Commonwealth v. M.L.

RAPE OF CHILD: DISMISSED
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

The alleged victim, age 16, disclosed to her school that she had been sexually and physically abused by her step-father (Defendant) when she was younger starting when she was six years-old. The Defendant had been in the alleged victim life since she was five years-old. The alleged victim told the District Attorney’s Office that when she was 11 years-old the Defendant hit her in the face with his fist causing her lip to split open and that her mother and brother witnessed it. She stated that the Defendant drinks a lot of alcohol. She described an incident occurring a month before the interview in which the Defendant threatened to kill her. She stated that her brother was also physically abused by the Defendant and she observed bruises to her brother when the Defendant hit him. She stated that when she was 9 years-old the Defendant would wake her up in the morning when her mother had went to work and he sexually abused her by rubbing his hands and penis all over her body, including her chest and private parts. She stated that the Defendant would touch the inside and outside of her vagina with his penis and hands. She stated that the Defendant sexually abused her in this manner approximately 3-4 times a week over the span of a few months. On one occasion, Defendant caused her vagina to bleed. She stated that she did not disclose the abuse because the Defendant had threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Police interviewed the alleged victim’s mother who stated that she didn’t believe the alleged victim’s allegations. The mother stated that the alleged victim never disclosed anything to her about being sexually abused. The mother stated that the alleged victim is very destructive and gets into a lot of trouble. Police interviewed the Defendant who emphatically denied all the allegations.

Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars because the alleged victim waited approximately eight years to make this disclosure and the time frame of the alleged offenses was extremely vague. In addition, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the criminal complaints because the alleged victim failed to appear at the probable cause hearing and testify under oath concerning these allegations. The Court allowed the bill of particulars but declined action on dismissing the complaints. The court did, however, order the Commonwealth to advise defense counsel (by the next court date) whether the alleged victim would be testifying. On October 19, 2005, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaints arguing that the Commonwealth failed to advise him as to whether the alleged victim intended to testify and failed to provide him with a bill of particulars pursuant to the court’s order.

Result: On October 19, 2005, Rape and sexual assault charges are dismissed.

Commonwealth v. G.M. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

The alleged victim reported to West Bridgewater Police that she had been over her mother’s house when her brother became verbally abusive toward her and physically picked her up and threw her against a wall causing her to sustain bruises on her body. In a prior incident, the Defendant had assaulted his mother and sister; breaking his mother’s toe and causing bruises to his sister’s back. The incident resulted in a violent struggle between police and the Defendant. Police interviewed two witnesses at the home during the assault.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed.

Commonwealth v. J.G. – Brockton District Court

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED

Brockton Police were dispatched for a breaking and entering in progress. The caller reported that the suspect was throwing rocks at the windows and trying to break down the door. The caller gave a description and identified the suspect as being the Defendant who fled the scene and was later apprehended by police. Officers observed extensive damage to the home. The windows to the home were broken, the exterior door was broken, and the interior door was broken. Witnesses stated that the Defendant was attempting to break into the home to see whether his wife was having an affair with another man.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony charges dismissed.

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. R.M. – Taunton District Court

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENTY OPERATION: NOT GUILTY
LEAVING SCENE PROPERTY DAMAGE: NOT GUILTY

Easton Police responded to a hit-and-run accident. Stonehill students were traveling in a vehicle and attempted to make a left-hand turn into the campus entrance. Defendant’s vehicle attempted to pass the Stonehill vehicle on the left, as it was making the left-hand turn. Defendant’s vehicle smashed into the driver’s side of the Stonehill vehicle then fled the scene pulling into a parking lot approximately one-half mile down the road. The Stonehill student called 911 and gave the police the Defendant’s registration. An SUV traveling behind the Stonehill vehicle followed the Defendant’s vehicle to the parking lot. Upon arrival, officers observed two males attempting to change the front passenger side tire of the vehicle, which had been extensively damaged from a collision. Defendant admitted to police that he was the operator and that he had gotten into and accident and was changing the tire. After three requests, Defendant was able to produce his license and registration. Defendant admitted to having two beers at the Union Villa Bar. Defendant then changed is story by saying that he had been at Owen O’Leary’s and had two beers and a shot of Vodka. Defendant stated that he had been drinking “Bud” and then stated that he had been drinking “draft.” Officers detected an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. Officers observed that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that his speech was thick and slurred. After three attempts, Defendant failed the alphabet test. After two attempts, Defendant failed the one-legged stand. Lastly, Defendant failed the nine step walk-and-turn. An identified witness informed police that he observed one of the male’s throw a cooler over the wooden fence. A search of the backseat found ice and two cold Michelob beers. During the booking process, Defendant became argumentative and confrontational, which was captured on videotape. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan acquitted his client on all charges by arguing that the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proof on an essential element of the crime; that the Defendant (and no one else) was the “operator” of the motor vehicle.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all charges, including OUI-Liquor, against Navy man.