Dismissals Prior To Arraignment
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – Wareham District Court
FELONY LARCENY CHARGE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT. THE CLIENT WILL NOT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL RECORD.
The client was renting an apartment. When she moved out, she owed two months rent. According to the landlord, he contacted her to request payment, but she refused. The rent amount exceeded $1,200. The police filed an application for criminal complaint against the client for Larceny by Check (G.L. c. 266, §37), a felony offense. The criminal complaint was issued, and the client was scheduled to be arraigned in court. If she was arraigned, this felony offense would be on her criminal record. The client had no criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan negotiated with the District Attorney’s Office and the landlord, and the criminal complaint was dismissed prior to arraignment. She will have no record.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Palmer District Court
CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST FARMER DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.
Defendant is a 25-year-old man with no criminal record. He resides in New Hampshire where he operates a 52-acre farm and butcher shop. Defendant went hunting with friends in Massachusetts. Defendant parked his car on a trail in the woods. Someone called 911 to report that the car doors of the Defendant’s vehicle were open. An officer responded and noticed the car doors opened. Inside the vehicle, in plain view, were numerous shotguns and ammunition. The officer seized the firearms and ammunition, closed the car doors, and left a note for the Defendant to contact police. Defendant contacted the police and apologized for his mistake in leaving the car doors open. Defendant was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to persuade the prosecutor to dismiss the case prior to arraignment. As a result, the client has no criminal charge on his record arising out of this incident.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
CHARGE OF NEGLIENT OPERATION AND UNLICENSED OPERATION STEMMING FROM ROLL-OVER CRASH ON ROUTE 495 DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.
Police were dispatched to the scene of a roll-over crash on Route 495. Witnesses called 911 to report that the client’s vehicle was driving erratically, the vehicle lost control, rolling three times, and striking the guardrail. The client told the police that he had a mechanical issue with his vehicle. The client had an expired driver’s license and his vehicle was not inspected. The client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §10), No Inspection Sticker (G.L. c. 90, §20B), and Marked Lanes Violation (G.L. c. 89, §4A). The Defendant was scheduled to be arraigned on the criminal charges in the District Court:
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to dismiss the criminal complaints prior to the Defendant’s arraignment saving his client from having a criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing prior to an arraignment on the charges. When a criminal complaint is dismissed prior to arraignment, and where a criminal complaint is dismissed prior to arraignment at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, the client is not formally charged with a crime and the client will not have a criminal record.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
CHARGES OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS, DISTURBING THE PEACE, AND POSSESSION OF FAKE I.D. AGAINST RECENT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE AND MILITARY APPLICANT DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.
Police received several reports of loud fireworks being lit off from a parking lot at 3:00 a.m. in Cape Cod. Witnesses called reporting that they were all woken up around 3:00 a.m. by the sound of many fireworks. Upon arrival, police observed a male, holding something in his hand, walking away from the parking lot and jogging away from police. Police approached the Defendant who was concealing fireworks. Defendant produced three Roman candle fireworks. He admitted to setting off the fireworks. Upon a pat-frisk search of the Defendant, police recovered additional fireworks. Officer asked the Defendant for identification and the Defendant produced a fake ID. Upon examination of the identification, police determined that it had been forged. As a result, the police sought criminal complaints against the Defendant for Unlawful Possession of Fireworks pursuant to G.L. c. 148, §39, Disturbing the Peace pursuant to G.L. c. 272, §53, and Possession of a Forged RMV Document pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24B.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. The client is 19 years old. He had no criminal record. He was a recent high school graduate and member of the National Honor Society. He was the captain of the varsity hockey team. He scored very high on the SAT. He was offered college scholarships to play hockey. The client started the process of enlisting in the military. The client is a young man with his whole life ahead of him and a lot on the horizon. He was young and made a mistake. It was an isolated incident. Criminal charges on his criminal record would adversely affect his ability to enlist in the military. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all charges dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate saving this young man from having a criminal record.
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. John Doe – New Bedford District Court
ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS CHARGE AGAINST MEDICAL DOCTOR DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT, SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM HAVING THIS SERIOUS FELONY OFFENSE ON HIS RECORD.
Client, a medical doctor, went to a fitness center in Dartmouth to exercise. Another member of the gym reported to the gym’s manager that the Defendant exposed his genitals and masturbated in front of him in the sauna. The police were called to the gym. Police interviewed the alleged victim who again reported that the Defendant exposed his genitals and masturbated in front of him in the sauna. The alleged victim wrote a written statement of the incident. Police interviewed the Defendant who denied exposing his genitals or touching his penis in the sauna. Defendant provided a written statement to police denying the allegations.
Result: Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Open and Gross Lewdness (G.L. c. 272, §16). Defendant was summonsed to appear in the District Court for an arraignment on that charge. Had the Defendant been arraigned, the criminal charge would be entered on his criminal record and the matter would be prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed prior to arraignment on the grounds that the Defendant was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate before the criminal complaint issued. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s character. Client was a medical doctor in the Philippines where he was a member of a humanitarian organization that provided free medical care to the poor and victims who suffered horrific injuries. In particular, the client performed countless surgeries to those who had been horrifically disfigured. Attorney Noonan presented many letters from medical professionals attesting to the client’s humanitarian work and his good character. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint against the client. Open and Gross Lewdness is a felony offense that carries possible registration as a sex offender and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in ensuring that his client was not charged with this very serious offense.
Commonwealth v. F.A. – Wrentham District Court
A NURSE WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD WAS CHARGED WITH FELONY LARCENY BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES DA’S OFFICE TO DISMISS CASE PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AND SAVES HIS CLIENT FROM HAVING A CRIMINAL RECORD
Client is a 37 year-old mother of two with no criminal record. Client has been a Licensed Practical Nurse for 12 years and she performs Dialysis on patients with kidney failure.
Walpole Police were dispatched to Kohl’s Department Store for a report of two female shoplifters. Upon arrival, Police and Loss Prevention were watching the two females actively in the process of removing jewelry and concealing it in their purse. Police recovered several items on jewelry in the females’ possession and in their purse.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan acted quickly and was able to dismiss the criminal complaint prior to arraignment saving his client from having a felony charge on her record. This was a significant victory because the client was in the process of applying to a master’s program in nursing. Attorney Noonan provided proof that the client made civil restitution to Kohl’s. In addition, Attorney Noonan provided the DA with letters from his client’s employer attesting to her character.
Commonwealth v. J.R. – Woburn District Court
FELONY GUN CHARGE AGAINST ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.
Client, 36 year-old man, had a valid License to Carry Firearms, including large capacity firearms. After finishing a day’s work as a Foreman for an Asphalt Company, client discovered that his handgun was stolen from his work truck. Client immediately went to the police station to report the theft of his firearm. Client spoke to the police officer in the lobby of the police station for approximately three minutes. After their brief discussion, the officer informed the client that he would be charging him with Improper Storage of a Firearm, a felony charge because the firearm was large capacity. Client had taken police entrance exams in New Hampshire and the Civil Service Exam in Massachusetts. Client was offered full-time positions as a police officer by several New Hampshire Police Departments. However, the client had his sights set on becoming a police officer in the town where he has long resided. The client had fulfilled the majority of the requirements to become a police officer in his home town. The client was in the process of finishing the rest of his requirements when this criminal complaint was filed against him.
Result: Prior to his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented the Commonwealth with evidence that his client had his firearm properly locked in a secured container, as required by law. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had two witnesses who were willing to testify that the client routinely stored his firearm in a metal box secured with a latch and key lock. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan pointed out that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove their case at trial. The offense of Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L) requires that the Commonwealth prove that the alleged firearm meets the definitional requirements of a firearm. Specifically, the Commonwealth must prove that the alleged firearm was a working firearm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan pointed out that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the alleged firearm at issue met the definition of a firearm (i.e., that it was a working firearm) because the firearm was missing. After considering the evidence and arguments raised by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the Commonwealth dismissed the felony gun charge prior to arraignment. As a result, the client is now free to continue his pursuit of becoming a police officer.
Commonwealth v. O.M. – Brockton District Court
CHARGES OF ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER AND RESISTING ARREST AGAINST U.S. MARINE CORPS RECRUIT TO BE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT IN SIX MONTHS IF CLIENT COMPLETES COUNSELING
Police were called to a bar for a report of a drunk and disorderly patron. When the police arrived, they found the defendant sitting outside, visibly intoxicated. Police placed the defendant in protective custody pursuant to G.L. c. 111B, §8. Defendant resisted when police tried to handcuff him. Defendant was yelling and swearing and causing a scene when officers placed him under arrest. During transport to the police station, Defendant was kicking the backseat of the police cruiser. It took three officers to escort the Defendant to his holding cell. In the holding cell, Defendant attacked one officer severely bruising his arm and the officer was unable to work for several days. Police tried to move the Defendant to another holding cell when he bit another officer on the knee. Police filed three criminal complaints for Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest, and Assault & Battery on a Police Officer. Prior to this incident, client was close to finishing the process of enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps.
Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented compelling evidence on behalf on his client. First, Attorney Noonan presented a letter from the client’s Marine Corps. Recruiter. In the letter, the Recruiter stated that he was aware of the pending charges and would continue with the client’s enlistment should his case resolve favorably. Attorney Noonan had his client write letters of apology to all the police officers. The Clerk-Magistrate accepted Attorney Noonan’s proposal to hold the matter open for six months with the condition that his client undergo treatment with a substance abuse counselor. If the client successfully completes his substance abuse treatment than all criminal charges will be dismissed in six months and, hopefully, the client will be able to enlist in the Marine Corps.
Commonwealth v. T.B. – Commonwealth v. A.P.
MINOR POSSESSING ALCOHOL: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
Client #1 (19 years old) and Client #2 (18 years old) were pulled over for driving without any headlights. The officer observed alcohol scattered throughout the interior of the vehicle including: an open and empty 30 pack of beer, two full 12 pack of beer, an empty cup containing alcohol residue, and empty 12 oz. can under the passenger seat. Although the driver (Client #1) emitted an odor of alcohol from his breath, he passed all field sobriety tests. The passenger (Client #2) was clearly intoxicated. Due to their signs of intoxication and the large quantity of alcohol found in the vehicle, both clients were placed under arrest and charging with being minors in possession of alcohol.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan entered into an agreement with the District Attorney’s whereby the clients’ cases would be dismissed prior to arraignment, so long as they completed community service. On 07/07/16, both criminal cases against both clients were dismissed prior to arraignment. The clients’ were freshmen in college and had no prior criminal records. With this outcome, no criminal charges will appear on the clients’ criminal records.