2023
Plaintiff v. Milton Police
CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO UNTRUTHFULNESS IN DISCLOSING HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WON APPEAL, REVERSING THE DENIAL, AND AN LTC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CLIENT.
In 2016, client had his License to Carry Firearms suspended because he was arrested and charged with domestic violence, which was later dismissed. The criminal case was later sealed. Client, with another attorney, appealed the 2016 LTC suspension, and lost. In 2023, client reapplied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied. Client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to appeal the denial. At the hearing, the officer testified that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. On the application, client was asked whether he had ever been arrested or appeared in court for any criminal case, and the client answered “yes.” However, the application form required the applicant to provide the details and circumstances of the criminal case, but the client did not provide any description of the criminal case. The officer believed that the client was being untruthful because he did not provide any description of the criminal case. After submitting the application, the client was interviewed by the police officer. When asked about his criminal history, the client told the officer that the criminal case was “sealed,” a truthful statement. The officer was able to obtain a copy of the police report on his criminal case. When asked about the incident resulting in his arrest, the client was truthful, not evasive and answered all the officer’s questions. Attorney Noonan argued that the client fulfilled his obligation by answering in the affirmative, on the application, regarding his criminal history. Attorney Noonan argued that the application form was vague because the application form did not state that the applicant was required to provide information on “sealed” criminal cases. To prove that the client was truthful, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the officer that, during the interview, the client was truthful when questioned about his arrest. The court agreed with Attorney Noonan, reversed the decision denying his LTC, and issued an order for the police department to issue him an LTC.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Taunton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AND OPERATING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE IS ALLOWED.
Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)) and Operating with a Suspended License Subsequent Offense (G.L. c. 90, §23), stemming from a hit-and-run car accident, which resulted in injuries to the operator and occupants of another vehicle. A witness reported to the police that he had witnessed the accident and was actively following the vehicle, which fled the scene. The witness later sent photographs to police of the fleeing vehicle. Police circulated pictures of the vehicle amongst various police departments. One police department reported being familiar with the suspect vehicle as belonging to the Defendant based on prior interactions. Police went to the Defendant’s home and observed damage to a vehicle in his driveway. Defendant denied operating the vehicle. The police noted that the Defendant had multiple prior convictions for operating with a suspended driver’s license. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges for lack of probable cause, arguing that the police report did not contain sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. After considering the arguments, the court allowed Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff v. Lunenburg Police
Fitchburg District Court
CLIENT’S LTC DENIED WAS DUE TO FELONY CONVICTION AND UNTRUTHFULNESS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL, REVERSING THE DENIAL, AND AN LTC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CLIENT.
Client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the police department denied his application on the grounds that the client had a disqualifying felony conviction from Florida, and THAT the client was untruthful on the application when he denied that he had ever been convicted of a felony. On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained all records relating to the client’s criminal case in Florida. In the Florida case, client was charged with Grand Theft and received a disposition known as Adjudication Withheld. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted legal research showing that a disposition of Adjudication Withheld does not constitute a conviction under Florida law or Massachusetts law. Attorney Noonan argued that his client was not untruthful on the application because he correctly disclosed that he had not been convicted of a felony because, legally, the disposition in his Florida case did not constitute a conviction. After a hearing, including testimony, and after consideration of Attorney Noonan’s legal arguments, the judge reversed the decision denying the client’s LTC and ordered the police department to issue him a License to Carry Firearms.
Commonwealth v. Juvenile
Brockton Juvenile Court
NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUES FOR BREAKING & ENTERING, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THAT THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE.
The Client, a 16 year-old high school student and non-U.S. citizen, was charged with Breaking and Entering, after police caught him and others inside a vacant building. At a clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was legally insufficient evidence to support the offense, including insufficient evidence that the juvenile “broke” into the building because the building was vacant, abandoned, the doors were open, there were no obstructions to access, and the juvenile did not have to exert any physical force to enter the building. Going through an unobstructed entrance such as an open door does not constitute “breaking.” After considering all arguments and evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the clerk-magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint. This was a significant victory because the client is not a U.S. citizen, and the client will not have any criminal record as a result of this case.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Wareham District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGES OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT, UNREGISTERED VEHICLE, AND UNINSURED VEHICLE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AGAINST MEMBER OF THE AIR FORCE.
Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), Unregistered Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §9), and Uninsured Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §34J). Police alleged that the Defendant struck a telephone and did not report the accident. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was traveling on an unfamiliar dangerous road when he struck a telephone. Attorney Noonan provided photographs showing that the Defendant merely grazed the pole, with extremely minor damage. Defendant immediately called his insurance company and reported the accident. Defendant even remained on scene until the tow truck arrived. Defendant told the police that he did not think that he had to report the accident because another vehicle was not involved in the accident and he immediately reported it to his insurance company. Attorney Noonan provided information from witnesses to corroborate the Defendant’s version.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SIX FIREARM CHARGES, CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES, AND ANOTHER COUNT OF RESISTING ARREST.
Defendant was charged with seven criminal offenses, including: Two-counts of Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), two-counts of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Possession of Firearm without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1), Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L), and Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B). If convicted, Defendant was facing serious minimum-mandatory jail time and deportation from the United States.
Result: Defendant was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle, which was wanted in connection with a drive-by shooting in Boston. About a week after the shooting, State Troopers observed the suspect vehicle and attempted to pull it over, but a high-speed chase ensued from Milton to Brockton, which ultimately ended with the suspect vehicle crashing into an intersection in Brockton. Police observed a loose pistol magazine at the feet of the operator. In the glove compartment, located in the passenger side area where the Defendant had been seated, police found two firearms, a large capacity firearm, and ammunition. Police alleged that the Defendant resisted arrest when they commanded him to exit the passenger side of the vehicle. The operator and defendant-passenger were charged with a multitude of firearm offenses and resisting arrest. At a suppression hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan elicited evidence from the State Trooper, which would prove to be vital to the Defendant’s case at trial. The glove-compartment, where the firearms were stored, was locked and the Defendant did not have possession of the key. Troopers admitted that they did not observe the Defendant reach for or touch the glove-compartment, and Troopers did not see the Defendant attempt to hide or conceal evidence. Although they claimed that the Defendant resisted arrest, Attorney Noonan was able to get that charge dismissed for insufficient evidence. No fingerprints were lifted from the firearms or ammunition. On the day of trial, the co-defendant (operator of the vehicle) pled guilty to most of the charges, but Attorney Noonan remained steadfast that his client was innocent and refused to enter into any plea negotiations. Recognizing that Attorney Noonan was prepared, ready, willing and able to try this case, the prosecutor dismissed all charges against the Defendant.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Lawrence District Court
ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SERIOUS FIREARMS CHARGES CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES.
Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 269, §10(b)), and Operating a Vehicle with a Suspended License (G.L. c. 90, §23). If convicted of Carrying a Firearm without a License, Defendant faced a minimum-mandatory jail sentence of 18 months, and another minimum-mandatory sentence of 2.5 years in jail if convicted of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License.
Result: Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire. He left his home in New Hampshire to visit a friend in Lawrence. While returning home to New Hampshire, after visiting his friend, Defendant was stopped by a State Trooper in Methuen because of a non-working headlight. Upon the stop, the Trooper learned that the Defendant had a suspended Massachusetts driver’s license and placed him under arrest. While arresting him, the Trooper located a loaded handgun in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Under a new decision announced by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, in order to prove the firearm offenses, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license. Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023) At trial, the Commonwealth called a witness from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), which is responsible for maintaining a database of all persons issued firearm licenses in Massachusetts. This witness testified that she was provided with the Defendant’s name and his Date of Birth. When the witness entered the Defendant’s first name, last name, and DOB, into the database, the results disclosed that there was no record of the Defendant having ever been issued a firearm license in Massachusetts. In a surprise attack at trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the Commonwealth did not provide CJIS with the proper name for the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license in Massachusetts because CJIS was not provided with the correct name for the Defendant. Under cross-examination, the witness from CJIS testified that she did not enter the Defendant’s correct name into the database. Further, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire, had a New Hampshire address, had a New Hampshire driver’s license, and had his motor vehicle registered in New Hampshire. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth did not conduct any record-searches to determine whether the Defendant had any firearm licenses issued to him in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant’s firearm was registered in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant was legally permitted to own and possess this firearm in New Hampshire. After two-hours of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of all charges, and the Defendant was free to leave.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Brockton District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS ASSAULT & BATTERY COMPLAINT UPON PROOF THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS THE AGGRESSOR WHO INITIATED THE CONFRONTATION.
Defendant is a man with no criminal record. He was having dinner and some drinks at his favorable pub where he was a regular. On prior occasions, pub employees complained about the conduct of another patron. In particular, a female employee had complained about this patron before. On this occasion, the client happened to be seated next to this troublesome patron. The client began to videotape the patron to send to the female employee. Enraged at being recorded, the patron grabbed the client’s cell phone, causing both men to fall off their bar stools, knocking over a female patron in the process. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient probable cause to charge the client with Assault & Battery because the evidence showed that the other patron was the aggressor who initiated the confrontation, and the client merely acted reflexively in response to the other patron grabbing and pulling at his cell phone. The client had no intent to commit any touching, as his actions were purely reactionary to having his cell phone grabbed and pulled out of his hand. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue any criminal complaint against our client. Therefore, the client does not have any criminal record arising out of this incident.