Commonwealth v. M.S. – Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF 2 OUT OF 4 FELONIES FOR CAUSING MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ON 4 SEPARATE OCCASIONS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE VICTIMS, EXCEEDED $101,000 IN DAMAGES.

Defendant, a 50-year-old resident of West Bridgewater, was charged with 4 counts of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250. Defendant worked for a company for 30 years and he was fired. After his termination, Defendant, on four separate occasions, intentionally inflicted damage to the company’s out-door industrial air chiller. The company claimed that the damage caused by the Defendant exceeded $101,000 dollars. After each act of vandalism, the company reported it to West Bridgewater Police. The company suspected that it was the Defendant who caused the damage. The company installed cameras to catch the Defendant in the act. The Defendant was caught on video causing damage to the air chiller and was arrested the following day. Prior to trial, the District Attorney’s Office offered the Defendant the following deal: Plead Guilty to all 4 felony charges of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250, be placed on probation for two years, and to pay restitution to be later determined at a hearing. Despite the evidence showing the Defendant was caught on videotape causing damage to the air chiller, and other strong evidence showing his guilt, Defendant opted to go to trial.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the Commonwealth’s evidence that each act of vandalism caused at least $250 in damage even though the alleged victim’s claimed that the damage exceeded $100,000. With regards to 2 of the acts of vandalism, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the jury that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the damage exceeded $250. Instead of taking the Commonwealth’s deal to plead guilty to all 4 felony counts, Defendant was acquitted and found Not Guilty of 2 of the felony counts. Attorney Noonan was weary to have his client plead guilty to all 4 counts because the company could use his admissions against him when they seek $101,000 in restitution from the Defendant. The Defendant was given a suspended sentence with probation for two years, a sentence not all that much different from what the Commonwealth was asking for prior to trial.

Commonwealth v. E.B. – Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS A NOT GUILTY ON A SECOND-OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

The client is a 33-year-old financial consultant from Easton, MA. The police officer testified that he was stopped at a gas station when his attention was drawn to the sound of a car horn beeping for about 5 seconds. The officer followed the vehicles as they approached an intersection. The police officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut off the other driver causing the other vehicle to slam on its brakes and swerve to avoid a collision. The officer pulled over the Defendant’s car. When he approached the Defendant’s window, the officer observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot and he could smell an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The officer testified that the Defendant initially stated that he did not consume any alcohol but later admitted to drinking at a strip club. The officer testified that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test. The officer testified that the Defendant failed the Alphabet Test twice, the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn Test, and the Defendant failed the One-Leg Stand after attempting it twice.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the police officer and pointed out the inconsistencies in his testimony. Attorney Noonan pointed out everything the Defendant did well on the field sobriety tests, which the officer left out in his direct examination. Attorney Noonan introduced photos of the Defendant’s shoes to show how difficult it would be for someone to perform these field sobriety tests with this type of footwear, which had no ankle support. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the other driver and pointed out that the other driver had been speeding and he lost his patience when following the Defendant because the Defendant was not driving fast enough. Attorney Noonan called as a witness the police officer who booked the Defendant at the police station. Attorney Noonan established that the booking officer had booked the Defendant, in a small booking room, for about an hour. In a critical line of questioning, Attorney Noonan got the booking officer to testify that he could not formulate an opinion about the Defendant’s sobriety even though he had booked him for about an hour. After Attorney Noonan’s closing argument, the judge immediately found the Defendant Not Guilty. This was the Defendant’s second offense for drunk driving and he was facing possible jail time, a three year loss of license, and mandatory inpatient treatment.

Commonwealth v. A.N. – Brockton District Court

FELONY DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CHARGE AGAINST 35-YEAR-OLD COMPUTER PROGRAMMER IS DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE’S HEARING AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGE WILL BE ON CLIENT’S RECORD.

The Police Report states: a Brockton City employee was snow plowing a residential street in Brockton when the Defendant, who was standing at the end of his driveway with a shovel, struck the City vehicle with his shovel causing $1,000 in damage to the vehicle. At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented his client’s side of the story. The Client was shoveling his driveway. The conditions were very snowy and there was poor visibility. As the client was shoveling snow at the end of his driveway, he saw a snow plow driving in his direction. The client saw that the snow plow was driving very close to the side of the street and he believed that the snow plow might drive across or into the client’s driveway. The client raised his shovel to warn the snow plow driver that he is coming too close to his driveway. As the snow plow passed by, it was very close to the client’s driveway, and as the client was holding his shovel up in the air to warn the driver, the shovel struck the side of the truck.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client did not intend to damage the truck and only struck the truck with his shovel because he believed that the truck might hit him. At the hearing, the snow plow driver stated that the damage to his truck was $1,500 but Attorney Noonan argued that hitting the side of this heavy-duty truck with a shovel would not cause that much damage. Attorney Noonan convinced the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint upon the client’s payment of $250 for the damage to the truck.

Commonwealth v. A.S. – Brockton District Court

BRIDGEWATER STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT CHARGED WITH PUNCHING A FEMALE STUDENT IN THE FACE AT A PARTY WILL HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD SO LONG AS HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE FOR ONE-YEAR.

According to the Police Report, the Client, a student at Bridgewater State University, attended an off-campus party that was thrown by other students who attended the university. The alleged victim, a female BSU student, resided at the house where the off-campus party was held. She stated that the Defendant showed up the party, uninvited, and created a disturbance by arguing with the alleged victim and her roommates. The Defendant was asked to leave but he refused. He allegedly started to punch the walls and doors and he was kicked out of the house by other party-goers. As he was being kicked out of the party, the Defendant allegedly punched the female-victim in the face knocking her to the ground and causing her to have a swollen cheekbone. The Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery for punching the female victim in the face.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing, the female victim attended the hearing along with her father and they were both very upset about what happened. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan mediated the case by engaging in a discussion with all parties including: the alleged victim, her father, members of his client’s family, and the police department. After engaging in a constructive dialogue with all parties and getting input from everyone, all parties came to an agreement that the criminal complaint would be dismissed after one-year so long as the Client stayed out of trouble. The Client, now a senior at Salem State University and stand-out football player, will have no criminal record so long as he stays out of trouble. This was a significant victory because the Client, at this point in life, who will soon be graduating from college and entering the work force, will not have a criminal record, as he sets out to start his career.

Commonwealth v. J.L. – Hingham District Court

JUDGE DISMISSES CASE WITH PREJUDICE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE OFFICER LIED TO THE COURT.

The Defendant, a resident of Hull, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. A civilian witness reported to Hull Police that the Defendant’s vehicle crossed into his lane, struck the side of his vehicle, and continued driving without pulling over. The witness approached the Defendant at a stop sign and asked him to pull over but the Defendant continued driving for over a mile before pulling into a plaza to pick up a pizza he had ordered. The witness called the police to report the hit and run. When the police arrived to the parking lot, the officer observed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet and appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked the Defendant to perform a series of field sobriety tests. From the start, the Defendant, in the officer’s words, was defiant, uncooperative, and argumentative. The Defendant insulted the officer. The officer found that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test that he performed and placed him under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. Back at the police station, when the Defendant was being booked, the arresting officer stated that the Defendant continued to be defiant, uncooperative, and argumentative. The officer stated that the Defendant claimed that he was not the operator of the vehicle when he previously admitted that he was the operator. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the Booking Officer to testify as a witness. Attorney Noonan called the Booking Officer to impeach the testimony of the arresting officer. During booking, the Booking Officer observed that the Defendant’s speech was “fair,” which contradicted the arresting officer’s observation that the Defendant’s speech was thick-tongued and slurred. More importantly, the Booking Officer observed that the Defendant’s “attitude was indifferent” and there were “no unusual actions” by the Defendant, which contradicted the arresting officer’s repeated assertions that the Defendant was defiant, argumentative, uncooperative, and insulting. As the trial started, the District Attorney received word that the Booking Officer could not appear to the trial because he was “sick.” Attorney Noonan asked for a continuance of the trial because the Booking Officer was an important witness for the defense. When the Defendant left the courthouse and was driving home, he saw the Booking Officer performing a detail and directing traffic. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice on the grounds that the Booking Officer lied to the court when he represented that he was out sick when, in actuality, he was not sick but performing a paid detail. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained documentation showing that the Booking Officer performed a paid detail on the day of trial from 7:00 AM to 8:30 PM for 13.5 hours.

Result: After Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence to show that the booking officer lied to the court, the Judge dismissed the OUI-Liquor charge, with prejudice, and found that the booking officer’s conduct was egregious. The case was dismissed with prejudice meaning that the Commonwealth cannot charge the Defendant with the same offense in the future. This is a rare case where a Judge dismissed a criminal charge with prejudice as a sanction for egregious police misconduct.

Commonwealth v. N.B. – Lynn District Court

FELONY CHARGES AGAINST UN-EMPLOYED SINGLE MOTHER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD WILL BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT SO LONG AS THE CLIENT STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE FOR ONE-YEAR.

According to the Police Report, the alleged victim went to the police department to report that the Defendant, her grandson’s girlfriend, had stolen two checks from her home, fraudulently made both checks out to herself, forged the alleged victim’s name, and cashed both checks, causing the alleged victim to have a negative balance in her checking account. The Defendant was charged Larceny over $250, a felony, and Uttering a False Check, also a felony.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the District Attorney to dismiss all charges so long as his Client pays restitution and stays out of trouble for one-year. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his Client, a 28 year-old un-employed, single mother, stole the checks only because she was under great mental and emotional stress, as she was struggling to financially support her child. The client had no criminal record. She was very remorseful for what she did and deserving of a second chance. The client has already paid the restitution and the charges will be dismissed outright so long as she stays out of trouble for one year.

Commonwealth v. M.C. – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS GUN CHARGES AGAINST LOCAL RESTAURANT OWNER.

Client, a 41 year-old owner of a local restaurant and resident of Abington, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm and Failure to Surrender his Firearms to Police. The Police Report alleged: Abington Police were dispatched to the Client’s residence for a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. The Client had a valid License to Carry Firearms (LTC). When the police arrived to his residence, the Client responsibly informed the Police that he legally owned and possessed an AR-15 Assault Rifle and a .40 Caliber Smith and Wesson handgun. Prior to the police arriving, the Client placed all his firearms on his kitchen table so that the police were made aware that he possessed guns in his home. When the domestic dispute was resolved, the police instructed the Client to secure his firearms. As the client was securing his firearms, the police observed that the AR-15 Assault Rifle was not properly secured, as it was not in a secured container or equipped with a trigger lock. As a result, the police informed the Client that he would be charged with Improper Storage of the Firearm. As he was being charged with a firearms offense, the Client was required by law to surrender all his firearms to the police. The Client failed to promptly surrender his firearms to the police and was charged with that offense as well.

Result: The Client received notice that he would be arraigned in court on the gun charges. If he were arraigned, the gun charges would go on the Client’s criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case prior to his Client’s arraignment on the grounds that his Client was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing prior to being arraigned. The charges were dismissed prior to arraignment and the Client was given his right to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing. At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his Client had his Assault Rifle trigger-locked prior to the police arriving to his home. The trigger lock was on his nightstand in his bedroom but the Client forgot to trigger-lock the rifle when the police were watching him secure his firearms. The Client forgot to trigger lock his rifle because he was nervous when the police were watching him secure his firearms. With regards to the charge of Failure to Surrender his Firearms, Attorney Noonan showed that his Client surrendered his firearms less than 48 hours after the police instructed him to. After taking Attorney Noonan’s arguments into consideration, the Clerk Magistrate dismissed all charges thereby saving his client from having any criminal charges on his record.

Commonwealth v. D.M. – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE STATE POLICE UNLAWFULLY DETAINED HIS CLIENT AT A DRUNK-DRIVING ROADBLOCK, WHICH RESULTED IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE EVEN THOUGH HIS CLIENT HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT OF 0.81%.

On May 28, 2016, the State Police were conducting an OUI Roadblock, as referred to as a Sobriety Checkpoint, on Route 18 in Abington. The Client, who was returning from a wedding, approached the checkpoint in his vehicle. At the checkpoint, the State Trooper believed that the Client was exhibiting signs of intoxication so he had the client get out of his car and submit to field sobriety tests. The State Trooper found that the client failed three of the field sobriety tests. The State Trooper had the client blow into a portable breath test device, which showed that the client had a blood alcohol content of 0.81%, which is above the legal limit in Massachusetts. The State Trooper then arrested the client and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his Client was unlawfully detained by the State Trooper. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to order his Client to get out of his vehicle and submit to the field sobriety tests. At a Hearing in which the State Trooper testified, Attorney Noonan proved that the only evidence of possible intoxication that led the Trooper to detain his client was the Trooper’s observation that the Client’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Attorney Noonan introduced a color copy of the Client’s booking photo, which clearly showed that his Client did not have glassy or bloodshot eyes. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to detain his client. Therefore, the Judge suppressed all evidence that was obtained as a result of his Client’s unlawful detention, which included all field sobriety tests and the breath test result of 0.81%. Because the majority of the evidence was suppressed, the District Attorney was forced to dismiss the case.

Commonwealth v. M.M. – Quincy District Court

FELONY LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST MECHANIC FROM CARVER IS REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR UPON PROOF BY THE DEFENSE THAT THE VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY WAS UNDER $250.

Client, a 48 year-old Mechanic from Carver, was arrested at the Sears Department Store in the Braintree Mall for allegedly stealing merchandise with his wife. The Loss Prevention Department at Sears observed the Client and his Wife conceal merchandise in a shopping bag. The Security Guard observed the wife try on a Lands End Jacket and hand it to the Client who then walked out of the store without paying for the Lands End Jacket. The Client’s wife walked out of the store with stolen merchandise in her shopping bag. According to the Police Report, the value of all the stolen items was $346.98. The Client was charged with Larceny over $250, which is a felony. What distinguishes a felony larceny from a misdemeanor larceny is the value of the stolen items. If the value of the stolen items is over $250, it is a felony.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and contacted the Loss Prevention Department at Sears and discovered that the value of the Lands End Jacket, stolen by the client, was $169.00. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the felony Larceny over $250 charge on the grounds that the evidence discovered by the defense showed that the value of the stolen item was under $250. The District Attorney agreed to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor.

Commonwealth v. E.B. – Dedham District Court

FINANCIAL ADVISOR FACING MANDATORY 60-DAYS IN JAIL AND A 1 YEAR LOSS OF LICENSE HAS CASE DISMISSED ON FIRST COURT DATE.

Client, a 33 year-old financial advisor from Easton, was pulled over by State Police for a motor vehicle infraction. Client had a prior conviction for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI). In addition, prior to being pulled over in this case, Client had been arrested for a Second-Offense OUI. When the Client was pulled over in this case, his driver license was suspended for 180 days because he refused the Breathalyzer Test when he was arrested for the second-offense OUI. The Client was arrested and charged with Operating with a Suspended License while his License was suspended for OUI pursuant to G.L. c. 90, § 23 and, if convicted for this offense, the Client was facing a mandatory jail sentence of 60 days and a 1-year mandatory loss of license.

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the Judge and the Assistant District Attorney to dismiss the charge upon the payment of court costs and Attorney Noonan saved his client from serving 60 days in jail and having a 1-year loss of license.

Case Results