Result

Brockton District Court

CHARGE OF MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM COMMITTED A CRIME BY ILLEGALLY RECORDING A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT.

The alleged victim called the police to report that the Defendant damaged her car; scratching the car and carving a derogatory word on the car. Police came to the scene and observed the damage. The alleged victim reported to the police that she (alleged victim) had audiotaped a telephone conversation wherein the Defendant admitted to damaging the car. In the recording, the Defendant does not actually admit to causing the damage. Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Malicious Damage to a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §28(a).

Result: Based on the alleged victim’s report to the police in which she stated that she recorded her telephone conversation with the Defendant, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought a criminal complaint against the alleged victim for violating the Wiretapping Statute [under G.L. c. 272, §99], which strictly prohibits the secret electronic recording by a private individual of any oral communication. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the prosecutor that if the alleged victim testifies, she would incriminate herself for violating the wiretapping the statute. After consulting with the alleged victim, the prosecutor stated that the alleged victim would not take the witness stand and the case was dismissed.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN 2ND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, as he had been previously convicted of drunk driving. Defendant was also charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). With a second offense OUI, Defendant was facing stiff penalties, including a two-year suspension of her driver’s license. In this case, Defendant refused the Breathalyzer test. She had previously refused the Breathalyzer test in her prior OUI case, and her driver’s license was suspended for three-years. A Raynham Police Officer was stationed on Route 44 when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling on Route 44 and the Defendant abruptly swerved over a raised median and did a U-turn on Route 44 and started heading in the opposite direction. While following the Defendant, he observed that she grazed construction barrels and swerved over the fog line multiple times. The officer activated his lights to affect a stop, but the Defendant continued driving and got onto the Route 24 onramp. After a quarter-mile, Defendant finally pulled over. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was slurred and she stated that she was coming from “West Bridgewater” and she was going to “West Bridgewater.” Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. She admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. The officer administered a Field Sobriety test known as the One-Leg Stand; the Defendant attempted to perform the test, but later stated that she did not want to perform any tests and she stopped. The officer testified that the Defendant was extremely argumentative, she was swearing at him, and calling him names. During the booking process, Defendant was asked to remove her earrings, which she did. Later on, Defendant did not remember removing her earrings. The officer formed the opinion that she was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to exclude from evidence the fact that the Defendant was instructed to perform the One Leg Stand Test; the Defendant attempted the test, and later stopped performing the test and refused any other tests. Therefore, no evidence was presented at trial regarding any Field Sobriety Tests. Attorney Noonan conducted an effective cross-examination of the police officer and requested a Not Guilty verdict from the Judge. The Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. On the Negligent Operation charge, Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a disposition not resulting in a conviction. After the acquittal, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order to restore her driver’s license. She had been without a driver’s license since her arrest.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST MECHANICAL ENGINEER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Police were dispatched to the scene of an accident in which the client’s vehicle struck a telephone pole. The officer observed that the client’s pupils were constricted, his speech was thick and slow, and his responses were delayed. Defendant admitted to taking Lorazepam and other medications for his anxiety. The client was unsteady on his feet. Two witnesses told police that the Defendant’s vehicle was swerving over the double yellow line several times before swerving into the telephone pole without ever coming to a stop. Police noted that the client has a history of incidents involving prescription medications and alcohol abuse. Client’s wife told the police that he was recently discharged from the hospital and he had recently made suicidal statements. Defendant was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client took a safe driving course and another course known as Brains at Risk. Attorney referenced the client’s impressive resume as a mechanical engineer and his clean driving record. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the client was legally prescribed anxiety medication and he had taken the medication in the proper dosage.

Taunton District Court

CHARGES OF ASSAULT AND MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AGAINST 18 YEAR OLD DEFENDANT DISMISSED UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Defendant is an 18 year-old kid with no prior criminal record. He was residing with his girlfriend, at her parents’ home, when they had an argument and he left the home. The police were called to the girlfriends home in response to a call that the Defendant kicked the front door of the home, and punched a car in the driveway; damaging the property. Defendant was yelling and screaming while causing the property damage. The girlfriend provided police with text messages from the Defendant in which he expressed suicidal ideations. The police located the Defendant; the police sectioned him and brought him to the hospital for treatment. Defendant was charged with Assault on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Malicious Destruction of Property under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested a bench trial. At the first scheduled bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready to prosecute, Attorney Noonan asked for the case to be dismissed, the Commonwealth objected, but the court granted a continuance. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth offered a deal which would require the Defendant to admit guilt, which the Defendant declined. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready, and Attorney Noonan again asked for a dismissal, which the Court denied. Attorney Noonan persuaded the Court to schedule the trial to be heard later in the day. At the second calling of the case, the Commonwealth was unable to go forward and Attorney Noonan’s third request for a dismissal was allowed.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST U.S. POSTAL WORKER FOR THREATENING TO SHOOT HIS GIRLFRIEND’S FATHER DISMISSED AT A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.

The parents of the Defendant’s girlfriend did not like him. The parents believed that the Defendant was abusive to their daughter. The parents claimed that the Defendant beat their daughter with a phone charger. The father went to the Defendant’s home to confront him. The father observed a firearm on the kitchen counter. The father alleged that the Defendant threatened to shoot him with the firearm on the kitchen counter. The father claimed that the Defendant threatened him should the father call the police. As a result, the police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for two counts of Threats to Commit a Crime pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing. The girlfriend’s parents wanted the Defendant charged with the crimes. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the parents’ belief that the Defendant was abusive to their daughter was unfounded. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the girlfriend that the Defendant was never abusive towards her – seriously undermining the abuse complaints by her parents. The parents had an axe to grind against the Defendant. They did not like him and they did not want him dating their daughter and they had a strong motive to have the Defendant charged with a crime. Attorney Noonan attacked the credibility of the parents, and showed that the Defendant never abused their daughter, contrary to their claims. After a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, the complaint was dismissed.

CHARGE OF NEGLIENT OPERATION AND UNLICENSED OPERATION STEMMING FROM ROLL-OVER CRASH ON ROUTE 495 DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Police were dispatched to the scene of a roll-over crash on Route 495. Witnesses called 911 to report that the client’s vehicle was driving erratically, the vehicle lost control, rolling three times, and striking the guardrail. The client told the police that he had a mechanical issue with his vehicle. The client had an expired driver’s license and his vehicle was not inspected. The client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §10), No Inspection Sticker (G.L. c. 90, §20B), and Marked Lanes Violation (G.L. c. 89, §4A). The Defendant was scheduled to be arraigned on the criminal charges in the District Court:

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to dismiss the criminal complaints prior to the Defendant’s arraignment saving his client from having a criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing prior to an arraignment on the charges. When a criminal complaint is dismissed prior to arraignment, and where a criminal complaint is dismissed prior to arraignment at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, the client is not formally charged with a crime and the client will not have a criminal record.

CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST GOVERNMENT WORKER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Fall River Police were dispatched for a report of a stolen firearm. Upon arrival, Police spoke with the Defendant, who was distraught, and he reported that his firearm was missing from his vehicle. Defendant stated that he had his firearm in his vehicle and placed it in his center console while doing Christmas shopping. When he returned home from shopping, he could not locate his firearm in his vehicle, so he reported the missing firearm to police. As a result, Defendant was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk Magistrate Hearing. Defendant has no criminal record and he has been employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for many years. Defendant and his wife are both social workers. Attorney Noonan presented six letters attesting to the Defendant’s character. The client has had a License to Carry Firearms for many years and has always been a responsible gun-owner. In this case, the Defendant made a mistake by leaving his firearm unattended in his vehicle for a short period of time, but he reported the disappearance of the firearm immediately upon his discovery. Although there may have been probable cause to support the criminal charge, the Clerk-Magistrate agreed with Attorney Noonan’s request to dismiss the charge.

Hingham District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS IN HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE IS ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE. 

In a case publicized in the media, the Defendant was arrested and charged with Trafficking of a Person for Sexual Servitude pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §50(a). Defendant (along with four other Defendants) was arrested for Sex Trafficking in connection with an undercover investigation wherein police posted an advertisement online advertising sexual services in exchange for money. Allegedly, Defendant responded to the advertisement by contacting the phone number listed in the advertisement and exchanged text messages with an undercover officer (posing as a prostitute) and the Defendant offered money in exchange for sex acts. Defendant agreed to meet the undercover officer at a hotel room for the exchange. Upon arrival to the hotel room, Defendant was arrested. Four other Defendants were also charged for responding to the same advertisement, agreeing to an exchange of sex for money, and showing up to the hotel.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Sex Trafficking in the Hingham District Court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause to support that charge. The Commonwealth objected to a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss in the District Court, as they were planning on indicting all Defendants in the Superior Court. Attorney Noonan insisted on having a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Noonan researched the case-law and Legislative intent behind the Sex Trafficking statute and argued that the Sex Trafficking statute was entirely inapplicable to the facts of this case. The District Court Judge agreed and allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss. The charge was dismissed in the District Court for lack of probable cause. Subsequently, the Commonwealth indicted all Defendants in the Superior Court. In Superior Court, Attorney Noonan intends to file another Motion to Dismiss for lack of probable cause.

Taunton District Court

SECOND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CHARGE AGAINST COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN ARGUED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.

Defendant has been a longtime commercial truck driver. He resides in North Carolina. He is a long haul commercial truck driver, driving an 18-wheeler, transporting items for Amazon. He hauls throughout the United States. In this case, Defendant was driving across country to deliver items to Massachusetts. He pulled into a parking lot in Easton, Massachusetts. While attempting to park his tractor-trailer, he struck a parked car. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant and they detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant refused any field sobriety tests and was arrested. He refused the Breathalyzer test resulting in serious consequences for a commercial truck driver. He had an old drunk driving charge in North Carolina, but was not convicted. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). As a commercial truck driver, his entire livelihood was at stake. If convicted, he would undoubtedly lose his commercial driver’s license and was facing the possibility of a lifetime suspension of his commercial driver’s license.

Result: On the day of the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the Commonwealth of his intention to introduce a video of the Defendant’s booking at the police department. The booking video was exculpatory, as it showed that the Defendant did not exhibit any signs of intoxication or impairment. The evidence of intoxication was very slim. The only sign suggestive of intoxication was an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath, and nothing more. Attorney Noonan discussed the weakness of the case with the Commonwealth and argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to meet its burden to obtain a conviction at trial. The Commonwealth reviewed the booking video, interviewed witnesses, and evaluated the case, and agreed that it would have considerable difficulty proving this case at trial. All charges were dismissed at trial.

A POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO INTOXICATION AND SUICIDAL THREATS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS BACK HIS LTC.

The client was a police officer. His License to Carry Firearms (LTC) was suspended due to an incident wherein the client’s wife called the police to report that the client was intoxicated and threatened to shoot himself. Police located the client and brought him to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. As a result of this incident, the client’s LTC was suspended and he was forced to resign from his position as a full-time police officer. The LTC suspension, if upheld, would ruin his career in law enforcement. The client requested that the police department reinstate his LTC, but the police department denied the request and they were standing by their decision. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in hopes of getting his LTC back and resuming his career in law enforcement.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan started building a case to get his client’s LTC back. First, Attorney Noonan retained a highly reputable and credible psychiatrist to review all the records and to conduct an evaluation of the client. The psychiatrist reviewed all the pertinent records, including the police report concerning the incident resulting in the suspension and the medical records regarding the client’s hospitalization. After reviewing the records and evaluating the client, the psychiatrist formed an opinion that the client does not suffer from any substance abuse or mental health disorders and the client does not pose any danger is issued an LTC. Second, upon further investigation, the wife’s report to the police showed that the client did not actually threaten to shoot himself. Third, Attorney Noonan provided all information regarding the client’s personal background and career in law enforcement and security. After reviewing the materials provided by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the police department reconsidered its decision and issued the client an LTC. The client can now resume his career in law enforcement.