Result

OUI-LIQUOR: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED
DISTURBING THE PEACE: DISMISSED

A civilian witness called the Whitman Police to report a motor vehicle accident in which he was struck by a purple Jeep and two men fled on foot. One suspect was described as wearing a white shirt and the other suspect was described as wearing an orange shirt. Moments later, a male party (co-defendant) approached the scene on foot and told police that he was riding as a passenger in the Jeep. Later, a K-9 located the Defendant in the woods approximately 100 feet away. The co-defendant pled Guilty to Witness Intimidation. The defense was premised on the argument that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant (and not the co-defendant) was the operator of the purple Jeep. See Commonwealth v. Leonard, 401 Mass. 470 (1988). On April 7, 2011, the case was scheduled for trial and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan appeared ready. The Commonwealth requested a continuance because the eyewitness failed to appear. Attorney Noonan objected to the continuance and moved for dismissal.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets all charges, including OUI-Liquor, dismissed against sheet metal worker.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Client, and five other teenage Defendants, were all indicted on charges in connection with a house party in East Bridgewater. The parents of a high-school teen had gone away to Paris on vacation while there 18 year-old son stayed with neighbors. One acquaintance suggested a party but the homeowner’s son refused. Nevertheless, messages were sent throughout Facebook that there was a party at the East Bridgewater home. At the party, Defendants allegedly caused more than $50,000 in property damage. Police reported that blood and urine were smeared on the floors and walls, marble countertops were cracked, an antique couch was set on fire, windows were broken, jewelry, electronics and golf clubs were stolen. The homeowner’s truck door had been ripped when one defendant struck a parked car. The Commonwealth alleged that the alleged victim (a guest at the party) was thrown to the kitchen floor and was kicked repeatedly by the Defendant and others. The Commonwealth granted the alleged victim immunity to testify against the Defendant and others involved in the attack.

First, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly discredited and impeached the alleged victim by eliciting testimony of his violent character and propensity. See Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (2005). On cross-examination, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the alleged victim consumed approximately seven beers and was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the alleged victim (prior to the incident in the kitchen with the defendant) participated in an attack on another party-goer by hitting him in the face and throwing him down the stairs.

Second, Attorney Noonan’s raised the “Martin defense” or defense of others arguing that the Defendant used reasonable force against the alleged victim to defend another party-goer who was being attacked in the kitchen by the alleged victim. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 369 Mass. 640 (1976). Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the alleged victim was “pumped up” and “wanted to get it on” and that he challenged another party-goer to a fight saying, “I want to fight you. Let’s fight.” Another witness testified that she told the alleged victim “to relax” and attempted to calm him down and told him, “Leave the kid alone.” Another witness testified that he attempted to calm down the Defendant and said to him, “Who cares about who can beat who up? Just relax.” As the alleged victim was challenging the other party-goer to a fight, the party-goer’s back was to the refrigerator in the kitchen. The Defendant intervened to diffuse the situation before it became physical. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the alleged victim (not the defendant) was the initial aggressor in the melee having punched the Defendant in the face. The Defendant, acting in self-defense and in defense of others, returned fire. With regards to the dangerous weapon indictment (shod foot), Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from a percipient witness that she did not see the Defendant kick the alleged victim while he was laying on the kitchen floor.

Result: At the conclusion of the five-day trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all charges against his client while four of the defendants were convicted.

This Case In the News

• “Four of six defendants convicted in East Bridgewater house party frenzy”
• “Six East Bridgewater residents indicted in connection with raging house party.”
• “Trial begins Monday for East Bridgewater house party suspects.”

BREAKING & ENTERING: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED

Defendant was alleged to have broken into his girlfriend’s apartment and stolen a mirror, Northface jacket, and $480 in cash. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed and remanded for a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. Originally, Brockton Police sought a show cause hearing and the criminal complaint issued because the Defendant failed to appear. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant never received notice of the show cause hearing because the summons was returned, as it was sent to an insufficient address. Because the Defendant failed to appear at the show cause hearing, Cambridge Police arrested him at his business. The Cambridge Police, however, mistakenly brought the Defendant to the Cambridge District Court for an arraignment when they were supposed to bring him to the Brockton District Court. As a result, Defendant was held in the House of Correction for three days until he was transported to the Brockton District Court (the correct court) for his arraignment. Patrick J. Noonan (then a third-year law student) filed a Memorandum of Law for the clerk-magistrate to consider in determining whether to issue the criminal complaints. With regards to the Breaking & Entering, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Memo that the Defendant did not break into the “dwelling place of another” because he had a right to habitation and occupancy in the apartment. See Commonwealth v. Robbins, 422 Mass. 305 (1996). Specifically, Defendant paid rent, had a key to the apartment, and lived in the apartment for four-months prior to the incident. With regards to the Larceny, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the mirror belonged to the Defendant, not the alleged victim. Specifically, Attorney Noonan presented photographs of the mirror that pre-dated the alleged incident in the custody of the Defendant. With regards to the Northface jacket, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant purchased the Northface jacket on his credit card and provided a copy of his bank statement to the clerk-magistrate. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was a jilted lover and upset at the Defendant for breaking up with her and getting back together with his wife. Attorney Noonan presented Facebook messages (post-dating the incident) sent to the Defendant’s wife from the alleged victim where she blasts the Defendant for breaking up with her but she mentions nothing about the alleged breaking and entering and larcenies.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinces clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaints on felony charges against his client.

LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED
LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED

Clients owned and operated a sporting goods store and purchased merchandise from a vendor in the amount of $9,626.65. Clients wrote several checks to pay the balance. All checks were returned for insufficient funds and the balance was never paid. As a result, the clients were charged with Larceny by Check. Patrick J. Noonan (then a third-year law student) filed a Motion to Dismiss (which was denied) on venue grounds, as the events alleged to have occurred did not take place “in the vicinity” of Bristol County but in Plymouth County. See Commonwealth v. Adelson, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 585 (1996)(discussing factors in determining vicinity in larceny by check case). Patrick J. Noonan then drafted a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the criminal court was an improper venue to settle the dispute, as the alleged victim had an adequate remedy to recover the monies owed in a civil action and failed to do so. See Taylor v. Newton Div. of the District Court Dep’t, 416 Mass. 1006 (1993)(noting that the petitioner, who was not permitted to file applications for criminal complaint, “had a right to proceed in a civil action.”). In addition, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Motion to Dismiss that it was an abuse of process for someone to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt. See Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 12 (1982)(defendant sought to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt). Lastly, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Motion to Dismiss that the Defendants’ did not have the intent to permanently deprive the alleged victim of the money, as they filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter and were discharged from all debts.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all criminal charges were dismissed against his clients.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Defendant and five other people went to the Patriots football game at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro. After the game, the members of the party got into their vehicles in the parking lot to leave the stadium. Defendant’s son was operating a vehicle with the defendant and defendant’s brother riding as passengers. The other two members of the party were traveling in a separate vehicle. Defendant’s son drove the vehicle toward the exit of the parking lot with the second vehicle following. As they were proceeding in a line of traffic toward the exit, a large SUV started to back out of a parking space and was backing into the line of cars. Defendant’s rolled down the window and told the driver of the SUV to move out of the way, as the SUV was about to back into traffic. Defendant exited the vehicle to help the SUV back out. Suddenly, the SUV backed up and struck the defendant knocking him to the ground. When he was knocked down to the ground, defendant threw his whoopee pie at the SUV and raised his arms in the air. Defendant approached the operator of the SUV and told him that he just struck him and that the defendant would like to obtain his license and registration. The operator exited the SUV and started yelling at the defendant at the top of his lungs. The male operator grabbed the defendant by the armpit and pushed him backwards, still screaming at him. As the male operator was assaulting the defendant, he knocked him into a female party – belonging to the male operator’s group. The male operator yelled at the defendant, “You just hit a woman!” Defendant replied, “If I did hit somebody, I am sorry, I didn’t mean to.” The male operator pressed his elbow into defendant’s neck and pressed him up against a light post. The other men in the SUV converged on the defendant, threw him to the ground, and they all started to punch him. The members of the defendant’s party tried to intercede but they were assaulted by the other males. The SUV then sped off. Stadium security and city police were called to the scene where the SUV party claimed that the defendant hit the female in the face. The officers immediately placed the defendant under arrest for Assault & Battery on the woman without hearing the defendant’s version of events.

Result: At defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the defendant was denied his opportunity to have a Show Cause Hearing. The criminal complaint was dismissed, and a Show Cause Hearing was held. At the Show Cause Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented the defendant’s version of the incident, e.g., that defendant was struck by the SUV, that defendant was assaulted and injured by the group of males in the SUV, and that the defendant inadvertently struck the female party in the course of the assault on him. After hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint against his client.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED

On October 23, 2008, Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which his vehicle struck a telephone pole and he was taken by ambulance to the emergency room. Defendant was not placed under arrest or charged with a crime. On January 14, 2009, a criminal complaint issued against the Defendant for OUI-Liquor. On December 17, 2009, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaints because his client was denied the opportunity to appear at a clerk-magistrate’s hearing and to challenge the probable cause needed to charge him with the offense. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report contained insufficient probable cause that the defendant was under the influence.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed. The Commonwealth decided not to pursue the charges after the criminal complaint was dismissed.

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED
TAGGING PROPERTY: DISMISSED

Defendant, a high school student with no prior criminal record, was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property and Tagging Property in connection with a string of incidents reported to Easton Police that many properties had been broken into, trespassed, and marked with graffiti and spray paint. Police interviewed the defendant who confessed to tagging all the properties. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence to the District Attorney’s Office that his client was a young man with no criminal record. He was outstanding student in high school and had been applying to colleges. Attorney Noonan presented the prosecutor with letters from his client’s teachers showing that he was a good student and a good kid. Attorney Noonan had his client pay restitution to the property owner for the damage caused to his property.

Result: After extensive negotiations with the District Attorney’s Office, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets all property damage crimes dismissed against his high school client with no criminal record.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery stemming from an incident in which police responded to a 911 call and upon arrival the alleged victim (defendant’s girlfriend) alleged that the defendant struck her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan marked the case for trial. At the trial, the alleged victim invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Had the alleged victim testified at trial, her answers with regards to the alleged incident would tend to incriminate her. After invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial absent the testimony of the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Assault & Battery charge against military man dismissed outright at trial.

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED
SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED
SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED
SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to Target for a report of a male party cutting open boxes of merchandise and putting them in his pockets. Defendant was also seen opening videogames and removing them from the cases and placing them in a cooler. Defendant was also seen opening up videogames and placing them into his pockets. Police arrested the Defendant and recovered videogames in his pockets. They also located other merchandise that he hid inside the cooler. The security officer provided police with surveillance footage showing that the Defendant had come into the store on two previous occasions and had stolen a large number of videogames each time. When conducting an inventory of the Defendant’s vehicle, police recovered stolen property from Papa Ginos. The client was 20 years old and had no prior criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had his client pay restitution to all the victims and convinced the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss all the charges.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets all criminal charges dismissed against 20 year-old defendant.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

On June 1, 2008, police were dispatched for a caller reporting an erratic operator. The caller was actually following the Defendant while reporting the information to police. The officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and observed her cross the yellow center line. Defendant did not pull over right away but continued traveling for another fifty yards before finally pulling over to the very edge of the roadway. The officer asked Defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. She stated that she had been coming from a wedding and denied drinking any alcohol. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from her breathe and he observed that her eyes were bloodshot. Defendant exited the vehicle in bare-feet stating that she had been wearing heels all night. Defendant failed all field sobriety tests, which included the one-legged stand and nine-step walk and turn. During booking, the officer stated that she was unsteady on her feet, that she walked into a wall, and that she almost fell into the hallway when being escorted to her cell. The officer stated that the Defendant’s face was flush, that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and that she appeared to be confused. Three months prior to her arrest, Defendant was convicted of OUI-Liquor having registered a blood alcohol content of .22, making this a second offense. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan called a mechanic to testify. The mechanic had inspected and test-driven the Defendant’s vehicle and he testified that the vehicle would drift in a certain direction because the alignment was bad. Attorney Noonan called a witness who testified that he attended the wedding with the Defendant prior to the arrest and that he sat at the same table with her during the wedding. The witness testified that he did not observe the Defendant consume any alcohol at the wedding and that she appeared sober at the wedding. Finally, Attorney Noonan impeached the officer by introducing Defendant’s color booking photo, which showed that her eyes were clear and face was normal in contradiction to the officer’s testimony that her face was flush and that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdict on second offense OUI saving his client from possible 60 days in jail and a three-year suspension of driver’s license.