2017
Commonwealth v. N.A. – Fall River District Court
Docket No.: 1632 CR 5402
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES DA TO DISMISS ALL CHARGES SO LONG AS THE DEFENDANT CONTINUES WITH HIS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.
The Defendant was a 24 year-old Lakeville man who was an Analyst for a medical technology company and had no criminal record. The Defendant’s employer contacted the Defendant’s father and reported that the Defendant abruptly left work and left a picture on his desk of loaded firearm. Later that day, police responded to a residence in Freetown due to the home’s alarm system being activated. Upon arrival, Defendant answered the front door holding a bottle of wine and he admitted that he did not live there.
Police arrested the Defendant and charged him with: Breaking and Entering in the daytime with the intent to commit a felony under G.L. c. 266, §18, a felony punishable up to 10 years in state prison. Due to the damage caused throughout the home, police charged the Defendant with Vandalism under G.L. c. 266, §126A, a felony offense punishable up to 3 years in state prison and a mandatory one year loss of driver’s license.
Back at the Freetown Police Station, the Defendant’s behavior became increasingly bizarre. In his jail cell, Defendant stripped naked and proceeded to exercise and do push-ups. Defendant made statements that made no sense and would freak out whenever officers approached him. It turned out that the home the Defendant broke into was his childhood home. Defendant had not lived there since he was very young and gave no explanation as to why he decided to break in.
Due to his bizarre, unusual, and erratic behavior, police had the Defendant taken to hospital for an evaluation. The emergency room physician made out an Application for Temporary Involuntary Hospitalization pursuant to Section 12(a), as he believed that the Defendant was suffering from a mental illness and posed a likelihood of serious harm to himself or others.
The Defendant was committed to an impatient mental health facility where he exhibited manic psychotic-type behaviors. He believed he worked at the hospital as an entrepreneur. He also stated that he was a member of the hospital’s staff. He was seen dancing in the hallways. He believed messages were being communicated to him through the television set and he even attempted to escape from the facility by posing as a hospital employee. Defendant was diagnosed as suffering from Major depressive disorder, severe, with psychotic features and possibly Schizophrenia.
At his first court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested that the District Attorney’s Office place his client on Pretrial Probation for one-year with certain conditions. At first, the DA’s Office refused Attorney Noonan’s proposal and stated that the Defendant was not an appropriate candidate for Pretrial Probation.
Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented a package to the DA in support of his request for Pretrial Probation, which included the following: First, Attorney Noonan spoke to the homeowners who knew the Defendant and his family and the homeowners stated that they had no desire to press charges and they did not seek any restitution for the damage to their home. Second, Attorney Noonan provided the DA with documentation regarding the Defendant’s mental health treatment. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with a letter from the Defendant’s Psychiatrist who stated that the Defendant’s mental condition has stabilized and he was doing very well with the medications he was prescribed. In addition, Attorney Noonan provided the DA with a letter from the Defendant’s mental health counselor who stated that the Defendant’s mental condition has stabilized and he was doing very well with weekly therapy sessions. The psychiatrist and mental health counselor believed that the incident was due to the sudden onset of an untreated mental illness and not due to any criminal intent. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with documentation showing that the Defendant signed a one-year contract to work as an Analyst for a very reputable company. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that the incident was caused by a sudden, acute mental illness and not the result of any criminal intent.
Result: After reviewing all the information and documentation provided by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the DA’s Office changed its position and agreed that the Defendant was not a criminal but a person who suffered from a legitimate mental illness, which was the cause of the whole incident. The DA’s Office agreed with Attorney Noonan’s terms that all charges would be dismissed outright after one-year so long as the Defendant continues with his present course of treatment. With Pretrial Probation, the Defendant did not have to admit that he committed a crime.
Commonwealth v. R.P. – Taunton District Court
CHARGES DISMISSED AT TRIAL AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN MOVES THE COURT TO HAVE THE ALLEGED VICTIM EVALUATED FOR A FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.
Defendant was arrested for strangling or suffocating his mother and violently assaulting her with a dangerous weapon. Defendant had a lengthy history of psychiatric hospitalizations and severe mental health disorders. At his arraignment, Defendant was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for a competency and criminal responsibility evaluation. The forensic evaluator determined that the Defendant was competent to stand trial. The forensic evaluator had a conflicting opinion as to whether the Defendant was criminally responsible for his actions or whether he lacked criminal responsibility for his actions due to his mental illness. As a result, the issue of criminal responsibility was an uncertainty heading into trial.
Result: Through his pretrial investigation, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered evidence that the alleged victim may have committed a crime during the alleged incident. On the day of trial, the alleged victim appeared ready to testify against the Defendant. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved the Court to appoint an Attorney to evaluate the alleged victim to see if she had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. That is, to see whether the alleged victim would incriminate herself if she were to testify against the Defendant. After evaluating the alleged victim, the Attorney reported to the court that the alleged victim had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As a result, the alleged victim invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege and decided not to testify against the Defendant. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved to dismiss the case arguing that the Commonwealth could not prove its case without the testimony of the alleged victim.
Commonwealth v. J.C. – Taunton District Court
NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST 19 YEAR-OLD GIRL WHO ADMITTED TO SHOPLIFTING NECKLACE FROM KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORE.
Defendant was a 19 year-old recent high school honors graduate from New Jersey who admitted to shoplifting a necklace from the Kohl’s Department Store in Seekonk. Seekonk Police received a call from the Loss Prevention Department at Kohl’s Department Store reporting that two females left the store in a vehicle after shoplifting items. A police officer stopped the vehicle. Loss prevention officers from Kohl’s went to the scene of the vehicle stop and identified the driver and the passenger (defendant) as the females who stole items from the store. The Defendant and the other female were seen on a surveillance video as leaving the store with stolen items. The Defendant admitted to stealing a $16.00 necklace while the other female admitted to stealing $130.00 in merchandise.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was a recent high school graduate who finished her senior year with near straight A’s and was also a member of the National Honor Society. Attorney Noonan also presented a letter from the Defendant’s high school Social Studies teacher who attested to her character and work ethic. In addition, Attorney Noonan presented a certificate in recognition of the Defendant’s volunteer work. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was in the process of applying to colleges and a criminal charge on her record would affect her education, career opportunities, and her future. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Defendant made an error in judgment and deserved a second chance. The Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saved his 19 year-old client from having a criminal charge on her record.
Commonwealth v. L.A. – Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES A JUDGE TO VACATE AN OLD CONVICTION FOR A CRIME AGAINST THE PUBLIC JUSTICE AND THEN SUCCESSFULLY PETITIONS THE COMMISSIONER OF PROBATION TO SEAL IT FROM HIS CLIENT’S RECORD.
Client is a 70 year-old accountant, grandmother, and former drug-addict who had an old felony conviction from 1984 for smuggling drugs into a prison. The client had turned her life around but was always haunted by her past. Back in the 1980s, client had a terrible drug addiction. In 1984, she was arrested for attempting to smuggle cocaine into a prison for an inmate. She was convicted of the serious felony offense of Giving a Prisoner a Controlled Substance. That was the last time the client ever had any involvement with police or the court system. She committed herself to treatment and lived a life of sobriety ever since. She went back to school and earned a degree in Accounting and graduated at the top of her class with Highest Honors. She has been employed as an Accountant for over 30 years and has held the same job for nearly 15 years. Despite the remarkable turnaround in her life, she was always haunted by her old felony conviction, which was a constant reminder of her past. She petitioned the Commissioner of Probation in Boston to seal the felony conviction from her record. Regrettably, she was informed that the conviction was non-sealable because it was a Crime against the Public Justice. Her only hope was to have the felony conviction vacated, which she believed was impossible. Other attorneys told her that convincing a judge to vacate a conviction for this charge would be very difficult. In a leap of faith, she contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who agreed to take on the case.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan made a compelling argument to a Judge of the Brockton District Court to vacate his client’s felony conviction. In a rare case, the Judge entered an order and vacated a conviction for a Crime against the Public Justice. With the conviction vacated, the Commissioner of Probation agreed to seal the charge from the client’s record.
Commonwealth v. J.N. – Hingham District Court
DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST MBTA WORKER DISMISSED AT TRIAL.
Rockland Police were dispatched to a residence in Rockland in response to a 911 call from the Defendant’s girlfriend who reported that her boyfriend, the Defendant, had hit her in the face with an open hand several times. She alleged that the Defendant made vulgar statements toward her. Prior to calling 911, Defendant allegedly pounded his fist against the door to the home scaring the girlfriend and her 15 year-old daughter. When she was calling 911, Defendant made threatening statements to her. The girlfriend remained on the phone with 911 until police arrived. When police arrived, the girlfriend had locked herself inside her home and locked the Defendant out of the house. At the scene, the officer observed redness to the left side of the girlfriend’s face consistent with being recently struck in the face. When police arrived, Defendant was outside the home in the driveway. After speaking to the girlfriend, police arrested the Defendant who made no statements to police. After his arrest, the girlfriend made a written statement to the police regarding the abuse and later obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant.
Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan obtained a transcript of the restraining order hearing where the girlfriend stated, under oath, that the Defendant did not hit her. In addition, Attorney Noonan obtained, by court order, statements the girlfriend made to the DA’s Office in which she stated, again, that the Defendant did not hit her.
Result: On the date of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was ready to try the case and ready to exclude the 911 call from evidence along with other hearsay statements made by the girlfriend. In addition, Attorney Noonan was ready to introduce statements made by the girlfriend in which she stated that the Defendant did not hit her. On the day of trial, the DA moved to dismiss.
Commonwealth v. C.S. – Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS AGGRAVATED FELONY DISMISSED AGAINST HIS CLIENT FOR WHOOPING HIS 6 YEAR-OLD STEP-SON WITH A BELT – AND SAVES HIS CLIENT FROM BEING DEPORTED FROM U.S.
Defendant was charged with an aggravated felony. The allegations were that the Defendant physically abused his 6 year-old step-son with a belt. Teachers noticed that the child had bruises and marks on his arm. When asked about the injuries, the child stated that his step-father whooped him with a belt. The child stated that his step-father was about to whoop him on the butt with a belt but he (child) was struck on the arm when he tried to block the belt from hitting his butt. The school took pictures of the child’s left arm, which had marks and bruises on it. Defendant admitted to hitting his step-son with the belt but only did so to discipline the child for his misbehavior.
From the very beginning of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asserted the defense of parental privilege, a newly recognized defense, and argued that his client was justified in using reasonable force to discipline his step-son.
In Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 472 Mass. 1 (2015), the Supreme Judicial Court recognized parental privilege as a new defense. It states that: a parent may not be criminally liable for the use of force against a minor in his care if the force used: (1) is reasonable, (2) is reasonably related to the purpose of “safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor,” including the punishment of the minor’s misconduct, and (3) “neither causes, nor creates a substantial risk of causing, physical harm (beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks), gross degradation, or severe mental distress.”
At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to prove that his client’s physical discipline of his step-son was reasonable and met the criteria of Dorvil. First, Attorney Noonan sought to show that the physical discipline was justified to punish the child’s misbehavior. The child had been misbehaving in school, repeatedly, and his misbehavior was escalating. At first, Defendant and his wife did not use any force to discipline the child and instead disciplined the child in other ways but the child continued to misbehave. After exhausting all other forms of discipline, Defendant used force. Second, Attorney Noonan sought to show that the force used was reasonable. Defendant did not pull down the child’s pants with the intent to spank him on his bare-bottom. Nor did the Defendant whoop him repeatedly with the belt. Nor did the Defendant use excessive force. Instead, Defendant lightly spanked the child with the belt at least two times. Third, Attorney Noonan sought to show that the whooping did not cause or create a substantial risk of causing physical harm (beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks). Specifically, the photos showed light, faint, and small bruises to the child’s arm, which fully healed after several days. Thus, the physical harm did not extend beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks. Lastly, Attorney Noonan sought to show that the force did not cause or create severe mental distress. Specifically, in counseling sessions (subsequent to the incident), the child was found to be happy, healthy, and in no distress. In fact, the child told counselors that he loved his step-father and exhibited great affection for this step-father.
On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan consulted with the District Attorney as to whether the child was competent to testify – and whether the child would be traumatized or harmed should he be forced to testify against his step-father – and whether it was in child’s best interest to testify against his step-father. Attorney Noonan and the DA interviewed the child to address these and other issues. After interviewing the child, the DA decided to dismiss the case.
Defendant was not a U.S. citizen. Since this was an aggravated felony, Defendant faced deportation if convicted. Immigration and Nationality Act § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) provides that “any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” The consequences of a conviction would be devastating for the Defendant. If convicted, Defendant may be detained without bond and will be deported as expeditiously as possible. An aggravated felon is “conclusively presumed” to be deportable and is also rendered ineligible for virtually all forms of relief from removal. A person deported as an aggravated felon may be banned from the U.S. for life.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the aggravated felony dismissed saving his client from the very real prospect of being deported from the U.S.
Taunton Man’s Application to Renew His License to Carry Firearms Was Denied Due to a Prior Conviction for a Firearm’s Offense but Attorney Patrick J. Noonan Gets the Police Department to Renew Client’s LTC.
Client is a 51-year-old Electrical Engineer from Taunton who is married with three children. Client has been an avid hunter and shooter and a big believer in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Guns have been a part of his life since he was a young kid. At age 16, he was issued a Firearms Identification Card. Client has had a License to Carry since 1995. He had been an active member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts (GOAL), and Taunton Rifle and Pistol Club. He has advanced training in firearms. He is a member of Team Glock a competitive team of shooting professionals.
Since 1995, the client has had a License to Carry (LTC) but in 2016 the Police Department denied his Application to Renew his LTC because he had a conviction for a firearms offense. Specifically, the Client pled guilty to the offense of Leaving a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. According to the Police Department, the conviction disqualified the client from getting an LTC.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the Chief of Police to renew his client’s license to carry firearms. Under the law, a conviction for a violation of any firearms law disqualifies an applicant from getting an LTC. Here, Client’s LTC renewal was denied because he had a conviction for violating a firearms law. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that: in order for a firearms violation to be a disqualifier, the firearms violation must carry a penalty of imprisonment. In his client’s case, the only punishment his client received for the firearms violation was a fine of $125.00. After considering Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s arguments, the client’s license to carry firearms was renewed.
Commonwealth v. D.R. – Middlesex Superior Court
DA’S OFFICE ARGUES THAT DEFENDANT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO RELEASE FROM JAIL BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE.
A Grand Jury returned 7 indictments against the Defendant for: Kidnapping, Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person, Assault & Battery with Dangerous Weapon on an Elderly Person (two counts), Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon Causing Serious Bodily Injury, and Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person Causing Serious Bodily Injury.
Defendant resided in the same home with his 83 year-old mother, the alleged victim. Police received a call from the alleged victim’s other son who was concerned that the Defendant may have the mother tied to a chair. A police officer was dispatched to the home. The officer looked into the window and saw the alleged victim lying on a couch waving her arms in the air. The officer went to the side door. Defendant opened the door and allowed the officer inside. The officer observed dried blood on the Defendant’s shirt. The officer heard the alleged victim yelling for help from the living room. As the officer made his way to the living room, he observed dried blood droplets on the floor. The alleged victim told the officer that the Defendant had assaulted her the day before. Specifically, she alleged that the Defendant threw her walker at her leg causing a laceration to her leg. She claimed that the blood droplets on the floor were from her leg injury. Photographs were taken of the leg laceration. She was taken to the hospital.
From that point on, the alleged victim would go on to make a series of false allegations against the Defendant. She alleged that the Defendant held her against her will. She alleged that he took the phone away to prevent her from calling for help. She alleged that the Defendant physically abused her, on multiple occasions, to the point where she needed to go to the hospital. She alleged that the Defendant would not feed her. She alleged that the Defendant would make awful statements to her. She alleged that the Defendant stole money from her. She believed the Defendant would kill her. The Defendant denies all these false allegations.
On January 5, 2017, the DA’s Office requested that the Court hold the Defendant in custody (in jail) for 90 days or until his trial because he was too dangerous to release. As the Defendant was in jail awaiting his Dangerousness Hearing, he retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan dropped everything he was doing and came to his client’s aid.
Result: After a two-day hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting his client released from jail. If the Judge sided with the DA, the client would have been held in jail for 90 days or until his trial.
Commonwealth v. Craig Barton – Brockton Superior Court
Indictments: 2013 -303
DEFENDANT WAS FACING LIFE IN PRISON BUT DUE TO THE RELENTLESS EFFORTS OF THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.
In 2013, a Grand Jury returned the following 11 indictments against the Defendant: 2 indictments for Rape of Child by Force, an offense which carries a sentence in state prison for life or for any term of years; 2 indictments for Assault with Intent to Rape a Child, an offense which carries a sentence in state prison for life or for any term of years; 2 indictments for Incest, an offense which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years; and 5 indictments for Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child, an offense which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
The case was very involved, highly complex, thoroughly investigated, and strongly prosecuted. The Commonwealth was very intent on prosecuting the case to the fullest extent of the law. The Noonan Defense Team was even more intent on proving their client’s innocence. On January 3, 2017, the Noonan Defense Team came to trial ready to attack. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi on all charges “in the interest of justice.” A Nolle Prosequi is the formal determination of the District Attorney that he will no longer prosecute the case.
Result: Our client was charged with very serious offenses carrying the possibility of LIFE IN PRISON but due to relentless efforts of the Noonan Defense Team the District Attorney’s Office, on the day of trial, decided that they will no longer prosecute the case.
“Easton man arraigned on sexual assault indictment charges.”
- « Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5