Case Results
Commonwealth v. J.C. – Lynn District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
RESISTING ARREST: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
THREATS TO COMMIT ARSON: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
STALKING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
The Commonwealth sought to hold the Defendant in custody for 120 days or until trial due to the seriousness of the allegations that he attempted to burn down his ex-girlfriend’s house with gasoline until police intervened to physically stop him. After a Dangerousness Hearing, Defendant was released from custody. Upon a finding of dangerousness and a finding that no conditions of release would ensure the public safety, the Defendant would be held in the House of Correction for 120 days under the new domestic violence statute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the client at the Dangerousness Hearing and thoroughly impeached and discredited the testimony of the alleged victim-girlfriend.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving 120 days in jail.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Plymouth Juvenile Court
TRESPASS: CWOF (9 months, admin. probation, $734.00 restitution)
VANDALISM: DISMISSED
BREAKING & ENTERING: DISMISSED
POSSESSION OF LIQUOR: DISMISSED
Plymouth Police were dispatched to a vacant residence after receiving a call that a male and female were seen walking up the driveway of the vacant home holding rocks. Police discovered 14 teenagers inside the home, including the Defendant. Police observed severe damage to the home, including trash thrown around, tagging of a red penis inside the front door, dirt in every room, pasta thrown on the kitchen floor, burned pieces of wood in the living room, a swastika painted on the bedroom wall, the words “No Jews Allowed” spray painted on the bedroom wall, testicles painted on the bedroom wall. Police arrested 14 teenagers including the Defendant. The Commonwealth estimated the damage at approximately $50,000.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to charge his client as being a joint-venturer in the crimes, as the evidence merely showed that the Defendant was present at the scene of the crime and something more was required.
Commonwealth v. K.T. – Hingham District Court
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED
LARCENY FALSE PRETENSE: DISMISSED
Client was charged with Receiving Stolen Property over $250, a felony offense, stemming from allegations that she stole three pieces of jewelry from the alleged victim totaling approximately $5,430, including a gold Claddagh ring (valued at $100), a diamond pendant necklace with a gold necklace (valued at $130), a 14K gold diamond anniversary band ring (valued at $2,200), and a 14K gold teardrop solitaire ring (valued at $2,000-$3,000). The client then allegedly pawned the jewelry, claiming to be the rightful owner of the property, and received payment resulting in an additional charge of Larceny by False Pretense.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed outright at the second court date.
Commonwealth v. V.S. – Dedham District Court
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: REDUCED TO NON-SEXUAL MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE
The alleged victim (age 16) accused the Defendant (her brother-in-law) of sexually abusing her on three different occasions beginning when she was 11 years-old. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the felony sex offense of Indecent Assault & Battery to a simple misdemeanor Assault & Battery, which is a non-sexual offense. Had the Defendant been convicted of the felony sexual assault, he would have to register as a sexual offender and face the possibility of prison time. Defendant was placed on probation for the simple misdemeanor assault and battery. Defendant was placed on probation for the misdemeanor Assault & Battery. He returned to his home in Texas where he lives with his wife and child.
Result: Commonwealth reduces felony sex offense of Indecent Assault & Battery to a misdemeanor Assault & Battery, which is a non-sexual offense, saving his client possible jail time and having to register as a sex offender.
Commonwealth v. K.J. – Brockton Juvenile Court
BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED
Police responded to the breaking and entering in progress. Upon arrival to the home, police detained a man walking across the front lawn. The man confessed to breaking into the home to steal $10,000 and stated that he committed the crime with two friends named Kevin and Andrew. A short distance away, police observed two males walking on the sidewalk. They were identified as Kevin and Andrew and were placed under arrest as joint venturers in the house break. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s mere presence at the crime scene (without any other corroborative evidence of his involvement) was insufficient to charge him as a joint venturer.
Result: After Hearing, Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the felony B & E charge was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. R.W. – Wrentham District Court
POSSESSION CLASS A SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED and SEALED
POSSESSION CLASS A SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED and SEALED
Client, 32 year-old financial consultant, with no criminal record was arrested and charged with Possession of Class A Heroin (two counts). Police were conducting surveillance in a high-crime area and observed a known drug dealer and a known drug user engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. Police then stopped Defendant’s motor vehicle and discovered heroin (Class A). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion Requesting Assignment to a Drug Treatment Facility pursuant to Chapter 111E. The prosecutor objected. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence establishing Defendant’s drug dependency. Attorney Noonan presented a treatment plan to the court, which included the client’s enrollment in an outpatient program where he will be treated by a psychiatrist and a substance abuse counselor. The judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s treatment plan.
Result: Defendant’s case was dismissed upon his successful completion of drug treatment, and the drug charges were permanently sealed from the Defendant’s record.
M.W. vs. J.L. – Barnstable District Court
HARASSMENT ORDER: VACATED
In 2006, Plaintiff and his business partner formed several Florida entities for the purpose of buying, syndicating and managing a multi-million dollar commercial office building in Miami (referred to as “Property.”) In connection with buying the Property, Plaintiff issued a private (unregistered) securities offering a tenant-in-common (TIC) interests to 27 investors. 95% of the TIC owners are elderly and used their retirement monies to buy TIC interests in the Property based on the representations of Plaintiff made in the offering documents. Plaintiff’s offering promised the TIC investors fractional ownership in the Property as well as the right to receive distributions of the Property’s income. In 2007, Defendant paid $2 million to invest in the Property and became the largest of all TIC owners with an 18.67% TIC interest in the Property. Plaintiff controlled the Property’s bank accounts and handled all aspects of the Property’s financial management, including what was disclosed to the TIC’s. By the end of 2010, most of the TIC owners, including Defendant, became suspicious of Plaintiff’s management of the Property. On December 31, 2010, the TIC’s terminated Plaintiff. By March 2011, the Property was delinquent on its mortgage, owing more than $453,000 and the Property was on the verge of foreclosure. In April 2011, another company began managing the property.
The TIC’s and Defendant retained an Attorney to investigate the Plaintiff. The Law Firm demanded production of information and cooperation from Plaintiff. In response to the Law Firm’s demands, Plaintiff’s attorney claimed that Defendant and another TIC owner were “making threats” against Plaintiff. Through its investigation, the Law Firm discovered that Plaintiff stole from the Property’s bank accounts and rents and defrauded the TIC’s in several ways that were designed to conceal the nature of the payments.
On June 24, 2014, Plaintiff obtained a Harassment Order against the Defendant alleging that the Defendant had threatened him numerous times. Specifically, Defendant sent him a threatening letter via mail, sent him many threatening e-mails, threatened him with bodily harm on the telephone, and publically defamed and slandered him on the internet. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was hired to represent the Defendant and after a hearing the Harassment Order was vacated. Attorney Noonan established that Plaintiff’s harassment order was sought as part of an ulterior motive, such as retaliation against the Defendant, to deflect his own civil and criminal liability in the five ongoing lawsuits, to poison the ongoing civil suits against him, or to gain some sort of tactical advantage against Defendant in the civil lawsuits.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Harassment Order vacated against businessman.
Commonwealth v. R.K. – Plymouth District Court
VIOLATION OF 209A: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING
Defendant’s wife took out an abuse prevention order against him stemming from an incident where the Defendant threatened his wife in the presence of their children. The 209A Order contained a provision prohibiting the Defendant from abusing his wife and from contacting his wife. Defendant was charged with violating the order by sending his wife an e-mail. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Defendant did not receive full notice of restraining order because the police had not served it a copy upon him yet – but rather read the terms of the order to him over the phone. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have actual knowledge that the order contained a “no-contact” provision – but the Defendant’s understanding was that the order was to refrain from abuse.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue Violation of Restraining Order charge against his client.
Commonwealth v. M.R. – Taunton District Court
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
Client was charged with Negligent Operation stemming from an incident on August 14, 2014 in which a State Trooper observed his Mustang and another vehicle (Toyota) traveling northbound on Route 495. While the two vehicles were traveling on this major highway, the passenger in the Mustang and the operator of the Toyota were attempting to pass an object (business card) between the two vehicles by traveling side-by-side and having the parties reach their hands out the window. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss arguing that his client was entitled to dismissal of the criminal complaint because he was denied the opportunity of having a hearing before the clerk-magistrate.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed upon court costs.