Result

RAPE OF CHILD: NOLLE PROSS
DRUGGING PERSON FOR SEX: NOLLE PROSS
DISSEMINATION OF HARMFUL MATTER TO MINOR: NOLLE PROSS

Defendant’s 9-year-old biological son claimed that the Defendant had anally raped him. The alleged victim also claimed that the Defendant would stick candles up his butt. The alleged victim alleged that his father would also touch his butt. The alleged victim claimed that his father showed him dirty books and that the Defendant forced him to look at the dirty books. Police went to the Defendant’s house to arrest him. Police found “dirty magazines” and a pornographic video in the Defendant’s house. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Suppress the physical evidence seized at the Defendant’s house and statements made by his client arguing that the clerk-magistrate did not give police a valid Arrest Warrant but simply gave police an Application for Criminal Complaint. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was denied. Attorney Noonan argued another Motion to Suppress arguing that his client’s statements were inadmissible under Miranda, and that police seized the evidence without his client’s consent. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was denied. Attorney Noonan also conducted a criminal deposition of his client’s ex-wife in preparation of trial.

Result: On March 9, 1998, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi, which means that the indictment is withdrawn – meaning that if circumstances change, a prosecution could be initiated again.

UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF COCAINE: NOT GUILTY
DISTRIBUTION OF COCAINE IN SCHOOL ZONE: NOT GUILTY

An undercover State Trooper approached the Defendant in front of 96 West Elm Street in Brockton at approximately 11:18 p.m. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he was “pumping” (e.g., selling cocaine) and the Defendant answered in the affirmative. Defendant instructed the Trooper to drive around the block because there were police in the area. The undercover Trooper and another undercover officer circled the block and returned to 96 West Elm Street. Defendant approached the passenger side of the undercover Trooper’s vehicle and sold him a $20 hit of cocaine with a second undercover officer in the vehicle. The Defendant was with a black female. A third officer stated that the Defendant and the black female were in the vicinity of 96 West Elm Street before the drug deal. After the transaction, the undercover Trooper radioed to backup that the sale was complete and he gave a description of the Defendant to the officers on the radio. The undercover officer also gave a description of a black female that was with the Defendant. Within seconds, two Brockton Police cruisers arrived on the scene and arrested the Defendant and the black female believing they matched the description given over the radio. The undercover Trooper (who engaged in the drug transaction) drove by 96 West Elm Street and observed the Defendant and the black female being detained. The undercover Trooper positively identified the Defendant as the person who sold him the cocaine. The second officer involved in the drug sale positively identified the Defendant and testified that he got a good look at the Defendant before the drug deal, during the drug deal, and after the drug deal.

At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan challenged the officers’ identification of the Defendant as the person who sold the drugs to the undercover officer. After the drug deal, police went into 96 West Elm Street and detained the Defendant and the black female who they believed matched the description given by the undercover Trooper on the radio. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the police apprehended the wrong man. After the drug deal, police went inside 96 West elm Street. The police brought the Defendant out of 96 West Elm Street and brought him out to the street where they detained him. The two officers in the drug sale testified that they positively identified the Defendant, as he was standing on the sidewalk being detained by other officers. Attorney Noonan challenged the identification by the two officers. Specifically, Attorney Noonan established that the two officers made their identification of the Defendant, as they were driving their unmarked cruiser by 96 West Elm Street. Attorney Noonan challenged the accuracy of their identification – as they made the identification from a moving car at 11:18 p.m. at night. The two officers did not stop, get out of the vehicle, approach the Defendant and make an up-close identification of him. Attorney Noonan argued that the police brought the wrong man out of 96 West Elm Street and that he was wrongly identified as the drug dealer by police.

Result: After a jury trial in which Attorney Gerald J. Noonan asserted the defense of wrongful identification, a jury returned verdicts of Not Guilty on all indictments, which included felony drug offenses carrying significant jail time.

ARMED ASSAULT TO ROB: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with two other men under a theory of joint venture in a shooting. The victim testified that he was shot three times and a bullet still remains lodged in his back. The victim testified that he was robbed by knifepoint while making a phone call in the Westgate mall when a male grabbed his watch and ran. Afterwards, the victim went with his girlfriend to the market on Court Street. The victim observed a red jeep pull up. The victim saw a man standing 2-3 feet away from him holding a short black gun in his hand. The gunman demanded the victim’s gold chain but the victim refused. The gunman then handed the black gun to the Defendant. The victim tried to walk away when he heard shots and fell down and there was blood all over him. The victim felt he was going to die on the street. The victim was shot in the arm and in the back. The bullet was still lodged in his back. The victim was hospitalized for a month. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan examined a police officer at trial who interviewed the victim. Attorney Noonan asked Officer Carr, “Jusme (victim) told you Therilus never shot him, or threatened him.” The officer answered, “Yes.” The defense attorneys for the three defendants presented evidence from the Westgate mall showing that there were no records or videotape footage showing that the victim was robbed at the mall, as he claimed. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence from the emergency room showing that the cause of the victim’s injuries was the result of a drive-by shooting, which contradicted the victim’s testimony that he was shot at close range outside the market.

• “Victim testifies about being shot 3 times at close range.”
• “Jury to begin deliberations in Brockton shooting trial.”
• “Jury acquits three in shooting of Brockton man outside market.

ASSAULT by DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME: NOT GUILTY

An Easton Police Officer was flagged down by a motorist in the parking lot of Christy’s Market. The motorist reported to the police officer that the driver of the vehicle behind her just threatened her with a machete knife. The officer obtained the license plate. The woman identified the Defendant as the man who threatened her with the machete. The woman claimed that she had just left the Taunton District Court after taking out charges against the Defendant for Annoying and Harassing Telephone Calls. She stated that when she was driving home she looked in her rear-view mirror and saw the Defendant traveling behind her. She stated that she observed the Defendant pointing the knife at her and motioning for her to pull over. She states that the Defendant then put the knife to his throat. She claimed that the Defendant was throwing rocks at her vehicle. She states that her vehicle was almost forced off the road by the Defendant. She then pulled into the party lot of Christy’s Market and flagged down the officer. The police stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and asked him to produce the knife. Defendant produced a fishing knife. Defendant denied threatening her with the knife. The Defendant explained to the officer that he had attempted to get a restraining order against the alleged victim because she has been harassing him. He stated that the alleged victim knows he has he has a knife. The police seized the knife from the Defendant’s vehicle.

Result: After a three-day jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all criminal charges against Firefighter.

TRAFFICKING COCAINE: NOT GUILTY
TRAFFICKING COCAINE IN SCHOOL ZONE: NOT GUILTY

Brockton police received an anonymous telephone call reporting that drugs were being sold from a residence in Brockton. Police conducted surveillance and observed activity consistent with drug transactions. An undercover officer went to the residence and purchased cocaine. Police then obtained a search warrant for the residence. In executing the search, Defendant and two other co-defendants were inside the residence. Police found 58 plastic bags of white powder (76.2 grams), one plastic bag of white powder (46.1 grams), one plastic bag of white power (17 grams), and over $1,000 in cash.

Result: At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the judge that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to convict his client. The judge agreed and found the Defendant Not Guilty. The felony drug charges carried significant mandatory jail time.

OUI LIQUOR: CONVICTION REVERSED
LEAVING THE SCENE: CONVICTION REVERSED

At 1:45 a.m., police were dispatched to an auto-body garage in Avon for an argument in progress as a result of a hit-and-run accident. Upon arrival, a witness stated to police that a blue pick-up truck struck his vehicle, which was parked in front of his house. The witness chased the blue pick-up truck to the auto-body garage. The witness observed three people sitting in the blue pick-up truck. The witness identified the Defendant as getting out of the driver’s side of the truck. The witness identified a woman as sitting in the middle seat. The witness identified the Defendant as the operator of the pick-up truck. Defendant was the registered owner of the pick-up truck. Officers observed that the Defendant was highly intoxicated. Officers immediately detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. Defendant’s eyes were glassy, his speech was slurred, and he was very unsteady on his feet. The officer observed that the Defendant would close his eyes every 5 seconds, as if he was about to fall asleep. Defendant was arrested OUI-Liquor and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.

At this time in the 1980s, the District Court in Massachusetts had a two-tier trial system (known as the “de novo” system) in which a Defendant could choose to have a bench trial before a judge and, if found guilty, demand a jury trial on appeal.

Here, Defendant was tried before a judge and found Guilty of OUI-Liquor and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Defendant was sentenced to 90 days in the House of Correction suspended for two-years, 14 days in an impatient treatment facility, and ordered to pay restitution. Defendant retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan appealed the Defendant’s conviction to the second tier of the trial system. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss and requested an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, Attorney Noonan called the Defendant’s wife to testify. Defendant’s wife testified that the Defendant was not the operator of the blue pick-up truck and that she had been the operator of the blue pick-up truck. The judge dismissed the criminal complaints against the Defendant, and his prior convictions were vacated.

Client was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained full thickness tears to the left and right rotator cuff, which required surgery. The insurance company made an initial offer of $99,000.00.

Case Results: Suit was filed and Attorney Brendan J. Noonan ultimately settled for $225,000.

On January 27, 2007, Client tripped over a concrete parking bumper / car stop when exiting a pharmacy and sustained a fracture to the right hip, which required surgery. The insurance company made an initial offer of $100,000.00.

Case Results: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed suit and the case was brought to Arbitration where the Plaintiff was awarded $225,000.00.

On the June 24, 2014, Client went to test drive a used truck at an auto dealership. However, the truck’s battery was dead. The sales agent pulled an SUV around and attached jumper cables to the truck’s battery and SUV’s battery in order to jump-start the truck. The sales agent did not connect the jumper cables to the vehicles’ batteries the correct way which resulted in a huge electrical spark. At that time the client, who had worked over 25 years as a mechanic, assisted by connecting the jumper cables the correct way. The sales agent then got in the truck to see if he could start it. When the truck failed to start he asked the client to go over to the SUV, which was still on/running, and give it some gas. The client went over to the SUV and reached his right leg into the SUV to apply his foot to the gas pedal. The client’s left foot was still on the pavement and most of his body was still outside the SUV when he pressed the gas pedal with his right foot. When he hit the gas the SUV leapt backwards and started driving in reverse. The client was knocked to the ground and then the front driver’s side tire rolled over his left foot and ankle. The client sustained an open fracture (aka compound fracture) of the left medial malleolus and an associated closed fracture of the lateral malleolus. Client underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of the medial malleolus fracture.

The client died a year and a half after the accident due to causes unrelated to his injuries. The sales agent contested our version of events. He claimed he never asked the client to help him jump-start the truck and he never told the client to give the SUV gas and that the client did all this on his own. The insurance company argued that the client had years of experience as a mechanic and that he was negligent for applying one foot on the gas while the rest of his body remained outside the truck. They argued that he should have seen the truck was in reverse if it was in fact in reverse. Attorney Brendan J. Noonan was able to obtain surveillance video footage of the accident prior to filing suite. The footage showed the sales agent incorrectly arranging the jumper cables causing a huge spark and the client immediately rearranging the cables in the correct position after. The fact that the client died a year and a half after the accident complicated matters.

Case Results: Attorney Brendan J. Noonan was able to work with the insurance company to settle the claim for $215,000.00.

In 2014 our Client was driving South on Route 24 in the high-speed lane when the front driver’s side tire from Jane Doe’s vehicle, which was traveling in the northbound lane, bounced over the jersey barrier and smashed into the client’s vehicle. The loose tire rolled over the hood and into and over the windshield. The tire effectively peeled back the vehicle’s roof. The Client was able to safely bring her vehicle to a stop in the high speed lane.

The Client was transported to Boston Medical Center. CT Scans were administered to clear the patient of fractures and soft tissue injuries. Tests were negative for both fractures and soft tissue injuries. No acute findings on head/neck/chest/abdomen/pelvis CT. Despite some subjective complaints of minor neck and pain, the client appeared to be fine.

However, the CT Scan revealed a discontinuous membrane of a the right silicone breast implant “which may represent rupture.” This wasn’t a serious finding so the client was scheduled a follow-up with a plastic surgeon and then discharged.

The Client presented to a plastic surgeon who ordered an MRI of the right breast implant. The MRI revealed a rupture. The MRI could not determine if the rupture was old/new, trauma-related or causally related to the accident.

According to the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark, a minimum of 15% of modern silicone implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation. Furthermore, the risk of implant rupture increases with implant age. The Client’s breast implants were over 25 years old at the time of the accident. To make matters worse, ruptures of silicone breast implants are often “silent,” meaning patients and doctors may not notice them because most occur without symptoms. They can only be detected by MRI. For this reason, the FDA recommends that women with silicone implants get an MRI three years after implantation and once every two years after that. Given all this, the insurance companies were in a good position to refute and deny a causal link between the accident and the rupture.

Based on the CT scan, MRI and physical exam he could not tell if the rupture was old/new, trauma-related or causally related to the accident. Attorney Brendan J. Noonan learned these questions could be answered during the course of silicone breast implant removal and replacement surgery. Attorney Brendan J. Noonan  inquired with the plastic surgeon about this and he informed him that he might be able to make these determinations during the course of the surgery.

Attorney Brendan J. Noonan then arranged for the plastic surgeon to take steps to ensure the surgery was documented completely and accurately. The plastic surgeon had an assistant take several intraoperative photographs throughout the course of the surgery. After the surgery Attorney Noonan spoke with the plastic surgeon. The surgeon informed him that the rupture was indeed trauma related and that he could opine, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the accident caused the rupture.

Case Results: Attorney Brendan J. Noonan was able to work with the insurance companies to settled all claims for $175,000.00.