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.

Commonwealth v. G.K. – Fall River District Court

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.

Commonwealth v. J.B. – Brockton Superior Court

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.

Commonwealth v. W.C. – Stoughton District Court

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.

Case Results