Case Results
Commonwealth v. W.L. – Brockton District Court
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: DISMISSED
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: DISMISSED
Client, a retiree, was accused of posting nasty, damaging, and vulgar comments about two victims on Craig’s List on multiple occasions causing the victims to suffer emotional distress. An administrative subpoena to Craig’s List linked the client’s IP address to the postings. Defendant admitted to police that he posted the comments about the victims.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinces clerk-magistrate not to issue the harassment charges against his client.
Commonwealth v. S.F. – Taunton District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED upon MOTION
Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery upon the alleged victim stemming from an incident at a bar in Easton, Massachusetts in which the defendant allegedly punched the alleged victim in the face. A seasoned Easton police officer investigated the incident and interviewed the defendant and the alleged victim. The police officer determined that the defendant’s version of events at the bar was more credible than the alleged victim’s version. A clerk’s hearing was conducted on the criminal complaint against the defendant for Assault & Battery. At the clerk’s hearing, the magistrate decided not to issue any criminal complaint and advised the parties not to contact each other any further. The alleged victim was dissatisfied with the clerk’s decision and filed a private application for criminal complaint against the defendant for Assault & Battery for punching him in the face at the bar. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Noonan argued that the Easton Police did not find the alleged victim’s version of the events at the bar to be credible. Defendant’s version to police was that the alleged victim punched him in the face, not the other way around. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim was filing this private criminal complaint in retaliation against the defendant because they had a contentious and hostile relationship as neighbors. Prior to the alleged incident in the bar, defendant contacted police and reported that the alleged victim (his neighbor) was spying on him and defendant’s wife with a video camera. Defendant also contacted police, prior to the incident at the bar, and reported that the defendant was posting signs on his property threatening the defendant and his wife. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim was not credible and was abusing the court process by filing this private application for criminal complaint. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the alleged victim had 44 entries on his criminal record, mostly for violent offenses, such as: Stalking, Assault & Battery, and Violation of Restraining Orders. Conversely, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client had never been arrested or charged with a crime in his life.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaint charging defendant with Assault & Battery was allowed, and the criminal complaint was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. D.C. – Brockton Superior Court
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.
Commonwealth v. C.B. – Brockton District Court
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.
Commonwealth v. R.C. – Commonwealth v. M.C. – Taunton District Court
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.
Commonwealth v. E.P. – Wrentham District Court
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.
Commonwealth v. K.A. – Taunton District Court
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.
Commonwealth v. B.G. – West Roxbury District Court
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.