Commonwealth v. O.A.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN DRUNK-DRIVING CASE AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti. He is not a U.S. citizen. Client attended a wedding on Cape Cod. He was driving home to Brockton. As he was driving on Route 24, State Troopers were parked in the breakdown lane. The Trooper observed the Defendant speeding, his vehicle crossed the fog line, and he came close to striking the police cruiser. Troopers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle, as it exited the highway. Police located the Defendant’s vehicle parked in a Gas Station. It was almost 2:00 a.m., and the gas station was closed, but the Defendant approached the gas pump thinking the gas station was open. Officers observed that the Defendant’s pants were unbuttoned and there was liquid on his crotch area. Troopers administered two Field Sobriety Tests and the Trooper testified that the Defendant failed the tests. The Trooper testified that the Defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes, his speech was slurred, and there was an odor of alcohol on his breath. Police found a liquor bottle in his car. As a result, Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol, Negligent Operation, Speeding, Marked Lanes Violation, Obstructing an Emergency Vehicle, and Open Container of Alcohol.

Result: After a bench trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan aggressively cross-examined the State Trooper and challenged his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated and attacked his testimony concerning the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle. After the trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all charges, but was found response of committing a marked lanes violation.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HAITAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record. A State Trooper observed the Defendant operating erratically on Route 495 South. The Trooper observed the Defendant swerving and crossing the fog line. When signaled to pull over, Defendant continued traveling at a slow rate of speed and almost came to a complete stop in the right-hand travel lane. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper noticed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test, the One Leg Stand, and found that the Defendant failed this test. The Trooper recovered a Fireball nip bottle in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Negligent Operation (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan affectively attacked the Trooper’s testimony that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan excluded evidence regarding one particular field sobriety test. As to the other field sobriety test, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant recently suffered an ankle injury, which affected his ability to perform satisfactorily on the test. Through cross-examination, the Trooper admitted that he did not know whether the liquor bottle was opened or that any contents had been consumed. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not demonstrate any noticeable signs of impairment during the booking process. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or that he operated his vehicle negligently. Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT DISMISSED AGAINST 54 YEAR-OLD PROFESSIONAL WOMAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

The alleged victim called the police to report that the Defendant struck her car on the highway and fled the scene. After interviewing the alleged victim, Massachusetts State Police charged the Defendant with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Property Damage pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a 1/2 )(1)

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. The Defendant was stopped in traffic on the highway when the alleged victim exited her vehicle and confronted the Defendant accusing her of striking her vehicle. Frightened by this person, the Defendant did not exit her vehicle and continued driving when the traffic cleared. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant immediately called the Massachusetts State Police to report the fact that this person was falsely accusing her of striking her vehicle. Defendant never struck the other vehicle and Attorney Noonan introduced photos showing no damage to his client’s car. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim had a disturbing criminal record and was not credible. Defendant is a 54 year-old woman with no criminal record, she is happily married with three adult children and she is the director of a rehabilitation facility.

Commonwealth v. K.G.

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED PROBATION BY FAILING A DRUG TEST, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE LAB TESTING WAS INCONCLUSIVE AND UNRELIABLE.

The client was on probation after having pled guilty to a multitude of crimes. As a condition of his probation, the client was required to submit to random drug testing by appearing at an independent laboratory and providing a urine sample. The client was notified that he violated his probation when the laboratory reported that the client tested positive for opiates. For violating probation, the client was facing potential incarceration and other significant consequences. The client was adamant that he was clean and didn’t use drugs. He had been sober for 17 months. He was on track to complete his probation because he was doing extremely well. The client retained the Noonan Law Offices to represent him at the probation violation hearing.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the laboratory report of the failed test and was suspicious because the laboratory report did not identify the particular opiate detected in the urine. Attorney Noonan believed that the preliminary urine test was unreliable and a confirmatory test should be done. The lab performed a confirmatory test, which was inconclusive. Attorney Noonan contacted the laboratory to obtain information about the confirmatory test. The lab informed Attorney Noonan that the confirmatory test was neither a positive nor a negative result. At the violation hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that probation failed to meet its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated probation by testing positive for drugs. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client, on his own, obtained a hair follicle test with a negative result for drugs. Attorney Noonan argued that the hair follicle test was more reliable because it detects previous drug use for up to three months. After the hearing, the Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant violated probation. The client is now on track to successfully complete his probation.

Commonwealth v. V.M.

Brookline District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE OF ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON DISMISSED AGAINST GREEK IMMIGRANT.

The client is a 54 year-old man with no criminal record. In 1988, he emigrated to the U.S. from Greece. He never applied for U.S. citizenship. He is married and has two adult children. He owns and operates his own landscaping and snow plow company. On the incident in question, Defendant was performing a fall clean up at a residence in Brookline. He was using a leaf blower to gather and remove the leaves. He had blown some leaves into the street. The alleged victim confronted the Defendant and asked him not to blow leaves into the street, but the Defendant continued blowing the leaves into the street. The alleged victim became upset and started to take pictures of the Defendant’s landscaping truck with his cell phone. The Defendant knocked the cell phone out of the victim’s hands and waved the hose of the leaf blower at him. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A, a felony offense, which would result in possible deportation if the Defendant was convicted.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the felony charge dismissed. Had the client been convicted of the felony offense, he faced possible deportation from the United States.

Commonwealth v. Juvenile

CHARGES FOR THREATENING TO SHOOT TEACHERS AND SHOOT UP THE SCHOOL, AGAINST A JUVENILE, DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

The client, a 13-year-old juvenile, made statements to teachers at his school threatening to shoot teachers and shoot up the school. Understandably, the statements were extremely concerning and the school expelled the student and brought criminal complaints against him for Threats to Commit a Crime pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the child had various disabilities, such as Oppositional Defiance Disorder, ADHD, and socio-emotional disorders. The child had a history of acting impulsively, inability to control his behavior, difficulty responding to authority, and not understanding the full picture of the long-term consequences of his actions. Part of the child’s Individual Education Plan provided instructions for teachers in addressing the child’s behavior, which included giving the child time and space to calm down. Attorney Noonan argued that the child’s statements were not legitimate threats to commit harm and the juvenile had no intention of committing any harm to anyone. Rather, the child was acting impulsively and made statements without understanding the significance or seriousness of the statements. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate decided to keep the matter on file for three months and, so long as the child behaves, the criminal complaints will be dismissed.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MAN CHARGED WITH IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM.

Police were conducting an investigation into drug distribution and executed a search warrant at the Defendant’s home. The target of the search warrant was the son of the Defendant’s girlfriend who resided in the Defendant’s home. Police searched the home for drugs and weapons. Defendant’s girlfriend told the police that the Defendant had a valid LTC and that he had a firearm in the house. Police searched the home and located the Defendant’s firearm, which was not secured. As a result, the Defendant was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint for Improper Storage of a Firearm dismissed. Defendant is 35 year-old with no criminal record. He works three jobs to support his disabled girlfriend.

Commonwealth v. C.M.

Taunton District Court

DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON ON A CHILD AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS THE DEFENSE OF PARENTAL DISCIPLINE TO THE JURY.

The Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Child under 14 pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A, which carries a maximum state prison sentence of 15 years. The evidence presented at trial was as follows: Defendant had several children, including the alleged victim, who was his 11 year-old son. The alleged victim testified that the Defendant became angry, pushed him, and struck him seven times in the buttocks with a wooden spoon. The Defendant struck the child so hard that the wooden spoon broke. At the police station, police took photographs of the injuries to the child, including numerous linear marks and bruises on the child’s buttocks, and a mark on his left shoulder. When questioned by police, Defendant stated that he spanked the child with his hand, and never used an object or wooden spoon.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented the defense of parental discipline. In 2015, the Massachusetts Court recognized the defense of parental discipline in Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 472 Mass. 1 (2015), which provides that a parent, stepparent or guardian may use reasonable force against a minor child, under his care, if it is reasonable and reasonably related to a legitimate purpose. At trial, the defense introduced evidence that the child had a history of misbehavior. All disciplinary methods failed and the child’s misbehavior continued to escalate. On the weekend in question, the child was beating up his siblings on several occasions. The defendant placed the child in time-out and took away his privileges, which proved unsuccessful. In addition, the child’s grandmother attempted to correct his behavior with time-outs, but the child continued to act up. The defendant warned the child that if he continued to misbehave he would be spanked. The child continued to be rough with his younger siblings, and the Defendant took a wooden spoon and spanked him on the buttocks, over the child’s thick sweatpants. After the spanking, the child went upstairs and spoke with his grandmother. Although the child was initially upset and crying in the immediate aftermath, after his conversation with the grandmother, he was fine, no longer crying, and went to play with his sister, laughing along the way. Attorney Noonan argued that the marks to the child’s buttocks, and the pain from the spanking, was only temporary. The jury found the Defendant not guilty.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION IS SEALED FROM THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

The client currently serves in the United States Navy. He enlisted when he turned 18 years-old. He is an aspiring police officer. He applied for the position of a full-time police officer with a police department in another state. Although the police department was willing to hire the client, a criminal background check showed that the client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The police department stated that they were willing to hire the client as a police officer, so long as the charge of Negligent Operation was sealed from his criminal record. The client contacted the Noonan Law Offices. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Seal the criminal charge from the client’s record pursuant to G.L. c. 276, §100C. After a hearing, the court entered an order sealing the criminal charge from the client’s record. As a result, the client is in an excellent position to get hired as a police officer.

Commonwealth v. A.H.

Brockton District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THAT CHARGE.

The client was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a high-speed police chase. The vehicle was the subject of reports of being involved in a drive-by shooting in Boston. When officers attempted to stop the vehicle, the operator fled, accelerated, and a high-speed police chase ensued ultimately ending in the vehicle crashing at an intersection. Officers ordered the operator and the client (passenger) to exit the vehicle by gunpoint and to show their hands. Police alleged that the client resisted arrest by refusing to show his hands and by refusing officers’ commands to exit the vehicle. The operator refused officers’ commands to exit the vehicle, the operator resisted arrest, officers had to use a Taser and physical force to restrain and arrest the operator. Upon a search of the vehicle, officers discovered firearms and ammunition in the glove compartment. The operator and the client were charged with Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B) and various firearms offenses.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the charge of Resisting Arrest for lack of probable cause, arguing that the client’s actions in refusing to show his hands and refusing to exit the vehicle did not amount to resisting arrest because there was insufficient evidence to show that the client used or threatened to use physical force or violence against the police officers, or that the client used any other means which created a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the police officers. The motion to dismiss was allowed.

2022