Case Results
Commonwealth v. Juvenile – Dedham Juvenile Court
ASSAULT: DISMISSED
An eighth grade student (alleged victim) reported to police that he was threatened by four males and was fearful that they would kill him. The alleged victim reported that he was walking home from school when he was approached by a vehicle with four males inside. The males were yelling at him from the vehicle. The alleged victim stated that two of the males got out of the vehicle and chased him on foot but the alleged victim was able to get away. The alleged victim reported that the same two males subsequently approached him at the Dunkin Donuts scaring the alleged victim causing him to leave the Dunkin Donuts and immediately go home. The alleged victim reported the incident to police because he was scared to walk home fearing that the males would hurt him. The alleged victim provided a description of the males. Based on his description, the officer was able to identify the Juvenile as one of the males that got out of the car and chased the alleged victim. Police interviewed the driver of the vehicle and he told police that the Juvenile was one of the males that got out of his vehicle and chased the alleged victim. Juvenile was charged with Assault.
Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed.
Commonwealth v. K.S. – New Bedford District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY: PRETRIAL PROBATION
Defendant’s father called 911 to report a fight between the Defendant and his 16-year-old younger brother. The father reported that the Defendant charged at his younger brother and they began fighting on the floor. The father pointed out that the Defendant outweighs his younger brother by 100 lbs. The father intervened to protect his younger son from the Defendant and the father had to punch the Defendant in the face to break up the fight. The younger brother told police that the Defendant pushed his finger into his eye socket multiple times. Police observed that the younger brother had redness to his left eye and redness around his mouth. The parents made written statements to police. All parties (father, mother, brother) stated that the Defendant has an anger problem and needs help for his anger issues.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year with the condition that he undergoes counseling to address the concerns of his family members. If the Defendant abides by the conditions, the criminal charge will be dismissed after one-year and the Defendant will not have to admit guilt.
Commonwealth v. N.P. – Quincy District Court
LEAVING THE SCENE: DISMISSED
UNLICENSED OPERATION: DISMISSED
FAILURE TO USE CARE: NOT RESPONSIBLE
Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he rear-ended a vehicle pushing that vehicle into the vehicle in front of it. The driver of the front vehicle was injured and taken to the hospital by ambulance. Defendant approached the injured driver but the driver refused to speak to him. Defendant gave his name and information to the driver of the other vehicle involved in the chain collision. Defendant properly reported the accident to his insurance company. Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Personal Injury, Failure to Use Care in Stopping, and Operating a Vehicle without a License.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing on the criminal complaints. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Defendant took appropriate steps in making himself known and providing his information to the injured motorist. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaints.
Commonwealth v. C.D. – Attleboro District Court
LEAVING THE SCENE: NO COMPLAINT ISSUED
Defendant was traveling on Route 495 South returning from dinner with friends. Defendant was cut off by another vehicle. Defendant swerved to avoid a collision, lost control of his vehicle, and ended up in the woods off the highway in an embankment. Upon arrival, the police found the Defendant sitting on the guardrail in the breakdown lane near his vehicle. Police administered field sobriety tests and the Defendant passed them all. Officers informed him that he may receive a summons in the mail for Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Defendant did receive a summons for Leaving the Scene of an Accident and immediately contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan immediately requested a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing and sought a copy of the Police Report.
Result: On the day before the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was informed that the police department was withdrawing the criminal complaint. Defendant had no criminal record and was nearing graduation from the police academy.
Commonwealth v. B.S. – Plymouth District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
Defendant had an argument with her boyfriend. The boyfriend told the Defendant to pack up her belongings and leave the residence. They proceeded to argue over the items that the Defendant wished to take with her upon moving out of the house. The argument escalated and the boyfriend alleged that the Defendant assaulted and battered him. The boyfriend called 911 and made a written statement to police. The police arrested the Defendant. Because the boyfriend-alleged victim was over 60 years old, Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person, an aggravated offense. The Commonwealth refused to dismiss the criminal complaint, even though the Defendant was in her late 50s and had no criminal record.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice that he would be asserting self-defense at trial. At trial, the alleged victim appeared ready to testify, as well as the arresting officer. At trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the criminal complaint that charged Defendant with an aggravated offense.
Commonwealth v. S.B. – Stoughton District Court
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
Defendant owned and operated his own business manufacturing wood products. Defendant’s business would purchase wood materials from a vendor-company. The company alleged that they engaged in five separate transactions with the Defendant. The company alleged that they provided the Defendant with wood materials in these five separate transactions. The company alleged that they sent invoices to the Defendant with regards to these five separate transactions. All invoices were for an amount greater than $250. With each invoice, the company alleged that they received a business check from the Defendant, which was returned due to insufficient funds. The company claimed that they attempted to contact the Defendant regarding the returned checks but were unsuccessful. The company claimed that they sent a certified demand letter to the Defendant demanding payment for all five business transactions. The company went to the police department with all the documentation (invoices, business checks, bank records, and demand letter).
Result: Defendant was summonsed to court where he was arraigned on 10 felony charges. Defendant then retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan got all 10 felony charges dismissed against his client, a business owner with no criminal record.
Commonwealth v. C.R. – Brockton District Court
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
Defendant was an employee at a retail store. Defendant was alleged to have made two fraudulent transactions totaling over $250. Defendant admitted to Loss Prevention and Police that she made the two fraudulent transactions.
Result: At the arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal charge dismissed.
Commonwealth v. S.O. – Wareham District Court
IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED
Defendant called the police to report that someone broke into his apartment and stole his shotgun and ammunition from his gun case. Upon arrival, the police inspected the gun case. The gun case had been tampered with and some of the latches were missing. The officer believed that the Defendant did not have a lock on his gun case and charged him with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Police took fingerprints from the gun case. The only identifiable fingerprints on the gun case belonged to the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Preserve the gun case. At trial, the Commonwealth did not have the gun case. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the police dispatcher because the Defendant called the police and reported to the police dispatcher that he had a lock on his gun case. Attorney Noonan intended to call the Defendant’s father to testify. Defendant’s father would go shooting with the Defendant every other weekend. Defendant would bring his gun case when shooting with his father. Defendant’s father was willing to testify that the Defendant always had the same lock on his gun case every time they went shooting together. Defendant’s father was willing to give a description of the Defendant’s lock. Defendant’s father was willing to testify that they went shooting together 2 weeks before this incident and that the Defendant’s gun case had the same lock on it. In addition, Attorney sought to elicit testimony that the Defendant identified the suspect to police who he believed broke into his apartment and stole his firearm and ammunition. Attorney Noonan sought to show that the Commonwealth never investigated the suspect believed to have stolen the Defendant’s firearm. Police did not test the gun case for the suspect’s fingerprints. Attorney Noonan also intended to call the Defendant’s sister who lived in the same apartment with him and she was willing to testify that she told police that the same suspect stole money from her apartment the same day that the Defendant reported his firearm stolen.
Result: The day before trial, the Commonwealth informed Attorney Patrick J. Noonan that they would be dismissing the case on the day of trial.
Commonwealth v. S.F. – Wareham District Court
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
A department store employee called police to report that the Defendant left the store without paying for items. Police apprehended the Defendant outside the store. A search of the Defendant’s purse showed 13 items that she shoplifted from the store, totaling $379.88. Store security informed police that the Defendant shoplifted from the store on five other occasions in the past month. Store security provided police with surveillance videos showing that the Defendant shoplifted from the store on five previous occasions. The total amount of items shoplifted on the five previous occasions amounted to $862.04. Defendant was charged with Larceny over $250 stemming from the incident in which she shoplifted amounting to $379.88. The police were seeking to bring 5 additional counts of Larceny over $250.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the felony charge of Larceny over $250 upon the payment of restitution. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth not to charge the Defendant with 5 additional felony charges of Larceny over $250. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan facilitated the payment of restitution to the department store for all 6 shoplifting incidents. As a result, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saved his client from having 5 felony charges on her record.
G.C. v. T.G. – Uxbridge District Court
209A RESTRAINING ORDER: VACATED
Defendant’s ex-fiancé obtained a temporary restraining order against him pursuant to Chapter 209A alleging that: Defendant abused her, Defendant stalked her, and Defendant threatened her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan contested the restraining order and requested a two-party hearing such that Attorney Noonan could cross-examine the Plaintiff and present evidence on the Defendant’s behalf. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan attacked the Plaintiff’s credibility by introducing evidence that she had prior restraining orders issued against her by an ex-boyfriend. Attorney attacked her credibility by presenting evidence that the Plaintiff had criminal complaints lodged against her by an ex-boyfriend for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (hammer), Domestic Assault & Battery, Breaking & Entering, and Malicious Destruction of Property. Attorney Noonan argued that the Plaintiff had a pattern of volatile behavior in dating relationships and that she was repeating such behavior in the aftermath of her relationship with this Defendant. At the hearing, the Plaintiff did not contest the prior restraining orders or criminal charges. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not abuse the Plaintiff during or after their relationship. Attorney Noonan introduced letters and e-mails sent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff in which she thanks the Defendant for getting her gifts. Attorney Noonan showed that the Defendant bought a Jeep for the Plaintiff and when the Defendant broke off the relationship he demanded the return of the Jeep and she refused. Defendant threatened to call the police if the Plaintiff did not return the Jeep.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly attacked the credibility of the alleged victim and established that the Defendant did not “abuse” the Plaintiff. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge vacated the restraining order.