Sex Crimes

Commonwealth v. R.M. – Stoughton District Court

STATUTORY RAPE: NOLLE PROSEQUI
STATUTORY RAPE: NOLLE PROSEQUI

On March 16, 2001, the alleged victim #1 came into the Stoughton Police Station and reported that her ex-boyfriend (defendant) had assaulted her several times for not performing oral sex on him and that the Defendant slapped her and she sustained bruises. Alleged victim #1 stated that she had a sexual relationship with the Defendant when she was 14 years-old and he was 17 years-old. She stated that they had sexual intercourse more than five times, she performed oral sex on him, and she described other sexual acts that they engaged in. Alleged victim #1 stated that she reported the abuse because her friend (alleged victim #2) was recently raped by the Defendant.

On April 23, 2001, Stoughton Police interviewed victim #2 who stated that one occasion she was over her girlfriend’s house when the Defendant and his friend came over. She reported that the Defendant got into bed with her and he began to touch her breasts over her t-shirt and she told him not to touch her. She stated that the Defendant put his hand down the front of her pants under her underwear and inserted his fingers into her vagina and she kept telling him to stop it and to get off of her. The Defendant hen pulled her onto her back and pulled down her pants and underwear and he inserted his penis into her vagina for approximately 10 minutes. Victim #2 states that the Defendant took her to his house against her will. At his house, she states that the Defendant forced her to perform oral sex on him and then had vaginal intercourse with her for approximately 10 minutes and he ejaculated on her stomach.

Through pretrial discovery and investigation, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had psychological problems and memory loss that seriously undermined her credibility. Attorney Noonan filed Motions demanding that the District Attorney’s Office produce notes taken by the Assistant District Attorney’s and Victim Witness Advocates of their interviews with the alleged victim, as they were exculpatory. The District Attorney’s Office refused to produce their notes. Because of the alleged victim’s psychological problems, she could not recall certain key things due to memory loss. Attorney Noonan convinced the District Attorney’s Office to Nolle Pross the case because they did not have a good faith basis to go forward due to the alleged victim’s psychological issues, her memory loss, and the lateness of her disclosure to police. At the time, Defendant was serving his country in the United States Navy.

At the hearing in which the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Pross, Attorney Noonan demanded that the court enter an order compelling the Commonwealth to preserve all their notes concerning their interviews with the alleged victim, as they were extremely exculpatory. Attorney Noonan wanted to create a record of the alleged victim’s bad credibility in the event that the Commonwealth decided years later to prosecute the case years later. The Court declined the request but Attorney Noonan created a record in open to protect his client’s rights in the event of any future prosecution.

Result: Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi on Statutory Rape charges, which means that the indictment is withdrawn – meaning that if circumstances change, a prosecution could be initiated again.

Read More about Commonwealth v. R.M. – Stoughton District Court

Commonwealth v. K.C. – Wrentham District Court

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOLLE PROSEQUI

Defendant was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. Defendant was given a breath test to determine his blood alcohol content. The results of the breath test showed that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was in excess of the legal limit. The Commonwealth alleged that the arresting officer administered the breath test. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan interviewed the arresting officer and the arresting officer informed him that he did not administer the breath test to the defendant. The arresting officer informed Attorney Noonan that a different officer administered the breath test. Attorney Noonan discovered that the other officer was not certified to administer breath tests. Later, the arresting officer retracted his statement and said that he was actually the one who administered the breath test. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress the Results of the Breath Test and subpoenaed the Shift Supervisor on duty at the time of the defendant’s breath test. As a shift supervisor, this sergeant would be in a position to testify as to which officer administered the breath test, as all arrests and prisoner bookings were run by him.

It was later learned that the supervising officer was placed on administrative leave and terminated by the police department. The District Attorney’s Office never informed Attorney Noonan that the shift supervisor had been terminated. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan subpoenaed the shift supervisor to appear at the Trial but the shift supervisor did not appear. Attorney Noonan learned that the Commonwealth instructed the shift supervisor not to appear to any trials or court proceedings in which he was involved because he was no longer employed by the police department. As a result, the supervising officer did not appear at trial even though he was subpoenaed by Attorney Noonan.

Result: At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved to dismiss the charges arguing: the Commonwealth failed to comply with discovery orders; the Commonwealth violated his client’s right to a speedy trial, and key witnesses failed to appear pursuant to Attorney Noonan’s subpoenas. In the alternative, Attorney Noonan moved to exclude the results of the breath test because the evidence showed that the officer who administered the breath test was not properly certified. At trial, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi on all the charges.

Read More about Commonwealth v. K.C. – Wrentham District Court

Commonwealth v. W.J. – Brockton Superior Court

RAPE OF CHILD: NOLLE PROSS
DRUGGING PERSON FOR SEX: NOLLE PROSS
DISSEMINATION OF HARMFUL MATTER TO MINOR: NOLLE PROSS

Defendant’s 9-year-old biological son claimed that the Defendant had anally raped him. The alleged victim also claimed that the Defendant would stick candles up his butt. The alleged victim alleged that his father would also touch his butt. The alleged victim claimed that his father showed him dirty books and that the Defendant forced him to look at the dirty books. Police went to the Defendant’s house to arrest him. Police found “dirty magazines” and a pornographic video in the Defendant’s house. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Suppress the physical evidence seized at the Defendant’s house and statements made by his client arguing that the clerk-magistrate did not give police a valid Arrest Warrant but simply gave police an Application for Criminal Complaint. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was denied. Attorney Noonan argued another Motion to Suppress arguing that his client’s statements were inadmissible under Miranda, and that police seized the evidence without his client’s consent. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was denied. Attorney Noonan also conducted a criminal deposition of his client’s ex-wife in preparation of trial.

Result: On March 9, 1998, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi, which means that the indictment is withdrawn – meaning that if circumstances change, a prosecution could be initiated again.

Read More about Commonwealth v. W.J. – Brockton Superior Court