Case Results
Commonwealth v. R.A. – Wrentham District Court
VIOLATION of 209A ORDER: DISMISSED
Defendant’s ex-wife had a restraining order against him. She went to see her son’s basketball game at Millis High School where she observed the Defendant. She motioned at the Defendant to leave the building but he refused. The restraining order prohibited the Defendant from having contact with his wife and to stay a certain distance away from his wife. In the event of incidental contact, the Defendant is legally required to promptly leave the scene. After the basketball game, the alleged victim went directly to the police station to report the violation. At a clerk-magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was at the high school purchasing tickets for his common law wife and other children for an unrelated school event. Attorney Noonan presented a witness statement indicating that the Defendant was purchasing the tickets with his other children and that he immediately left the premises upon recognizing his ex-wife.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Violation of Restraining Order charge dismissed.
Commonwealth v. G.C. – Suffolk Superior Court
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT-MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI
During the night of December 8, 2001, William Angelesco went to the Squires Lounge in Revere and allegedly killed on Peter DeVito (a strip club manager) by shooting him in the head and abdomen with a semi-automatic pistol. Prosecutors alleged that William Angelesco shot Peter DeVito at close range inside the entrance of the crowded Squire’s Lounge in retaliation because Angelesco blamed Mr. DeVito for roughing him up and having him tossed out of Centerfolds strip club where DeVito had been the manager. Angelesco happened to run into DeVito at the Revere Club where he allegedly shot him with a 9mm pistol in front of more than 100 patrons. Prior to the alleged murder, Mr. Angelesco and the Defendant worked together running an illegal gambling operation, allegedly. The morning after the alleged murder, the Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Angelesco went to the Defendant’s home. The Commonwealth alleged that the Defendant assisted Mr. Angelesco in avoiding arrest by making his vehicle accessible to Mr. Angelesco. With the Defendant’s assistance, Mr. Angelesco was able to leave the Boston area and avoid capture. During Mr. Angelesco’s absence, Defendant allegedly provided spending money to Angelesco’s wife. The Commonwealth sought to have the Defendant testify against Mr. Angelesco at the Grand Jury but the Defendant refused on Fifth Amendment grounds. William Angelesco was charged with the murder of Peter DeVito and the Commonwealth sought to charge William Angelesco and the Defendant together. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Sever the Defendant’s case from William Angelesco’s case, which was allowed. Attorney Robert Sheketoff defended and successfully acquitted Mr. Angelesco of murder. Attorney Sheketoff established that there were conflicting eyewitness accounts of the shooter. Some witnesses described the shooter as having blond hair and one witness described the shooter as having a mustache when William Angelesco had black hair and was clean shaven. Some witnesses described the shooter as wearing a hood, some described him as wearing a skully cap, and some described him as wearing a baseball cap. Although Mr. Angelesco’s two cousins offered incriminating grand jury testimony against him, Attorney Sheketoff established that the witnesses had credibility problems – one of them having bipolar depression and the other having serious drug problems.
Result: After William Angelesco was acquitted of murder, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi against the Defendant for being an accessory after the fact to murder.
Commonwealth v. M.P.L. – Norfolk Superior Court
ATTEMPTED MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT with INTENT TO MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON PROBATION
CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON: PROBATION
ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT AND BATTERY: NOLLE PROSEQUI
On July 12, 2003, Massachusetts State Police and Quincy Police were dispatched to a fight in progress involving knives and guns on Quincy Shore Drive in Quincy. Quincy Police immediately called for an ambulance for at least one stabbing victim. The victim had been stabbed in the stomach and stabbed at least six times in the back. Several witness (with identical accounts) told police that they actually witnessed the assault and stabbing. Once witness observed the subject pull out a knife and “flick” it open. The witnesses stated that the victim was walking along the sea wall when a group of black males approached and words were exchanged. Witnesses stated that a tall black male wearing a red t-shirt took something from his pocket, flick it open, and quickly advanced on the victim. This black male had the victim in a “bear hug” over the sea wall and the witnesses observed the black male stabbing the victim in the back and they could clearly see the handle of the knife. The victim yelled that he had been stabbed. Two other black males (one wearing a Rams football jersey and the other wearing a blue shirt and a black cap) held back the victim’s friends allowing the suspect to flee the scene. The three black males were detained at the Clam Shop. All seven witnesses provided written statements. The victim told police that the tall black male in the red t-shirt stabbed him several times in the back and once in the stomach. Police spoke with Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s client at the Clam Shop. The client was described as a black male, tall, wearing a red t-shirt, and he had been covered with blood and police recovered a knife on his person. The second black party had a silver box-cutter and a bottle of Brandy on his person. The third black male also had a bottle of Brandy on his person. Photographs were taken of all three black suspects. In addition, the victim’s friends identified the Defendant as the party stabbing the victim and fleeing the scene. The victim identified the Defendant as the person who stabbed him. The victim testified before the Grand Jury that the Defendant stabbed him once in the stomach and six times in the back. Before the Grand Jury, the victim lifted his shirt and showed the jurors one stab wound to the stomach and six stab wounds to his back. The District Attorney was requesting that the Defendant serve a minimum of two years in prison.
Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained a medical doctor to review the victim’s medical records. The medical doctor noted that there was no mention in the medical records as to the depth of the wounds sustained by the victim. Based upon his review of the medical records, the doctor found that the wounds did not penetrate any further than skin level. The doctor found that the wounds were superficial in nature and not viewed as serious by the medical staff. The victim was discharged from the hospital within 12 hours of admission showing that the medical staff was not concerned of the chance of any underlying serious injury. The doctor reviewed photographs of the injuries and described the wounds as “scratches.” The doctor opined that the victim’s injuries were actually consistent with the Defendant using the knife in self-defense against a violent aggressor. In addition, the doctor observed that the toxicology tests of the victim showed an elevated alcohol level. A copy of the medical doctor’s written report of his review of the victim’s medical records was provided to the Commonwealth.
Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained a private investigator to interview a member of the Defendant’s party that was involved in the incident. This witness stated his party and the alleged victim’s party passed each other on the sea wall. This witness stated that as the groups passed each other the alleged victim threw his shoulder and hit the witness. The witness was pretty mad and said to the alleged victim, “What’s your fucking problem?” At that point, the alleged victim began swearing, making a scene, and putting his hands up into a fighting position. The witnesses group had already been walking down the sea wall when they heard the alleged victim swearing at the witness and making a scene. They stopped and turned around when they heard the alleged victim swearing at the witness. The witness stated that he smelled alcohol on the victim and thought he was either drunk or on drugs because he was out of control. The witness stated that the victim took off his shirt, threw it on the sidewalk, and was screaming that he wanted to fight. At this point, the Defendant stepped toward the alleged victim. During this time, the alleged victim raised his hands in a fighting position and said “let’s fight” or “let’s get it on.” The witness stated that the Defendant didn’t say a word until the alleged victim said to him, “Niggers want to fight too. I’ll fight all your nigger friends.” At this point, the witness’s group began yelling back at the alleged victim. The alleged victim then called the witness “a nigger lover.” The alleged victim called the Defendant a “nigger,” got in his face, and threw the first punch, swinging at the Defendant. The alleged victim got the Defendant in a headlock and began punching him in the head numerous times. During the fight, the alleged victim placed the Defendant in a chokehold. After the struggle, the witness heard the alleged victim say, “Nigger stabbed me.” The alleged victim then walked away with his friends unassisted and did not appear to be hurt or injured. The Defendant had a gash on his arm from hitting the sea wall during the struggle. As they left and walked away, the witness observed approximately 25-30 kids being led by the alleged victim walking down the sidewalk toward them and the alleged victim was calling them “Niggers.” The alleged victim’s group was armed with weapons, bats, sticks, pipes, 2×4’s, etc. At this point, the Defendant’s group fled. Once the police came, the alleged victim’s group dispersed and ran away. The witness claimed that the alleged victim was the aggressor, he was out of control, he was intoxicated, he was calling everyone “niggers,” he threw the first punch and placed the Defendant in a chokehold and that the Defendant was acting in self-defense. There were also two other female witnesses who could corroborate this version of events.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the District Attorney’s Office to Nolle Pross 4 of the 6 indictments. With respect to Indictment #3, Defendant was found Guilty and sentenced to two years in the house of correction suspended for three years and with respect to Indictment #4 the judge sentenced him to three years straight probation. The Commonwealth was pushing for two years committed time and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to secure a strictly probationary sentence for his client on very serious charges.
Commonwealth v. R.M. – Stoughton District Court
STATUTORY RAPE: NOLLE PROSEQUI
STATUTORY RAPE: NOLLE PROSEQUI
On March 16, 2001, the alleged victim #1 came into the Stoughton Police Station and reported that her ex-boyfriend (defendant) had assaulted her several times for not performing oral sex on him and that the Defendant slapped her and she sustained bruises. Alleged victim #1 stated that she had a sexual relationship with the Defendant when she was 14 years-old and he was 17 years-old. She stated that they had sexual intercourse more than five times, she performed oral sex on him, and she described other sexual acts that they engaged in. Alleged victim #1 stated that she reported the abuse because her friend (alleged victim #2) was recently raped by the Defendant.
On April 23, 2001, Stoughton Police interviewed victim #2 who stated that one occasion she was over her girlfriend’s house when the Defendant and his friend came over. She reported that the Defendant got into bed with her and he began to touch her breasts over her t-shirt and she told him not to touch her. She stated that the Defendant put his hand down the front of her pants under her underwear and inserted his fingers into her vagina and she kept telling him to stop it and to get off of her. The Defendant hen pulled her onto her back and pulled down her pants and underwear and he inserted his penis into her vagina for approximately 10 minutes. Victim #2 states that the Defendant took her to his house against her will. At his house, she states that the Defendant forced her to perform oral sex on him and then had vaginal intercourse with her for approximately 10 minutes and he ejaculated on her stomach.
Through pretrial discovery and investigation, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had psychological problems and memory loss that seriously undermined her credibility. Attorney Noonan filed Motions demanding that the District Attorney’s Office produce notes taken by the Assistant District Attorney’s and Victim Witness Advocates of their interviews with the alleged victim, as they were exculpatory. The District Attorney’s Office refused to produce their notes. Because of the alleged victim’s psychological problems, she could not recall certain key things due to memory loss. Attorney Noonan convinced the District Attorney’s Office to Nolle Pross the case because they did not have a good faith basis to go forward due to the alleged victim’s psychological issues, her memory loss, and the lateness of her disclosure to police. At the time, Defendant was serving his country in the United States Navy.
At the hearing in which the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Pross, Attorney Noonan demanded that the court enter an order compelling the Commonwealth to preserve all their notes concerning their interviews with the alleged victim, as they were extremely exculpatory. Attorney Noonan wanted to create a record of the alleged victim’s bad credibility in the event that the Commonwealth decided years later to prosecute the case years later. The Court declined the request but Attorney Noonan created a record in open to protect his client’s rights in the event of any future prosecution.
Result: Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi on Statutory Rape charges, which means that the indictment is withdrawn – meaning that if circumstances change, a prosecution could be initiated again.
Commonwealth v. K.C. – Wrentham District Court
OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOLLE PROSEQUI
Defendant was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. Defendant was given a breath test to determine his blood alcohol content. The results of the breath test showed that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was in excess of the legal limit. The Commonwealth alleged that the arresting officer administered the breath test. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan interviewed the arresting officer and the arresting officer informed him that he did not administer the breath test to the defendant. The arresting officer informed Attorney Noonan that a different officer administered the breath test. Attorney Noonan discovered that the other officer was not certified to administer breath tests. Later, the arresting officer retracted his statement and said that he was actually the one who administered the breath test. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress the Results of the Breath Test and subpoenaed the Shift Supervisor on duty at the time of the defendant’s breath test. As a shift supervisor, this sergeant would be in a position to testify as to which officer administered the breath test, as all arrests and prisoner bookings were run by him.
It was later learned that the supervising officer was placed on administrative leave and terminated by the police department. The District Attorney’s Office never informed Attorney Noonan that the shift supervisor had been terminated. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan subpoenaed the shift supervisor to appear at the Trial but the shift supervisor did not appear. Attorney Noonan learned that the Commonwealth instructed the shift supervisor not to appear to any trials or court proceedings in which he was involved because he was no longer employed by the police department. As a result, the supervising officer did not appear at trial even though he was subpoenaed by Attorney Noonan.
Result: At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved to dismiss the charges arguing: the Commonwealth failed to comply with discovery orders; the Commonwealth violated his client’s right to a speedy trial, and key witnesses failed to appear pursuant to Attorney Noonan’s subpoenas. In the alternative, Attorney Noonan moved to exclude the results of the breath test because the evidence showed that the officer who administered the breath test was not properly certified. At trial, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi on all the charges.
Commonwealth v. S.K. – Brockton District Court
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
On May 7, 1999, there was a large party in the woods behind the MSPCA in Brockton. There were many youths drinking and partying in the woods. There were approximately 80 people in attendance at the party. The alleged victim, a party goer, told police that he was beat up and “stomped on” in the woods at the party. The alleged victim told police that he was kicked and punched several times. The alleged victim provided the names of his attackers, including the Defendant’s name. The beating was vicious, violent, and severe. The alleged victim’s eye was permanently disfigured in the attack. Several of the co-defendants were charged with Mayhem, as there was evidence that the alleged victim’s eye was “put out or destroyed.” Records showed that the alleged victim’s vision, after the assault, was substantially reduced. The alleged victim identified the Defendant to police as one of the people kicking him while he was on the ground.
Attorney Gerald J. Noonan located many eyewitnesses to the attack in the woods. One eyewitness stated that she observed three people beating the alleged victim and kicking him while he was on the ground. This eyewitness did not see the Defendant beating, punching, or kicking the alleged victim. Another eyewitness stated that he observed several people beating the alleged victim. This eyewitness did not see the Defendant beating, punching or kicking the Defendant. Attorney Noonan interviewed 4 other witnesses who provided exculpatory information. Attorney Noonan obtained records showing that the alleged victim’s eyesight, without glasses, was extremely poor, which affected his ability to positively identify the Defendant as one of his attackers.
Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered information that the alleged victim was in possession of a knife and that he purportedly used the knife during the altercation. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan also discovered a taped telephone call in which the alleged victim recanted his statement to police. At trial, Attorney Noonan severed his client’s case from the three other co-defendants’ cases, as a joint trial of all four defendants would prejudice his client. Attorney Noonan’s client was a full-time student at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and had no prior criminal record.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdict on violent felony charge against Mass. Maritime Academy student with no criminal record.
Commonwealth v. W.J. – Brockton Superior Court
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.
Commonwealth v. M.M. – Brockton Superior Court
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.
Commonwealth v. Frantzy E. Therilus – Brockton Superior Court Docket No.: 94918-19
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.