Commonwealth v. J.T. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT CHARGES DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING IN FIGHT BETWEEN TWO MOTORISTS IN BROCKTON. CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Brockton Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident and a fight in progress between the two drivers. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim who reported that the Defendant struck him in the forehead with a stick. Officers observed a visible injury to the victim’s forehead. Our client was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Batter with a Dangerous Weapon for allegedly striking the other man in the face with a wooden stick.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client acted in self-defense. Our client was parked in the street partially blocking traffic. The other party intentionally drove into the rear-end of our client’s vehicle. Both men exited their vehicles. Our client saw something in the other man’s hand, grew fearful, and grabbed a wooden stick out of his car in self-defense. Attorney Noonan produced an Affidavit of a witness who reported that he saw the other male driver yell, “You mother******, move your car or I’m going to run your ass over.” Our client moved his vehicle several feet but the other driver intentionally drove into the rear of our client’s vehicle. This witness stated that he saw a female in the other man’s car get out of the vehicle holding a plastic bag and proceeded to walk down the street. The witness reported that the other man was acting very aggressively. Another witness reported observing the two men grappling over the stick. This witness observed damage to our client’s car from being rear-ended by the other man. This witness observed that the other man’s car was parked very close to the rear of our client’s vehicle. After the hearing, no criminal complaint issued.

Commonwealth v. John Doe – Taunton District Court

AFTER A HEARING, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS FELONY ASSAULT CHARGE SEALED FROM ASPIRING TEACHER’S CRIMINAL RECORD

In 2013, when our client was 22 years-old, he was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (a felony) upon his then-girlfriend. There were photographs showing serious injuries to the girlfriend’s face and the Defendant had written a letter to his girlfriend apologizing for what he did. Prior to our representation, our client entered a plea to both charges, admitted to sufficient facts, and was placed on probation for two years with conditions that he receives anger management and substance abuse treatment. In 2015, the charges were dismissed upon his successful completion of probation. Because our client was charged with a felony, he was not eligible to have his record sealed until ten (10) years following the disposition of his case. That is, our client was not eligible to get the felony sealed until 2025. It should be noted that, in October of 2018, new legislation will go into effect regarding record sealing and expungement. Our client was a college graduate. He had hopes of getting a Graduate Degree in Education and fulfilling his dream of becoming a high school science teacher. However, because of the criminal charges on his record, including the felony charge, our client did not feel he could get into Graduate School or get hired as a teacher.

Result: Our client was very discouraged. He felt that he would never be able to become a teacher so he didn’t even try. Then, one day, he called our law office to see if anything could be done. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed his case and told him about our record sealing laws in Massachusetts and how he could petition the Court to have his record sealed immediately rather than waiting until 2025. Our client decided to give it a shot. At a hearing, our law office presented evidence to convince the Judge order to the sealing of our client’s criminal record.

Computer Specialist Is Denied a License to Carry Firearm’s but Attorney Patrick J. Noonan Convinces the Police Department to Change It’s Mind and They Issue His Client a License to Carry.

The client is a 41 year-old, happily married, father of three children. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms with the police department in his place of residence. The police department denied his application for LTC because of two prior criminal cases on his record, which disqualified him.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented the police department with evidence that the two prior criminal cases should not disqualify his client from obtaining an LTC. One of the prior criminal cases, a felony drug conviction, was later vacated by the court and should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. The other prior criminal case, a charge of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, resulted in a Not Guilty verdict, which should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. Attorney Noonan also presented evidence showing that his client was a suitable person to possess a firearm. After considering Attorney Noonan’s evidence, the police department changed its mind and issued the client a license to carry firearms.

Commonwealth v. Ritch Dorce – Brockton District Court

IN A RARE CASE WHERE A DEFENDANT CONFESSES TO A CRIME ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES HIS CLIENT’S INNOCENCE AND WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING.

On December 31, 2016, there was a New Year’s Eve party at a home on Orchard Ave. in Brockton. Police received several 911 calls reporting multiple gunshots fired at the home. One call reported that six gunshots were fired. One bullet traveled through a bedroom where a young child had been sleeping. Upon arrival the home, police interviewed several witnesses who lived in the home and were present for the party. Two of the witnesses immediately informed police that they had Snapchat videos posted by the person who committed the shooting. The Snapchat videos were posted from the account of Ritch Dorce, the Defendant in the case. One video physically showed Dorce present at the party. Another video showed Dorce sitting in the car, holding a firearm, and confessing the shooting. Dorce states: “I just got jumped, but, ayy, it’s OK. I just emptied all my shells. I ain’t got no more shells. But, ayy, I’m about to go back and get some more.” Dorce is then seen releasing the magazine to the firearm. Police interviewed approximately nine individuals who were present at the party. Some witnesses told police that Dorce got into a physical altercation with others at the party over marijuana. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was in the company of approximately 4-5 other males who were also involved in fights with others at the party. Some witnesses reported that Dorce, and the males with him, retrieved baseball bats and damaged a vehicle with bats. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was seen holding a taser. Some witnesses reported that Dorce threatened to come back and shoot the house up. Two witnesses stated that they were outside when they observed two vehicles drive by and fire shots at the house. One witness identified Dorce as sitting in one of the vehicles, which was involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s Snapchat account, which confirmed that Dorce had in fact posted the incriminating videos on his Snapchat account. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, GPS, and tower locations for his cell phone, which allowed police to locate Dorce and arrest him. Dorce agreed to videotape interview with police. In the interview, Dorce admitted that he posted the video but Dorce maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce admitted that he got jumped at the party but he maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce was charged with: 1) Carrying a Firearm without a License, 2) Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, 3) Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, 4) Malicious Destruction of Property, and 5) Malicious Damage to a Vehicle.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that somebody else committed the shooting. In his interview, Dorce told police that he attended the party with three other males, one of whom was named Jeff. Dorce stated that he left the party and his cousin gave him a ride to his apartment in Brockton where he met his girlfriend and daughter. While he was in his Brockton home, Dorce received a phone call from Jeff who instructed Dorce to come outside and meet him in his car. While in the car, Jeff told Dorce that he (Jeff) “took care of it” because he didn’t want Dorce “to get his hands dirty.” Jeff then showed Dorce the handgun. At that point, Dorce foolishly decided to post a video on Snapchat of himself holding the handgun and taking credit for the shooting. Dorce stated that he posted the video to let people know not to mess with him. Attorney Noonan presented evidence with regards to Jeff’s true identity and the fact that police did not conduct any investigation into Jeff. Attorney Noonan had his private investigator testify that he was able to locate Jeff’s public Facebook page, which contained posts where Jeff appeared to feel guilty over the fact that Dorce was in jail for something he did not do and Jeff posted that he would take responsibility. The private investigator testified that he confronted Jeff with his posts but Jeff did not deny that he was involved in the shooting. Attorney Noonan argued that the police had evidence that would show Dorce’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting but the police did not bring this evidence to trial. Specifically, Dorce voluntarily handed over his cell phone to police and gave them the password to his phone. Dorce even asked the police to search his phone records, as the records would show that he was not involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, including his GPS and cell tower locations for the night of the shooting. Dorce’s cell phone records would show his whereabouts at the time of the shooting. If Dorce’s phone records showed that he was in the vicinity of the shooting at the time the shooting occurred, Attorney Noonan argued, the police would have brought that evidence to trial and showed it to the jury. Attorney Noonan argued that the police could have tested the fingerprints from the shell casings found at the scene in order to prove that Dorce handled the bullets that fired the gun. Attorney Noonan argued that Dorce’s Snapchat video was one of hundreds of videos where Dorce is playing a character as part of an online persona where he tried to look tough and sound tough. Dorce held himself out to be somebody he wasn’t. There was the real Dorce and his online persona. The Snapchat video was simply another example of Dorce trying to sound tough. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Mr. Dorce was not the shooter and they acquitted him of all charges except one charge. The jury found Dorce guilty of only holding the firearm in the Snapchat video but they found that Dorce was not the shooter and was not involved in the shooting. In a rare case where a Defendant confesses to committing a crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proves his client’s innocence.

Click HERE or on the image above to view larger.

Commonwealth v. A.G. – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE, AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE “WHO” OPERATED THE VEHICLE.

Bridgewater Police received a call from a resident stating there was a disabled vehicle parked in the street and the driver appeared to be sitting in the vehicle with his head back. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the shoulder of the road with two tires blown out. The officer approached the driver’s side of the vehicle where the Defendant had been seated. The officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. The officer asked how the tires were blown out and the Defendant stated that he must have hit something back there and pointed down the road. Defendant admitted that he had smoked a roach while attempting to change his tires prior to Defendant calling for a tow truck. Defendant claimed that he had a medical marijuana card but stated that it had been “responded” when he meant to say “expired.” Defendant admitted to drinking two Budweiser beers about three hours ago. There was a female sitting in the front passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle. She told police that Defendant had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol earlier in the night but she felt he was fine to drive. There were two empty nip bottles on the ground outside the vehicle. The female passenger initially stated that the bottles belonged to her but later stated that the Defendant told her to throw out the nip bottles. The officer testified that the Defendant failed several field sobriety tests, such as the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. At the police station, police found a plastic bag containing marijuana in the Defendant’s pant pocket. At the police station, Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test, which shows that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%, above the legal limit.

Result: In order to prove the Defendant guilty of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was the “operator” of the vehicle. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove that the Defendant, and not the female, was the operator of the vehicle, as there was evidence tending to show that the female could have driven the vehicle. Even though the Defendant had admitted to being the operator, that alone, was insufficient to convict the Defendant unless there was evidence to corroborate that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that, besides the Defendant’s admission to operating the vehicle, there was no other evidence to corroborate that he was the driver.

Commonwealth v. N.H. – Plymouth District Court

PARENTAL KIDNAPPING CHARGE AGAINST FLORIDA MAN IS DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS CASE LAW SHOWING HIS CLIENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME

Defendant had a young child with his girlfriend. Defendant, his girlfriend, and the child all lived together in Florida, where the Defendant is from. They recently moved to Plymouth where they lived together in an apartment. The girlfriend and the Defendant had an argument one afternoon. Defendant told the girlfriend that he was taking the child to Florida for a few days to see his family. Defendant told the girlfriend that he would return to Massachusetts with the child after seeing his family. The girlfriend went to the police station to report that the Defendant had kidnapped the child. The police contacted the Defendant, as he was traveling to Florida. Defendant told the police that he had a right to take his child and he was doing nothing illegal. Police continued to contact the Defendant but he did not answer his phone. As the Defendant was in Florida, the girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant in the Plymouth Probate and Family Court, which granted her immediate custody of the child. The Probate and Family Court issued an Order ordering the Defendant to immediately return the child to the girlfriend in Massachusetts. With the assistance of Plymouth Police, the girlfriend filed a Missing Person’s Report. The Plymouth Police Department obtained an Arrest Warrant for the Defendant’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Plymouth Police contacted the Tampa Police seeking their assistance in apprehending the Defendant and returning the child to Massachusetts.

Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan from Florida and explained that he had a warrant for his arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Attorney Noonan made arrangements for the Defendant to come to Massachusetts to remove the Arrest Warrant. Attorney Noonan brought the Defendant into court and reached an agreement with the prosecution that they would remove the arrest warrant and they hold off on charging the Defendant for one week. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecution with case law showing that the Defendant could not be charged with the crime of Parental Kidnapping because there were no court orders regarding child custody at the time the Defendant took the child to Florida. See Commonwealth v. Beals, 405 Mass. 550 (1989)(where SJC held: parent who has taken his or her children from the other parent before there was any court proceeding cannot be convicted of parental kidnapping.) The prosecution agreed with Attorney Noonan and they dismissed the Parental Kidnapping charge prior to arraignment.

Commonwealth v. P.C. – Framingham District Court

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST FORMER MARINE AND RETIRED BUSINESS OWNER FOR OPERATING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE

Client is a 77 year-old retired business owner who owned commercial real estate in a shopping center he operated for decades. He was a former special police officer in Natick and Framingham. He was very active in the community. Unfortunately, he amassed a series of motor vehicle offenses, and received three prior tickets for speeding, improper passing, and marked lanes violations. Due to the multitude of driving violations, the client’s license was suspended and he was required to driving classes in order to get his license reinstated. While his license was suspended, client drove his vehicle to do some errands and was pulled over for speeding and was charged with Operating after Suspended License.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint so long as the client completes a driving course.

Commonwealth v. John Joyce – Stoughton District Court

IN A MANSLAUGHTER INVESTIGATION FOR A DRUG OVERDOSE, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, INCLUDING: SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S HOME, AND INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT. LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION DID A FEATURE ON THE CASE FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

Police responded to a private residence for a drug overdose. Upon arrival to the scene, police found a male lying on the floor of his living room dead of a drug overdose. Police searched the deceased’s pockets and found a rolled up $20 bill with brown residue on the tip of it. Police also found on the deceased’s pocket a folded $20 bill and Keno ticket containing brown powder. The brown powder tested positive for heroin. Police searched the deceased’s cell phone and found text messages with the Defendant showing that the two had met the night before the overdose. Police used the deceased’s cell phone, posing as the deceased, and contacted the Defendant by text message and asked to buy some drugs from the Defendant. Police instructed the Defendant to bring the drugs to a parking lot. Upon Defendant’s arrival to the parking lot, Defendant is immediately arrested as soon as he exits his vehicle. Police search the Defendant’s vehicle and find heroin. Defendant is brought to the Stoughton Police Station where he is interrogated by police. In the interrogation, Defendant tells police that he has heroin and pills in his bedroom. The Defendant signed a form giving police permission to search his home. The Defendant also signs another form giving police permission to search his cell phone. Subsequently, police searched the Defendant’s home where they found heroin and pills. Police intended to use the Defendant’s cell phone records to prove that the Defendant sold the heroin, which caused the deceased to die from a drug overdose. Police intended to use the evidence they obtained from the Defendant to charge him with Manslaughter for having caused the death of the deceased.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence in which he sought to suppress the following evidence: statements made by Defendant to police during the interrogation, defendant’s consent for police to search his home, and defendant’s consent for police to search his cell phone. After four hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the evidence was illegally obtained by police. Attorney Noonan proved that the statements made by the Defendant during the police interrogation should have been suppressed because he clearly invoked his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney but the police continued to question him anyway in violation of his constitutional rights. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the Defendant’s consent for the police to search his home and cell phone was invalid because the Defendant’s consent was not given freely or voluntarily. Specifically, Defendant had never been arrested before, he had no prior involvement with police, and he was unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. On top of that, Defendant had been tasered by police prior to the interrogation and Defendant remained handcuffed during the interrogation. Officers admitted that the interrogation was aggressive, at times, and involved yelling. The Defendant’s consent to search his home was not voluntary, as there was evidence that police used the Defendant’s mother as a way to coax him into consenting to a search of his home. Defendant lived with his mother and he was concerned for his mother’s well-being should the police show up at her house, unannounced, and start searching throughout the home. In essence, police told the Defendant that things would be easier for his mother if he simply consented to a search of his bedroom.

See Lawyer’s Weekly Article about the case, “Search results from residence, cell suppressed (.pdf)”

Commonwealth v. S.K. Boston Municipal Court

CHARGES OF USING A FAKE I.D. AND UNDERAGE DRINKING ARE DISMISSED AGAINST EMERSON COLLEGE STUDENT

Boston Police went to The Tam, a bar on Tremont Street in Boston, to conduct a licensed premises inspection. While surveilling the crowd of patrons drinking at the bar, police noticed a patron (our client), who looked underage, drinking a Rolling Rock beer. Police approached our client and asked him for proof of his age. Our client handed the officer an I.D. that was fake. Our client admitted to the officers that it was a fake I.D. and provided his real driver’s license showing that he was under the age of 21.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented character evidence showing that his client was a good kid, who made a stupid mistake, and should be given a break. Attorney Noonan introduced his client’s transcript at Emerson College showing that he was a Dean’s List student. Attorney Noonan presented a letter from one of our client’s professors at Emerson College attesting to his good character, work ethic, and how great of a student he was. Our client is majoring in Sports Communications and wishes to someday become a sport’s broadcaster.

Commonwealth v. P.G. – New Bedford District Court

SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD RAPE ARE DISMISSED ON DAY OF TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WAS ARMED WITH EVIDENCE SHOWING THE VICTIM WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY HIS BIOLOGICAL FATHER, AND NOT THE DEFENDANT.

The alleged victim (A.V.) was the Defendant’s step-son who he helped raise since the child was very young. Defendant and A.V.’s mother divorced. After the divorce, Defendant had no contact with A.V. or his ex-wife. Approximately seven years later, A.V. accused the Defendant of sexually abusing him even though he had not seen him for many years. Through investigation, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan learned that A.V. had a long history of engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior. A.V. got into trouble in daycare for engaging in sexual behavior with other children. A.V. got into trouble for engaging in sexual behavior with a neighbor. A.V. got into trouble, several times, at school for engaging in sexual behavior with other kids. Whenever A.V. got into trouble for his sexual misconduct, he was sent to therapy. Eventually, A.V.’s sexualized behavior escalated to the point where he sexually assaulted another student and, as a result, A.V. was criminally charged for his conduct. When A.V. was being interrogated by police after being charged for his own criminal conduct, A.V. accused the Defendant, for the first time, of sexually abusing him, even though A.V. had not seen the Defendant in seven years.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and gathered records of A.V.’s therapy sessions with various social workers and mental health counselors. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that A.V.’s counselors believed that A.V. was being sexually abused by his biological father, and not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained records from the Department of Children and Families showing that A.V.’s mother reported her concerns that A.V.’s biological father might be sexually abusing him. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had two of A.V.’s therapists ready to testify that, in their opinion, A.V. was being sexually abused by his biological father, and not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan was prepared to prove that the real abuser was A.V.’s biological father, not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan was prepared to show that A.V. had a motive to falsely accuse the Defendant of abusing him because A.V. was too afraid to tell police or others that it was his biological father who had been abusing him.