Case Results Sex Crimes

FIREFIGHTER’S LTC WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS CLIENT’S LTC REINSTATED.

Client has been a longtime firefighter and paramedic. He is a veteran of the U.S. Navy. The client was embroiled in a bitter, contentious divorce and custody battle with his ex-wife. His LTC was suspended after his ex-wife went into the police station and reported that the client had been physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive throughout their marriage. The ex-wife also called the Chief of Police and requested that the client’s LTC be suspended due to his alleged history of abuse, and she did not feel safe with him possessing weapons. As a result of the ex-wife’s allegations, allegations including a multitude of many serious criminal offenses, the police department suspended the client’s LTC.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately appealed the LTC suspension. Attorney Noonan negotiated with the Attorney for the police department and presented extensive evidence of his client’s character and suitability, and Attorney Noonan pointed out issues surrounding the wife’s allegations. After months of negotiation, the police department agreed to reinstate the client’s LTC.

Norfolk Superior Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT’S USE OF A POLE CAMERA AIMED AT THE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Defendant was under investigation by the Massachusetts State Police for the crimes of Possession of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29C) and Dissemination of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29B). Police obtained evidence that an IP address associated with a residence, a large apartment building, was used to commit the crimes of possession and dissemination of child pornography. Police installed a pole camera across the street from the apartment building to conduct surveillance. After viewing the pole camera footage, State Police obtained a search warrant to search apartments within the apartment building. After executing the search warrant, police seized electronic devices containing illegal evidence.

Result: At the time of the Defendant’s arrest, there were no reported court cases in Massachusetts dealing with the government’s use of pole cameras because this kind of technology was new. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan found a recent case in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, United States vs. Moore-Bush, 381 F. Supp. 3d 139 (D. Mass 2019) in which Judge Young found that the government’s use of a pole camera was a search in violation of the 4^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant on the grounds that law enforcement’s use of the pole camera was an illegal search. At the suppression hearing, nearly 100 exhibits were introduced and numerous witnesses testified. After the hearing, the U.S. District Court reversed Judge Young’s decision, holding that the use of the pole camera was not a violation of the Federal Constitution. However, Attorney Noonan argued that the use of the pole camera was a search in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. After the hearing, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a new decision in Commonwealth v. Mora, 485 Mass. 360 (2020) where the SJC held that the government’s use of pole cameras was a search in violation of the State Constitution. After the SJC’s decision in Mora, the Superior Court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the government’s use of the pole camera was an illegal search in violation of the State Constitution. Presently, this case is still being litigated on the issue of whether the illegal search should result in the suppression of evidence. Stay tuned.

Supreme Judicial Court
489 Mass. 155 (2020)

IN A VICTORY FOR PRIVACY RIGHTS, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT THAT 15 DAYS OF POLE CAMERA SURVEILLANCE TARGETED AT THE DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH.

Defendant was under investigation by the Massachusetts State Police for the crimes of Possession of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29C) and Dissemination of Child Pornography (G.L. c. 272, §29B). Police obtained evidence that an IP address associated with a residence, a large apartment building, was used to commit the crimes of possession and dissemination of child pornography. Police installed a pole camera across the street from the apartment building to conduct surveillance. After viewing the pole camera footage, State Police obtained a search warrant to search apartments within the apartment building. Upon executing the search warrant, police arrested the defendant in the driveway and used his keys to access an apartment within the building. In the apartment alleged to belong to the defendant, police seized electronic devices, which they claimed to contain illegal evidence.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued this case before the Supreme Judicial Court and convinced the SJC that 15 days of pole camera surveillance targeted at the Defendant’s home was a search under the Massachusetts constitution, which required a search warrant. The Commonwealth argued that 15 days of pole camera was not enough to constitute a search. The Commonwealth argued that a longer period of surveillance was required to constitute a search. The government was concerned about establishing a precedent where pole camera surveillance could constitute a search within a short period of time. The Commonwealth cited case-law to support its argument that prolonged surveillance was required. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the pole camera was installed across the street approximately 84-feet from the front door. Attorney Noonan introduced numerous photos from the pole camera, which provided a window into the Defendant’s daily life, habits, and routines. Attorney Noonan provided a daily breakdown of the pole camera surveillance capturing and tracking the Defendant’s daily movements around his home. Within the short time span of 15 days, the pole camera was able to generate a mosaic of the Defendant’s activities. The pole camera captured things that were otherwise unknowable. Attorney Noonan introduced specific images highlighting the intrusive nature of the pole camera surveillance, such as tracking all visitors and guests to his home. The camera was able to facially identify all guests and visitors to the Defendant’s home. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence concerning the camera’s intrusive capabilities, which created a digital searchable log, which allowed law enforcement to quickly and easily search for any footage down to the minute and second. The camera allowed police to remotely manipulate the camera by zooming in, magnifying, tilting, and rotating the camera, as well as taking still images. The decision was considered a victory for privacy rights. The case was featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and other publications for its significance regarding the government’s use of emerging technology infringing upon the privacy rights of Massachusetts citizens.

IN A RARE DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN OBTAINS A COURT ORDER FOR THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT TO UNDERGO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

Defendant was charged with Assault to Rape (G.L. c. 265, §24) and Indecent Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265,§13H). Defendant is facing serious penalties if convicted. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation into the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had falsely accused another man of rape. Police investigated the prior rape allegation and obtained video footage showing that no sexual assault occurred and the accused was never charged. Attorney Noonan discovered that the alleged victim had accused another man of sexual assault, but during the prosecution of the accused, the alleged victim dramatically changed her story and exhibited concerning behavior while being interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office leading to the charges being dropped. Attorney Noonan obtained various police reports showing that the alleged victim had some sort of mental disorder, which was not fully understood by investigators. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion seeking a court order to have the alleged victim psychologically evaluated pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §19. In a rare decision, the court ordered the psychological evaluation of the alleged victim. At the present time, Defendant is awaiting trial.

Plymouth Superior Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF SEX-TRAFFICKING INDICTMENT IN THE PLYMOUTH SUPERIOR COURT. THE PROSECUTION HAS APPEALED THE DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT TO THE APPEALS COURT.

The Defendant, along with four-other defendants, was indicted in the Plymouth Superior Court on charges of Trafficking a Person for Sexual (G.L. c. 265, §50) and Sexual Conduct for a Fee (G.L. c. 272, §53A). Sex-trafficking carries a serious penalty of five-years in State Prison. Law enforcement posted an advertisement online, posing as prostitutes, advertising sexual services in exchange for fees. The advertisement contained a phone number for the customer to call. Defendant responded to the advertisement and contacted the phone number and conversed with an undercover officer, who was posing as a prostitute, and the Defendant offered money in exchange for sex services. Defendant arrived at a hotel to meet the undercover officer and was arrested.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Sex-Trafficking charge in the Plymouth Superior Court arguing that there was no probable cause to support the offense. Attorney Noonan, citing a recently decided case by the Supreme Judicial Court, argued that the offense of sex-trafficking requires proof of an actual, human being victim. Here, there was no actual human being victim, as the Commonwealth identified the victim as “society.” There was no victim, but an undercover who was posing as a prostitute and no commercial sexual activity would ever occur. There was no human being victim, but an undercover officer posing as a fictitious person. Attorney Noonan argued that the Legislature, in enacting the Sex-Trafficking statute, did not intend to punish Johns who offer undercover officers money in exchange for sex. The Legislature intended to punish Johns under a different statute, the Sexual Conduct for a Fee statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the Legislature enacted the sex-trafficking statute to target “pimps” and those who enslave sex workers. The Superior Court allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss and the Commonwealth has appealed the allowance of the Motion to Dismiss to the Appeals Court.

Department of Children & Families

Fair Hearing

THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) FOUND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT SEXUALLY ABUSED A CHILD UNDER HIS CARE. ON APPEAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES DCF TO REVERSE ITS DECISION.

A mandated reporter made a report to the Department of Children and Families accusing the Defendant of sexually abusing a child under his care. After conducting an investigation, DCF found that the allegations of sexual abuse were supported. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision by DCF. At DCF the hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of sexual abuse. After presenting his evidence at the hearing, DCF agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that there was insufficient evidence of sexual abuse and reversed its decision.

Commissioner of Probation

CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL CONDUCT FOR A FEE IS SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD. 

In 2009, the client pled guilty to the offense of Sex for a Fee (G.L. c. 272, §53A). The client was placed on probation for one-year. The client contacted the Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan to have this criminal conviction sealed from his record. Our office was successful in sealing this criminal conviction from our client’s record.

Plymouth Superior Court

CLIENT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL OF RAPE AND INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. 

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at a trial in the Plymouth Superior Court on indictments charging him with Rape of Child and Indecent Assault & Battery. The jury found the Defendant guilty on all charges. One-week after the guilty verdict, Attorney Noonan came into possession of newly discovered evidence and immediately filed a Motion for New Trial. Attorney Noonan argued that the newly discovered evidence casts serious doubt on the justice of the conviction and this newly discovered evidence would have played a real factor in the jury’s deliberations. After a hearing, the trial judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and granted the Defendant a new trial. Attorney Noonan was able to secure his client’s release pending his new trial.

Stoughton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH 41 COUNTS OF SECRETLY VIDEOTAPING MEN USING THE URINAL AND BATHROOM IN THE MEN’S LOCKER OF A FITNESS CENTER. DEFENDANT WALKS AWAY WITH NO CONVICTION, NO JAIL TIME, AND NO SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION.

Defendant, a 24 year-old with no criminal record, was charged with 41 counts of Photographing Sexual Intimate Parts without Consent pursuant to G.L. c. 272, §105. Defendant was an employee for a fitness center. Employees discovered a recording device in a shower-caddy that was positioned at the base of the urinal in the men’s locker room. Employees suspected that the Defendant was the person to have installed the camera. Whenever the cleaning crew went into the men’s locker room to conduct cleaning, Defendant would rush into the locker room and was seen removing the shower-caddy. Police obtained the Defendant’s personal emails to Amazon indicating that the camera he purchased was mechanical issues and he requested a new camera. The camera identified in the Defendant’s emails matched the make and model of the camera found in the locker room. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s residence and recovered numerous electronic devices, including cameras matching the camera found in the locker room. The electronic devices contained videos of men using the urinals in the bathroom. The case was indefensible, impossible to defend, and was unwinnable at trial. The issue for Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was to seek the best resolution possible for the client, which would not include a conviction, jail time, or sex-offender registration. This was a case where the goal of sentencing was aimed at treating the root cause of the criminal conduct (underlying mental health issues) and to concentrate on treating and rehabilitating the defendant, as opposed to incarcerating him, which would not get at the root of the problem.

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.

SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD RAPE ARE DISMISSED ON DAY OF TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WAS ARMED WITH EVIDENCE SHOWING THE VICTIM WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY HIS BIOLOGICAL FATHER, AND NOT THE DEFENDANT.

The alleged victim (A.V.) was the Defendant’s step-son who he helped raise since the child was very young. Defendant and A.V.’s mother divorced. After the divorce, Defendant had no contact with A.V. or his ex-wife. Approximately seven years later, A.V. accused the Defendant of sexually abusing him even though he had not seen him for many years. Through investigation, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan learned that A.V. had a long history of engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior. A.V. got into trouble in daycare for engaging in sexual behavior with other children. A.V. got into trouble for engaging in sexual behavior with a neighbor. A.V. got into trouble, several times, at school for engaging in sexual behavior with other kids. Whenever A.V. got into trouble for his sexual misconduct, he was sent to therapy. Eventually, A.V.’s sexualized behavior escalated to the point where he sexually assaulted another student and, as a result, A.V. was criminally charged for his conduct. When A.V. was being interrogated by police after being charged for his own criminal conduct, A.V. accused the Defendant, for the first time, of sexually abusing him, even though A.V. had not seen the Defendant in seven years.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and gathered records of A.V.’s therapy sessions with various social workers and mental health counselors. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that A.V.’s counselors believed that A.V. was being sexually abused by his biological father, and not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained records from the Department of Children and Families showing that A.V.’s mother reported her concerns that A.V.’s biological father might be sexually abusing him. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had two of A.V.’s therapists ready to testify that, in their opinion, A.V. was being sexually abused by his biological father, and not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan was prepared to prove that the real abuser was A.V.’s biological father, not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan was prepared to show that A.V. had a motive to falsely accuse the Defendant of abusing him because A.V. was too afraid to tell police or others that it was his biological father who had been abusing him.

AFTER A HEARING, AND OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH, JUDGE ALLOWS PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING 3 COUNTS OF INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON A CHILD UNDER 14, ARE DISMISSED AGAINST 83 YEAR-OLD KOREAN WAR VETERAN

Back in 2011, a sixteen-year-old girl accused the Defendant of sexually abusing her, multiple times, over the course of several years, beginning when she was 6 years old. Based on the alleged victim’s allegations, Defendant was charged with 3 counts of Indecent Assault & Battery on a Child under 14 and 1 count of Indecent Exposure. During the pendency of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan became concerned with the client’s competency to stand trial based on his deteriorating mental condition. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained all of the client’s medical records and retained a forensic psychologist to conduct an evaluation of the client to determine whether he is legally competent to stand trial. After conducting an extensive evaluation, the forensic psychologist gave her opinion that the client is not competent to stand trial due to his mental condition.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss based on his forensic psychologist’s opinion that the Defendant is not legally competent to stand trial. At the Motion to Dismiss Hearing, the District Attorney’s Office objected and argued that the case should not be dismissed based on the seriousness of the allegations, among other things. At the Hearing, the Judge accepted the opinion of the forensic psychologist and made a ruling that the Defendant is not competent to stand trial. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Judge sided with Attorney Noonan and dismissed all charges.

PROSTITUTION CHARGE AGAINST UBER DRIVER AWAITING U.S. CITIZENSHIP DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING AFTER ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THE WEAKNESSES IN THE CASE

Defendant is a 46-year-old Brockton man who is married with two children. Defendant is a cab driver and Uber driver. Recently, he applied for U.S. citizenship and was awaiting a meeting with immigration on his application for citizenship. Defendant was charged with Sexual Conduct for a Fee. Boston Police were conducting a prostitution investigation. Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the side of the road in an area known to have high instances of prostitution. Police observed a female standing on the passenger side of the vehicle speaking to the Defendant. The female got into the vehicle and officers followed the vehicle, as it pulled into a parking lot. Officers observed Defendant’s vehicle bouncing up and down. Police approached the vehicle and saw the Defendant with his pants unzipped and his belt unbuckled. Police observed the female’s breasts partially exposed. The female told police that they agreed on $60 for sex but she stated that no money was ever exchanged.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there were probable cause issues with the case because no money was ever exchanged between the parties and the Defendant had no money on him. Usually, in a prostitution situation, money is exchanged beforehand and not after-the-fact. Attorney Noonan argued that, should the case proceed to trial, the Commonwealth would have difficulty proving the case because the female would likely not testify, as she had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

FELONY CHARGE AGAINST BROCKTON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT FOR SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A FEMALE STUDENT REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR SIMPLE ASSAULT & BATTERY, AFTER GERALD J. NOONAN PUSHES THE DA TO PUT ITS VICTIM ON THE STAND.

Client, a junior at Brockton High School, was accused by a female student of sexually assaulting her on a bus ride home from school. The female student alleged that the Defendant inappropriately touched her private areas when sitting next to her on the school bus. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan interviewed other students who were sitting in seats in front, behind, and across from the female student and Defendant. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered that the other students did not witness what the female student alleged to have happened. The students did not witness the Defendant inappropriately touch the female student. In fact, some of the students stated that the female was having a good time on the bus, was laughing, and she did not appear to be in any sort of distress. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered that the female student was having problems in school, had been kicked out of class, and was being disciplined by the school.

Result: Defendant had an open case for which he was on probation. When Defendant was charged with this sexual assault, the DA sought to violate the Defendant and possibly have him locked up or seriously punished. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved to have an evidentiary hearing and prove that there was no probable cause to support the sexual assault charge. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan subpoenaed the alleged victim, multiple times, to have her testify at the hearing. Each time she was subpoenaed, the alleged victim refused to appear. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved for trial. Prior to the trial, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the felony sexual assault charge to a misdemeanor Assault & Battery and place the Defendant on a very short probation. The client agreed to this offer.

CLIENT CHARGED WITH THREE FELONY SEX OFFENSES HIRES ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN AND WALKS AWAY WITH ONLY ONE CONVICTION FOR A MISDEMEANOR THAT IS NOT A SEX OFFENSE.

Client, a 62-year-old Engineer from Fall River, was charged with three counts of Open and Gross Lewdness, which are felony sex-offenses. The charges stem from allegations that the Defendant was seen, by a witness, naked from the waist down on a trail in Hanover that is open to the public. A witness reported to police that she observed the Defendant, on two occasions, naked from the waist down, as she was walking her dog on a trail in a public park. Police installed trail cameras in the area where the witness saw the Defendant naked from the waist down. The police viewed the video footage, which showed the defendant, on two other occasions, walking on the trail wearing nothing from the waist down. Police conducted a stake-out where they hid in the woods in the area where the defendant was previously seen naked from the waist down. The officers saw the defendant walk by their location naked from the waist down. The police arrested the defendant. According to the Commonwealth, the Defendant, on at least 5 separate occasions, committed the offense of Open and Gross Lewdness.

Result: Defendant was charged with 3 counts of Open and Gross Lewdness. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got 2 of the charges dismissed for lack of evidence leaving only 1 count of Open and Gross Lewdness remaining. On June 21, 2017, a jury trial was scheduled for the 1 remaining count of Open and Gross Lewdness. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appeared ready to try the case. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the felony Open and Gross Lewdness to the misdemeanor offense of Indecent Exposure, which is not a sex offense. The Client agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanor. The client is only convicted of a misdemeanor and it is not a sex offense. The client was facing three felony sex offenses, which carried jail time and possible sex offender registration.

OPEN & GROSS: DISMISSED upon MOTION
OPEN & GROSS: DISMISSED upon MOTION

A woman approached Hanover Police Officers at Forge Pond Park and reported two incidents where she observed a man walking on the trail and the man was naked from the waist down. The woman provided police with a physical description of the male suspect. The police placed a trail camera in the area where the witness reported seeing the male naked from the waist down. According to the police report, the camera showed a male party (matching the witness’s description) walking on the trail wearing no pants on two separate occasions on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16. Subsequently, police conducted a stakeout where they hid in the woods in the area where the male party was seen walking naked from the waist down. According to the police report, one officer observed a male party (later identified as the defendant) walking on the trail wearing no pants or underwear with his penis and testicles completely exposed and the male suspect was swinging his penis side to side with his right hand. The officers emerged from the woods and arrested the Defendant at gun point. At the police station, officers showed the defendant two pictures from the trail camera and the defendant acknowledged that he was the person depicted in the photos. The police charged the defendant with 3 counts of Open and Gross Lewdness. Two of the charges stemmed from the two separate occasions where the trail camera showed the defendant naked from the waist down on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the two counts that were based on the camera footage of 03/28/16 and 03/30/16. Attorney Noonan argued that the offense of Open and Gross Lewdness requires that the defendant “expose his genitals to one or more persons” and the law requires that the illegal conduct occur “in the presence of another person.” Attorney Noonan argued that the two charges should be dismissed because there were no human being(s) present to observe the illegal conduct. Attorney Noonan argued that the only witness to the alleged offenses on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16 was the trail camera (an inanimate object) and not a human being. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan’s argument and dismissed the two counts that were based on the camera footage.

This Case in the News

Is public nudity lewd is no one sees it? Hingham judge says no. August 2, 2016 by Neal Simpson, The Patriot Ledger via The Enterprise. Excerpt: “The law requires that the person expose himself to a person – that there be a person present to see it,” Noonan told the Ledger. “What we have here is an inanimate object – a camera – and no human being there to see it.” “Judge Bradley agreed…”

Patrick Noonan Defends Man Caught Jogging Without Pants (Fox 25 News Video)

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: DISMISSED DURING TRIAL

An identified witness called police to report that she had observed a male party masturbating in his vehicle with his penis exposed. The witness told police that she was stopped at a red light. The witness stated that a vehicle was stopped next to her at the stop light. The witness stated that a male party in the vehicle next to her turned on his interior light, thrusted his hips upward, exposed his penis to her while masturbating. The witness stated that the vehicle cut her off and boxed her in preventing her from driving away. The witness stated that the male party motioned for her to follow him. The witness was able to maneuver her vehicle and drive away. The witness called 911 and provided police with the make, model, color and license plate of the vehicle. Police ran the vehicle’s registration and it came back to the Defendant. The witness provided a description of the Defendant as: white, late 30s to early 40s, heavy set, with a long strawberry-colored beard, and wearing a wool skull cap. The police administered a photo array to the witness and she positively identified the Defendant as the suspect. Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to suppress the witness’ positive identification of the Defendant because the police conducted the procedure in an unduly suggestive manner.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion in Limine to exclude the witness from identifying the Defendant during her trial testimony. The Commonwealth argued that the witness was able to identify the Defendant based upon the observations she made of him during the incident. During the hearing, the witness testified that she was certain that the Defendant was the suspect based upon the observations she made of him during the incident. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the witness and showed that the witness’s identification was unreliable because she did not have a sufficient opportunity to observe the perpetrator at the time of the crime. At the conclusion of Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination, the judge ruled that the witness could not identify the Defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. As a result, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case.

LEWD & LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT: NOT GUILTY

A woman (alleged victim) called 911 to report that a woman in a second story apartment building was exposing her vagina and masturbating. The alleged victim was driving her teenaged daughter and her teenaged daughter’s friends to school. They went to the Dunkin Donuts drive thru. While placing their order in the drive-thru line, the alleged victim’s daughter directed her attention to the second story window in the apartment adjacent to the Dunkin Donuts. The alleged victim looked up into the window and saw a heavyset woman standing in the window naked from the waist down with her vagina exposed. The alleged victim beeped her horn so that the woman in the window would leave. When she beeped her horn, the alleged victim saw the woman in the window insert her fingers into her vagina and masturbate. The alleged victim immediately called 911. Upon arrival, police looked into the apartment window and a saw a heavy-set woman naked from the waist down. Police gained entry into the apartment. The Defendant was in the apartment. When speaking with the Defendant, police identified the Defendant as the person in the window naked from the waist down. Police observed that the Defendant matched the description given by the alleged victim. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the alleged victim withheld the names and identities of percipient witnesses. That is, there were two other girls in the alleged victim’s vehicle that the alleged victim decided not to disclose to the police. At trial, the prosecutor introduced a photograph that one of the girls in the car had taken of the person in the window. The photo showed a leg propped up on the window sill. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that this photograph was provided to police shortly after the alleged incident and that it was not disclosed to the defense until the day of trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth made the decision to introduce a black and white copy of the photo when they should have introduced a color copy of the photo. The color copy was the best evidence and may have been exculpatory to the defense. Attorney Noonan questioned the government’s decision to introduce the black and white photo when they had the ability to introduce a color copy. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have the intent to expose herself to the public. Attorney Noonan showed that the shades to the window were pulled down so the only thing visible was below the person’s waist. Attorney Noonan showed that the window had red curtains on both sides. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant desired privacy and took steps to ensure her privacy. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s exposure was negligent, not reckless.

Result: After a two-day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the jury that the Defendant did not commit a sexual act in the apartment window and that the Defendant did not masturbate in the apartment window. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict on the offense of Lewd, Wanton, and Lascivious Conduct.

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: NOT GUILTY

A woman (alleged victim) walked into the police station to report an incident that just happened in the parking lot of TJ Maxx. The alleged victim claimed that she parked her vehicle in the parking lot of the TJ Maxx. She stated that she parked next to the Defendant’s vehicle and their driver’s side doors were facing each other. The Defendant was sitting in his vehicle with the driver’s side window down. She claimed that she exited her vehicle and walked past the Defendant’s driver’s side window. She claimed that she looked down into the Defendant’s window and saw that he had an erect penis exposed through the zipper of his pants. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discredited the alleged victim. The alleged victim testified that she went immediately into the TJ Maxx to report the incident to the manager. She testified that she provided the manager with the make, model, and license plate to the Defendant’s vehicle. She testified that she provided the manager with a physical description of the Defendant. She testified that the manager offered to escort her to her vehicle but she refused. She testified that the manager offered to call the police but she refused. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the TJ Maxx manager as a witness. The manager testified that he had no knowledge of receiving such a report and that he would remember receiving such a report. The manager testified that he had never met the alleged victim. This impeachment testimony discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan thoroughly attacked the investigation conducted by police. The arresting officer testified that he interviewed the alleged victim for approximately 30 minutes. After interviewing the alleged victim, the arresting officer spoke with the Defendant in the lobby of the police station. The Defendant arrived to the police station before the alleged victim to report that a crazy woman falsely accused him of exposing his penis in the TJ Maxx parking lot. The arresting officer testified that he spoke to the Defendant for about 1-2 minutes and placed him under arrest. The arresting officer did not conduct any investigation other than speaking to the alleged victim. The arresting officer did not listen to what the Defendant came to the police station to report. The arresting officer made up his mind that the Defendant committed the crime after he spoke with the alleged victim. Because he rushed to judgment, the arresting officer did not conduct any investigation. Lastly, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the Defendant to testify on his own behalf. Defendant worked for the Department of Corrections for 37 years. Defendant was a veteran of the Air Force. Defendant testified that he went to the TJ Maxx to do some shopping. After shopping, Defendant went back to his vehicle and sat in the driver’s seat. Defendant drank a large ice coffee and ate a coffee roll while sitting in his driver’s seat. While eating and drinking in the driver’s seat, the alleged victim walked past his window and said, “Pull up your pants, you creep.” Defendant was shocked by the alleged victim’s accusation because he didn’t do anything wrong. Defendant went directly to the police station to report the false accusation. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant’s actions showed consciousness of innocence.

Result: After a two day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict on the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness. Attorney Noonan’s client was a 65 year-old retired state employee and a military veteran with no criminal record.

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness. The allegations were that the Defendant, a senior in high school, was sitting on the school bus on the way home from school when another student observed him expose his penis and masturbate on the school bus. There was evidence that the Defendant had previously masturbated on the school bus on approximately three prior occasions. One student told police that she observed the Defendant masturbate on the school bus on two separate occasions. Another student told police that she observed the Defendant masturbate on the school bus on at least one occasion. Prior to this incident, one student reported to the school that the Defendant masturbated in class. Defendant admitted to school officials that he did masturbate in class as reported. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the trial judge to exclude these “prior bad acts” from evidence. As a result, the Commonwealth was prohibited from introducing any evidence of the prior instances in which the Defendant allegedly masturbated on the school bus and in class. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim who claimed that she saw the Defendant’s penis exposed on the school bus, and that she observed the Defendant masturbating on the school bus. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan introduced into evidence a videotape of the actual bus ride and highlighted all the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony in comparison to what was shown on the videotape. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the victim did not look over at the Defendant during the bus ride, which was contrary to her trial testimony. Attorney Noonan established that the victim looked out the window or looked straight ahead during the bus ride and didn’t look over at the Defendant as she claimed. The victim testified that she looked over at the Defendant and saw him masturbate when a student behind her tapped her on the shoulder. When she was tapped on the shoulder she turned her head to say hello to the student behind her and that’s when she observed the Defendant masturbating. Attorney Noonan impeached the victim by pointing out that the student behind her pulled her hair and didn’t tap her on the shoulder. Attorney Noonan established that the only time she looked over at the Defendant was when the student behind her pulled her hair and she reacted by turning her head in the Defendant’s direction. Attorney Noonan established that it was in a split-second (when she turned her head in reaction to her hair being pulled) that she allegedly saw the Defendant masturbating. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pointed out that the victim did not tell anybody on the bus that she saw the Defendant’s penis or him masturbating. Defendant got off the school bus before the victim yet the victim did not report the incident to anyone on the school bus after the Defendant got off the bus. The victim testified that she was offended by what she saw. However, as Attorney Noonan pointed out, the videotape did not show any reaction from the victim after she allegedly saw another student expose his penis and masturbate.

Result: At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved the judge for a Required Finding of Not Guilty arguing that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to support each element of the offense. The trial judge agreed and entered a required finding of Not Guilty on the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness.

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: DISMISSED

Three witnesses reported to police that they observed the Defendant in his front yard with no pants on and his genitals and bare butt exposed. A neighbor called 911 and the Defendant was placed under arrest and charged with Open and Gross Lewdness, a felony sex offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Commonwealth to reduce the felony sex offense of Open & Gross Lewdness to the lesser-included misdemeanor offense of Indecent Exposure and place his client on probation at the conclusion of which the charge will be dismissed so long as the client complies with the terms of his probation.

RAPE BY FORCE: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was indicted for Rape by Force and Indecent Assault & Battery stemming from allegations that he forcibly raped and sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan tried the case before a jury. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant had consensual sex with the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of two percipient witnesses that were sleeping on a futon approximately three-feet away from the bed where the rape allegedly occurred. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from these percipient witnesses that they did not hear the alleged victim screaming, crying, or yelling when they were in the futon three feet away, which directly contradicted the alleged victim’s testimony.

Result: After a three-day jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained Not Guilty verdicts on all indictments, which include Rape by Force and Indecent Assault & Battery, saving their client from a lengthy prison sentence and having to register as a sex offender. “East Bridgewater man found not guilty in Bridgewater Rape.”

INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: REDUCED TO NON-SEXUAL MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE

The alleged victim (age 16) accused the Defendant (her brother-in-law) of sexually abusing her on three different occasions beginning when she was 11 years-old. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the felony sex offense of Indecent Assault & Battery to a simple misdemeanor Assault & Battery, which is a non-sexual offense. Had the Defendant been convicted of the felony sexual assault, he would have to register as a sexual offender and face the possibility of prison time. Defendant was placed on probation for the simple misdemeanor assault and battery. Defendant was placed on probation for the misdemeanor Assault & Battery. He returned to his home in Texas where he lives with his wife and child.

Result: Commonwealth reduces felony sex offense of Indecent Assault & Battery to a misdemeanor Assault & Battery, which is a non-sexual offense, saving his client possible jail time and having to register as a sex offender.

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
RESISTING ARREST: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 21 year-old college student, was observed by Boston Police urinating on the Fenway Park in front of hundreds of people who were exiting the Jay-Z / Justin Timberlake concert. Officers heard pedestrians saying, “Ew, look at that. He’s peeing.” Officers observed the Defendant step away from the fence and expose his private parts to other pedestrians. Officers ordered the Defendant to stop but he took off running and was eventually apprehended. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in dismissing the criminal charges prior to his client’s arraignment and these embarrassing and serious charges will not appear on his permanent record.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony sex offense dismissed prior to arraignment saving his client from having a felony sex offense on his record.

INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY

Client, gas station owner and father of two children with no criminal record, was charged with two counts of Indecent Assault & Battery stemming from allegations from a former tenant in his apartment building in which she alleged that on diverse dates from 2008-2010 the Defendant sexually assaulted her including one incident where he allegedly pinned down the alleged victim and forcibly pressed his erect penis into her buttocks.

Result: After a three-day jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got Not Guilty verdicts on the felony sex offenses, saving their client from possible jail time and having to register as a sex offender.

SEX FOR A FEE: DISMISSED

Client, 43-year-old computer engineer with no criminal record, was arrested and charged with Sexual Conduct for Fee stemming from an undercover vice operation in which the Defendant agreed to solicit sexual services from an undercover police officer. After six months of negotiation with the District Attorney’s Office, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan solidified an agreement with the Commonwealth to place the Defendant on pretrial probation for one-year, a considerable win because a conviction would have resulted in automatic termination from employment. Defendant is married with three children. He works as a top-ranked system’s specialist for the Department of Interior, a federal agency. The job requires certain government clearances.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year at the conclusion of which the criminal charge will be dismissed, saving his client’s job because a continuance without a finding (CWOF) would have resulted in client’s termination from employment.

INDECENT EXPOSURE: DISMISSED

Client, 50-year-old warehouse supervisor, was charged with Indecent Exposure. An identified caller contacted the police to report a naked male party exposing himself while swimming in Charge Pond. The caller stated that the naked male party was flipping around in the water and putting on show for the other pond-goers. When the police officer arrived, he observed the Defendant’s genitals exposed, as he was lying on a floating chair in the water. At the arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss due to insufficient probable cause in the police report. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that none of the onlookers were “offended” by the Defendant’s exposure, which is a required element of the offense. Although the court denied Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss, the court acknowledged some of Attorney Noonan’s arguments and, as a result, recommended dismissing the charge upon the payment of nominal court costs.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal charge dismissed on court costs at first court appearance.

INDECENT EXPOSURE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 43-year-old car salesman, was charged with Indecent Exposure stemming from an incident in which his neighbors reported that they observed him standing naked in front of his apartment window for an extended period of time. At the Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the neighbor-witnesses and established that each witness did not observe the Defendant’s genitals exposed. The charge was dismissed on the grounds that there was insufficient probable cause to support the criminal complaint.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint due to lack of evidence.

RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON CHILD: NOT GUILTY
DISSEMINATION OF HARMFUL MATTER: NOT GUILTY
DISSEMINATION OF HARMFUL MATTER: NOT GUILTY

Client, Marine Corps. Veteran, was charged with 11 indictments (life felonies) stemming from allegations that he forcibly raped and sexually abused the son of his ex-girlfriend. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant started sexually abusing him at age 5 and ending when he was age 11-12. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant forcibly raped him and had anal intercourse with the alleged victim on multiple occasions. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant forced him to perform oral sex on the Defendant and vice versa. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant showed him pornographic magazine and videos of adults having sex with children. On April 28, 2010, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully argued a Motion to Dismiss all 11 Indictments, on the basis that the Commonwealth failed to disclose significant exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. The exculpatory evidence involved the alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct and his juvenile criminal convictions as a sex offender. The Commonwealth re-indicted the Defendant on all 11 indictments. At the trial, the Commonwealth sought to preclude the defense from introducing any evidence with regards to the alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct on the grounds that it violated the rape shield law. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that the alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct fell within an exception to the rape shield law in that the evidence was relevant to show the complainant’s bias, motive to lie, and motive to fabricate. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to allow into evidence the alleged victim’s prior convictions as a sexual offender. At the trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly discredited the alleged victim on the stand by showing that he accused the Defendant of rape to shine the light elsewhere and to avoid prosecution himself for committing sex offenses. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence showing that the alleged victim was screened multiple times for sexual abuse prior to his disclosure and each time he denied being sexually abused by anyone. After a three-day trial in which the Defendant was represented by Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty on all 11 indictments.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all 11 indictments and saves his client from serving life in prison. “Man acquitted of child rape charges.”

RAPE OF CHILD: NOT GUILTY
INDECENT ASSAULT and BATTERY: NOT GUILTY

Client, 44-year-old contractor, was accused of rape and indecent assault and battery by his 11 year-old niece. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant had filmed her taking a shower with a camera from the outside bathroom window. The parents of the alleged suspected that it was the Defendant because they discovered a “peephole” in the wall that separates the Defendant’s bedroom from the alleged victim’s bedroom. Brockton Police inspected the peep hole, which was a drill hole that appeared to be strategically placed under a shelf in the victim’s room. The alleged victim stated that her uncle (Defendant) would grab her butt very often and that if happened so many times that she couldn’t guess how many. The alleged victim disclosed an incident in which she was sleeping on the couch with the Defendant. She stated that the Defendant rubbed her stomach, unbuttoned her pants, and put his finger inside her. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan introduced exhibits and a diagram showing the layout of the small living room and the couch where the alleged rape occurred. At the time of the rape, the alleged victim stated that she had been sleeping on the same couch as her younger sister and her brother was sleeping on the floor beside the couch approximately five feet away. Attorney Noonan showed that the alleged victim’s sister and brother would have seen or heard the rape because they were literally a few feet away when it happened. The alleged victim’s trial testimony was different from her interview with police. She told police that the Defendant inserted one finger into her vagina. At the trial, the alleged victim testified that the Defendant inserted “five fingers” inside her vagina. Attorney Noonan argued that inserting five fingers into the vagina of an 11 year-old female weighing approximately 70-80 pounds would be painful causing the alleged victim to cry, yell or scream out in pain. Attorney Noonan exploited the absurdity of the alleged victim’s testimony that the Defendant inserted all five fingers into her vagina and proceeded to move all five fingers back and forth inside her vagina in a rubbing motion. Meanwhile, the alleged victim remained totally quiet and her siblings sleeping feet away never heard or saw anything. In addition, had these allegations been true, Attorney Noonan argued that there would be some physical or medical evidence to corroborate that the alleged victim had been digitally raped. To make things more unbelievable, after the rape, the alleged victim got up from the couch went to the bathroom, and returned to the couch where she slept for the rest of the night. Attorney Noonan established that all the family members were home and that the alleged victim passed her parent’s bedroom to and from the bathroom and decided not to disclose anything to them at that time. Attorney Noonan argued that it didn’t make any sense that a girl having been digitally raped for over two minutes with five fingers by a grown man would then decide to return back to the same couch and sleep beside the person who had just raped her. The jury only deliberated for about two hours and found the Defendant Not Guilty on all indictments.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts in Child Rape case saving his client from serving life in prison. “Brockton man found not guilty of charges of child rape, indecent assault.”

INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR

Defendant’s 11-year-old biological daughter alleged that the defendant inappropriately touched her when she was 4 years-old. Defendant was being prosecuted in Barnstable County for Rape and Indecent Assault & Battery on his older daughter. She stated that her father touched her in the private area and it made her feel bad. She said this happened more than once. She stated that the Defendant “touched her crotch,” and that he touched her skin when her underwear was off. She said that it was painful when he touched her on the crotch. She said that it “stung and made her shake.” She said this happened about 10 times. Defendant’s wife told police that he was an alcoholic.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan got both felony sexual assault charges reduced to misdemeanor Assault & Battery saving his client from serving jail time and having to register as a sex offender.

RAPE: NOLLE PROSEQUI

Randolph Police responded to the hospital for a reported rape. The patient claimed that she had been raped two days ago by a person she knew from her apartment building but she didn’t provide police with his name. She stated that the Defendant called her and convinced her to come to this apartment where he threw her onto his bed, grabbed her wrist, undid her pants, and vaginally raped her. During the rape, she had been screaming “No, No, No!” and kicking her legs. She was able to turn around onto her stomach at which time the Defendant raped her from behind. She stated that he then moved his mouth onto her vagina. He then shoved his penis into her face and told her to “suck it.” The victim showed police fresh bruises. A rape kit was performed at the hospital. 19 days after the alleged rape, the victim gave police the name of the perpetrator. Defendant vehemently denied the allegations.

Result: On February 13, 2009, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi, which means that the indictment is withdrawn – meaning that if circumstances change, a prosecution could be initiated again.

RAPE OF CHILD: DISMISSED
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR

Defendant’s 15-year-old biological daughter alleged that the defendant molested her and her younger sister who is 11 years old. Defendant was charged in the Taunton District Court with Indecent Assault & Battery upon the younger sister. In this case, the alleged victim alleged that her father sexually abused her when she was 3-4 years-old. She claimed that, on multiple occasions, her father would play a game where he would lick his finger and run it up her butt-crack. She also claimed that her father made her touch his penis.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan got the Child Rape charge dismissed and the felony sexual assault charge reduced to a misdemeanor Assault & Battery (a non-sexual crime). His client was placed on probation for two-years on the misdemeanor Assault & Battery and Attorney Noonan saved his client from serving serious prison time and having to register as a sexual offender.

ASSAULT with INTENT TO RAPE: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to Middle-High School to speak with the Assistant Principal with regards to allegations of sexual assault in which six students reported to the Principal that the Defendant (eighth greater) had been touching and grabbing their butts and making sexual comments to them. This was described as a pattern of sexual harassment that had taken place over the period of months. One of the alleged victim-students told the Principal that the Defendant tried to put his hand in her pants. The alleged victim later told police that the Defendant exposed his penis and said, “I want to fuck you” and had touched her breasts on occasion. One witness provided a statement that the Defendant had the alleged victim on the floor of the locker room and was humping her and fingering her. The alleged victim resisted, tried to push him off, and she couldn’t breathe. The Defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Rape and two counts of Indecent Assault and Battery. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed and argued a Motion to Dismiss the Assault with Intent to Rape charge on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support that charge based upon all the discovery that the Commonwealth provided and the evidence that the Commonwealth intended to present at trial. The judge agreed and dismissed the criminal complaint charging the Defendant with Assault with Intent to Rape. The Commonwealth was forced to proceed on the remaining two counts of Indecent Assault and Battery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Assault with Intent to Rape charge dismissed against juvenile. “School assault prompts probe.”

RAPE OF CHILD: DISMISSED
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

The alleged victim, age 16, disclosed to her school that she had been sexually and physically abused by her step-father (Defendant) when she was younger starting when she was six years-old. The Defendant had been in the alleged victim life since she was five years-old. The alleged victim told the District Attorney’s Office that when she was 11 years-old the Defendant hit her in the face with his fist causing her lip to split open and that her mother and brother witnessed it. She stated that the Defendant drinks a lot of alcohol. She described an incident occurring a month before the interview in which the Defendant threatened to kill her. She stated that her brother was also physically abused by the Defendant and she observed bruises to her brother when the Defendant hit him. She stated that when she was 9 years-old the Defendant would wake her up in the morning when her mother had went to work and he sexually abused her by rubbing his hands and penis all over her body, including her chest and private parts. She stated that the Defendant would touch the inside and outside of her vagina with his penis and hands. She stated that the Defendant sexually abused her in this manner approximately 3-4 times a week over the span of a few months. On one occasion, Defendant caused her vagina to bleed. She stated that she did not disclose the abuse because the Defendant had threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Police interviewed the alleged victim’s mother who stated that she didn’t believe the alleged victim’s allegations. The mother stated that the alleged victim never disclosed anything to her about being sexually abused. The mother stated that the alleged victim is very destructive and gets into a lot of trouble. Police interviewed the Defendant who emphatically denied all the allegations.

Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars because the alleged victim waited approximately eight years to make this disclosure and the time frame of the alleged offenses was extremely vague. In addition, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the criminal complaints because the alleged victim failed to appear at the probable cause hearing and testify under oath concerning these allegations. The Court allowed the bill of particulars but declined action on dismissing the complaints. The court did, however, order the Commonwealth to advise defense counsel (by the next court date) whether the alleged victim would be testifying. On October 19, 2005, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaints arguing that the Commonwealth failed to advise him as to whether the alleged victim intended to testify and failed to provide him with a bill of particulars pursuant to the court’s order.

Result: On October 19, 2005, Rape and sexual assault charges are dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

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.”