2019

Commonwealth v. V.O. – Dedham District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN AND PATRICK J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND RECKLESS OPERATION CASE AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)) and Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The prosecution introduced the following evidence at trial: A Westwood Police Officer was on patrol in the parking lot of the Marriot Hotel when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving around the parking lot and driving around in circles with no headlights. The officer followed the vehicle, as it exited the parking lot still with no headlights on. The vehicle went through a stop sign without stopping and began to travel the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. The prosecution argued that the Defendant could have killed or seriously injured someone by traveling the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. When the officer approached the vehicle, he observed a rear seat passenger drinking out of a Corona beer bottle. There were three passengers in the car. A search of the car revealed an open Corona beer bottle and a nearly empty Corona beer bottle in the backseat. The prosecution introduced photos of the beer bottles for the jury. The officer asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle and to perform field sobriety tests. On the first test, the One-Leg Stand test, the officer testified that the Defendant almost hopped into the street. The officer had to terminate the test because he was concerned for the Defendant’s safety. On the next test, the 9 Step Walk and Turn, the Defendant repeatedly told the officer that he felt pressured into performing the test. The officer then administered the Alphabet test and testified that the Defendant recited the letter “z” out of order. The officer testified that the Defendant continuously swayed throughout his encounter with him. The officer testified that the Defendant swayed back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” The officer testified that the Defendant had a “strong odor” of alcohol on his breath. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was “extremely slurred” and that he had bloodshot eyes.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the police officer for over an hour and attacked his credibility. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer did not ask the Defendant if he had any physical or medical conditions prior to administering the field sobriety tests. Officers are taught and trained to ask someone if they have any physical or medical conditions because those factors may affect their performance on the field sobriety tests. In this case, Defendant had a pinched nerve in his back from a prior car accident, which caused numbness in his left leg. Although the arresting officer testified that the Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, a back-up officer testified that the Defendant did not have a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The most crucial piece of evidence was the booking video, which served to discredit the officer’s testimony. In his closing argument, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that Defendant appeared sober on the video and did not exhibit the signs of intoxication, as testified to by the police officer. On the video, Defendant was not swaying back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” There was nothing on the video to substantiate the officer’s testimony that the Defendant’s balance was so bad that he almost hopped into the street. The officer testified that he had to physically assist the Defendant out of the police cruiser and escort him into the police station. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the video told a completely different story. Specifically, the video showed the Defendant getting out of the police cruiser, with no assistance from anyone and with no difficulty, even though he had both arms handcuffed behind his back. Defendant walked into the police station with perfect gait and without any assistance. Attorney Noonan highlighted certain portions of the video, which demonstrated the Defendant’s sobriety. Although the Defendant drove the wrong way down the street, he immediately apologized to the officer and admitted that he made a mistake. After a two-day trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on all charges.

Commonwealth v. T.C. – Quincy District Court

AT TRIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OFFERS TO DISMISS CRIMINAL CHARGE OF VIOLATING A HARASSMENT ORDER AGAINST BRAINTREE MAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD IF HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE FOR 8 MONTHS

Defendant, a happily married man in his mid-fifties with no criminal record, had a longstanding feud with his neighbors, a father, mother, and their adult son, who live across the street. In December 2017, the father and mother obtained a Harassment Prevention Order (“HPO”) (G.L. c. 258E) against the Defendant for one-year alleging that he threatened to beat them up, shouted vulgarities at them, and waved a leaf blower at them. After this HPO was issued, Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately filed a Motion to Reconsider the judge’s decision in issuing the order, which was denied after a hearing. Attorney Noonan filed an appeal. After the HPO issued, Defendant was arrested, several days later, and charged with Violation of a Harassment Prevention Order (G.L. c. 258E, §9). The alleged victim claimed that, several days after getting the harassment order, Defendant threatened to beat him up. In December 2018, the alleged victims sought a one-year extension of the HPO. This time, Attorney Noonan was able to oppose the HPO and cross-examine the alleged victims under oath. Even though the judge extended the HPO for another year, Attorney Noonan obtained valuable evidence at the hearing to use in defense of the criminal charge. In particular, Attorney Noonan elicited evidence that, back in 2012, the three alleged victims (mother, father, and their son) attacked him, beat him, and sent him to the hospital with serious injuries. In particular, the father punched the defendant in the face sending him to the ground. The mother retrieved a wooden club from the house and handed it to the father who proceeded to beat the Defendant with hit, as the Defendant was on the ground. The adult son joined in and struck the Defendant, as he was on the ground. Attorney Noonan obtained photographs of the wooden club. As a result of the violent attack, Defendant went to the hospital with injuries, including a laceration to his forehead (requiring 6 sutures), contusions to the chest, arm, and back, and a blunt injury to his finger (which was placed in a splint).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to introduce evidence that the three alleged victims had brutally attacked his client back in 2012. Attorney Noonan was prepared with photos of the wooden club that was used to beat his client, photos of the Defendant’s injuries, witnesses, and certified medical records of his client’s injuries. Attorney Noonan’s proposed evidence posed a serious problem for the alleged victims because they could potentially incriminate themselves if they were to testify at trial giving them what is known as a Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. Prior to the trial commencing, the District Attorney’s Office offered to dismiss the criminal charge, so long as the client abides by the existing HPO, which is in effect until December of 2020.

Commonwealth v. G.G. – Plymouth Superior Court

THE DEFENSE TEAM OF PATRICK J. NOONAN AND BRENDAN J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON CHARGES OF RAPE OF CHILD, UNNATURAL AND LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD, DISSEMINATION OF OBSCENE MATTER TO A MINOR, AND CHILD ENTICEMENT.

Defendant, an 81 year-old man from Hanover, was indicted by a Plymouth County Grand Jury on the following criminal offenses: (1) Rape of Child – Use of Force (G.L. c. 265, §22A), (2) Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor (G.L. c. 272, §28), (3) Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16 (G.L. c. 272, §35A), (4) Enticement of a Child under 16 (G.L. c. 265, §26C), and (5) Enticement of a Child under 16.

The Defendant was facing a life sentence or the possibility of a very severe and long sentence. The crime of Rape of Child carries a sentence of life in state prison. The crimes of Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of a Child under 16, all carry a sentence of 5 years in state prison.

Defendant resided by himself in a home in Hanover. In May of 2016, Defendant asked his daughter and step-daughter to move into his house because he needed help around the house and help with other things. The daughters discovered stacks of handwritten notes in his house of pornographic websites, including many websites for child pornography. They searched the Defendant’s electronic devices (his iPhone, iPad, and Laptop) and discovered that his devices contained a lot of pornographic material. The daughters also noticed that a young, teenaged boy would come over to the house and do chores for the Defendant. They noticed that the Defendant would frequently provide the young teenage boy with car rides. Based on their discovery of the child pornography websites, the daughters were very concerned that the Defendant was engaging in sexual behavior with the boy. The daughters confronted the Defendant who admitted to them that he had sex with the boy on 4-5 occasions and would pay the boy for sexual favors. Defendant also stated that he and the boy almost engaged in Bestiality with a dog but the dog was too jumpy, so they couldn’t do it. The daughters decided that they needed to get the Defendant’s confession on tape, so they secretly recorded a conversation with Defendant. In this recorded conversation, the daughters spoke to the Defendant on the back porch of his home. The daughter used her cell phone, which she discretely held in her hand, to record the conversation. In the recorded conversation, the Defendant admitted to having sex with the boy on 4-5 occasions and he admitted that he would pay the boy for sexual favors. After obtaining his confession, the daughters took the Defendant’s electronic devices (his iPhone, iPad, and Laptop) from his home and brought them to the police department. At the police department, the daughters and officers searched the electronic devices. Later on, police obtained search warrants for the Defendant’s devices. A search of the Defendant’s devices revealed that word searches for “porn” returned over 7,000 hits, “erotica” returned over 8,000 hits, and “bestiality” returned over 500 hits. Police then contacted the teenage boy and had him come into the police station for an interview. Several weeks later, the boy was interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office. In his interview, the boy stated that the Defendant paid him $300 for the Defendant to perform oral sex on the boy. The boy stated that the Defendant performed oral sex on him and paid him for it. The boy stated that the incident of oral sex occurred in December of 2014 when the boy was 15 years old. The boy stated that the Defendant showed him Bestiality and he had asked the boy to provide him with child pornography. The boy stated that the Defendant would pay him money in exchange for the boy providing the Defendant with pornographic websites that were to the Defendant’s liking. In his interview, the boy mentioned that he (the boy) would bring his female friend over to the Defendant’s home and the Defendant would give them car rides. The boy was three months older than the female. The police and District Attorney’s Office interviewed the female. The female stated that she would go over the Defendant’s home during her freshman year of high school when she was around 14 years or older. The female stated that the Defendant asked her to provide him with naked pictures of herself and her friends. Defendant specifically asked her for butt, boob, and pussy pictures. The female didn’t actually provide the Defendant with naked pictures of herself or her friends. Instead, she would find naked pictures of women online. The female would tell the Defendant that the naked pictures were of herself when they were actually women online. The female stated that the Defendant would ask her and the boy to tell him sex stories of their sexual experiences. The female would make up sex stories to tell the Defendant. The female stated that the Defendant would buy them alcohol and cigarettes.

Result: Defendant was represented by Attorneys Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. The Defendant was charged with three crimes (Rape of Child – Use of Force, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of Child under 16) – based on the same incident of oral sex with the boy. A necessary element for these offenses against the boy requires proof that the boy was under the age of 16. After an excellent cross-examination of the boy, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the incident of oral sex occurred toward the end of the boy’s relationship with the Defendant, when the boy was over the age of 16. Through his cross-examination of the female victim, Attorney Noonan was able to solidify that the incident of oral sex occurred when the boy was over the age of 16. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan showed the jurors a Chart, which outlined the timeline of events, and proved that the incident of oral sex occurred when the boy was over the age of 16. However, the jury could still find the Defendant guilty of Rape of Child – Use of Force if they found that the oral sex was done by force or without the boy’s consent. Through a very effective cross-examination of the boy, Attorney Noonan established that the oral sex was consensual. The jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of Rape of Child – Use of Force, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of Child under 16 because our defense team was able to prove that the oral sex was consensual and the boy was over the age of 16. Defendant was still charged with Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor (the boy) and a minor is defined as a person under the age of 18. The evidence at trial showed that the boy, at all times during his relationship with the Defendant, was under the age of 18. The charge of Dissemination of Harmful Matter to the boy was based on the Commonwealth’s allegations that the Defendant showed the boy Bestiality and Child Pornography. There was no evidence at trial that the Defendant showed the boy Child Pornography. However, the boy did testify that the Defendant would ask the boy to provide him with the names of Bestiality websites. The boy would look up Bestiality websites, write down the domain names, and provide the Defendant with those domain names. Attorney Noonan asked the judge to find the Defendant not guilty on the Dissemination charge because the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was legally insufficient. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not show or disseminate Bestiality to the boy because the Defendant merely asked the boy if the boy could provide him with the names of Bestiality websites. There was no evidence of dissemination. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant not guilty of the Dissemination charge. The jury found the Defendant guilty on only one charge, which was Enticement of a Child; the child being the female victim. The Noonan’s moved for the Judge to find the Defendant not guilty of this Child Enticement offense because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proof. The Judge denied the request. While the jury was deliberating, the jury submitted four questions to the judge regarding the Child Enticement charge involving the female victim. The jury’s four questions were all factual questions. There were no answers for the jury’s factual questions because the Commonwealth did not present any evidence that would have answered them. In our opinion, the jury’s four factual questions suggested that the jury had reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, our law firm is appealing the Defendant’s one and only conviction for Child Enticement. This was an enormous victory because our client was facing a life sentence. Due to our client’s advanced age, any jail time would be a life sentence.

Click here to read Enterprise Newspaper Article: “Hanover man, 81, acquitted of most charges in child enticement case.”

Waltham District Court – Commonwealth v. Z.O.

AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEYS PATRICK J. NOONAN AND GERALD J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A WALTHAM MAN WHO ALMOST DROVE HIS VEHICLE INTO SOMEBODY’S HOUSE.

Defendant, a self-employed Realtor from Waltham, caused a major car accident in Watertown. Defendant lost control of his vehicle, drove through two sign posts, crashed through a fence and almost drove into the front of somebody’s house. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence. Upon arrival to the car accident in Watertown, a Watertown Police Officer testified to the severity of the crash, which caused significant damage to the Defendant’s vehicle rendering it inoperable and a total loss. The Defendant was immediately uncooperative with police. They asked him to remain in his vehicle but he refused and exited the vehicle. He was described as argumentative. The officer alleged that the Defendant was unable to recall where he was coming from. The Defendant admitted to consuming two or possibly three beers. He had an odor of alcohol on his breath. His speech was slurred. The officer decided to conduct field sobriety tests (FSTs). When walking to the location of the FSTs, Defendant was “extremely unsteady on his feet.” Defendant almost fell to the ground but the officers caught him. Defendant dropped his wallet on the ground. He mumbled to himself and spoke with slurred speech. Defendant was instructed to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn test. However, the Defendant continually interrupted the officer and attempted to start the test, on two occasions, before the officer had an opportunity to finish her instructions. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn test, the officer noted that the Defendant stumbled, did not walk heel to tow, did not count the steps out loud, used his arms for balance, and took the incorrect number of steps. On the One-Leg Stand test, the officer noted that on the Defendant’s first attempt he could only raise his leg for one-second and his body was tipping. On his second attempt, Defendant swayed and almost fell to the ground before the officers caught him. Defendant could not recite the Alphabet. After his arrest, Defendant was booked at the Watertown Police Station. The booking officer testified that he could detect an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant during the booking process. The arresting officer stated that the Defendant was unsteady during booking.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called, as a witness, a police officer from the neighboring town of Belmont to testify. Just minutes prior to the car accident in Watertown (which resulted in the Defendant’s arrest for OUI), Defendant was involved in a minor car accident in the town of Belmont where he rear-ended another vehicle. A Belmont Police Officer investigated the minor car accident in Belmont and interviewed the Defendant. At the conclusion of her investigation, the Belmont Officer gave the Defendant a warning for following too closely and she allowed the Defendant to leave the scene and drive away in his vehicle. Attorney Noonan questioned the Belmont Officer who testified that she did not observe any signs of intoxication by the Defendant and she found that the Defendant was sober. Attorney Noonan established that the accident in Belmont (where the Belmont Officer found him to be sober) occurred just minutes prior to the accident in Watertown. Therefore, just minutes prior to his arrest for OUI-Liquor in Watertown, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that another officer from Belmont found the Defendant to be sober. At the scene of the Watertown car accident, Defendant was evaluated by EMTS prior to the officer administering his FSTs. Defendant refused medical treatment. Attorney Noonan introduced the ambulance report, which showed that the EMTs did not observe any signs that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan also introduced medical records of the Defendant showing that he had chronic medical issues, which could have affected his ability to perform the FSTs. Finally, Attorney Noonan introduced portions of the Defendant’s booking video, which showed evidence of the Defendant’s sobriety. After a two-day jury trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE SEALED FROM ATTORNEY’S RECORD

A self-employed Attorney from Belmont, Massachusetts was charged with Assault and Battery. His girlfriend, the alleged victim, went to the police station and spoke with an officer. Based on the conversation with the officer, the officer decided to charge the Defendant with Assault and Battery. The girlfriend was surprised that the police charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery, as it was never her intention for him to get charged with a crime. She believed that the officer misrepresented what she stated to him. The girlfriend expressed that she wanted the case dismissed. The District Attorney’s Office filed a Nolle Prosequi with the Court, which is a formal notice stating that they will not prosecute the Defendant.

Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he needed his domestic violence charge sealed immediately, as he was very close to being hired for a legal position and he would be denied the job if the employer saw that he had been charged with Assault & Battery. Defendant knew he would be denied the position, even though the case had been Nolle Prossed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s criminal sealed within six (6) days and the client was later hired for the job.

Commonwealth v. M.W. – Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS A NOT GUILTY IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO CAUSED A SERIOUS CAR ACCIDENT AND HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF .214%.

Defendant, a Brockton man, was traveling on Route 24 South in Randolph when he caused a serious motor vehicle accident. It was alleged that the Defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed and rear-ended another vehicle causing both vehicles to spin out of control and end up off the highway. The Defendant’s vehicle rolled over multiple times and ended up in the woods. Defendant caused significant damage to the rear of the other vehicle. There were three occupants in the other vehicle. Upon arrival, Defendant did not follow the instructions of the officers. Officers observed that the Defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath; he spoke with slurred speech, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant admitted to consuming two beers. Defendant was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The investigating officer went to the hospital where he spoke with the Defendant. The officer made the same observations of the Defendant’s sobriety that he made at the scene. The officer formed the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. At the hospital, Defendant’s blood was drawn and tested for alcohol. The blood test revealed that the Defendant had a blood alcohol level of .214%, which is well over the legal limit of 0.08%.

Result: Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who fast-tracked the case to trial before the District Attorney’s Office had an opportunity to subpoena his client’s hospital records and find out that he had a blood alcohol level of .214%. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant sustained a head injury and bodily injuries in the crash. In his cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Noonan got the officer to admit that his observations of the Defendant’s alleged intoxication could have been symptoms from the crash and his injuries as opposed to signs of alcohol consumption. For example, Defendant’s unsteadiness on his feet, slurred speech, and his inability to follow the instructions of police could have been symptoms from his head and bodily injuries, and not symptoms of intoxication. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was intoxicated. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant Not Guilty.

Commonwealth v. M.D. – Brockton District Court

DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO STEALING $8,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS LARCENY CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

Defendant, a Brockton man, worked for a business in Brockton. An investigator for the company found that the Defendant was stealing from the business in excess of $8,000. The investigator gathered all records and documents showing the Defendant’s thefts from the business. The investigator provided the police with all the documents detailing the employee theft. At the police station, Defendant admitted that he stole the money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting the Defendant’s confession suppressed after proving that the police officer did not read the Defendant his Miranda rights. The District Attorney’s Office still had enough evidence to prosecute the Defendant for the crime of Larceny over $250 (G.L. c. 265, §30).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan was prepared to move the Court to exclude from evidence the documents from the investigator, which purportedly showed the Defendant’s thefts from the business on the grounds that the documents were not admissible as business records. Attorney Noonan was prepared to present evidence that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove all the essential elements of a Larceny beyond a reasonable doubt. On the first trial date, the investigator appeared in court and was ready to testify but the trial was continued due to court congestion. On the second trial date, the Commonwealth got the trial continued, over the objection of the defense, because a witness was on vacation. On the third trial date, the trial got continued due to court congestion. On the fourth trial date, the investigator did not appear because he had a job training that day. Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, as the Commonwealth was not ready for trial.

Commonwealth v. N.J. – Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST BROCKTON WOMAN FOR BITING HER HUSBAND DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

Defendant, a Brockton woman, called police after having an argument with her husband and she reported that she and her husband were both verbally and physically fighting each other. When the police arrived to their apartment, the husband told police that the defendant struck him in the eye and bit him on the chest. The officer observed that the husband has fresh bite marks on his chest. Defendant claimed that the husband struck her and bit her. However, the police did not observe any marks on the Defendant, which would corroborate her claim. The police arrested and charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M.)

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in having the case dismissed. The husband appeared in court and invoked his marital privilege. Under Massachusetts law, neither a husband nor wife can be compelled to testify against the other in a criminal trial. G.L. c. 233, §20(2). The purpose of the privilege is to protect marital harmony and avoid the unseemliness of compelling one spouse to testify against the other. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980. The scope of the marital privilege is broad; it creates a privilege not just to withhold testimony that would be adverse to the spouse, but also to refrain from testifying at all. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 447 Mass. 88 (2006) Upon the husband’s invocation of his marital privilege, the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to try the case and the case the was dismissed.

Commonwealth v. R.A. – Wareham District Court

EASTON MAN WAS CAPTURED ON FILM COMMITTING THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF AN ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JURY TO FIND HIS CLIENT NOT GUILTY.

Defendant is a 69 year-old hairstylist from Easton who has owned his own business for 35 years. The victim worked for the Defendant and they developed a romantic relationship and dated for 5 years. The victim claimed that she ended the relationship with the Defendant due to his obsessive behavior and because he was stalking her. The victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order, known as a 209A Order, which the Court issued against the Defendant. The 209A Order ordered the Defendant not to contact the victim, not to abuse the victim, and to stay at least 100 yards away from the victim. Defendant was charged with Violation of Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) based on allegations that he followed the victim in violation of the Order, which ordered him to stay at least 100 yards away. On the day in question, the victim was driving her vehicle with her husband in the front passenger seat. They (victim and her husband) claimed to have seen the Defendant’s vehicle in Easton while they were on the way to breakfast. After breakfast, they went to Dunkin Donuts on Route 44 in Raynham where they claimed to have seen the Defendant’s vehicle drive by them. To get away from the Defendant, they drove into the Shaw’s parking lot on Route 44 and waited for the Defendant to leave. They pulled out of the Shaw’s parking lot and proceeded to drive on Route 44 when they observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving directly behind them and following them. The husband took out his cell phone and filmed the Defendant following directly behind them. The prosecution introduced the video at trial, which clearly showed the Defendant’s vehicle following directly behind the victim and at times following them very closely. The victim claimed that the Defendant was following them for 20-30 minutes. They went directly to the Middleboro Police Station to report the incident. At trial, the Commonwealth argued that the Defendant knowingly followed the victim through three different towns in violation of the restraining order.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that his client did not know that he was following the victim and that the encounter was accidental. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client left his business in Easton to go to Route 44 to do some errands for work. When the victim first saw the Defendant in Easton, she saw his vehicle three cars ahead of her. In Easton, Defendant was not following her and the victim saw him get onto Route 24 South. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was not following her in Easton, as the victim saw him three cars ahead of her. After the Defendant got onto Route 24 South, the victim went to West Bridgewater to eat breakfast. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant could not have known that the victim would be going to Route 44 because he had already gotten on the highway and was already on Route 44 doing errands while the victim was eating breakfast in West Bridgewater. When the victim was at Dunkin Donuts on Route 44, she claimed to have seen the Defendant but Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was on his way to a store called Salon Centric in the vicinity of Dunkin Donuts. Attorney Noonan introduced a receipt verifying that his client went to Salon Centric near the Dunkin Donuts. When the victim pulled out of Shaw’s she claimed to have seen the Defendant following her on Route 44 but Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was on this section of Route 44 because he had just finished having lunch at KFC and was on his way to Middleboro to watch the herring run. Attorney Noonan introduced a receipt from KFC verifying that his client had just eaten lunch, which explained why he was traveling on this section of Route 44. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that it was his client’s routine and regular practice to go to Route 44 to buy products at Salon Centric and get a bite to eat at KFC. Attorney Noonan introduced receipts showing that his client went to Salon Centric and the KFC on Route 44 at least once of week. Attorney Noonan presented witnesses who testified to the Defendant’s routine practice of going to Route 44. Attorney Noonan introduced a map of Route 44 highlighting the locations of Dunkin Donuts, Shaw’s, Salon Centric, and KFC showing the Defendant’s locations and routes of travel. The map explained why the victim saw the Defendant’s vehicle at these locations. After 10 minutes of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty.

Commonwealth v. T.B. – Brockton District Court

WHITMAN MAN IS CHARGED WITH OUI-LIQUOR (2ND OFFENSE) AFTER HE CRASHES INTO UTILITY POLE, TELLS POLICE OFFICER, “I KNOW I’M GOING TO JAIL FOR THIS,” AND HAS A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF 0.249%. CLIENT AVOIDS A CONVICTION, JAIL TIME, AND A 3-YEAR LOSS OF LICENSE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE JUDGE TO TREAT THIS CASE AS A 1ST OFFENSE OUI.

Defendant, a 38 year-old Whitman man, was driving erratically and struck a utility pole with such force as to snap the pole at its base. A concerned citizen called 911. Upon arrival, the officer observed that the Defendant was highly intoxicated. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol. Defendant’s eyes were red and glassy. When asked for his license, Defendant attempted to open his car door and fell to the ground. The officer could not administer any field sobriety tests due to the fact that the Defendant could not stand and was falling over. Defendant told the officer, “I know I’m going to jail for this.” Defendant was transported to the hospital where they tested his blood for alcohol. Defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.249%, which is three times over the legal limit. Defendant was charged with a second offense OUI (as he was previously convicted of OUI) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The District Attorney’s Office had an expert ready to testify at trial that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.249%.

Result: Although charged with a second-offense OUI, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to sentence his client to a first-offense OUI pursuant to Commonwealth v. Cahill, 442 Mass. 127 (2004). Defendant received a Continuance without a Finding (CWOF) with one-year of probation instead of a Guilty. If the Defendant successfully completes probation, the case will be dismissed. With this first offense disposition, Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended for only 45 days. If he was sentenced to a second offense OUI, Defendant would have lost his driver’s license for 3 years. With a Cahill disposition, the Registry of Motor Vehicles must honor the decision of the court to treat a second offense OUI as a 1st offense if it occurs more than 10 years from the date of the 1st drunk driving conviction. It should be noted that the District Attorney’s Office objected to Attorney Noonan’s request for the judge to treat this case as a 1st offense OUI and the Commonwealth requested a Guilty finding with a suspended jail sentence.

Click Here to Read Enterprise Newspaper Article: “What Whitman main charged with drunken driving told police.”