Result

AFTER ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN PRESENTS HIS CASE, CLERK-MAGISTRATE DECLINES TO ISSUE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR VIOLATING A PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER FROM HIS EX-GIRLFRIEND

The alleged victim had a permanent Abuse Prevention Restraining Order (c. 209A) against the Defendant, her ex-boyfriend. She reported that she saw the Defendant standing directly across the street from her apartment. She stated that he was walking around and acting suspicious. She was 100% that it was the Defendant and described his clothing. When she observed the Defendant, she immediately called the police but nobody came to her house, so she went to the police soon thereafter. One of the terms of the restraining order orders the Defendant to stay at least 100 yards from the victim.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and, although she claims to have called the police to report the defendant’s alleged violation of the restraining, there was no record of her call. Attorney elicited from the police officer that any report for a violation of a restraining order is given priority and an officer would have been dispatched. She claimed to have observed the Defendant from the first floor window to the apartment building but Attorney Noonan introduced a photo showing that there is no first floor window for the apartment. On cross-examination, she could not recall what type of clothing the Defendant was supposedly wearing. Attorney Noonan argued that it was impossible (or impractical) for the alleged victim to have seen and positively identified the Defendant from her conflicting location in the apartment especially since it was dark outside. The alleged victim had a motive because she made the allegation to the police after seeing some posts on the Defendant’s Facebook page, which upset her. She claimed that the Defendant’s Facebook posts were a violation of the restraining order but the police did not agree with her. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint.

AT TRIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DISMISSES CASE AFTER THE TRIAL JUDGE RULES THAT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CAN INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE ENTRAPPED HIS CLIENT INTO COMITTING THE CRIME

Defendant was in a relationship with a girlfriend and they had a baby together. Defendant was originally from Florida but he moved to his girlfriend’s apartment in Plymouth where they raised their baby together. Defendant and his girlfriend were not getting along and they were arguing a lot. Defendant told his girlfriend that he was going to take the baby down to the Florida for a week to visit his family. The girlfriend agreed. The girlfriend called the Defendant several times but he did not answer. The girlfriend called the Plymouth Police to report that the Defendant had taken the baby to Florida and he was not answering her calls. The Police told the girlfriend that the Defendant had not committed any crime because there were no court orders in effect prohibiting the Defendant from taking the child. The Police instructed the girlfriend to obtain a restraining order (“RO”) against the Defendant. The girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) against the Defendant. The RO ordered the Defendant to return the child to the girlfriend in Massachusetts. The RO also ordered the Defendant not to contact his girlfriend. After obtaining the RO, the girlfriend went to the Police Station with the RO paperwork. The police officer stated that he called the Defendant, on a recorded line, and advised him of the RO and the provision, which prohibited him from contacting his girlfriend. The next day, the girlfriend went to the police station to report that the Defendant called her phone in violation of the RO. As a result of this one phone call to the girlfriend, Defendant was charged with Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A.). When the Defendant returned to Massachusetts, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan opposed the issuance of the RO and cross-examined the girlfriend. Although the RO was extended, Attorney Noonan obtained valuable evidence on his cross-examination of the girlfriend, which he sought to introduce at the criminal trial.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to introduce evidence that the Police entrapped the Defendant into committing the crime. Specifically, the police induced the Defendant to call his girlfriend, which was a violation of the RO. A hearing was held to determine whether the trial judge would allow Attorney Noonan to introduce his entrapment evidence. Attorney Noonan offered the following evidence of entrapment: First, at the RO hearing, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the girlfriend where she testified, under oath, that the Police instructed her to call and text the Defendant, which would induce a response from the Defendant, which the police could use to charge him with the crime of violating the RO. In particular, the girlfriend testified that the police officer stood right next to her and was telling her exactly what to say to the Defendant. The police officer was telling exactly what to say in her text messages to the Defendant. The police officer told her to make it sound like she the police were not telling her what to say. Clearly, the police were instructing the girlfriend and were using her as a tool to entrap the Defendant into calling her back. Second, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order for the girlfriend’s phone records, which contained overwhelming evidence that the police were using the girlfriend to the entrap the Defendant. Specifically, the phone records showed that the girlfriend and police exchanged 21 phone calls and they spoke for a total of 90 minutes. The phone records showed that the police would call the girlfriend, and right after she spoke to the police, the girlfriend would call the Defendant. Third, Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the girlfriend had contacted the Defendant a total of 44 times by phone, text, and e-mail – but the Defendant did not take the bait and call her back. It was only after the girlfriend’s persistent and relentless onslaught of communications to the defendant, at the instruction of police, that the Defendant finally caved in and took the bait and called her back. Even when the girlfriend went into court to modify the RO to permit the Defendant to contact her, the Defendant still didn’t contact her. Finally, Attorney Noonan discovered that the police officer did not call the Defendant on a recorded line to advise him of the RO, even though the officer wrote in his report that he recorded the call with the Defendant. The District Attorney’s Office objected to Attorney Noonan’s proposed entrapment evidence but, after a hearing, the trial judge ruled that the entrapment evidence would come in at trial. The District Attorney’s Office then dismissed the case.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST BRIDGEWATER MAN DISMISSED FOR ALLEGEDLY HITTING THE VICTIM IN THE FACE CAUSING A FRESH LACERATION, PUSHING THE VICTIM INTO A MIRROR THAT SHATTERED, AND THROWING THE VICTIM TO THE FLOOR

Bridgewater Police were dispatched to a residence for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police spoke with the alleged victim who told police that, earlier in the night, the Defendant hit him in the face with an open hand. Later in the evening, when they returned to their apartment, the Defendant shoved the alleged victim against a large mirror causing the glass to shatter. Police took photos of the shattered glass. Police observed a fresh laceration to the victim’s right cheek. There was a witness who was in the apartment when the incident occurred. The witness stated that he went outside to smoke a cigarette and heard argument in the apartment. When he returned, the victim told the witness that the Defendant had thrown him to the ground.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had his investigator interview the alleged victim who provided the defense with a typed statement indicating that he pushed the Defendant numerous times, he kept the fight going, and he said some harsh words to the Defendant. He stated that he did not sustain any injuries and he wanted the case dismissed. As for the witness, it did not appear as though he witnessed the actual altercation but arrived after the fact. At trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS FELONY CONVICTION FOR BREAKING & ENTERING AGAINST TRUCK DRIVER VACATED AND THROWN OUT.

Defendant is a 48 year-old commercial truck driver, a happily married man, and a loving father. Defendant applied for a License to Carry Firearms (LTC). However, the police department denied his application for an LTC because he had a felony conviction on his record. Defendant was shocked to hear that he had a felony conviction. Defendant obtained a copy of his criminal record, which showed that he had been convicted of Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime with the Intent to Commit a Felony when he was 14 years-old. He was convicted in 1984. Defendant knew he had a juvenile case when he was really young but did not know he had been convicted of a felony. Defendant has no other criminal record. Defendant retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to vacate his felony conviction.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and learned that the felony Breaking & Entering charge stemmed from an incident when the Defendant, at age 14, went into a vacant home with a friend to smoke a cigarette. A neighbor reported seeing people inside the unoccupied home and the Defendant was later arrested. This was a home in the Defendant’s neighborhood that kids would use as a cut through yard. Kids cut through the yard because no one was living there. Attorney Noonan obtained records for the residence showing that it had been unoccupied at the time of the offense. Attorney Noonan sent a written request to the District Attorney’s Office requesting to vacate the conviction arguing that his client did not have the intent to commit the felony because he merely went into the unoccupied house with a friend to smoke a cigarette. His only intent was to commit a Trespass. They did not steal anything from the house. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with evidence regarding his client’s background as a hard-working guy, law-abiding citizen, and family man and the collateral consequences this old felony conviction has caused. The District Attorney’s Office reviewed the case. The DA’s Office was very reasonable and agreed to vacate the Defendant’s felony conviction. Today, the conviction was thrown out.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES AGAINST UBER DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant, an Uber driver from Brockton, was charged in the Brockton District Court with Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A). Defendant’s girlfriend called 911. In the 911 call, you can hear a female screaming “Stop!” “Leave me alone!” There is another party in the background of the call who she accuses of attacking her. During the 18-minute 911 call, you can hear the female yelling and arguing with the other party. She whispers to the 911 operator, “Hurry.” Police are sent to the Defendant’s apartment. The police found a female party hiding in the bedroom. She identified herself as the 911 caller. She tells police that the Defendant was intoxicated and angry with her. She states that the Defendant grabbed her arm and started throwing anything he could find at her. She was struck a piece of furniture. Defendant told police that they simply had a verbal argument. Police arrested the Defendant.

Result: At the first trial date, the alleged victim did not appear in court. The prosecutor sought to prove the case without the alleged victim’s testimony. In particular, the prosecutor sought to introduce the 911 call into evidence and to call the police officers who investigated the case. The trial was continued due to court congestion. On the second trial date, the alleged victim did not appear. The prosecutor asked Attorney Noonan if he would accept a plea deal, which involved his client admitting to the charges but Attorney Noonan rejected the offer. Again, the Commonwealth sought to introduce the 911 call and attempt to prove the case without the alleged victim’s testimony. However, the prosecutor was unable to get the police dispatcher to come into court in order to admit the 911 tape. The Commonwealth was unable to go forward. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the Court to dismiss the charges. The charges were then dismissed.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN AND PATRICK J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND RECKLESS OPERATION CASE AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)) and Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The prosecution introduced the following evidence at trial: A Westwood Police Officer was on patrol in the parking lot of the Marriot Hotel when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving around the parking lot and driving around in circles with no headlights. The officer followed the vehicle, as it exited the parking lot still with no headlights on. The vehicle went through a stop sign without stopping and began to travel the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. The prosecution argued that the Defendant could have killed or seriously injured someone by traveling the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. When the officer approached the vehicle, he observed a rear seat passenger drinking out of a Corona beer bottle. There were three passengers in the car. A search of the car revealed an open Corona beer bottle and a nearly empty Corona beer bottle in the backseat. The prosecution introduced photos of the beer bottles for the jury. The officer asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle and to perform field sobriety tests. On the first test, the One-Leg Stand test, the officer testified that the Defendant almost hopped into the street. The officer had to terminate the test because he was concerned for the Defendant’s safety. On the next test, the 9 Step Walk and Turn, the Defendant repeatedly told the officer that he felt pressured into performing the test. The officer then administered the Alphabet test and testified that the Defendant recited the letter “z” out of order. The officer testified that the Defendant continuously swayed throughout his encounter with him. The officer testified that the Defendant swayed back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” The officer testified that the Defendant had a “strong odor” of alcohol on his breath. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was “extremely slurred” and that he had bloodshot eyes.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the police officer for over an hour and attacked his credibility. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer did not ask the Defendant if he had any physical or medical conditions prior to administering the field sobriety tests. Officers are taught and trained to ask someone if they have any physical or medical conditions because those factors may affect their performance on the field sobriety tests. In this case, Defendant had a pinched nerve in his back from a prior car accident, which caused numbness in his left leg. Although the arresting officer testified that the Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, a back-up officer testified that the Defendant did not have a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The most crucial piece of evidence was the booking video, which served to discredit the officer’s testimony. In his closing argument, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that Defendant appeared sober on the video and did not exhibit the signs of intoxication, as testified to by the police officer. On the video, Defendant was not swaying back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” There was nothing on the video to substantiate the officer’s testimony that the Defendant’s balance was so bad that he almost hopped into the street. The officer testified that he had to physically assist the Defendant out of the police cruiser and escort him into the police station. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the video told a completely different story. Specifically, the video showed the Defendant getting out of the police cruiser, with no assistance from anyone and with no difficulty, even though he had both arms handcuffed behind his back. Defendant walked into the police station with perfect gait and without any assistance. Attorney Noonan highlighted certain portions of the video, which demonstrated the Defendant’s sobriety. Although the Defendant drove the wrong way down the street, he immediately apologized to the officer and admitted that he made a mistake. After a two-day trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on all charges.

AT TRIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OFFERS TO DISMISS CRIMINAL CHARGE OF VIOLATING A HARASSMENT ORDER AGAINST BRAINTREE MAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD IF HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE FOR 8 MONTHS

Defendant, a happily married man in his mid-fifties with no criminal record, had a longstanding feud with his neighbors, a father, mother, and their adult son, who live across the street. In December 2017, the father and mother obtained a Harassment Prevention Order (“HPO”) (G.L. c. 258E) against the Defendant for one-year alleging that he threatened to beat them up, shouted vulgarities at them, and waved a leaf blower at them. After this HPO was issued, Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately filed a Motion to Reconsider the judge’s decision in issuing the order, which was denied after a hearing. Attorney Noonan filed an appeal. After the HPO issued, Defendant was arrested, several days later, and charged with Violation of a Harassment Prevention Order (G.L. c. 258E, §9). The alleged victim claimed that, several days after getting the harassment order, Defendant threatened to beat him up. In December 2018, the alleged victims sought a one-year extension of the HPO. This time, Attorney Noonan was able to oppose the HPO and cross-examine the alleged victims under oath. Even though the judge extended the HPO for another year, Attorney Noonan obtained valuable evidence at the hearing to use in defense of the criminal charge. In particular, Attorney Noonan elicited evidence that, back in 2012, the three alleged victims (mother, father, and their son) attacked him, beat him, and sent him to the hospital with serious injuries. In particular, the father punched the defendant in the face sending him to the ground. The mother retrieved a wooden club from the house and handed it to the father who proceeded to beat the Defendant with hit, as the Defendant was on the ground. The adult son joined in and struck the Defendant, as he was on the ground. Attorney Noonan obtained photographs of the wooden club. As a result of the violent attack, Defendant went to the hospital with injuries, including a laceration to his forehead (requiring 6 sutures), contusions to the chest, arm, and back, and a blunt injury to his finger (which was placed in a splint).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to introduce evidence that the three alleged victims had brutally attacked his client back in 2012. Attorney Noonan was prepared with photos of the wooden club that was used to beat his client, photos of the Defendant’s injuries, witnesses, and certified medical records of his client’s injuries. Attorney Noonan’s proposed evidence posed a serious problem for the alleged victims because they could potentially incriminate themselves if they were to testify at trial giving them what is known as a Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. Prior to the trial commencing, the District Attorney’s Office offered to dismiss the criminal charge, so long as the client abides by the existing HPO, which is in effect until December of 2020.

THE DEFENSE TEAM OF PATRICK J. NOONAN AND BRENDAN J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON CHARGES OF RAPE OF CHILD, UNNATURAL AND LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD, DISSEMINATION OF OBSCENE MATTER TO A MINOR, AND CHILD ENTICEMENT.

Defendant, an 81 year-old man from Hanover, was indicted by a Plymouth County Grand Jury on the following criminal offenses: (1) Rape of Child – Use of Force (G.L. c. 265, §22A), (2) Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor (G.L. c. 272, §28), (3) Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16 (G.L. c. 272, §35A), (4) Enticement of a Child under 16 (G.L. c. 265, §26C), and (5) Enticement of a Child under 16.

The Defendant was facing a life sentence or the possibility of a very severe and long sentence. The crime of Rape of Child carries a sentence of life in state prison. The crimes of Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of a Child under 16, all carry a sentence of 5 years in state prison.

Defendant resided by himself in a home in Hanover. In May of 2016, Defendant asked his daughter and step-daughter to move into his house because he needed help around the house and help with other things. The daughters discovered stacks of handwritten notes in his house of pornographic websites, including many websites for child pornography. They searched the Defendant’s electronic devices (his iPhone, iPad, and Laptop) and discovered that his devices contained a lot of pornographic material. The daughters also noticed that a young, teenaged boy would come over to the house and do chores for the Defendant. They noticed that the Defendant would frequently provide the young teenage boy with car rides. Based on their discovery of the child pornography websites, the daughters were very concerned that the Defendant was engaging in sexual behavior with the boy. The daughters confronted the Defendant who admitted to them that he had sex with the boy on 4-5 occasions and would pay the boy for sexual favors. Defendant also stated that he and the boy almost engaged in Bestiality with a dog but the dog was too jumpy, so they couldn’t do it. The daughters decided that they needed to get the Defendant’s confession on tape, so they secretly recorded a conversation with Defendant. In this recorded conversation, the daughters spoke to the Defendant on the back porch of his home. The daughter used her cell phone, which she discretely held in her hand, to record the conversation. In the recorded conversation, the Defendant admitted to having sex with the boy on 4-5 occasions and he admitted that he would pay the boy for sexual favors. After obtaining his confession, the daughters took the Defendant’s electronic devices (his iPhone, iPad, and Laptop) from his home and brought them to the police department. At the police department, the daughters and officers searched the electronic devices. Later on, police obtained search warrants for the Defendant’s devices. A search of the Defendant’s devices revealed that word searches for “porn” returned over 7,000 hits, “erotica” returned over 8,000 hits, and “bestiality” returned over 500 hits. Police then contacted the teenage boy and had him come into the police station for an interview. Several weeks later, the boy was interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office. In his interview, the boy stated that the Defendant paid him $300 for the Defendant to perform oral sex on the boy. The boy stated that the Defendant performed oral sex on him and paid him for it. The boy stated that the incident of oral sex occurred in December of 2014 when the boy was 15 years old. The boy stated that the Defendant showed him Bestiality and he had asked the boy to provide him with child pornography. The boy stated that the Defendant would pay him money in exchange for the boy providing the Defendant with pornographic websites that were to the Defendant’s liking. In his interview, the boy mentioned that he (the boy) would bring his female friend over to the Defendant’s home and the Defendant would give them car rides. The boy was three months older than the female. The police and District Attorney’s Office interviewed the female. The female stated that she would go over the Defendant’s home during her freshman year of high school when she was around 14 years or older. The female stated that the Defendant asked her to provide him with naked pictures of herself and her friends. Defendant specifically asked her for butt, boob, and pussy pictures. The female didn’t actually provide the Defendant with naked pictures of herself or her friends. Instead, she would find naked pictures of women online. The female would tell the Defendant that the naked pictures were of herself when they were actually women online. The female stated that the Defendant would ask her and the boy to tell him sex stories of their sexual experiences. The female would make up sex stories to tell the Defendant. The female stated that the Defendant would buy them alcohol and cigarettes.

Result: Defendant was represented by Attorneys Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. The Defendant was charged with three crimes (Rape of Child – Use of Force, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of Child under 16) – based on the same incident of oral sex with the boy. A necessary element for these offenses against the boy requires proof that the boy was under the age of 16. After an excellent cross-examination of the boy, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the incident of oral sex occurred toward the end of the boy’s relationship with the Defendant, when the boy was over the age of 16. Through his cross-examination of the female victim, Attorney Noonan was able to solidify that the incident of oral sex occurred when the boy was over the age of 16. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan showed the jurors a Chart, which outlined the timeline of events, and proved that the incident of oral sex occurred when the boy was over the age of 16. However, the jury could still find the Defendant guilty of Rape of Child – Use of Force if they found that the oral sex was done by force or without the boy’s consent. Through a very effective cross-examination of the boy, Attorney Noonan established that the oral sex was consensual. The jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of Rape of Child – Use of Force, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of Child under 16 because our defense team was able to prove that the oral sex was consensual and the boy was over the age of 16. Defendant was still charged with Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor (the boy) and a minor is defined as a person under the age of 18. The evidence at trial showed that the boy, at all times during his relationship with the Defendant, was under the age of 18. The charge of Dissemination of Harmful Matter to the boy was based on the Commonwealth’s allegations that the Defendant showed the boy Bestiality and Child Pornography. There was no evidence at trial that the Defendant showed the boy Child Pornography. However, the boy did testify that the Defendant would ask the boy to provide him with the names of Bestiality websites. The boy would look up Bestiality websites, write down the domain names, and provide the Defendant with those domain names. Attorney Noonan asked the judge to find the Defendant not guilty on the Dissemination charge because the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was legally insufficient. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not show or disseminate Bestiality to the boy because the Defendant merely asked the boy if the boy could provide him with the names of Bestiality websites. There was no evidence of dissemination. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant not guilty of the Dissemination charge. The jury found the Defendant guilty on only one charge, which was Enticement of a Child; the child being the female victim. The Noonan’s moved for the Judge to find the Defendant not guilty of this Child Enticement offense because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proof. The Judge denied the request. While the jury was deliberating, the jury submitted four questions to the judge regarding the Child Enticement charge involving the female victim. The jury’s four questions were all factual questions. There were no answers for the jury’s factual questions because the Commonwealth did not present any evidence that would have answered them. In our opinion, the jury’s four factual questions suggested that the jury had reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, our law firm is appealing the Defendant’s one and only conviction for Child Enticement. This was an enormous victory because our client was facing a life sentence. Due to our client’s advanced age, any jail time would be a life sentence.

Click here to read Enterprise Newspaper Article: “Hanover man, 81, acquitted of most charges in child enticement case.”

AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEYS PATRICK J. NOONAN AND GERALD J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A WALTHAM MAN WHO ALMOST DROVE HIS VEHICLE INTO SOMEBODY’S HOUSE.

Defendant, a self-employed Realtor from Waltham, caused a major car accident in Watertown. Defendant lost control of his vehicle, drove through two sign posts, crashed through a fence and almost drove into the front of somebody’s house. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence. Upon arrival to the car accident in Watertown, a Watertown Police Officer testified to the severity of the crash, which caused significant damage to the Defendant’s vehicle rendering it inoperable and a total loss. The Defendant was immediately uncooperative with police. They asked him to remain in his vehicle but he refused and exited the vehicle. He was described as argumentative. The officer alleged that the Defendant was unable to recall where he was coming from. The Defendant admitted to consuming two or possibly three beers. He had an odor of alcohol on his breath. His speech was slurred. The officer decided to conduct field sobriety tests (FSTs). When walking to the location of the FSTs, Defendant was “extremely unsteady on his feet.” Defendant almost fell to the ground but the officers caught him. Defendant dropped his wallet on the ground. He mumbled to himself and spoke with slurred speech. Defendant was instructed to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn test. However, the Defendant continually interrupted the officer and attempted to start the test, on two occasions, before the officer had an opportunity to finish her instructions. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn test, the officer noted that the Defendant stumbled, did not walk heel to tow, did not count the steps out loud, used his arms for balance, and took the incorrect number of steps. On the One-Leg Stand test, the officer noted that on the Defendant’s first attempt he could only raise his leg for one-second and his body was tipping. On his second attempt, Defendant swayed and almost fell to the ground before the officers caught him. Defendant could not recite the Alphabet. After his arrest, Defendant was booked at the Watertown Police Station. The booking officer testified that he could detect an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant during the booking process. The arresting officer stated that the Defendant was unsteady during booking.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called, as a witness, a police officer from the neighboring town of Belmont to testify. Just minutes prior to the car accident in Watertown (which resulted in the Defendant’s arrest for OUI), Defendant was involved in a minor car accident in the town of Belmont where he rear-ended another vehicle. A Belmont Police Officer investigated the minor car accident in Belmont and interviewed the Defendant. At the conclusion of her investigation, the Belmont Officer gave the Defendant a warning for following too closely and she allowed the Defendant to leave the scene and drive away in his vehicle. Attorney Noonan questioned the Belmont Officer who testified that she did not observe any signs of intoxication by the Defendant and she found that the Defendant was sober. Attorney Noonan established that the accident in Belmont (where the Belmont Officer found him to be sober) occurred just minutes prior to the accident in Watertown. Therefore, just minutes prior to his arrest for OUI-Liquor in Watertown, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that another officer from Belmont found the Defendant to be sober. At the scene of the Watertown car accident, Defendant was evaluated by EMTS prior to the officer administering his FSTs. Defendant refused medical treatment. Attorney Noonan introduced the ambulance report, which showed that the EMTs did not observe any signs that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan also introduced medical records of the Defendant showing that he had chronic medical issues, which could have affected his ability to perform the FSTs. Finally, Attorney Noonan introduced portions of the Defendant’s booking video, which showed evidence of the Defendant’s sobriety. After a two-day jury trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE SEALED FROM ATTORNEY’S RECORD

A self-employed Attorney from Belmont, Massachusetts was charged with Assault and Battery. His girlfriend, the alleged victim, went to the police station and spoke with an officer. Based on the conversation with the officer, the officer decided to charge the Defendant with Assault and Battery. The girlfriend was surprised that the police charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery, as it was never her intention for him to get charged with a crime. She believed that the officer misrepresented what she stated to him. The girlfriend expressed that she wanted the case dismissed. The District Attorney’s Office filed a Nolle Prosequi with the Court, which is a formal notice stating that they will not prosecute the Defendant.

Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he needed his domestic violence charge sealed immediately, as he was very close to being hired for a legal position and he would be denied the job if the employer saw that he had been charged with Assault & Battery. Defendant knew he would be denied the position, even though the case had been Nolle Prossed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s criminal sealed within six (6) days and the client was later hired for the job.