2019

Commonwealth v. A.C. – Quincy District Court

THREATS TO COMMIT A MASS SHOOTING DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM INTERVIEWED THE ALLEGED VICTIM WHO STATED THAT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS A LEGITIMATE THREAT AND SHE MADE EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS TO THE DEFENSE, WHICH WERE NOT CONTAINED IN THE POLICE REPORT.

Defendant was a Loss Prevention Officer at a department store in the Braintree Mall. Defendant resigned from the store after getting a new job. The Store Manager reported to the police that the Defendant made disturbing comments to a female employee. The police interviewed the female employee who stated that she had a disturbing conversation with the Defendant in October, after the Las Vegas mass shooting. She told police that the Defendant approached her and stated: “How would you like it if I came in here and started shooting everyone? Would that make you afraid?” She told police that the Defendant threatened to shoot her in the mass shooting because she would be caught in the gunfire. She told police that the statements made her nervous and afraid. Based on the female employee’s statements to police, Defendant was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. c. 275, §2), the threat being to commit a mass shooting. Given the nature of the threat involving a mass shooting, the case was taken very seriously by law enforcement given the history of mass shootings in the United States, including the Las Vegas shooting, the Parkland shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the more recent shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

Result: In preparing for trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had his private investigator interview the female employee (i.e., the alleged victim). The female employee gave a much different story to the defense. Her statements to the defense were much different than what was portrayed in the police report. She told the defense that the Defendant approached her work station. She described the Defendant’s demeanor as joking and laughing. She stated that it was a casual conversation and the Defendant did not appear upset or angry. She stated that she did not believe that the Defendant’s statement was meant to be taken as a legitimate threat. She did not call 911 or report it to police. She mentioned it to another co-worker and it was this co-worker who suggested that she report it to management. It was only after the co-worker made this suggestion that she reported it to management. She did not think that her report to management would result in any criminal charges. In fact, she felt bad that the Defendant was charged. Even though the Defendant’s statement was made in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting in October, the incident was not immediately reported to police. The department store decided to report the incident to law enforcement the day after the Parkland Shooting. Based on the statements by the female employee to the defense team, the District Attorney’s Office dismissed the charge at trial.

Commonwealth v. R.A. – Stoughton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY IN 2ND OFFENSE OUI-LIQUOR CASE AFTER CONVINCING THE JUDGE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED

Stoughton Police were dispatched to a parking lot at approximately 3:00 a.m. for a report of an unconscious male passed out in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle. The officer approached the Defendant’s vehicle and observed him to be passed out behind the wheel. The officer knocked on the window several times but the Defendant did not respond. After knocking several times, the Defendant finally woke up. In waking up, the Defendant was disoriented and immediately started to place his hand on the gear shift. The officer instructed the Defendant to step out of the vehicle. Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The officer stated that the Defendant was unable to give any answers or responses to the officer’s questions. The officer had to repeat his questions several times before getting a response from the Defendant. The Defendant spoke slowly and deliberately. He stated that he was at Club Alex’s in Stoughton. Because the Defendant was parked in the parking lot of an apartment complex, the officer asked the Defendant if he was visiting a friend. Defendant stated that he was visiting a friend but he was unable to provide any name to the officer. The Defendant stated the word “Uber” and started flipping through his phone to call an Uber but he did not have the Uber application on his phone. In his police report, the officer states that there was a cup of alcohol in the cup holder. The officer formed the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Because the Defendant had previously convicted of OUI, he was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense). See G.L. c. 90, §24.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan pointed out the stark differences in the arresting officer’s testimony verses the booking officer’s testimony. The booking officer had over 20 years of experience in law enforcement. Even though the booking officer had booked the Defendant for over one-hour, the booking officer did not observe the telltale signs of intoxication. For example, the booking officer did not observe: that the Defendant had glassy or bloodshot eyes, that the Defendant had slurred speech, or that the Defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath. Attorney Noonan pointed out that none of the officers had asked the Defendant if he had any physical or medical conditions. The observations of alleged intoxication could have been the result of a physical or medical condition, and not from the consumption of any alcohol. None of the officers had ever asked the Defendant if he had consumed any alcohol. The Commonwealth introduced the booking video at trial. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant appeared intoxicated on the video, and pointed out a portion of the video where the Defendant lost his balance and stumbled backwards. However, Attorney Noonan highlighted other parts of the booking video where the Defendant appeared sober, such as portions of the video where the Defendant was walking, standing, and had no difficulty standing for his booking photo or standing when being fingerprinted. After the trial, the Judge found the Defendant not guilty. Because this was a second offense OUI, Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended for two years. However, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order restoring the Defendant’s driver’s license.

Commonwealth v. John Joyce – Dedham District Court

RANDOLPH DRUG DEALER FOUND NOT GUILTY IN FATAL OVERDOSE AFTER THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM CONVINCES JURY THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THEIR CLIENT SOLD THE DRUGS THAT CAUSED THE VICTIM’S OVERDOSE DEATH

The Commonwealth alleged that the Defendant sold Heroin and Fentanyl to a Stoughton man who then took the drugs and died of an overdose. The Commonwealth charged the Defendant with 2 counts of Distribution of Heroin and Fentanyl for allegedly selling the drugs that killed the overdose victim. After an investigation, the Commonwealth charged the Defendant with 2 additional counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Fentanyl. On September 1, 2016, Stoughton Police were called to the residence of the male victim who they found dead on the floor of an apparent drug overdose. Police found drugs on the male victim. Police found a rolled up $20 bill with brown powder on the tip of it, which tested positive for Heroin and Fentanyl. Police also found a folded up lottery ticket, which contained a powdery substance that tested positive for Heroin and Fentanyl. The police searched the victim’s phone and saw text messages between the victim and the Defendant from the night before where they both agreed to meet each other. Police then began to text the Defendant from the victim’s phone and, posing as the victim, police set up a drug transaction with the Defendant. When the Defendant showed up for the drug deal, police arrested him and found a folded lottery ticket containing Heroin and Fentanyl, which resulted in the two additional counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Fentanyl.

Result:

The Noonan Defense Team attacked the government’s case that the Defendant sold the Heroin and Fentanyl to the male victim, which caused his fatal overdose. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got the lead investigator to admit on cross-examination that he did have any evidence that the Defendant met with the male victim or distributed the drugs that killed him. Attorney Noonan attacked the government’s handling of the male victim’s cell phone. The police searched the victim’s phone and generated an Extraction Report of the data on the phone. For some strange reason, the extraction report only contained one-month of data on the victim’s phone. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the software used by police had a default setting, which automatically extracted all available data on the phone, but the government only produced one-month of data, which begged the question: What happened to all the other data? There were 1,500 contacts on the phone but only one-month of data. Attorney Noonan introduced the entirety of the call logs and text messages on the victim’s phone to show that there was no evidence of any drug transactions with the Defendant, or even a discussion about drugs. Attorney Noonan introduced a text message in which an identified contact offered to provide drugs to the victim. Attorney Noonan highlighted all the people that the victim had been in communication with on the night in question and any of these people could have been the person who provided the drugs to the victim, but those persons were not investigated. The prosecution argued that the Defendant sold the drugs to the victim because the drugs found in the victim’s possession were packaged in a lottery ticket, and when police arrested the Defendant they found drugs packaged in a lottery ticket. However, Attorney Noonan introduced text messages on the victim’s phone showing that the victim was a regular purchaser of lottery tickets, and the victim was talking about picking up lottery tickets a few days before his overdose. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the victim could have been the seller of the drugs that were found on his person. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that this was a rushed investigation where the police started with a conclusion (that the Defendant was the drug dealer) and police only looked for evidence that would support their conclusion and ignored any evidence to the contrary.

Click on the Link for Enterprise News Coverage of the Case: “Randolph man acquitted in fatal Stoughton overdose, but guilty of possession.”

Commonwealth v. D.L. – Barnstable District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR ASSAULTING HIS 17 YEAR-OLD SON DISMISSED AND CHARGE OF ASSAULT & BATTERY ON A POLICE OFFICER TO BE DISMISSED IN ONE-YEAR RESULTING IN NO CONVICTION OR ADMISSION TO ANY WRONGDOING BY THE DEFENDANT

Sandwich Police were called to the Defendant’s residence for a report of a domestic dispute between two parents and their four children. Two of the children called 911 to report that their parents were out of control. Upon arrival, policed heard yelling and screaming coming from inside the home. Defendant’s wife was yelling and screaming at police that they were not allowed inside their residence and she was described as being highly volatile. Police instructed the Defendant to sit down in a chair. However, Defendant began to yell at his daughter and proceeded to stand up when a police officer shined his flashlight into the Defendant’s eyes to distract him. In response, the Defendant swung his right arm and knocked the flashlight out of the officer’s hands, causing the flashlight to spin in the air. Officers forced the Defendant back into his chair and handcuffed him. Police spoke to the Defendant’s 17 year-old son who reported that the Defendant got right into his face, yelled at him, “Do you want me to beat you?” and pushed his son into the couch. The other son corroborated that the Defendant stated, “Do you want me to beat you?” Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer (G.L. c. 265, §13D) and Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had the 17 year-old son (the victim of the assault and battery) interviewed. The son stated that he was enlisting in the military and he had no desire to testify against his father. Attorney Noonan informed the Commonwealth that the son had no desire to testify against his client and would most likely be unavailable at trial due to his military service. Attorney Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice that his client acted in self-defense in knocking the flashlight out of the officer’s hands to defend himself against the strong and intense beam of light that was shined directly into his eyes, which could cause temporary blindness or other injury. Attorney Noonan was prepared to file a motion for discovery to obtain the make and model of the police officer’s flashlight to establish the strength of the beam of light. For example, one particular police flashlight has an LED beam so strong that it can blast the distance of four football fields. Another particular police flashlight has a super bright beam of 425 lumens reaching 352 yards, and another model has 700 lumens. Attorney Noonan persuades the District Attorney to dismiss the domestic violence charge. For the Assault and Battery on a Police Officer charge, the prosecutor offered the Defendant Pretrial Probation for one-year with the condition to undergo anger management counseling. If the Defendant complies with probation, the charge will be dismissed. This is a good disposition because the Defendant is not required to admit that he committed the offense or admit to any wrongdoing and his record will reflect that the charge was dismissed with no conviction or adverse finding.

Commonwealth v. R.R. – Woburn District Court

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST CANTON MAN FOR STEALING $35,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER ARE DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN ARGUED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH COULD NOT PROVE WHO HAD STOLEN THE MONEY

Defendant worked for a business in Stoughton. It was alleged that the Defendant took manual checks issued to fictitious employees and physically deposited those checks into a bank account. It was further alleged that the Defendant took checks issued to fictitious employees and electronically deposited them into a bank account. The Commonwealth intended to call the Regional Director of the business who discovered the fraudulent transactions and conducted his own investigation which, in his opinion, concluded that the Defendant had stolen the funds. The Regional Director’s investigation claimed that the Defendant had stolen approximately $35,000 from the employer. Defendant was alleged to have stolen $20,000 from a past employer but he was found not guilty of those charges. The Defendant had 24 entries on his criminal record.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to argue that the Commonwealth could not prove its case because they failed to subpoena the bank records where the stolen checks had been deposited into. Without the bank records, the Commonwealth could not prove whose bank account the stolen funds were sent – or if the stolen funds were deposited into the Defendant’s bank account. The Commonwealth did not obtain any surveillance video from the bank showing the person who was depositing the checks. Moreover, the employer did not produce any video footage of the Defendant taking the stolen the checks and leaving the store with them. The District Attorney’s Office was prepared to request another trial date, so they could subpoena the bank records. However, Attorney Noonan brokered a deal where the Commonwealth would dismiss the charge upon his client’s payment of $10,000 in restitution. The client paid the restitution and the charge was dismissed.

Commonwealth v. H.P. – Brockton District Court

AFTER ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN PRESENTS HIS CASE, CLERK-MAGISTRATE DECLINES TO ISSUE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR VIOLATING A PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER FROM HIS EX-GIRLFRIEND

The alleged victim had a permanent Abuse Prevention Restraining Order (c. 209A) against the Defendant, her ex-boyfriend. She reported that she saw the Defendant standing directly across the street from her apartment. She stated that he was walking around and acting suspicious. She was 100% that it was the Defendant and described his clothing. When she observed the Defendant, she immediately called the police but nobody came to her house, so she went to the police soon thereafter. One of the terms of the restraining order orders the Defendant to stay at least 100 yards from the victim.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and, although she claims to have called the police to report the defendant’s alleged violation of the restraining, there was no record of her call. Attorney elicited from the police officer that any report for a violation of a restraining order is given priority and an officer would have been dispatched. She claimed to have observed the Defendant from the first floor window to the apartment building but Attorney Noonan introduced a photo showing that there is no first floor window for the apartment. On cross-examination, she could not recall what type of clothing the Defendant was supposedly wearing. Attorney Noonan argued that it was impossible (or impractical) for the alleged victim to have seen and positively identified the Defendant from her conflicting location in the apartment especially since it was dark outside. The alleged victim had a motive because she made the allegation to the police after seeing some posts on the Defendant’s Facebook page, which upset her. She claimed that the Defendant’s Facebook posts were a violation of the restraining order but the police did not agree with her. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint.

Commonwealth v. N.H. – Plymouth District Court

AT TRIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DISMISSES CASE AFTER THE TRIAL JUDGE RULES THAT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CAN INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE ENTRAPPED HIS CLIENT INTO COMITTING THE CRIME

Defendant was in a relationship with a girlfriend and they had a baby together. Defendant was originally from Florida but he moved to his girlfriend’s apartment in Plymouth where they raised their baby together. Defendant and his girlfriend were not getting along and they were arguing a lot. Defendant told his girlfriend that he was going to take the baby down to the Florida for a week to visit his family. The girlfriend agreed. The girlfriend called the Defendant several times but he did not answer. The girlfriend called the Plymouth Police to report that the Defendant had taken the baby to Florida and he was not answering her calls. The Police told the girlfriend that the Defendant had not committed any crime because there were no court orders in effect prohibiting the Defendant from taking the child. The Police instructed the girlfriend to obtain a restraining order (“RO”) against the Defendant. The girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) against the Defendant. The RO ordered the Defendant to return the child to the girlfriend in Massachusetts. The RO also ordered the Defendant not to contact his girlfriend. After obtaining the RO, the girlfriend went to the Police Station with the RO paperwork. The police officer stated that he called the Defendant, on a recorded line, and advised him of the RO and the provision, which prohibited him from contacting his girlfriend. The next day, the girlfriend went to the police station to report that the Defendant called her phone in violation of the RO. As a result of this one phone call to the girlfriend, Defendant was charged with Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A.). When the Defendant returned to Massachusetts, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan opposed the issuance of the RO and cross-examined the girlfriend. Although the RO was extended, Attorney Noonan obtained valuable evidence on his cross-examination of the girlfriend, which he sought to introduce at the criminal trial.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to introduce evidence that the Police entrapped the Defendant into committing the crime. Specifically, the police induced the Defendant to call his girlfriend, which was a violation of the RO. A hearing was held to determine whether the trial judge would allow Attorney Noonan to introduce his entrapment evidence. Attorney Noonan offered the following evidence of entrapment: First, at the RO hearing, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the girlfriend where she testified, under oath, that the Police instructed her to call and text the Defendant, which would induce a response from the Defendant, which the police could use to charge him with the crime of violating the RO. In particular, the girlfriend testified that the police officer stood right next to her and was telling her exactly what to say to the Defendant. The police officer was telling exactly what to say in her text messages to the Defendant. The police officer told her to make it sound like she the police were not telling her what to say. Clearly, the police were instructing the girlfriend and were using her as a tool to entrap the Defendant into calling her back. Second, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order for the girlfriend’s phone records, which contained overwhelming evidence that the police were using the girlfriend to the entrap the Defendant. Specifically, the phone records showed that the girlfriend and police exchanged 21 phone calls and they spoke for a total of 90 minutes. The phone records showed that the police would call the girlfriend, and right after she spoke to the police, the girlfriend would call the Defendant. Third, Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the girlfriend had contacted the Defendant a total of 44 times by phone, text, and e-mail – but the Defendant did not take the bait and call her back. It was only after the girlfriend’s persistent and relentless onslaught of communications to the defendant, at the instruction of police, that the Defendant finally caved in and took the bait and called her back. Even when the girlfriend went into court to modify the RO to permit the Defendant to contact her, the Defendant still didn’t contact her. Finally, Attorney Noonan discovered that the police officer did not call the Defendant on a recorded line to advise him of the RO, even though the officer wrote in his report that he recorded the call with the Defendant. The District Attorney’s Office objected to Attorney Noonan’s proposed entrapment evidence but, after a hearing, the trial judge ruled that the entrapment evidence would come in at trial. The District Attorney’s Office then dismissed the case.

Commonwealth v. D.S. – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST BRIDGEWATER MAN DISMISSED FOR ALLEGEDLY HITTING THE VICTIM IN THE FACE CAUSING A FRESH LACERATION, PUSHING THE VICTIM INTO A MIRROR THAT SHATTERED, AND THROWING THE VICTIM TO THE FLOOR

Bridgewater Police were dispatched to a residence for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police spoke with the alleged victim who told police that, earlier in the night, the Defendant hit him in the face with an open hand. Later in the evening, when they returned to their apartment, the Defendant shoved the alleged victim against a large mirror causing the glass to shatter. Police took photos of the shattered glass. Police observed a fresh laceration to the victim’s right cheek. There was a witness who was in the apartment when the incident occurred. The witness stated that he went outside to smoke a cigarette and heard argument in the apartment. When he returned, the victim told the witness that the Defendant had thrown him to the ground.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had his investigator interview the alleged victim who provided the defense with a typed statement indicating that he pushed the Defendant numerous times, he kept the fight going, and he said some harsh words to the Defendant. He stated that he did not sustain any injuries and he wanted the case dismissed. As for the witness, it did not appear as though he witnessed the actual altercation but arrived after the fact. At trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

Commonwealth v. John Doe – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS FELONY CONVICTION FOR BREAKING & ENTERING AGAINST TRUCK DRIVER VACATED AND THROWN OUT.

Defendant is a 48 year-old commercial truck driver, a happily married man, and a loving father. Defendant applied for a License to Carry Firearms (LTC). However, the police department denied his application for an LTC because he had a felony conviction on his record. Defendant was shocked to hear that he had a felony conviction. Defendant obtained a copy of his criminal record, which showed that he had been convicted of Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime with the Intent to Commit a Felony when he was 14 years-old. He was convicted in 1984. Defendant knew he had a juvenile case when he was really young but did not know he had been convicted of a felony. Defendant has no other criminal record. Defendant retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to vacate his felony conviction.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and learned that the felony Breaking & Entering charge stemmed from an incident when the Defendant, at age 14, went into a vacant home with a friend to smoke a cigarette. A neighbor reported seeing people inside the unoccupied home and the Defendant was later arrested. This was a home in the Defendant’s neighborhood that kids would use as a cut through yard. Kids cut through the yard because no one was living there. Attorney Noonan obtained records for the residence showing that it had been unoccupied at the time of the offense. Attorney Noonan sent a written request to the District Attorney’s Office requesting to vacate the conviction arguing that his client did not have the intent to commit the felony because he merely went into the unoccupied house with a friend to smoke a cigarette. His only intent was to commit a Trespass. They did not steal anything from the house. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with evidence regarding his client’s background as a hard-working guy, law-abiding citizen, and family man and the collateral consequences this old felony conviction has caused. The District Attorney’s Office reviewed the case. The DA’s Office was very reasonable and agreed to vacate the Defendant’s felony conviction. Today, the conviction was thrown out.

Commonwealth v. K.G. – Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES AGAINST UBER DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant, an Uber driver from Brockton, was charged in the Brockton District Court with Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A). Defendant’s girlfriend called 911. In the 911 call, you can hear a female screaming “Stop!” “Leave me alone!” There is another party in the background of the call who she accuses of attacking her. During the 18-minute 911 call, you can hear the female yelling and arguing with the other party. She whispers to the 911 operator, “Hurry.” Police are sent to the Defendant’s apartment. The police found a female party hiding in the bedroom. She identified herself as the 911 caller. She tells police that the Defendant was intoxicated and angry with her. She states that the Defendant grabbed her arm and started throwing anything he could find at her. She was struck a piece of furniture. Defendant told police that they simply had a verbal argument. Police arrested the Defendant.

Result: At the first trial date, the alleged victim did not appear in court. The prosecutor sought to prove the case without the alleged victim’s testimony. In particular, the prosecutor sought to introduce the 911 call into evidence and to call the police officers who investigated the case. The trial was continued due to court congestion. On the second trial date, the alleged victim did not appear. The prosecutor asked Attorney Noonan if he would accept a plea deal, which involved his client admitting to the charges but Attorney Noonan rejected the offer. Again, the Commonwealth sought to introduce the 911 call and attempt to prove the case without the alleged victim’s testimony. However, the prosecutor was unable to get the police dispatcher to come into court in order to admit the 911 tape. The Commonwealth was unable to go forward. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the Court to dismiss the charges. The charges were then dismissed.