his mind to arrest her for drunk driving. Attorney Noonan called the Defendant’s friend to testify as a witness. The friend testified that she received a phone call from the Defendant who stated that she had been pulled over and needed her to come and pick up the kids. The friend testified that the officer grabbed the phone and told her to get down here immediately. Attorney Noonan argued the phone call was made while the Defendant was still sitting in the driver’s seat before she was asked to exit the car and submit to field sobriety tests. Shortly after receiving the phone call, the friend arrived to the scene and the Defendant was already under arrest. Attorney Noonan introduced the footwear the Defendant was wearing, which were boots with 2 inch heels. Attorney Noonan argued that it was difficult for the Defendant to perform the field sobriety tests demanded of her in these heels. Specifically, Defendant was asked to balance on one foot for 30 seconds while wearing these heels. In addition, the officer had Defendant walk 9 steps, back and forth, on an invisible line and maintain her balance in these heels. With regards to the vomit, Attorney called two witnesses to testify. These witnesses testified that they attended a funeral reception with the Defendant prior to her arrest. These witnesses testified that they ate the same food as the Defendant, chicken broccoli Alfredo. These witnesses testified that the chicken broccoli Alfredo was not cooked properly, smelled weird, and had a funky taste. They testified that they tasted the food and stopped eating it because it was gross. They testified to having conversations with the Defendant and others at the reception about the funky tasting food. They testified that the Defendant tasted the food and remarked that it tasted funky. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant vomited because of the bad food. The most compelling evidence came from the testimony of the owner and operator of a day care facility. Prior to getting pulled over, Defendant had picked up her kids at a day care facility and was on her way home when she was arrested. This witness testified that the Defendant dropped her three children off in the early morning while she attended the funeral. This witness testified that the Defendant came to pick up her three kids. This witness testified that they had a 10-minute conversation. This witness testified that she did not observe any signs to suggest that the Defendant may have been impaired by alcohol. This witness gave her opinion that the Defendant was not impaired by alcohol in any way. The witness testified that, as a licensed day care provider and a mandated reporter, she would have stopped the Defendant from driving away with her kids if she had any suspicion that Defendant was impaired by alcohol. After a two day trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all counts.

Case Results